The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioners and the Intervenor assert that they are substantially affected by an agency statement that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The subject matter at issue here concerns the method of determining the order of layoff of some of the Respondent's employees.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts In 1996, the federal government modified and/or reformed welfare to require eligible participants to obtain employment. The Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 414, Florida Statutes, also known as the WAGES law, which required the Respondent to provide certain services to applicants for and participants in the WAGES program, including work activities, training, and other job-related services, which the Respondent termed "front-end services." Those services were primarily provided by Career Service employees of the Respondent. In 1998, the Florida Legislature amended portions of the WAGES law to require that local WAGES coalitions, instead of the Respondent, provide those front-end services to WAGES participants, effective October 1, 1998. As a direct result therefor, the Respondent was required to lay off approximately 700 career service employees. As a part of the implementation of the announced layoff of employees, Respondent requested approval of a method of determining the order of layoff, pursuant to Rule 60K- 17.004(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: (g) Agencies shall then choose and consistently apply one of two methods, or another method as approved by the Department of Management Services, in determining the order of layoff. These methods are commonly referred to as "bumping." Option 1: The employee at the top of the list shall have the option of selecting a position at the bottom of the list based on the number of positions to be abolished, e.g., 20 positions in the affected class, 5 positions to be abolished. The employee at the top of the list can select any of the positions occupied by the 5 employees at the bottom of the list. The next highest employee on the list then has the option of selecting any of the positions occupied by the 4 remaining employees at the bottom of the list with the process continuing in this manner until the 5 employees at the top of the list have exercised their option. Option 2: The employee at the top of the list has the option of selecting any position occupied by any employee on the list with fewer retention points in the class. The next highest employee and remaining employees shall be handled in a similar manner until the list is exhausted. Rather than selecting Option 1 or Option 2, set forth in the published rule, the Respondent requested approval of an alternative method of determining the order of layoff. By letter dated August 17, 1998, the Department of Management Services (DMS) approved the method of determining order of layoff set forth in its correspondence. The method of determining the order of layoff is described by DMS in its approval letter as: The option you have chosen will allow adversely affected employees to select any position in the affected class and series, in the competitive area approved in our August 5, 1998 letter. Neither the Respondent's request for approval of the alternate method of determining the order of layoff, nor DMS' approval of that method, have been adopted in substantial conformity with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's request for approval of the alternate method of layoff was intended to apply solely to the layoff occasioned by changes in the WAGES law. Facts based on evidence at hearing Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, is the certified bargaining agent for approximately 67,000 career service employees of the State of Florida. As such, it represents the employees of the Department who were affected by the subject layoff. The individual Petitioners, Betty Hall, Diana Lomas, Mercedes Valdez, and Elizabeth Judd, are members of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. The challenged bumping procedure was not reached by collective bargaining. Under the alternative layoff method approved for the Respondent by DMS, employees with the greater number of retention points received enhanced bumping rights, permitting them to "bump" employees with fewer retention points in the same class and in the class series. Conversely, by this alternative procedure, employees with fewer retention points were accorded diminished protection against bumping. These employees could be bumped not only by employees with greater retention points in the class, but also by employees with greater retention points in other classes in the class series. For example, Consuelo Casanovas, from Petitioners' Exhibit 8, who was adversely affected in her position of Employment Security Representative I, was accorded bumping rights to positions in her class and to positions in the other two classes in the class series, Customer Services Specialist and Interviewing Clerk. Had the Respondent elected Option 1 or Option 2 in the published rule, Rule 60K-17.004(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, Ms. Casanovas would not have had the right to bump to positions in the other two classes, and persons in those other two classes would not have been subject to bumping by Ms. Casanovas.1
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in Ms. Cheren's April 15, 1988 letter of denial of renewal, Petitioner, Earlen Braddy operated Earlen's ACLF home at 2840 47th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent, DHRS, is the state agency responsible for licensing ACLF's in Florida. Ms. Braddy has operated the ACLF in question at the current location for about four years during which time she has had as many as five residents at one time. Currently, and for the past year, she has had only three residents in the facility which she also occupies as her home. One current resident has been with her since she opened. On December 4 and 9, 1986, while Ms. Braddy was operating her ACLF in a licensed status, her facility was inspected by representatives of Respondent's Office of Licensure and Certification on its yearly survey. During the survey, the inspectors found several deficiencies, all of a Class III, (least serious) category, in such areas as Administration; Management and Staffing Standards, (6 deficiencies); Admission Criteria and Resident Standards, (3 deficiencies); Food Service, (12 deficiencies); Physical Plant, (5 deficiencies); Fire Safety, (1 deficiency); and Other Administrative Rule Requirements, (4 deficiencies). Though most deficiencies related to the failure to keep or provide the surveyors with the paperwork required to be kept by statute and the rules of the Department, some of the deficiencies related to resident care. These deficiencies were identified to Ms. Braddy in person by the inspectors at the time of discovery and again at the out-briefing. She was also advised as to how to correct them and where to secure assistance in doing so, if necessary. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the uncorrected deficiencies identified in the December, 1986 survey and the March, 1987 follow-up, the Petitioner's license was renewed in April, 1987. Follow-up surveys were conducted in March, June, and October, 1987, at the next annual survey in 1988, and at its follow-ups. While some deficiencies originally identified were thereafter corrected, many were not. Another annual survey of the facility was conducted on February 16, 1988, prior to the issuance by the Department of the yearly renewal license. At this survey, again, numerous Class III deficiencies were identified including: Administrative, (5 deficiencies); Admission, (3 deficiencies); Food Service, (9 deficiencies); Physical Plant, (1 deficiency); Fire Safety, (3 deficiencies); and Other Administrative, (3 deficiencies). Many of these were carried over uncorrected from the previous year's survey, (December, 1986) and its follow- ups, and some were new. Some of the former remained uncorrected through the June, 1988 follow-up to the February, 1988 survey. In August, 1988, the Department filed three Administrative Complaints against the Petitioner seeking to impose monetary civil penalties against her. All three resulted in Final Orders being entered. In the last of the three, Petitioner was alleged to have committed five violations of the statutes and Departmental rules, all of which relate to Petitioner's alleged failure to "provide or make available for review documentation" in five certain areas. Petitioner and Respondent agree that these areas are those primarily involved in the uncorrected deficiencies outlined in the survey reports and upon which the Department relies to support denial of Petitioner's renewal. Petitioner readily agrees that the deficiencies cited by the Department both in the survey reports and in the Administrative Complaints existed at the time of identification and, in many cases, for some time thereafter. While Petitioner now claims all deficiencies have been corrected, her accountant, Mr. Schaub, indicates that at least one, that relating to the failure to document and keep on file scheduled leisure time, had not been accomplished previously and was not now being accomplished. As to the others, those requirements which were not being complied with at the time of the surveys are now being met. Some identified deficiencies were not actually defects. The documentation was being kept, but due to Petitioner's inability to keep up with it, was not made available to the surveyors. Mr. Schaub is convinced that Petitioner has a paperwork problem and needs help with it. She spends her time taking care of the residents without much help and does not keep up with the required paperwork. As he describes it, she is being "choked with red tape" due to the paperwork requirements imposed by the Department whose rules do not differentiate much in the requirements for record keeping between large facilities and very small ones as this is. In his opinion, however, and also in the opinion of the surveyors who visited the facility, the residents appeared to be clean, appropriately dressed, well fed, and content. Ms. Braddy contends that at the present, all the actions the rules require are being taken and while in the past she may not have done everything correctly, she has made the effort to comply with the instructions she received from the Department. She has recently hired an individual to help her and stay with the residents while she is gone. Before he came to work, she received some assistance from her children who, without pay, helped her from time to time. She believes her facility is now operating within the Department's requirements and there has been no survey conducted since June, 1988, to indicate whether this true or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Earlen Braddy, be issued a conditional license to operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility for a period of 6 months at which time, if all deficiencies are not corrected, the application for renewal be denied. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3025 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER None submitted. BY THE RESPONDENT 1. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein though the problem appears to be more a question of inability rather than unwillingness. Rejected as contra to the state of the evidence. Mr. Schaub indicated she would continue to have paperwork problems but with help could master the problem Not a Finding of Fact but a comment of the state of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gardner Beckett, Esquire 123 8th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Edward Haman, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the “FCHR”) under section 760.10, Florida Statutes.1 1 Citations shall be to Florida Statutes (2020) unless otherwise specified. Section 760.10 has been unchanged since 1992, save for a 2015 amendment adding pregnancy to the list of classifications protected from discriminatory employment practices. Ch. 2015-68, § 6, Laws of Fla.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). The Petition for Relief alleges the following ultimate facts, which are accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion: I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race (Black), sex (male), and age (over 40). I also believe I am being retaliated against for filing a complaint with Florida Commission on Human Relations and in Federal Court. I have been working within the Gadsden County School system since January 2008 as a substitute teacher and have teaching experience. Around or on October 2020, I applied for a Social Studies position and was not offered an interview by the principal because DOE deliberately and maliciously held clearance letter to deny employment. Section 760.10 titled “Unlawful employment practices,” is the statute under which the FCHR exercises jurisdiction of the Petition for Relief. Section 760.10(1)(a) states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual “with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” The Motion states that Petitioner is not, and never has been, an employee of the Department. Respondent’s Chief of Human Resource Management, David Dawkins, conducted a system-wide search and verified that Petitioner has never been employed by the Department. Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit to that effect was attached to the Motion. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit. The Motion also references section 760.10(5) as a possible avenue under which Mr. Jones might seek relief against the Department. Section 760.10(5) provides: Whenever, in order to engage in a profession, occupation, or trade, it is required that a person receive a license, certification, or other credential, become a member or an associate of any club, association, or other organization, or pass any examination, it is an unlawful employment practice for any person to discriminate against any other person seeking such license, certification, or other credential, seeking to become a member or associate of such club, association, or other organization, or seeking to take or pass such examination, because of such other person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. In theory, the Department’s alleged “deliberate and malicious” withholding of Mr. Jones’s “clearance letter,” i.e., a Temporary Certificate to teach, could constitute a violation of section 760.10(5). However, the Department pointed out that after Mr. Jones applied for a Florida Educator Certificate, the Department sent him an “Official Statement of Status of Eligibility” on October 12, 2017. A copy of the Department’s letter to Mr. Jones was attached to the Motion. The letter informed Mr. Jones that he was eligible for a Temporary Certificate covering Social Science (Grades 6-12), if he completed the following requirements and documented them to the Bureau of Educator Certification (“BOE”): verification of employment and request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate certification form from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program. results of your fingerprint processing from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI. Your employer will assist you in completing the fingerprint process. If your application or fingerprint report reflects a criminal offense or suspension/revocation record, your file will be referred to Professional Practices Services for further review. Issuance of your certificate will be contingent upon the results of this review. The Motion states that Mr. Jones submitted only the results of his fingerprint processing to BOE. Therefore, BOE was legally precluded from issuing a Temporary Certificate to Petitioner. Attached to the Motion was the affidavit of Daniel Moore, Chief of BOE, attesting to the fact that a request for issuance from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program is required in order for BOE to issue a Temporary Certificate. Mr. Moore’s affidavit is confirmed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., requiring verification of full-time employment by a Florida school district before a Temporary Certificate may be issued. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Moore’s affidavit. Based on the foregoing, the Motion requests entry of a summary recommended order of dismissal because Mr. Jones’s pleadings and admissions of fact, including those in his response to the Motion, are facially and conclusively insufficient to prove that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the Department’s failure to issue a teaching certificate to Mr. Jones was based on anything more than the ministerial operation of the Department’s own rule. Mr. Jones’s response to the Motion does not address, and therefore appears to concede, the Department’s statement that he is not and has never been an employee of the Department. Mr. Jones did not allege that he has ever been an employee of, or an applicant for employment by, the Department. Mr. Jones’s response does not address the fact that the Department’s rule forbids it to issue a Temporary Certificate without verification of full- time employment. Rather, Mr. Jones pursues an argument alleging that the denial was somehow based on his criminal record and that denial on that basis is discriminatory because of the disproportionate percentage of African American and Latino citizens who have criminal records in comparison to Caucasians. Mr. Jones claims that the Department’s stated reason for denying him a Temporary Certificate was pretextual and that the actual reason was racial discrimination premised on his criminal record. In a related case, Mr. Jones has alleged that the Gadsden County School Board declined to hire him because of his criminal record, and that this declination was a pretext for discrimination based on race, age, and/or sex. The merits of Mr. Jones’s case against the local school board and its subsidiary institutions are not at issue here. The question in this case is whether the Department had anything to do with Mr. Jones’s failure to gain employment by the Gadsden County School Board. The undisputed facts establish that the Department’s role in this process was purely ministerial. Had Mr. Jones secured employment, the school that hired him would have requested the issuance of a Temporary Certificate by the Department. By operation of rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., the Department would have issued the Temporary Certificate. The Department had no role in the decisions of the local school officials to hire or not hire Mr. Jones. It is found that Mr. Jones has not alleged facts sufficient to state a case against the Department under section 760.10, and that he would not be able to prove at hearing that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the failure to issue a Temporary Certificate to Mr. Jones was anything more than the Department’s following the requirements of its own rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Education did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Dan Saunders Florida Department of Education Turlington Building, Room 101 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Paula Harrigan, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
