Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed as a permanent full-time employee since March 7, 1980 with Petitioner's facility, Landmark Learning Center (hereafter, "Landmark") located in Opa-locka, Florida and is subject to the Career Service rules of Chapter 22A, Florida Administrative Code. The purpose of Landmark is to train, program, and modify the behavior of retarded clients so that they may realize their fullest potential for self care and independence. Ulysses Davis is the Superintendent of Landmark. Immediately below him in the chain of command is Deborah Wicks Kahn, Residential Services Director. Hers is a supervisory administrative position also over the entire facility. Within Respondent's unit, which is one of several units within Landmark, there are other supervisors between Respondent and Deborah Kahn. Approximately 1980, Respondent was convicted in federal criminal court of bank fraud but remained at liberty pending resolution of an appeal and various post-conviction relief procedures for reduction of a three-year sentence. Respondent has had a history of leaves of absence during his employment with Landmark. The longest hospitalization established by his medical records was from January 30, 1983 to May 6, 1983 at North Miami Hospital for approximately 96 days or three months; from September 18, 1983 to September 25, 1983 (approximately six days) he was again hospitalized at North Miami Hospital. At that time, ulcer disease was ruled out by Dr. Bertram P. Shapiro (Bell Composite Exhibit 7). These hospitalizations were known to Respondent's supervisors and co-workers and occurred during periods when leave had been authorized, although the nature of the type of leave (i.e., sick leave, annual leave, disability leave, leave without pay) was not established. Everyone at Landmark seems to have known that thereafter Respondent was on medication for his stomach and assumed or had been told by the Respondent that his problem was associated with bleeding ulcers. The usual procedure followed at Landmark requires that any leave of absence of one to two days may be approved by a lower level supervisor on an employee's bi-weekly time sheet. Leaves of absence in excess of one-two days require approval of at least Director Kahn. If the leave requested will be completed within the current two-week pay period, the bi-weekly time sheet may be used by the employee to make his leave request and approval is indicated on the time sheet itself. A time sheet is signed by Director Kahn or a lower level supervisor if the shorter leave is approved, and if it is disapproved, the word "disapproved" and the supervisor's or Director's signature is signed at the bottom. So that multiple time sheets will not be tied up by extended leave requests, a separate written request is required from the employee and a separate outside proof of need therefor must be attached to the employee's written request for all leave requests in excess of a two-week period. For instance, if the request is for extended educational leave, the employee's request must be made in writing with an attached verification of the program from the educational institution. If the request is for extended medical leave, the employee's request must be made in writing with an attached doctor's statement verifying the employee's need therefor. Superintendent Davis requires that his subordinate supervisors get his approval before they grant any extended leave request. In extended leave cases, a separate approval letter is typed, signed by Superintendent Davis and sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the employee whose leave has been approved. Director Kahn testified she habitually would approve leave requests in increments of one, two and three months after getting guidance from Superintendent Davis or the personnel office. Shortly prior to October 17, 1983, Respondent requested a leave of absence for two months which Director Kahn denied due to an agency-wide survey (inspection). She wrote on the bottom of this request that Respondent would also need to get a supportive medical statement. When the survey concluded, Respondent approached Director Kahn about a leave of absence which she said she would approve if the Respondent provided a supporting medical statement. Director Kahn understood this to be a renewal of Respondent's request for either two or three months of medical or personal leave. Respondent states he understood this to be a request for one year of medical leave, specifically October 17, 1983 through October 17, 1984. Director Kahn again asked for a supporting medical statement. Director. Kahn left on vacation for three weeks immediately following this conversation. Respondent, in response to telephoned information from his lawyer, reported to Federal Prison Camp, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and on October 17 and 13, 1983 was processed in accord with federal prison procedures to begin serving his criminal sentence. Part of this process is a thorough medical examination (Bell Exhibit 6) and he thereafter received extensive treatment for his medical problems, including ulcers. After Director Kahn returned from three weeks' vacation, the person she left in charge in her office presented her with a medical statement on Dr. Bertram Shapiro's stationery, dated October 17, 1983, urging that Respondent be granted a one-year medical leave of absence (Bell Exhibit 3). The date this item was stamped into the Landmark personnel office is November 10, 1983. No formal written request of Respondent for one year's medical leave was received by Director Kahn, Superintendent Davis, or the Personnel Office. Despite the absence of a formal written request from Respondent for one year to correspond with Dr. Shapiro's statement dated October 17, 1983, a letter authorizing two months' leave of absence from October 19 through December 19, 1983 was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent at 2146 N.W. 61st Street, Miami, Florida 33142 (HRS Exhibit 1). This letter was signed by Ulysses Davis, Superintendent, and Deborah Wicks Kahn, Residential Services Director, Facility II. It states that Respondent's failure to report for duty December 20, 1983 would constitute unauthorized leave and three consecutive days of unauthorized leave would result in Respondent being deemed to have abandoned his position and to have resigned his position in accord with Section 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's November 17, 1993 letter was delivered November 25, 1983 to 2146 N.W. 61st Street, Miami, Florida 33142 and was signed for by Respondent's sister-in-law, Vesturee Brownlee (HRS Exhibit 2). This address continued to be the legal address of Respondent from October 17, 1983 at least through the date of the hearing. Respondent admitted intentionally not notifying Petitioner of any other address where he right be reached until mid-May 1984. Indeed, Respondent and his girlfriend, Ann White, a co-employee, worked diligently until mid-May 1984 to camouflage his criminal incarceration and exact location from everyone at Landmark. Further, this address appears as his legal address on all of his federal prison incarceration documents (Bell Exhibit 6). At hearing, Respondent denied that he received the November 17, 1983 letter but it is clear that he knew its contents because approximately December 19, 1983 Respondent telephoned Director Kahn at her home and requested an extension to a full year's leave dating from the doctor's statement dated October 17, 1984. Director Kahn said three months' leave might be authorized. Despite discussing his ulcer problems, no mention of jail or his actual whereabouts was made by Respondent. Although a written request and new doctor's statement was not submitted by Respondent, his oral telephone request to Director Kahn was acted upon. On January 20, 1984, a letter (HRS Exhibit 3) was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent at his last known address. This letter, signed by Ulysses Davis, Superintendent, and Deborah Wicks Kahn, Director, authorized leave from December 17, 1983 to Friday, April 27, 1984. Instructions were given that if Respondent could not report on Monday, April 30, 1984 at 8:00 a.m., he must, prior to that date, complete a blank leave request showing his anticipated date of return and submit it to "me". Since the letter was signed by two supervisors, I interpret its intent to be that the Respondent could have submitted his completed leave request to either Superintendent Davis or Director Kahn. Again, Respondent was instructed that failure to either report for work timely on April 30 or to submit a written request for extension would result in a determination of abandonment of his position pursuant to Section 22A- 7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's January 30, 1984 letter was delivered on February 8, 1984 to Respondent's last known address and was signed for by Rosa L. Bell, Respondent's mother (HRS Exhibit 4). Although at hearing Respondent denied that he received Petitioner's January 30, 1984 letter, it is clear that he knew the contents thereof because in at least four telephone conversations with Landmark employees, Ann White and Leah Black, Respondent discussed the concern over his medical condition and absence from the job which had been expressed to Ms. White and Ms. Black by Director Kahn and other Landmark employees. On April 30, 1984, Respondent again did not report to work nor did he complete and submit to anyone at Landmark a written leave request form. In excess of three consecutive days Passed without Petitioner receiving any communication from Respondent. Petitioner did not report to work at any time during this period because he was still involuntarily incarcerated in Lexington, Kentucky. On May 8, 1984, a letter (Bell Exhibit 1) was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent at his Miami address. This letter was signed by Superintendent Davis and by Leah F. Black FOR Director Kahn in Ms. Kahn's absence. This letter, designated a "warning of abandonment letter," states that Respondent's failure to report for work or otherwise make contact after April 27, 1984 had resulted in Respondent being placed on an unauthorized leave of absence and that unless Respondent contacted the signatories with a "reasonable and acceptable" excuse for the unauthorized absence since April 27, 1984 and/or reported for work by close of business on May 17, 1984, a determination of abandonment pursuant to Section 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, must be made. Respondent was specifically cautioned that a "response is vital to your continued employment." The letter provided Respondent the option of resigning if he sent a letter of resignation by May 17, 1984. This letter was delivered on May 11, 1984, to Respondent's Miami address. It was signed for by Rosa L. Bell, Respondent's mother (Bell Exhibit 1). At hearing Respondent denied that he received Petitioner's May 8, 1984 letter but it is clear that he knew its contents and import because he admittedly signed and sent a two page typed letter dated May 16, 1984 to Superintendent Davis. (Tr. 151) This letter was received in the Superintendent's office on May 21, 1984. (Bell Exhibit 2) This was four days after the requested due date of May 17, 1984 for any excuse. Respondent's May 16, 1984 letter informed his supervisor for the first time that Respondent was serving a federal sentence for bank fraud, that he was scheduled to be released June 30, 1984; that he felt he was not guilty of crime, that he was unaware of Director Kahn having her vacation during the time when Respondent requested his leave, that he did not confide his jail problem to Director Kahn because he did not trust her, that in December Director Kahn told him she did not receive the Respondent's one year leave request letter from Donna Bailey, that Respondent had been in touch with Ms. Leah Black since 1983 and recently hand informed Ms. Black of his present location due to rumors, that before leaving Landmark, Respondent requested a leave of absence of one year, that at that time Respondent had accumulated four months of accrued leave and requested four months leave with pay and the remainder as leave without pay, that Director Kahn told him she could not approve his leave request without a physician's statement and he had attached such a statement to his letter request before he left Landmark and gave it to Donna Bailey. Superintendent Davis and Director Kahn believed Respondent to be sick until receipt of his letter dated May 16, 1984. That date is the first date either had actual knowledge of his physicial location and that he was in jail. In Respondent's absence, his supervisors were required to hire temporary employees to fill his position as Behavior Program Specialist. Sometimes they were not able to hire any temporary fill-in personnel and this created additional work for other full-time employees in covering Respondent's caseload. Sometimes the temporary help they were able to hire were not of a comparable skill level with Respondent or someone who might have taken the job full-time. As long as Respondent was on a leave of absence they were unable to advertise for a skilled full-time replacement. This had a detrimental effect on Landmark's in-depth applied behavior modification program. Superintendent Davis determined that Respondent's admission of involuntary incarceration, even if coupled with institutional medical care, did not constitute a reasonable and acceptable excuse as requested in Petitioner's May 8, 1984 letter. This determination is consistent with Landmark's internal policy. Superintendent Davis has previously refused all employees' requests for extended leave for the purpose of serving involuntary jail time. He testified that he would not have granted any of Respondent's previous leave time nor any extensions thereof if the jail sentence had been known to him. His basis for this policy is that criminal sentences are detrimental to employees' functions as role models. He applied this policy to Respondent because Respondent's position as a Behavior Program Specialist requires intensive leadership and role modeling/programming of retarded clients. Superintendent Davis also considered the Respondent's failure to disclose his incarceration to be dishonest dealing with the agency. Superintendent Davis further determined that the date of his receipt of Respondent's May 16, 1984 letter was beyond the allotted time for such excuse. Respondent maintained that he was diagnosed early on the morning of October 17, 1983 by Dr. Shapiro as needing a year's ulcer treatment, applied for and got the leave of absence from Director Kahn some time between Noon and 2:00 P.M. that same day, and thereafter, between 4:30 - 5:00 P.M., he was telephoned by his lawyer to report that very day to federal prison in Eglin, Florida. Respondent says that he had a normal appointment with Dr. Shapiro at 10:45 A.M., October 17, 1983, and at that time received the statement indicating need for a year's leave of absence (Bell Exhibit 3), returned to Landmark, wrote out on a legal pad what was apparently an explanation to Director Kahn that he wanted to use 4 months of accumulated leave with pay (annual and sick leave combined) and to receive 6 months leave without pay to cover October 17, 1983 through October 17, 1984; that he then gave this to Donna Bailey to type, that Director Kahn signed her approval on the typed letter and he returned his letter and medical letter to Donna Bailey. Stephanie Green states that she was with Respondent at the doctor's office on October 17, 1983, and saw him give his typed letter request, the medical letter, and his timesheets to Donna Bailey. Ms. Green does not recall any approval at the bottom of Respondent's letter. Ann White, Respondent's girlfriend, supports some of this information but contradicts much by saying she saw Respondent's letter request at her home on a separate occasion and saw the doctor's letter before that date when hue showed it to her at Landmark. She then says that at the end of October 1983, she examined Respondent's personnel file and saw the Respondent's typed letter request with Director Kahn's approval written at the bottom with the medical letter. These witnesses may have seen another earlier leave request, but timesheets and approval on the bottom of an employee's request would be inappropriate for extended leave request and approval. Director Kahn absolutely denies giving a year's approval in writing at any time and denies ever receiving a typed letter request for one year signed by Respondent. Her secretary was not Donna Bailey but was Sandra Williams. Based upon observation of the candor and demeanor of the witnesses testifying and their credibility or lack thereof, I choose to believe Director Kahn. Independent of the credibility of the live testimony, I also find supportive of Ms. Kahn's testimony the Respondent's admission that he gave his documents, if they were given, to someone not her secretary. Respondent further stated that at that time before his lawyer's call he intended a vacation to get away from it all instead of immediate medical care. Also clearly supportive of Ms. Kahn's testimony is Bell's Exhibit 2 wherein Respondent admits Director Kahn told him in their December phone conversation that she did not receive his letter request for a year's leave and that he was not approved for a year but might be approved for an additional three months after the original December 19, 1953 date. On June 6, 1984, Superintendent Davis sent a letter, (HRS Exhibit 5), certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent Bell at Antaeus Unit, Post Office Box 2000, Lexington, Kentucky, 40511. This was the return address on the envelope of Respondent's May 16, 1984 letter. At hearing, Respondent denied receipt of this letter but was admittedly incarcerated by the federal government at that location at that time and did not return to Miami until June 17, 1984. Petitioner's June 6, 1984 letter was received at that address on June 11, 1984, and was signed for by "D.D. St (illegible)" (HRS Exhibit 5). The undersigned finds that Respondent did receive on that date Petitioner's June 6, 1984 letter which stated that Respondent's failure to report on April 30, 1984, and thereafter was now considered abandonment of his position under Section 22A- 7.10 (2)(a) and that he was deemed to have resigned as of the date the letter was received or date it was returned to Petitioner if that occurred. The undersigned is not impressed by Respondent's analysis of Bell Exhibit 5. This item was found among Petitioner's business records, in Respondent's Personnel file. It is a handwritten, undated memorandum which reads in one handwriting "N. Bell went out on med. leave but last med slip is 10/83. Needs one every 30 days even the leave is for year-they keep jumping back and forth on AL to SL, etc." To which, another's hand has replied, "notified Bill Miller 2/13/84 will send in." At best, its message is ambiguous and one obvious interpretation is that monthly doctor's statements would be required by Petitioner from Respondent although the payroll employees already had the medical statement dated October 17, 1983 specifying one year, and that some confusion existed as to how to debit the Respondent's four months accumulated annual and sick leave during his absence. Under the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent abandoned his position upon his unexcused absence for three consecutive days after April 30, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that, Respondent having been absent without approval for 3 consecutive workdays he be deemed to have abandoned the position of Behavior Program Specialist and to have resigned from the Career Service effective Jun 6, 1984. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Langer, Esquire 255 Alhambra Circle Suite 312 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 John Abramson, Esquire 799 Brickell Avenue Suite 800 Brickell Center Miami, Florida 33131 Gilda Lambert Secretary, Dept. of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree Secretary, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On July 30, 1984, Richard Herring, the Petitioner, became a member of the Senior Management Service Personnel System within the State of Florida. He remained in that personnel system until March 2, 1987. His employer while a senior manager was the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Respondent in this cause. Petitioner determined to leave the position held with the Respondent based upon a concern that he might be dismissed from that position by the incoming secretary to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In fact, the new secretary deemed it appropriate to make some personnel change in senior managers within his agency in the early part of 1987. On March 3, 1987, Petitioner undertook his new employment with the Florida House of Representatives. With this timing, Petitioner effectively transferred from one state agency to another. The new employer, the Florida House of Representatives, operated under a separate personnel system from that associated with senior managers. This meant that the treatment of annual leave credits by the Respondent agency and as addressed by the Florida House of Representatives was unique to those employers and that Petitioner, if he was entitled to the payment for any annual leave hours within his account upon his resignation from Senior Management with the Respondent, must be paid by the Respondent. Conversely, any annual leave hours which he transferred to an account with the Florida House of Representatives must be in accordance with that agency's personnel rules or policies. From the inception of his association with the Senior Management Service, Petitioner saw the annual leave hours he earned and the flexibility afforded him in their use as an important factor in his employment circumstance. When Respondent recruited the Petitioner he was led to believe that as many as 480 annual leave hours could be converted into payment upon the resignation from the Senior Management Service, without regard for whether that resignation led to a transfer to another state agency or the outright termination as a state employee. In confirmation of his understanding when recruited, a letter was addressed to the Petitioner on August 3, 1984, referring to the ability to cash- in accrued annual leave that did not exceed 480 hours. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. It is addressed to Petitioner from Vivian Pyle, the central personnel officer for the Respondent. The remarks made to him in the recruitment phase and as confirmed in the correspondence are a correct depiction of the rights which the Petitioner had at the beginning of his employment as a senior manager. These rights were established in Rule 22SM-1.112(3), Florida Administrative Code. That rule became effective on March 16, 1981. It called for the payment of unused annual leave upon separation, not to exceed the amount of 480 hours. Separation meant the resignation from the position of a senior manager to transfer to another state agency or to terminate from state government entirely. At the time that the Petitioner took his appointment as a senior manager, the rule pertaining to attendance and leave while still employed by the Respondent agency was Rule 22SM-1.09, Florida Administrative Code. It called for the accumulation of 176 hours per year of annual leave upon the appointment and upon each anniversary date beyond that initial appointment. It also described the retention and credit of leave brought with the new appointee at the time of appointment, subject to the approval by the employer or agency head. It allowed for the payment of the leave time which the new appointee brought into the system when the ultimate decision was made by that employee to terminate from Senior Management. Termination in this instance refers to leaving Senior Management, not leaving state government. In accordance with Rule 22SM-1.09, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner was allowed to bring into the system a balance of 205 annual leave credits and was assigned 176 additional annual leave credits on July 30, 1984, giving him a total of 381 annual leave hours at that point in time. On his anniversary date of July 30, 1985, he received an additional 176 hours which brought his total annual leave hours at that point to 470. In those instances wherein the annual leave hours had been granted to the Petitioner upon his appointment, existing hours brought with him had been credited and upon the first anniversary date of his employment as a senior manager, additional hours had been granted, those annual leave credit hours were available for use by the Petitioner from that date forward or as a cash holding that could be exercised upon his separation from Senior Management. On May 29, 1986, the personnel rules of the State of Florida, Department of Administration, as described in the preceding paragraphs, changed. A new Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, did not carry forward provisions which allowed for the payment upon separation of leave brought into Senior Management and leave earned while a senior manager. This finding pertains to those senior managers, like the Petitioner, who were already employed with the advent of the change in rules on May 29, 1986. The new rule chapter did continue to allow for the accumulation of 176 hours of annual leave upon the anniversary date of an appointment, pertaining to existing senior managers at the point at which the new rule became effective. The new rule chapter by its language described a circumstance pertaining to appointees who came into the position of senior manager upon the effective date of the new rule chapter or thereafter, discussing the payment for an annual leave balance above 240 hours which had been transferred to the Career Service. This speaks to a transfer from Senior Management to Career Service and the idea of transferring 240 hours to the Career Service Personnel System and paying for the balance of annual leave over 240 hours. It also called for the proration of this payment of annual leave upon appropriate accrual rates for Career Service. It spoke to the payment of annual leave upon termination of a senior manager who had come into the System on May 29, 1986, or thereafter, termination meaning someone who had left the state payroll for at least 31 calendar days following separation from the Senior Management Service. See Rule 22SM- 3.007(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code (May 29, 1986). By contrast, Chapter 22SM-3 effective May 29, 1986 does not describe in any fashion what happens to annual leave credits for those persons who had been senior managers prior to the effective date of the rules chapter when the senior manager decides to separate from Senior Management Service. The Petitioner had 371.5 annual leave hours upon his anniversary date of July 30, 1986, and was given an additional 176 hours of annual leave credit as contemplated by Rule 22SM-3.007(2), Florida Administrative Code (May 29, 1986). On February 1, 1987, amendments to Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, were enacted. Unlike the May 29, 1986, version of this chapter, the amended rule specifically addressed the circumstance of all Senior Management employees, those who were in that personnel system before February 1, 1987, and those who would be appointed from that date forward. This speaks to the issue of disposition of annual leave credits held by senior managers upon their separation from employment as a senior manager. At Section 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), senior managers who transfer to a state government position outside of the Senior Management Service were not entitled to be paid for annual leave credits, they could only transfer those hours subject to the rules governing the system into which the member may transfer. In addition, that provision indicated that the transfer of annual leave credits would be prorated dating back to the most recent anniversary date for service. A companion section, Rule 22SM-3.007(6), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), indicated that if the employee terminated from state government, that is the employee was not on any state payroll for at least 31 calendar days following the separation from Senior Management Service, then the annual leave credit held at the point of separation would be cashed. At Rule 22SM-3.007(3), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), the language was to the effect that upon the appointment and on each anniversary date after that time there was an increase in credit hours assigned to each Senior Management employee from 176 hours to 240 hours per annum. When the Petitioner determined to leave his position, he had prepared material pertaining to his termination, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. In the form authorization for disposition of his annual leave was called for by K. Davis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary within the Respondent agency. This form indicates the election on the part of the Petitioner to gain payment for all unused annual leave, excepting 24 hours. A subsequent audit of his employment records revealed that the Petitioner had 432 hours of annual leave upon his separation from Senior Management, without regard for any proration of the July 30, 1986 - 176 annual leave hours installment. Payment for annual leave hours was not forthcoming and after making some attempts at ascertaining the reason why and gaining no satisfaction in these discussions, the Petitioner wrote to Vivian Pyle, the director of the central personnel services for the Respondent agency, on April 23, 1987 to inquire about this matter. A copy of that letter may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. In the course of the correspondence the Petitioner indicates that his new employer, the Florida House of Representatives, had given him a computer print-out effective April 17, 1987, in which it was indicated that a substantial number of hours had been transferred to the Florida House of Representatives as opposed to having been paid to the Petitioner as he requested. By way of response, Ms. Pyle wrote to the Petitioner on April 28, 1987, and she referenced Rule 22SM- 3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), pertaining to the fact that the Respondent did not believe that the Petitioner was entitled to be paid for his annual leave and that the leave could be transferred subject to the rules within the receiving agency. In this instance, that refers to the Florida House of Representatives. Having been disappointed in the attempt to gain the payment for his annual leave credits, excepting the 24 hours which he wanted to have transferred, the Petitioner filed a petition for formal administrative hearing with the Respondent agency, received by the Respondent on May 15, 1987. That case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of the hearing which has led to the entry of this recommended order. The Petitioner also challenged rules within Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, in its May 29, 1986 language and its February 1, 1987 language. See DOAH Case No. 87-2172R supra. The outcome of that challenge was to the effect that the language within Rule 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), which prohibits the payment for annual leave credits upon the transfer from Senior Management Service to another position in state government was stricken as an invalid enactment. The State of Florida, Department of Administration has appealed that decision. The State of Florida, Department of Administration has also enacted a Rule 22SM-3.0l3(1), Florida Administrative Code, which corresponds to the most recent amendments to Chapter 225M-3, Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987). Rule 22SM-3.013, Florida Administrative Code, indicates that Senior Management Service employees who were on board on January 31, 1987 will keep their anniversary dates and shall be credited additional amount of annual leave credits, as well as sick leave credits. The rate of that annual leave credit is 5.333 hours monthly or 2.46 hours biweekly for each pay period or portion thereof. When the July 30, 1986 annual leave credits are prorated for the partial service year completed by the Petitioner in the full months of August, 1986 through February, 1987 and the portions of July, 1986 and March, 1987, as envisioned by Rule 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code (February 1, 1987), they total 141.85 annual leave credits. When the prorated formula described in Rule 22SM-3.013(1), Florida Administrative Code, is applied for the full month of February, 1987 and the two days within March, 1987 during which time the Petitioner was still employed an additional 5.505 annual leave credits are assigned. With these adjustments, that makes the annual leave credit balance for the Petitioner upon his transfer 403.355 annual leave hours. Within this figure, of the credits assigned on July 30, 1986, Petitioner's anniversary date, following the proration adjustment, there remained only 26.35 hours which had not been used as annual leave during the period July 30, 1986 through March 2, 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case involves a consideration of whether the Petitioner has abandoned his job position with the Respondent as described in Rule 22A- 7.010, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact In the relevant time period which is associated with this case, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Revenue as an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville, Florida, office of the Northeast Region, Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax. He worked with the Respondent agency beginning April 1980 until his dismissal from the agency on December 17, 1986, based upon the theory that he had allegedly abandoned his job within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. During his employment Petitioner operated out of his home, which was in Palm Coast, Florida. Douglas Drozd, an employee of the Respondent agency, was sent to the Jacksonville office of the Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax to serve as a temporary Appraiser Supervisor for that office. This assignment occurred on October 6, 1986. On October 21, 1986, Albert Johnson, the former Appraiser Supervisor with the Jacksonville office, left that position. Following the departure of Johnson, Drozd became the permanent Appraiser Supervisor for the Jacksonville office. From October 6, 1986, through November 18, 1986, Drozd acted in the capacity as the immediate supervisor of the Petitioner. Beyond that date, Robert Worley, an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville office, took over the position of Appraiser Supervisor in the subject regional office. Worley served in the capacity of supervisor from November 19, 1986, until December 22, 1986, when he returned to his duties as Appraiser II. While Worley was serving as Appraiser Supervisor, Drozd took over the function of Property Appraiser, Duval County, Florida. On December 22, 1986, Drozd returned to his duties as Appraiser Supervisor for Respondent's Jacksonville office. On November 17, 1986, Petitioner asked the permission of his supervisor, Drozd, to take annual leave for days in December 1986. This request was not made in writing and was not responded to in writing. Although Rule 22A- 8.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, contemplates that leave shall be requested in writing, it gas the custom and practice of the Respondent agency for oral requests for annual leave to be made and approved orally. At the time of the conversation on November 17, 1986, between the Petitioner and Drozd concerning the request for annual leave, Drozd initially granted that request without any reservations or contingencies being applied to the permission given. Subsequently, on that same day, Drozd told Richards that he expected that all "field work" assigned to the Petitioner should be completed before leave was taken. This arrangement included work being done on vacant parcels of property as well as improved parcels. More particularly, "field work" includes: Completion of neighborhood analysis form Dr-549 Completion of structural elements form Dr-551 Measurements of all improvements Notes pertaining to subject property (condition of property, any unusual circumstances) Sketching and traversing (perimeter measurements for calculating square footage) Pictures Completion of factual change of physical characteristics forms. Worley was unaware on November 17, 1986, of the arrangement between Drozd and the Petitioner concerning conditions placed upon the permission for the Petitioner to take leave as set forth by Drozd. Petitioner's work assignment involved 180 parcels. Effective December 12, 1986, 27 parcels had "field work" which was incomplete, according to his flow chart of that date. Effective that date, Petitioner had turned in field folders for 88 of the 180 parcels. He kept 92 field folders for the remaining parcels. Thus, his supervisor was unable to verify whether Petitioner had completed his "field work" as summarized in his flow chart submitted on December 12, 1986. According to Petitioner's account set forth in his flow chart of December 12, 1986, which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit R submitted by the Respondent and admitted into evidence, the 27 parcels pertained to vacant land. Petitioner further conceded that other minor problems existed concerning the completeness of the "field work" pertaining to the improved parcels reported in his flow chart. Prior to Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office on December 12, 1986, Worley, who was then serving as the Appraiser Supervisor, did not have a detailed knowledge of the flow chart submitted by the Petitioner on that date. Worley had reviewed some of the Petitioner's files and noted shortcomings in the work; however, on balance, Worley took no issue with Petitioner's work progress. Worley acquiesced in the Petitioner's departure on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, as a prelude to the commencement of Petitioner's annual leave on December 15, 1986 This acquiescence was by a verbal expression to the effect that the Petitioner should have a nice holiday. By contrast, on December 12, 1986, Drozd became aware, upon examination of Petitioner's flow chart, that certain parcels had not been completed in terms of "field work." Drozd's observations about Petitioner's flow chart became significant when Worley and Drozd spoke to supervisors in Tallahassee, Florida, on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, in the person of Ben Faulk, Chief of the Bureau of Field Operations in the Respondent agency, and Eugene White, who was the Deputy Director of the Division of Ad Valorem Tax for that organization. In actuality, there were two conversations, and in the latter conversation Drozd participated in a discussion in which Faulk, White and Drozd determined that Petitioner should not be allowed to proceed with annual leave based upon his failure to comply with the contingency which Drozd had established on November 17, 1986, pertaining to Petitioner's wish to take annual leave, the contingency being completion of "field work." The latter conversation between Worley, Drozd, White and Faulk took place following Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office. At the time this conversation was held, Drozd was not a member of the Respondent agency. On the other hand, Faulk and White were appropriate officials within the Respondent agency with power to make determinations concerning the annual leave of a subordinate employee, in this instance, the Petitioner. Worley was also a proper source of policy in she management chain. It was decided that Worley should try to telephone the Petitioner and forestall the use of the annual leave by Petitioner. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that Faulk and White felt that this denial of Petitioner's annual leave based upon Petitioner's failure to meet a contingency concerning his "field work" was an appropriate disposition of the case. Around 6:00 p.m., Worley was able to reach Petitioner by telephone while Petitioner was at his daughter's home, preparing to leave for a trip to Washington, D.C. In placing the telephone call to Petitioner, Worley did not favor the revocation of leave opportunity. Nonetheless, he did revoke the leave while acting as supervisor for the Northeast Region, at the behest of Drozd and upon authority of Faulk and White. In the conversation with Petitioner on December 12, 1986, by telephone, Worley told Petitioner that his leave had been revoked and that Petitioner should report to his job assignment at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 15, 1986, or be considered on unauthorized leave. Further, it was explained to Petitioner that he would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he had not returned to work by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1986. These remarks by Worley were not equivocal, and Petitioner understood the significance of those instructions and the implications of his failure to attend his duties on the dates described. This understanding of the explanation of unauthorized leave and potential abandonment of his job position was held by the Petitioner at the point of the conversation at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 12, 1986. Instead of reporting to work on December 15, 1986, at 8:00 a.m., Respondent absented himself from his job assignment on that date and on December 16 and 17, 1986. For those three consecutive days in which Respondent did not attend his job, his nonattendance was without authorization to take any form of leave and in the face of having been advised that he was in the posture of unauthorized leave. The days that Petitioner was missing from his job were work days. Petitioner's choice to go forward with his vacation plans and ignore the instruction of his supervisor concerning returning to his job position was made knowingly, with volition, with intent and showed willful disregard of a legitimate order of a superior. Petitioner had decided that since he had longstanding plans for taking annual leave in Washington, D.C., and given the fact that his wife was already there awaiting the arrival of the Petitioner and his daughter, he would go forward with his plan on the expectation that someone in his employment system would not allow a conclusion to be drawn that he had abandoned his job position. In furtherance of the assertion that the Petitioner would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he didn't return before the conclusion of the work day on December 17, 1986, a memorandum was sent to the Petitioner at his residence on December 15, 1986. A copy of that memorandum may be found as Respondent's Exhibit Q admitted into evidence. Petitioner did not become aware of this memorandum until returning from his vacation. When he returned, he signed for service of correspondence of December 18, 1986, which constituted the Respondent agency's notice of claimed abandonment and notice of rights to administrative hearing to contest that claim. A copy of that notification may be found as part of the Respondent's Exhibit M admitted into evidence, together with the return receipt signed by the Petitioner on December 29, 1986. A timely petition requesting consideration of the agency's claims of abandonment was filed by the Petitioner on January 5, 1987.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received a salary overpayment from Respondent for leave usage to which he was not entitled, as set forth in correspondence dated April 26, 2013; and, if so, whether Respondent is entitled to a repayment for the salary overpayment made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bruce Deterding, was an employee of the Department of Health, having served as an executive director of a medical practice board, making him a Select Exempt Service (SES) employee. Petitioner entered into a settlement agreement with the Department on December 19, 2012. The agreement required Petitioner to resign his position with the Department effective February 28, 2013, and included the following conditions: Petitioner's last day in the office would be December 18, 2012, one day preceding the signed settlement agreement; and Petitioner was required to utilize 384 hours of accrued annual leave beginning on December 19, 2012, and ending on February 27, 2013. Petitioner did not participate in the preparation of the settlement agreement, but agreed to its terms by his signature. The agreement was signed by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance Director Lucy C. Gee on behalf of the Department. From December 19, 2012, through February 28, 2013, Petitioner performed as obligated under the agreement. The Department paid Petitioner for the 384 hours of leave as required by the agreement. Petitioner relied on the Department's representations that he would be able to purchase his former military service time from the State Retirement System and retire with 30 years of state service on the resignation date set forth in the agreement. Petitioner demonstrated through a screen shot of his personnel records in the "PeopleFirst" system that he had an available balance of 428 hours of annual leave at the time he entered into the settlement agreement with the Department. The Department's employee verified through PeopleFirst that sufficient hours of leave were available prior to presenting the settlement agreement offering to pay 384 hours of leave to Petitioner. The Department notified Petitioner by a letter dated April 26, 2013, that he had received salary overpayments. Specifically, the letter stated that two payments in the amounts of $1,262.48 and $1,717.56, dated February 22, 2013, and March 8, 2013, respectively, had been erroneously made to him. Petitioner, as an SES employee, received 176 hours of annual leave on his leave accrual anniversary date of July 1 each year. In 2010, Petitioner received an annual leave accrual of 176 hours on June 18, 2010, and a second annual leave accrual on July 1, 2010. On April 26, 2013, Petitioner had a telephone conversation with Meshelle Bradford, one of the Department's payroll employees, concerning potential salary overpayments. During that conversation, Petitioner acknowledged he had received the two salary accruals totaling 352 hours on June 18 and July 1, 2010. Petitioner testified that he assumed he was the beneficiary of an "extraordinarily good hire date" which entitled him to receive leave on his former (from his previous state employment) and new leave accrual dates. The Department conducted a payroll and leave audit after the date of Petitioner's resignation and separation from the agency. The audit revealed that Petitioner had been overpaid for annual leave hours that he had accrued in 2010 by mistake. Petitioner had been paid for annual leave he used in February 2013, when he had exhausted all of his accrued leave. During the two-week pay period of February 1 through 14, 2013, Petitioner received pay for 58.5 hours of leave he did not have available, and for the two-week pay period of February 15 through 28, 2013, Petitioner received pay for 80 hours of leave he did not have available, resulting from the double accrual of leave in June and July 2010. The Department's position is that Petitioner should have been in leave without pay status for the 58.5 and 80 hours of leave for which he was paid in February 2013. The calculated overpayment for the unavailable leave is $2,980.04. The Department seeks reimbursement from Petitioner for that amount. Petitioner disputes that he owes any amount due to the fact he entered into a settlement agreement that delineated the payments to be made by the Department to him as a condition of his resignation. The Department's Agency Attendance and Leave Policy, in section VI.D.3, states: "It is the employee's responsibility to maintain an accurate accounting of their leave balances."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health requiring Petitioner to repay the overpayment of salary in the amount of $2,980.04. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark John Henderson, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchants Row, Room 110J Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bruce Milton Deterding 4841 Old Bainbridge Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at tee hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about December 5, 1969, the Petitioner, Hugh G. Purkey became employed by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. In 1984, Petitioner held the position of Engineer II, Area Engineer and was assigned to the North Dade Maintenance Yard (NDMY). In 1983, Petitioner executed a form which acknowledged he had received a complete copy of the DOT employee handbook. The acknowledgement specified that enployees are responsible to review the handbook in detail and to request any clarification needed from a supervisor. The handbook provided the following regarding job abandonnent: After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. On or about October 23, 1984, Petitioner filed a request for a medical leave of absence. This request was based upon Petitioner's pulmonary disorder which prevented him from performing his duties with the NDMY. Petitioner was to receive pay based upon his accrued annual and/or sick leave through Novenber 6, 1984, thereafter, he was to be on leave without pay for a period of four months. This leave request was approved by the Petitioner's supervisor, Clive Taylor. Mr. Taylor was the only supervisor or employee at the NDMY who was authorized to grant a leave of absence for Petitioner. On January 28, 1985, an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence was granted by Mr. Taylor. This extension authorized two additional months of leave and specified that Petitioner would return to work no later than May 6, 1985. Prior to the leave of absence described above, Petitioner had performed his duties with the NDMY in an above satisfactory manner. Prior to May 6, 1985, Petitioner had complied with the rules and regulations regarding requests for leave. Petitioner did not return to work on May 6, 1985. Petitioner did not file a request for a leave extension. Mr. Taylor did not approve an extension of the leave beyond May 6, 1985. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on May 6, 7, and 8, 1985. On May 10, 1985, Mr. Taylor executed a form entitled "Resignation and Exit Interview Form." This form provided, in part: "Mr. Purkey is not available for signature" and "Mr. Purkey is pursuing regular disability retirement." Petitioner did not execute the form but was advised of its content by telephone. Sometime prior to April 30, 1985, Petitioner had applied for disability retirement benefits. That request was filed with the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement and was denied based upon a determination that Petitioner was not totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service. When that determination was made, Petitioner elected to file for regular retirement since he had accrued over ten years with the State. Thereafter, Petitioner received retirement benefits which were granted and paid retroactively from February 1, 1985. On July 9, 1986, Petitioner received a physician's statement which provided: It is my professional opinion that this patient may return to work requiring no strenuous physical activity providing that the patient continue on his medication and return for regular checkups in any office. Upon receipt of the physician's statement, Petitioner contacted the NDMY to request that he be allowed to return to work. Petitioner was advised that he had been terminated from employment in May, 1985, based upon his failure to return to work following his leave of absence. On July 29, 1986, Petitioner wrote to John C. Gocdnight, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, and requested Mr. Goodnight's assistance to allow Petitioner to return to DOT. That letter admitted that Petitioner knew his position had been filled but claimed he had been on leave. Petitioner maintained that he was "much too young to retire." The letter failed to mention that Petitioner had already been receiving retirement benefits. Petitioner listed his address subsequent to November, 1984, as Dunnellon, Florida. There is no record in Petitioner's personnel file which confirms DOT sent, and Petitioner received, a notice of his termination from employment in May, 1985. Petitioner did not request a hearing to review that termination until January, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order finding that the Petitioner, Hugh G. Purkey, abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first portion of paragraph 2 is accepted; the designation of his last actual day of employment is in error and is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The date indicated, January 20, 1984, was not his last day of actual employment. According to DOT exhibit 8 (the referenced citation) that date was the last date worked. Petitioner's last date of employment would have been calculated from May 5, 1985 (the last date of his authorized leave). With regard to paragraphs 3 and 4, it is accepted that Petitioner used his accrued sick and annual leave until they were exhausted. After the paid leave was used, Petitioner applied for and received, by filing the appropriate form, an authorized leave without pay. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as comment, argument, or recitation of testimony which does not constitute a finding of specific fact. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as vague and ambiguous. It is accepted that Petitioner filed his original leave request and that Ms. Sellers assisted him. Paragraph 15 is rejected as incomplete and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 16 is accepted to the extent that it provides that clerks would assist persons who requested such assistance. The first three sentences of paragraph 17 are accepted; the balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 18 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or unknown. DOT did not establish that the form was sent and received by Petitioner. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as a provision of law. The parties have not disputed that the notice is required. Paragraph 21 is accepted to the extent that DOT cannot prove that such notice was provided to Petitioner. Paragraph 22 is rejected as incomplete or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant since Petitioner did not request that his medical leave be continued as required by the rule. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Further, the authorization to return was not without limitation. Paragraph 25 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to the letter to Goodnight, Petitioner admitted in that letter that he knew his position had been filled. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as irrelevant or not covered by the record. With regard to paragraph 32, it is accepted that Petitioner's request for disability retirement was denied and that he ultimately elected to seek early retirement; otherwise, it is rejected as hearsay uncorroborated by direct evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the credible evidence. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 37 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 38 is rejected as comment, argument, or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's section described as "Analysis" has not been considered findings of fact. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY DOT: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as Irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraph 23 is rejected as unsupported by the record. DOT's section described as "Analysis" has not been considered findings of fact COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Field WICKER, SMITH, BLOMQVIST, TUTAN, O'HARA, McCOY, GRAHAM & LANE Grove Plaza Building, 5th Floor 2900 Middle Street Miami, Florida 33133 Charles Gardner Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Acting Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed a unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent initially hired Petitioner as a legal secretary in 1997. At that time, Petitioner worked in Respondent's office in Chipley, Florida. Petitioner suffered no continuing medical problems in 1997. In a memorandum dated April 17, 2001, Respondent's staff advised Petitioner that employees using more leave than they had earned would have to be place on "leave without pay" for the time used in excess of time earned. In a letter dated May 14, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that she intended to resign her position as a legal secretary effective May 25, 2001. Petitioner wrote the letter because she was moving to Apalachicola, Florida. Instead of accepting Petitioner's resignation, Respondent offered and Petitioner accepted a transfer as a legal secretary in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was able to continue working for Respondent without a break in service. In the summer of 2002, Petitioner began to suffer from an unexplained shortness of breath. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent knew the cause for the symptoms Petitioner was experiencing. By letter dated October 9, 2002, Respondent once again advised Petitioner that she could not use more leave time than the amount she earned. On at least one occasion, Petitioner's excessive time-off caused a reduction in her salary for "leave without pay." In a memorandum dated October 11, 2002, Respondent's staff documented concerns about Petitioner's attendance and performance. One of the concerns was Petitioner's chronic failure to file reports in a timely manner. Petitioner was late in filing the reports even though Respondent allowed her to prepare them at home and send them to Respondent by facsimile transmission from her husband's place of business. In February 2003, Petitioner still did not have a medical diagnosis to explain why she was sick and unable to work. On or about February 13, 2003, Petitioner and her supervisor agreed that Petitioner would take leave without pay pending an excuse from a doctor that she was unable to work. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent offered to let Petitioner have an indefinite leave of absence is not persuasive. On March 12, 2003, Petitioner provided Respondent medical documentation, excusing her from work due to unspecified illness through March 17, 2003. On or about March 14, 2003, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital. Subsequent medical tests revealed blood clots in Petitioner's lungs. Petitioner was eventually released from the hospital with prescriptions for blood thinning medication and oxygen. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor's note, dated March 18, 2003, excused Petitioner from work for two weeks. On or about April 2, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor stated that Petitioner had been hospitalized with a serious condition called pulmonary embolus and that she continued to have significant symptoms of shortness of breath and fatigue. The doctor's note stated that Petitioner would not be able to work for six weeks. On May 5, 2003, Jackie Pooser, Respondent's Administrative Director, talked to Petitioner by telephone. Ms. Pooser advised Petitioner that she needed to provide another doctor's excuse by May 8, 2003, if she was still under a doctor's care and unable to return to work. Otherwise, Respondent expected Petitioner to resume her duties in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was Respondent's only secretary in Port St. Joe, Florida. That office was in dire need of a performing secretary. However, apart from her illness, Petitioner was not anxious to return to work in the Port St. Joe office because she had a personality conflict with the only full-time attorney who worked there. During the May 5, 2003, telephone conversation, Petitioner did not tell Ms. Pooser that she was disabled or request any on-the-job accommodation. Instead, she led Ms. Pooser to believe that she intended to return to her job when authorized to do so by her doctor, hopefully in June 2003. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she never requested that Respondent provide her with any type of accommodation. In a letter dated May 6, 2003, Ms. Pooser confirmed the May 5, 2003, phone conversation. In the letter, Ms. Pooser further reminded Petitioner that her medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. The letter referred to the Public Defender Classification & Pay Plan requirements for a doctor's excuse without which an employee is considered to have abandoned his or her employment position. Petitioner's medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. Petitioner did not return to work or provide Respondent with further medical documentation. On May 16, 2003, Respondent verbally terminated Petitioner by telephone. A follow-up letter dated May 19, 2003, stated that Petitioner's work performance had not been satisfactory for some period of time. The letter also stated that Petitioner had abandoned her position by failing to provide Respondent with a doctor's excuse. Petitioner's testimony that she requested her physician to send the medical excuse directly to Respondent by facsimile transmission is not persuasive. Petitioner did not call Respondent to inquire whether Respondent received the excuse or to offer any other explanation for failing to send medical documentation to Respondent. Petitioner's doctor subsequently released her to return to work. Petitioner received unemployment compensation for at least one month. In August 2003, Petitioner began working for a real estate company, checking guests into resort rentals. She resigned that job after working for one month. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not disabled when she worked for Respondent. According to Petitioner, she was diagnosed as being disabled in October 2003, after experiencing further medical problems. However, Petitioner has provided no competent (non-hearsay) evidence of that diagnosis. Respondent's attendance and leave policy states as follows in relevant part: STATEMENTS OF POLICY * * * The granting of any leave of absence with or without pay shall be in writing and shall be approved by the proper authority within the Public Defender Office. An employee who is granted leave of absence with or without pay shall be an employee of the Public Defender while on such leave and shall be returned to the same position or a different position in the same class and same work location upon termination of the approved leave of absence, unless the Public Defender and the employee agree in writing to other conditions and terms under which such leave is to be granted. Any leave of absence with or without pay shall be approved prior to the leave being taken except in the case of an emergency where the employee must be absent prior to receiving approval from the proper authority for the absence. * * * (b) If an employee's request for leave of absence is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the Public Defender may place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays may consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Public Defender's Office. * * * 3.14 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE In accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor, eligible employees can receive up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the following reasons: . . . taking care of one's own serious health condition. Employees are not required to take all 12 weeks at once. The employee may request a few days or weeks off at a time (referred to as intermittent leave) or continue to work on a part-time basis (reduced leave). Unless written medical justification deems it necessary, the Public Defender is not required to grant intermittent or reduced leave. * * * (4) Employees must provide reasonable notice (30 days if possible) and make an effort to schedule their leave so as not to unduly disrupt agency operations. The Public Defender may request progress reports from the employees regarding leave status. * * * (7) The Public Defender may require certification from a healthcare provider regarding the need for medical leave, as well as certification of an employee's fitness to return to work. From August 1, 2002, through May 16, 2003, Respondent approved 518 hours or 12 weeks and 38 hours of leave without pay. During the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she received the leave without pay. Her testimony that she was not familiar with the above-referenced policies is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Public Defender, Fourteenth Circuit Jackson County Courthouse Post Office Box 636 Marianna, Florida 32447 Christian C. Griggs 130 25th Avenue Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue Whether the petitioner abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service System under the circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a permanent full-time employee in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation within the Division of Risk Management in the Department of Insurance. Her job title was Secretary Specialist. Her immediate supervisor was Lawrence Sharp, Chief of the Bureau. However, on February 6, 1985, Mr. Sharp was on annual leave, and Ms. Peggy Veigas was the acting supervisor. On February 6, 1985, Petitioner took two hours of authorized leave from work from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., in order to attend a Leon County Court hearing on charges of cashing bad checks. The checks had been repaid in advance of the hearing: however, petitioner was immediately adjudicated guilty of writing bad checks, sentenced to 12 days in jail, and taken into custody. Petitioner was due to return to work at 10:00 a.m., but was unable to do so because of circumstances beyond her control. She was taken directly from her court appearance to the Leon County Jail. However, prior to being transported to the jail, she was able to ask her husband, who had accompanied her to court, to call her employer and ask for emergency leave to cover the 12 days she would be serving her sentence. Mr. Penney called petitioner's office at about 2 p.m. on February 6, 1985, and in the absence of Mr. Sharp the call was referred to Ms. Veigas, the acting supervisor. Mr. Penney explained that Mrs. Penney would not be at work for the next eight to ten days and requested emergency leave for that period of time. Mr. Penney was very vague about the nature of the emergency and Mrs. Penney's whereabouts. He did not explain that Mrs. Penney was in jail because he felt it would be embarrassing to Mrs. Penney. Ms. Veigas stated that emergency leave could be granted but she would have to talk to Mrs. Penney. She told Mr. Penney to have Mrs. Penney call her. Mr. Penney stated that Mrs. Penney could not call in and implied that Mrs. Penney was out of town. Ms. Veigas explained that Mrs. Penney needed to call her as soon as she could get to a phone and, if necessary, for her to call collect. Mr. Penney interpreted Mrs. Veigas' statement, that she could grant the leave but Mrs. Penney would have to call as soon as possible, as meaning that the leave was approved and that Mrs. Penney had to call work as soon as she was able to do so. However, in making the statement, Mrs. Veigas meant only that there was a possibility that leave would be granted and Mrs. Penney needed to call and explain the nature of the emergency. The subsequent actions of both Mr. Penney and Mrs. Veigas were consistent with their respective conceptions of the conversation. That afternoon, after the telephone call, Ms. Veigas went to the personnel office and discussed the matter with Ms. Cooper. Ms. Veigas wanted to find out how she should handle the request for leave and whether she should wait for Mr. Sharp to return from his vacation. Mr. Yohner, the Chief of Personnel Management, was consulted, and he stated that when Mrs. Penney called, Ms. Veigas would have to determine whether she would approve the leave or not. Ms. Veigas was told by Ms. Cooper to wait until Ms. Veigas heard from Mrs. Penney "so we would know whether it was an illness or whatever it was." (T-47) However, the nature of the emergency was determined without the necessity of a call from Mrs. Penney. Within a short period of time after the call from Mr. Penney, Ms. Veigas mentioned the request for emergency leave to Ms. Benefield. Ms. Benefield told Ms. Grissom about the call from Mr. Penney, and the two speculated that Mrs. Penney might be in jail. They were aware that Mrs. Penney had financial problems. While Ms. Grissom stood by, Ms. Benefield telephoned the jail and was told that Mrs. Penney was in jail for passing bad checks. They immediately communicated the information to Ms. Veigas, and the three of them, along with a woman named Edna, discussed the situation for about five or ten minutes. Ms. Veigas then conveyed the information to Mr. Yohner, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Beardon, the Director of the Division of Risk Management, who had previously been informed of the call from Mr. Penney. The following day Mr. Sharp returned to work and was informed of the entire situation. Mr. Sharp discussed the matter with Mr. Beardon. Mr. Beardon had his assistant call the State Attorney's Office to verify that Mrs. Penney was in jail. Thus, by the end of the workday on February 7, 1985, Mrs. Penney's co-workers, her immediate supervisor, the Chief of Personnel Management, and the Director of the Division of Risk Management were all aware that Mrs. Penney, through her husband, had requested emergency leave, and they were all aware that the emergency leave had been requested due to Mrs. Penney's incarceration. On either February 6th or 7th, Mr. Yohner notified Mr. Gresham, the Director of the Division of Administration and Mr. Yohner's supervisor, that a possible abandonment of position situation existed. Mr. Gresham was not informed that petitioner had requested emergency leave. On Friday, February 8th, or on the following Monday, Mr. Sharp called a friend of his in the Department of Administration, Don Bradley, to gain advice on application of the rule relating to abandonment of position. He was told that when someone missed three days of work without having authorization, it was the same thing as resigning and required termination. Mr. Sharp relayed the information to Mr. Beardon. Mr. Sharp did not consider petitioner's leave request and did not know whether he had the authority to approve the leave since at least a portion of the leave requested would have been without pay.2 After three days expired and Mrs. Penney had neither reported for work nor called the office, Mr. Beardon contacted Mr. Yohner to discuss the situation. He also discussed the situation with his superior in the Department. Though Mr. Beardon was aware that Mrs. Penney had requested leave through her husband and was aware that she was absent from work only because she had no choice, Mr. Beardon did not consider her request for leave. His reason was that Mrs. Penney did not personally request the leave. He did not consider the possibility that Mrs. Penney was not able to call in person. Mr. Beardon felt that a call from Mrs. Penney was necessary to find out "all of the pertinent facts and why the request was needed." However, it is apparent that Mr. Beardon already knew why the requested leave was needed and had already discovered the pertinent facts. Nevertheless, Mr. Beardon determined that, under the abandonment rule,3 petitioner had abandoned her job and her employment should be terminated. He recommended that the personnel office proceed with the action in accordance with the rule. Mr. Yohner informed Mr. Gresham of Mr. Bearden's recommendation that petitioner be terminated from the Career Service via the abandonment rule. A letter was prepared for Mr. Gresham's signature, notifying Petitioner of her termination from the Career Service. Mr. Gresham signed the letter and mailed it to petitioner at her home address. By the letter dated February 11, 1985, and then by an amended letter dated February 12, 1985, petitioner was notified that she had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive days, and therefore she was deemed to have abandoned her position pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and to have resigned from the Career Service. Meanwhile, Mr. Penney was under the impression that the emergency leave had been granted. He was able to speak with his wife for the first time on February 9, 1985, and the first question petitioner asked her husband was whether the leave had been granted. He told her that it had been, and she displayed visible signs of relief at the knowledge. Petitioner's husband also told her that she should call Ms. Veigas at her earliest opportunity. Mrs. Penney made diligent attempts to contact her employer both before and after she spoke with her husband on February 9, 1985. On each day of her incarceration she made written requests to the Captain at the jail for permission to use the telephone to call her employer. However, she received no response. In accordance with jail policy, which allowed one phone call per week at a set time, she was permitted use of the telephone on only one occasion, on February 11, 1985 at about 11 p.m. in the evening. Mrs. Penney's sentence was reduced by Judge McClamma and she was released from jail on February 14, 1985. She received the termination letter that evening when she got home. The next morning she called Mr. Yohner and stated that she wanted to return to work. Mr. Yohner informed her that she was no longer an employee of the Department. Mrs. Penney's position was advertised on February 19th and readvertised on March 4, 1985. Sometime after March 4, 1985, a replacement was hired. Although the workers compensation bureau had a very heavy case load, Mrs. Penney's work performance had been satisfactory. Indeed, she had been promoted to the position of Secretary Specialist from her previous position of Clerk-Typist III with the bureau. Petitioner had no intent to abandon her position in the Career Service, and she had no intent to resign her position. The Department had actual knowledge of the petitioner's whereabouts during her absence from work, and had actual knowledge that she intended to return to work as soon as she could. Further, the Department was aware that petitioner had requested leave to cover the period of time she would be gone. However, instead of taking action on the request, one way or the other, the Department left the request in limbo. A decision was never made to approve or disapprove the request. The only explanation given for not considering the request was that Mrs. Penney had not made it personally. However, it is quite clear that at the time of Mr. Penney's call the Department considered the call a legitimate request for leave from Mrs. Penney even though the call was not made by her. Ms. Veigas did not tell Mr. Penney that the leave could not be granted because Mrs. Penney had not called in person. Indeed, the first thing Ms. Veigas did after the telephone call was go to the personnel office to find out how she should "process the request". The only reason that the Department wanted to talk to Mrs. Penney personally, prior to determining whether leave should be granted, was to discover the nature of the emergency. Although Mr. Penney explained that there was an emergency, that Mrs. Penney was unable to call, and that leave was being requested to cover the period of time that Mrs. Penney would be unable to work, he was very vague about the nature of the emergency. The Department understandably wanted to know the reason for the request before deciding to grant leave. However, once the Department discovered Mrs. Penney's circumstances, it was in a position to make an informed decision on the leave request, and there was no rational basis for its failure to do so. Although the granting of leave is discretionary, the discretion must be exercised. Apparently, the Department officials believed that Mrs. Penney's absence from work for three consecutive days mandated termination notwithstanding the pending request for leave. Because the Department failed to take any action on the leave request, Mrs. Penney was never notified that her request for leave had been denied. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be concluded that Mrs. Penney did not abandon her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented by this case do not constitute abandonment of position as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a) and directing that the petitioner be reinstated to her former position as of February 15, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this ;26th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 1985.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the School Board of Lake County, Florida (Board)(Petitioner). It is charged with operating and managing the public school system in Lake County, Florida, otherwise known as the Lake County School District. The Respondent, at times pertinent hereto, was employed by the Board as a school guidance counselor at Sawgrass Elementary School. Her principal was Rhonda Hunt. During the 2005-2006 school year, the Respondent missed 71 days from her job. In the 2006-2007 year, she missed 97 days. In the 2007-2008 school year, the Respondent missed 87 days from work. The contract for a guidance counselor requires that they work for 221 days per school year. During these times, especially in the 2007-2008 school year, the Respondent had been making repeated requests for leave. Ms. Hunt, her principal, became concerned and in May of 2008 reported the situation about extensive absences, and leave requests, to Ms. Rebecca Nelsen, the Board's Supervisor of Compensation, Benefits and Employee Relations. In the 2007-2008 school year, when Ms. Hunt brought the issue to Ms. Nelsen's attention, the Respondent had missed work the number of days found above, which represented all the days in the school year from February 13th through the end of the school year. In the previous year, she had missed work from the middle of January through the end of the school year. Ms. Nelsen prepared a memo to Deke DeLoach, the Board's Chief of Human Resources, apprising him of the situation regarding the Respondent's absences. She explained to him the situation involving the excessive absences over a 5-year period. She explained to Mr. DeLoach that when an employee has been on extended unpaid leave that, according to Board policy 6.50, her return to employment is dependant upon a position being available. Therefore, while an individual is on extended leave, which is approved, their position becomes available to be filled at the decision of an individual school administrator. Moreover, unpaid leave, the status applicable to the Respondent's situation, must be approved in advance. An employee may not go off-duty on unpaid leave and then get approval for it at a later time. Approval must be requested in advance. A formal request must be made to the Superintendent, for the Superintendent's recommendation to the Board. Extended Illness Leave is a leave category that is required to be approved by the Board as well. Ms. Nelsen therefore explained to Mr. DeLoach that the Respondent had been on extended unpaid leave and, according to the above-referenced Board policy, her return to employment was dependent upon a position being available. Employees are required to have approval for some form of leave before they take leave or miss time from work. If an employee does not have approval for some form of leave and does not come to work, then under Board policy they are deemed to be absent without leave. If that is the situation, the employee can be terminated under Board policy. The School Board must have a recommendation from the Superintendent in order to be able to act on any sort of leave request. Under Board policies, an Extended Illness Leave is required to be approved by the Board. The school fiscal year ends June 30th. July 1, 2008, therefore, was the beginning of the new fiscal year for the 2008-2009 school year. The regular school session then began near the end of August 2008. Ms. Nelsen wrote to Ms. Chavous on August 19, 2008, explaining to her that she had been on unpaid sick leave numerous days, and giving her options to consider. Ms. Nelsen informed her that she must report to work or be considered absent without approved leave, that she could explain to her supervisor any accommodations that she may need, or that she could request Extended Illness Leave. That communication, from Ms. Nelsen to Ms. Chavous, references a July 29, 2008, request for sick leave. Ms. Chavous completed the July 29, 2008, request for sick leave on a Request for Leave of Absence form, which is the form required to be completed by employees who are requesting any kind of leave from the School Board. The July 29, 2008, leave form depicted a request for leave from August 4, 2008, through August 19, 2008. The reason for the leave requested was indicated as "Illness of self.” The Respondent did not have any sick leave available to her at that time. In the 2008-2009, school year, the Respondent was not eligible for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. This was because she had not worked enough days in order to trigger eligibility under that law. This leave request was denied because the Respondent was on unpaid sick leave the prior year, had missed 87 days, and had never offered an explanation for her need to use sick leave. Therefore, the Board had no basis on which to approve the additional leave request and the Respondent's approved leave ended June 30, 2008. Any leave that the Respondent would have received for any extended illness would have been for the previous school year which was over at the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2008. Ms. Nelsen gave the Respondent two options in her August 19, 2008, letter: To report to work or be considered absent without approved leave, or To submit a leave request form asking for extended illness leave for the remainder of the year. On August 28, 2008, a request was faxed from the Respondent seeking extended illness leave. The attached doctor's note did not explain the nature of the medical situation or condition, in terms of providing justification for the leave requested. The Respondent submitted a leave request form with that August 28, 2008, request. It did not confirm that she was asking for extended illness leave for the school year. Instead she requested leave from August 4, 2008, until October 30, 2008. Since School Board policy required the Respondent, in this situation, to request leave for the remainder of the school year, Ms. Nelsen sent an e-mail to the Respondent telling her that she had no available sick leave to use and again telling her that she had the option to either report to work or to request an extended illness leave for the remainder of the year. That communication was sent on August 29, 2008, the day after the Respondent faxed the form requesting leave through October. The Respondent then sent Ms. Nelsen another leave request form in response to the August 29, 2008, e-mail. It again requested leave from August 4, 2008, through October 30, 2008. On September 9, 2008, a letter was sent from the Superintendent to the Respondent, explaining that the Respondent had not reported to work and that she had not requested extended illness leave. Consequently she was informed that she was now considered “absent without approved leave” and would be recommended to the School Board for termination of employment. When the Superintendent sent the letter to the Respondent, on September 9, 2008, the Respondent was not on approved leave. She was absent without leave under the terms of the School Board policy. Pursuant to that policy she was therefore subject to being terminated. Ms. Nelsen received three leave request forms from the Respondent, none of which requested leave for the remainder of the school year, and none of which gave an explanation for the basis of the medical condition. The Respondent's response to these facts was her statement to the effect that "[I]t was just always told to me that you can't request for more leave than what your doctor has put on the form. So, therefore, that's why I put the dates there." She also acknowledged that sometimes she does not remember some things or doesn't respond as fast as she should. Therefore she simply stated that she believed, in effect, that she had submitted everything that she could and had explained her situation to the best of her ability at the time. The collective bargaining agreement between the Lake County School District and the Lake County Education Association includes the position of guidance counselor. That contract references the Board policy which makes it a terminable offense to be absent without leave. The recommendation to the Board, prior to the Respondent making a Request for Hearing, was that she be terminated for being absent without leave. The Respondent's prior leave had expired at the end of the 2007-2008 school year. When the first day of school started in the current school year of 2008-2009, the Respondent did not report to work. The Respondent probably would have been unable to work because of her illness before January 2009. She would therefore have missed all of August, September, October, November, and December.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Lake County School Board finding that the employment of the Respondent, Latonya Chavous, be terminated for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Latonya Chavous 136 Desiree Aurora Street Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Dr. Susan Moxley, Superintendent Lake County Schools 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2496 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner was formerly employed as an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Adjudicator in Respondent's Miami UC office. In this capacity, he interviewed claimants seeking unemployment compensation and made initial determinations regarding the validity of their claims. Petitioner was often absent because of illness. When he was at work, however, he performed his duties competently. Petitioner and his fellow employees at the Miami UC Office were required to notify supervisory personnel no later than the beginning of the workday if they were going to be absent that day. Petitioner was made aware of this requirement on various occasions prior to the absences that led to the termination of his employment with Respondent. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, Petitioner telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be absent that day because of an ankle injury he had sustained. He did not indicate during the conversation whether he would be at work the following day. On Wednesday, September 6, 1989, and Thursday, September 7, 1989, Petitioner neither reported to work nor contacted his supervisor at any time during the day to give notification of his absence. On Friday, September 8, 1989, Petitioner again failed to report to work. He did, however, telephone his supervisor concerning his absence, but he did not do so until 4:50 p.m., 20 minutes after the shift to which he was assigned had ended. By letter dated September 11, 1989, Respondent notified Petitioner that it had determined that Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective the close of business September 8, 1989, in view of his unauthorized absence from work on September 6, 7, and 8, 1989. It is this determination that is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his UC Adjudicator position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1990. STUART H. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his letter that he contacted his supervisor on September 5, 1989, and again on September 8, 1989, his proposed findings of fact have been accepted and incorporated in substance in this Recommended Order. To the extent that he claims that he "did not have 3 consecutive days of unauthorized absences," his proposed factual findings have been rejected because they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact First Sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second Sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First and second sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Cooper 1601 Northwest 17th Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33125 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent resigned his position of employment with Petitioner and, if not, whether Respondent's position of employment with Petitioner should be terminated for cause, specifically, the Respondent's alleged absence without leave, his alleged abuse of sick leave, and his alleged theft of school property.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a painter pursuant to an annual contract from January 17, 1983, until January 29, 1993. Respondent was not a member of the instructional staff, a principal, or a supervisor. Respondent did not submit to the Petitioner a formal resignation of his employment, nor did he ever intend to do so. A School Board employee with an annual contract may be dismissed during the term of his contract for cause. Respondent had frequently taken leave during his term of employment with the Petitioner and he was aware of the School Board's policies pertaining to leave. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 1277, AFL-CIO (IBFO). The collective bargaining agreement between the IBFO and the School Board contains terms and conditions of employment pertinent to this proceeding. Article IV, Section F pertains to "Return from Leave" and provides as follows: Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered as absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. This section should be subject to extenuating circumstances preventing timely return, as determined by the Superintendent. Article IV, Section A of the collective bargaining agreement pertains to sick leave and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. Sick Leave Charged -- Sick leave shall be charged in no less than half-day segments. Each school or Department shall record absences on an hourly basis. When the appropriate half-day increment is reached, based upon the assigned employee workday, the employee shall have 1/2 day of accumulated sick leave deducted. . . . * * * 10. False Claim -- False claim for sick leave shall be grounds for dismissal by the School Board. Petitioner's Administrative Directive D-3.47(3) is a rule of the School Board and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3) District employees shall not convert School Board property, including any equipment and supplies, for personal business or activity. CONVERSION OF SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY In November 1992, Warren Haan, the paint supervisor for the Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Operations, was told by Jacques Brisson, Respondent's foreman, that it appeared to him that Respondent was taking school property for his own use. Mr. Haan investigated the allegations and went to the area in the maintenance department where the employees parked their vehicles. Mr. Haan looked into Respondent's personal vehicle and discovered that Respondent had placed inside of his vehicle property of the School Board. The evidence established that Respondent intended to convert this property to his own use. The property, which was taken from the Respondent before he could remove it from school grounds, consisted of an empty paint bucket, painter's rags, a small quantity of caulk, and a caulking gun. Mr. Haan referred this matter to the school security department on January 4, 1993. Respondent had not been disciplined at the time of his alleged resignation because the matter was still under investigation at that time. Respondent testified that other painters regularly took items such as empty paint buckets and paint rags. This self-serving testimony does not establish that Petitioner routinely permitted painters to violate the clear school policies pertaining to unauthorized use of school property. To the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Brisson established that theft had been a problem that he had tried to stop. ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE The Respondent occasionally was employed as a painter by individuals and entities other than the Petitioner. Such employment was permissible, but an employee was not permitted to perform services for private individuals while out on sick leave. The Respondent reported to work on December 3, 1992, and left his employment in the late morning using sick leave for the remainder of the day. That same day, Mr. Haan received information that led him to believe that Respondent had taken sick leave, but that he was working as a painter at a house under construction in an area referred to as Boca Grove in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Haan went with Dave Traill, another school board employee, to this private residence at approximately 2:30 p.m. on December 3, 1992, where he observed Respondent's automobile. He went to the residence under construction and asked to see the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter came out of the house and talked with Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill. Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill did not see what Respondent had been doing inside the residence. Respondent testified that he had seen his doctor for a brief appointment earlier that day and had gone from his doctor's office to the residence at Boca Grove. Respondent admitted at the formal hearing that he had agreed to paint the house for the owner, but asserted that he had gone to the house to tell the owner that he would not be working that day. Respondent testified that he had taken vacation leave when he actually worked on the private residence. Respondent admitted that he had spent approximately two hours on December 3, 1992, while on sick leave going over with the owner items of work that he was to perform. This meeting was a necessary part of the painting job he was to do for the owner. From the evidence presented, it is found that on December 3, 1992, the Respondent performed services unrelated to his duties as a school board employee for his personal gain at this house in Boca Grove while absent from his employment with the Petitioner pursuant to sick leave. Respondent abused Petitioner's sick leave policy. ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE In January 1993, Petitioner took time off from his work to attend to his wife, who continued to experience physical problems resulting from a heel fracture on August 28, 1992. Respondent contacted his foreman, Jacques Brisson, at approximately 7:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993, to request that he be allowed to take that week off as vacation time. Mr. Brisson approved that leave, but he informed Respondent that he would have to contact Warren Haan, the painting supervisor, if he wanted to take any additional time off. Respondent was absent from his employment without approved leave on Monday, February 1, 1993; Tuesday, February 2, 1993; Wednesday, February 3, 1993; and Thursday, February 4, 1993. Friday, February 5, 1993, was not a scheduled work day since the paint department was on a four day work week. Respondent testified that he contacted Mr. Haan during the last week of January 1993 and told him he may need to be off work for a week or longer. Respondent also testified that Mr. Haan authorized his leave during the last week of January 1993. Mr. Haan testified at the formal hearing, but he was not questioned about this conversation or whether he authorized leave for the Respondent during any part of February 1993. Mr. Haan testifed that Respondent's employment was terminated because he was absent without authorization for the days in February and that Respondent would have contacted Mr. Brisson to obtain authorization for leave. Respondent later testified that he did not know why he had not contacted anyone prior to being absent on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. The apparent conflicts in Respondent's testimony are resolved by finding that while Respondent may have told Mr. Haan at some time during January 1993 that he needed to take some time off, he did not seek and he was not given authorization to be absent from his employment on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. On February 5, 1993, Warren Page, Coordinator of Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Plant Operations, sent to Respondent by certified mailing a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: This is to confirm that you have not reported to work since January 29, 1993. You have not contacted this office as required to report your intended absences. You have not requested or received approval for a short term leave of absence. Therefore, you are currently absent without approved leave. In the absence of any correspondence from you, I can only assume that you have decided not to continue working as a Painter for the Palm Beach County School Board. Please be advised that your name will be submitted to the Palm Beach County School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for acceptance of your resignation from employment. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact this office. Respondent received the certified mailing on Saturday, February 6, 1993. On Monday, February 8, 1993, Respondent contacted Lawrence G. Zabik, the Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, and asked him what he should do about the certified mailing that he had received. Mr. Zabik told Respondent that he should meet with Mr. Page to see if he could work things out. Respondent did not contact Mr. Page, and he did not report to work. During a regularly scheduled meeting in February, 1993, the School Board voted to accept his resignation with an effective date of January 29, 1993. January 29, 1993, was the effective date of the acceptance of Respondent's "resignation" and the date his employment with the School Board was terminated because it was the last day Respondent was out on authorized leave. This action was taken pursuant to Petitioner's Administrative Directive D- 3.27(2)(c), which provides as follows: (c) When employees do not report for duty for three (3) consecutive days without notifying their supervisor, the principal/department head will initiate a certified letter to the employees stating that their resignations will be recommended to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. By notice dated March 2, 1993, Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted his resignation as a painter with an effective date of January 29, 1993. The notice dated March 2, 1993, contained an old address for the Respondent. Consequently, he did not receive a copy of the notice until May 24, 1993, when he was officially informed that his employment had been terminated effective January 29, 1993, the last day on which Respondent had been on approved leave. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest his termination, and this proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order which terminates the employment of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4233 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence established that the incident involving conversion of school board property occurred in November 1992, but that it was reported to Mr. Sapyta on January 4, 1993. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, and 10 are rejected as being unnecessary as findings of fact, but the proposed findings are adopted either as preliminary matters or as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since there is no contention that Respondent had exhausted his sick leave. The proposed findings in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected. Specifically, Mr. Haan's credibility was not eroded as asserted by Respondent. The other findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since this is a de novo proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Hazel Lucas, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 381 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1504 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire 3501 South Congress Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
