Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harvey Jackson, in an inmate at UCI and has been at all times pertinent hereto. During the month of September, 1986, consistent with the rules of DOC, Jackson had a list of individuals on file who he desired to be allowed to visit him at the institution. These included members of his family and his fiancee, Ms. Ann Alexander. On September 22, 1986, Ms. Alexander came to visit Jackson at UCI. According to the routine procedure followed for the preparation of visitors' entrance into the Visitor's Park area, Ms. Alexander's purse was searched and she was subject to a pat search prior to being allowed into the secure area. During the search, it was determined she had $50.00 in U.S. currency in her possession and she was permitted to take that money into the Visitor's Park, leaving her purse at the waiting area. While Jackson and Ms. Alexander were together in the Visitor's Park, she purchased two cartons of cigarettes at the canteen and two orange drinks. The cartons of cigarettes were $12.00 each and the drinks were 35 each. Therefore, she spent approximately $24.70 of the $50.00 she brought in. Because she did not have a purse, she claimed later, upon questioning, that she put the change in the brown paper bag she got with the drinks and when she disposed of the bag in a trash can, inadvertently threw out the money as well. When she left the Visitor's Park area, she was subject again to a pat search and requested to indicate how much money she had. At that time, it was determined she had only $3.00 in her possession. According to corrections personnel who interviewed her, she gave several different stories as to what happened to the money she could not account for. Though both Ms. Alexander and Jackson stated she bought him two cartons of cigarettes, when he was searched prior to leaving the Visitor's Park, he had only one carton with him. The strip search conducted of him at that time also failed to reveal any money in his possession. Ms. Alexander was asked to go back into the Visitor's Park and look through the trash cans to try to find the money, and was accompanied by a guard. Because of the heat, however, it was an odious task and she admits her search of six or seven cans was not thorough. Unfortunately, she was unable to locate the money. As a result of this missing money, an incident report, (IR) was prepared. Ms. Alexander was not detained but was orally informed that her visiting privileges might be suspended and Jackson was allowed to return to his quarters. The IR merely outlined the information cited above but did not draw any conclusions as to what happened to the money. Mr. Davis, the corrections supervisor who was in charge of the corrections shift, concluded that Ms. Alexander disregarded the department's rules and regulations and recommended that her visiting privileges be revoked for an indefinite period. This IR was processed through channels to Mr. Cunningham, the Classification Supervisor, who under the provisions of Section 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., had the authority, in the absence of the Superintendent, to approve the suspension. He did so, and made sure that the Superintendent was informed. Thereafter, on September 29, 1986, Mr. K. W. Snow, who worked for Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, sent a letter to Ms. Alexander at her home address on file at the institution, indicating that her visiting privileges were suspended indefinitely beginning that date and would be reinstated on October 31, 1986, one month later. Notwithstanding that inconsistency regarding the length of the suspension, the practice at UCI, in the case of indefinite suspensions, is to reconsider the suspension on receipt of a request for reinstatement. In the case of a suspension for a definite term, they will reinstate upon request at the end of the suspension period. On the afternoon of September 26, 1986, several days prior to the dispatch of the suspension letter to Ms. Alexander, inmate Jackson was called to Mr. Snow's office where he was told that Ms. Alexander's visiting privileges were to be suspended for 30 days. At that time, he was advised that the basis for the suspension was her inability to account for the money she brought into the Visitor's Park on September 22. Though he requested a copy of the IR at that time, Jackson was not given a copy of it until in response to a discovery request after the filing of the rule challenge petition. Jackson was not advised of any opportunity either he or Ms. Alexander might have for a hearing on the matter prior to the suspension, or any appeal rights. Thereafter, Jackson wrote to Mr. Snow asking that he be notified of the suspension in writing, but this request was denied. The September 29, 1986 letter was not received by Ms. Alexander but was returned undelivered because of an erroneous address. On October 1, 1986, however, she wrote to Mr. Cunningham, having been advised by Jackson of the suspension, and the address on her stationery was used to again send her a letter of notification. This second letter was not returned. In her letter, Ms. Alexander explained her reasons for taking so much money into the Visitor's Park, and what she had done with a part of it. She also outlined her efforts to find the extra money. These explanations were not credited by the institution officials, however. Ms. Alexander's suspension has had a bad effect on Jackson, he claims. He felt frustrated and considered that his ability to be heard by the authorities was unnecessarily thwarted. He is of the opinion that the suspension was unfair because neither he nor his fiancee had broken any rules, and neither of them was given any opportunity to explain to the decision maker what had happened other than in writing and after the action was taken. As a result of the suspension, which has now expired, he missed two separate visits from his fiancee. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Alexander's suspension did not place any limits on visits by the other 7 or 8 people on his visitor's list. This suspension action has been utilized frequently as to other visitors as well as Ms. Alexander. Ms. Decker, for example, on September 29, 1986, was notified of the suspension of her visiting privileges on the basis that she had allegedly written a threatening letter to an official at the institution. She found out about her suspension through a phone call from her inmate fiancee. Neither she nor he, initially, was told of the reason for her suspension, and she was given no opportunity to rebut the allegations against her prior to the suspension action. Subsequent to the suspension, she was able to clarify the situation and her visiting privileges have been reinstated, albeit on less convenient days than she had previously. She believes this change in days was intended as punishment, but there is no evidence of this. Ms. Decker denies ever having been told that she could only spend $25.00 in the canteen as is alleged in Ms. Alexander's letter. In fact, there is no rule or policy limiting the amount that visitors may spend in the canteen nor is there a rule or policy which limits inmates to no more than one carton of cigarettes at a time. Mr. Jackson complains of the fact that neither he nor Ms. Alexander was afforded a hearing prior to the imposition of the suspension. There is no provision in the rule for a hearing prior to suspension in this type of case. This suspension was not intended as punishment for improper behavior by Jackson, but more a means of correcting an unauthorized situation and avoiding a security problem. Officials at UCI interpret the provisions of paragraph 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., as permitting the removal of a visitor from the visiting list for criminal activity, for a serious rule violation, for continuous infractions of visiting procedures, for security breaches, or a combination of those. While the instant situation is not considered to be criminal activity, a serious rule violation, or a continuing infraction, it is considered to be a security breach and it was to correct this situation that the institution officials suspended Ms. Alexander. Final action on the issue of a suspension of visiting privileges based on the IR is, by the rule, to be taken by the Superintendent, or the Assistant Superintendent, Classification Supervisor, or the next senior officer present in the chain of command in the absence of the Superintendent. Here, while the suspension letter in question was signed by Mr. Snow, the assistant classification supervisor, and while the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, was present on the day the suspension letter was signed, the letter clearly shows that the action was taken in the name of the superintendent and the testimony of Mr. Cunningham established that it was done with his concurrence. There is nothing in the rule that requires that the inmate or the visitor be afforded a hearing prior to the action suspending visiting privileges. If an inmate feels that the action suspending the visiting privileges of an individual on his list is improper and he can show a direct effect on him as a result thereof, he may file a grievance. Though Jackson indicates he filed a grievance in this case, there is no evidence of it. The incident report in question related strictly to the activity of Ms. Alexander and the action was taken against her even though, in so doing, an adverse effect was felt by Mr. Jackson. No doubt had he desired to do so, he could have grieved that situation, but, as was stated above, there is no evidence that he did so. There is a difference between an IR, as was written here, and a disciplinary report, (DR), which was not involved in this case. A DR involves misconduct on the part of an inmate which may result in disciplinary action, including a suspension of visiting privileges. An IR is nothing more than a memorialization of an unusual incident which is to be brought to the attention of institution authorities. Whereas an inmate is entitled to a hearing before action is taken on the basis of a DR, no hearing is required when an IR is written. If the incident resulting in an IR also results in a DR, a hearing would be afforded the inmate based on the proposed disciplinary action, not on the memorialization in the IR. There is no doubt that the removal of visitors from an inmate's visitors list does have an adverse effect on the morale and possibly the well- being of the inmate involved. However, the action is normally taken on the basis of the conduct of the visitor, not the inmate, and if a decision is made to suspend the visiting privileges of the visitor, the direct effect is on that visitor with a secondary effect only on the innate. In the instant case, officials concluded that Ms. Alexander's inability to account for approximately $20.00 in currency constituted a breach of security which authorized and in fact dictated a need to curtail her entry into the institution for a period of time. There is no evidence that Jackson committed any offense or did anything improper and it is, indeed, unfortunate that he was forced to suffer the deprivation of not being visited by his fiancee for a period of time. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the testimony of the numerous individuals involved in the investigation of this incident that the action taken under the terms of the rule to suspend Ms. Alexander's privilege to visit was not taken lightly and was based on a bona fide evaluation of a security risk to the institution.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jean Colden (Colder), was employed full time by Respondent, Department of Corrections (Department), as an Accountant II at Broward Correctional Institution. The evidence establishes that Colden was absent without authorized leave on three consecutive workdays, to wit: October 1-3, 1985. At no time did Colden notify the Department of her intention not to appear for work on those dates, and at hearing she offered no explanation for her absences. By certified letter dated October 4, 1985, return receipt requested, Colden was advised that her absence from work since October 1, 1985, was unauthorized and that, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2), F.A.C., she was deemed to have abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. The letter further advised Colden of her right to petition the Department of Administration for a review of the facts, and whether they constitute abandonment. Colden timely petitioned the Department of Administration for review On November 5, 1985, he Department of Administration accepted Colden's petition and requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the final hearing.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about January 1, 1989, Petitioner was employed as a probationary employee with the Dade Correctional Institute (DCI) in Miami, Florida. The DCI is a twenty-five acre compound which houses approximately 944 inmates. The compound is comprised of eight dormitories, vocational shops, an educational building, two dining hall satellites, and a main dining hall. For each work shift, correctional officers are stationed within each dormitory, along the perimeter area, inside the radio control room, and throughout the grounds. The minimum number of correctional officers required for each shift is Because of the limited number of officers on-duty during a given shift, their responsibilities, and security considerations, it is imperative that correctional officers maintain a level of detachment from inmates. Petitioner was aware of this mandate at the time of her employment with the DCI. On or about January 19, 1989, Corrections Officer Garnett instructed the Petitioner to perform an inventory with an inmate, DeMarco, to verify state property numbers. Later in the day, when Officer Garnett questioned DeMarco regarding the inventory sheet, she was told that Petitioner had directed another inmate, Williams, to perform the inventory. Since this was contrary to the original instructions, Officer Garnett contacted the Petitioner by radio to determine the location of the inventory sheet. At that time Petitioner informed Officer Garnett that the inventory was complete and that the sheet was in her pocket. When confronted in person and directed to produce the inventory sheet, Petitioner admitted she had given the inventory work to inmate Williams, that the inventory was not completed and that she had misrepresented the matter. Subsequently, the inventory was retrieved from Williams. Inmates are not normally allowed access to the DCI clothing room. Officer Garnett had authorized inmate DeMarco to assist Petitioner with work in the clothing room. Inmate Williams was not authorized to work the clothing room. Petitioner allowed inmate Williams access to the clothing room. Initially, Petitioner denied having done so, but later recanted and admitted that she had allowed inmate Williams to assist her in the clothing room. Personal relationships between correctional officers and DCI inmates are prohibited. Petitioner was counseled on numerous occasions about the rules and procedures which prohibit discussions of a personal nature with inmates. Fraternization is considered a serious security breach for which an officer may be terminated from employment. On or about January 23, 1989, Petitioner admitted she had had personal discussions with inmates (including inmate Williams) but assured Major Thompson that she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Petitioner continued to have personal conversations with inmates after the counseling session of January 23, 1989. Specifically, Mr. Callahan witnessed a personal conversation between Petitioner and inmate Williams which took place within a dormitory that inmate Williams was not assigned to be in. Later, Petitioner wrote a love note to inmate Strausser which was found at her duty post. A search of inmate Strausser's cell revealed he had possession of Petitioner's home telephone number. Petitioner initially denied her relationship with inmate Strausser but later told Major Thompson that they are engaged to be married. Petitioner's employment with DCI was terminated in June of 1989. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, she is not certified as a correctional officer. Petitioner has, however, completed all - educational/training requirements to become certified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a correctional officer. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6684 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the date being corrected to January 19, 1989, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner admitted having inmate Williams in the clothing room to, Major Thompson, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through 54 are accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraphs 57 through 59 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isabel Machin 9411 S.W. 4th Street Apartment 201 Miami, Florida 33174 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Anderson is a certified correctional officer, certified by Petitioner. Her certificate number is 190482. At the time of the incident at issue, Anderson was working for the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation as a correctional officer at South Bay Correctional Facility. On May 27, 2003, Patricia Johns (Johns) was in the Wal-Mart parking lot in Clewiston, Florida. Johns was taking groceries she had purchased from a shopping cart and placing them in her vehicle. She placed her sweater and her purse in a shopping cart while she was loading the groceries. Johns retrieved her sweater from the cart, but left her purse in the cart. She pushed the cart with the purse in it between her vehicle and another vehicle, got into her vehicle, and left the parking lot. A few seconds later Anderson pulled into Johns' parking space. Anderson's vehicle bumped the shopping cart, pushing it forward a couple of feet. She got out of her vehicle, went over to the cart, and removed the purse. Anderson, while wearing her correctional officer uniform, placed the purse in the backseat of her vehicle, took her son out of the vehicle, and went into Wal-Mart. She did not take the purse into Wal-Mart and attempt to locate the owner. The purse was a Tommy Hilfiger brand valued at $50. Inside the purse was a wallet with $18 in cash, a credit card, and blank checks. A cellular telephone valued at $350 was also in the purse. Anderson picked up some prescriptions at Wal-Mart, returned to her vehicle, and eventually returned home. She knew that the purse did not belong to her, but claimed that she was planning to turn the purse in at the police department the next day. Her claim that she was going to turn the purse into the police is not credible based on later actions. Sometime after she had returned home, she remembered she had put the purse in the back of her vehicle and asked her fiancé to get the purse. When he went to retrieve the purse, only the wallet remained minus the cash. During the time that Anderson left Wal-Mart and the time that her fiancé discovered that the purse, cash, and cellular telephone were missing, both Anderson and her fiancé had driven the vehicle while carrying other passengers. Anderson did not remove the purse, cash, and cellular telephone from the vehicle. She believes that one of the other passengers who had been riding in her vehicle on May 27, 2003, took the purse, cash, and cellular telephone. The next day, Anderson placed the wallet in a zip-lock plastic bag and dropped it in a drop box at the post office. She did not notify the owner of the purse that she had taken the purse from the Wal-Mart parking lot, and did not notify the police until later that she had taken the purse. Johns reported to the police that her purse had been stolen. An investigation ensued, and it was learned based on a video tape of the Wal-Mart parking lot on May 27, 2003, that Anderson had taken the purse. A police officer attempted to contact Anderson by telephone concerning the incident. On June 9, 2003, Anderson gave a taped interview to police officers, in which she admitted taking the purse out of the shopping cart and placing it in the backseat of her car. She was arrested for grand theft and released on the same day after posting a bond. An information for grand theft, a third degree felony, was entered against Anderson on August 13, 2003. She agreed to make restitution in the amount of $419, and a Notice of Nolle Prosequi was entered on December 5, 2003. As a result of the incident at issue, Anderson was dismissed from her position as a correctional officer at South Bay Correctional Facility. She is sincerely sorry for her actions and has made restitution for the property taken.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Lenora R. Anderson is not guilty of a violation of Subsection 943.1395(6), Florida Statutes (2003); finding that she failed to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2003), and defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011; and imposing the following penalties as set forth in Subsection 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2003): issuance of a written reprimand and placement of Respondent on probation for two years under conditions as specified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 7th day of December, 2004.
The Issue This case arises out of a challenge by the Petitioners to the validity of Rule 33-3.02(6), Florida Administrative Code; Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, and Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82. The Petitioners specifically challenge the validity of those portions of the above- provisions relating to the issue of clothing to the inmates. At the final hearing, Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers, testified on their own behalf and also called as witnesses Charles Connors and Paul Gunning. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence five exhibits. Respondents called no witnesses and offered no exhibits into evidence. The Petitioner S. B. Ridley, did not appear at the formal hearing. The Hearing Officer was informed by one of the other Petitioners at the formal hearing that Mr. Ridley had been transferred to Polk Correctional Institution. Mr. Ridley was given due notice of the hearing held on February 17, 1984, and has filed no pleading or motion with the undersigned Hearing Officer seeking either a continuance or other relief. The Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Joseph Redman, Nyadzi D. Rufu and Jimmy L. Rogers are inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, Florida. On November 5, 1982, as Petitioner Rogers was being released from disciplinary confinement, he entered the laundry to obtain another pair of state issued pants, socks and underwear. The name tag was coming off of his jacket and because of this it was confiscated. He asked for another jacket and was told he could not be issued one. He was eventually issued another jacket which was also confiscated. For a period of time, Petitioner Rogers had no jacket for those times when he was required to walk and be outside in the cold. The laundry manager at Union Correctional Institution is responsible for the issue of all clothing to the prisoners. The manager follows Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82 in issuing clothing an Union Correctional Institution. That operating procedure provides in relevant part: 81-82.1 Purpose This memorandum is published as a guide in the issuance of inmate clothing, and the providing of laundry facilities for the inmate population. 81-82.2 Authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09 section 20.315 Department of Corrections Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6). 81-82.3 Clothing Issue Each inmate shall be issued the following clothing items: 3 each Blue Shirts 3 pairs Blue Trousers 1 each Web Belt 1 pair Boxer Shorts 1 pair Socks 1 pair Shoes, High Top. Inmates assigned to the Food Service Departments and Canteens shall be issued one additional suit of clothing because of their having to work on Sundays, enabling them to change clothing daily. 81-82.6 Special Issue Inmate Jackets are issued in October of each year and picked up for storage in April. An inmate may have his jacket laundered on any Friday. Hats, caps, and other special clothing items are issued to the Department Supervisor for distribution to the work squad. The Supervisor is responsible for those items of issue. 81-82.7 Miscellaneous Information The Laundry Manager/Clothing Officer shall maintain a record of the various clothing items issued to each inmate. If clothing issue is abused, either through neglect or by intent, the officer will initiate appropriate action. The official inmate uniform throughout the institution is issue blue shirt and trousers. Inmates assigned to the following areas are issued white shirts and trousers in lieu of the regular blue uniform: Food Service Administration Building Workers Main Gate Workers Utility Man on each Close Supervision Squad (For Identification) Canteen Workers. Each inmate who turns in a jacket (at the end of winter) shall be issued a pair of hemmed walking shorts for wearing on the athletic field or after hours in the housing area. The manager was not aware of and has not utilized Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13, in issuing clothing at Union Correctional Institution. That policy and procedure directive provides in relevant part: AUTHORITY: Section 20.315, 944.09 and 945.21, Florida Statutes Department of Corrections, Administrative Rules, Chapter 33-3.02(6) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Directive is to establish a uniform procedure for issuing inmate clothing and linens. This will enable the Department to control the costs of clothing and linens in a more economical manner. GENERAL: Appropriate internal measures will be taken by each operating location to implement the provisions of this Directive. It is the Department's expressed intent that all inmate clothing be appropriately fitted and suited for the environment and that Departmental facilities provide sufficient laundering facilities to ensure that appropriate health standards are maintained. The clothing and linen will be exchanged on a one for one basis after the initial issue. Should an inmate intentionally damage or destroy his/her uniforms, appropriate action should be taken by the Superintendent to reimburse the State, if possible. It is imperative that the custodial staff be well informed of the provisions of this Directive and any exceptions or deviations from this Policy set forth will have to be approved by the Regional Director. STANDARD CLOTHING ISSUE (MALE): Each male inmate may be issued the items of clothing and linen specified below. The phrase "Maximum Clothing Issue" is used in this Directive to permit the substitution of personal clothing or to permit the issuance of less than maximum quantities where appropriate. Unless otherwise designated, the inmate will not have excess clothing and linens in his possession. Each inmate will be responsible for the clothing and linen issued to him. Maximum Clothing Issue - Blues and Whites Items Quantity Shirts 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post 3 for 5 day post 5 for 7 day post Maximum Clothing Issue - Other Items Items Quantity Undershorts 3 pairs Undershirts/T shirts 3 Socks 2 pairs (changed daily) Belt with Buckle 1 Shoes 1 pair Jacket (winter only) 1 Long underwear (winter only for outside detail) 2 Regions III, IV and V may substitute two sweatshirts for two pairs of long underwear for winter use. E. Clothing - Special Items such as food service linens, coverall's aprons, cooks' caps, gloves, rubber boots, raincoats, athletic uniforms, barber and butcher jackets, straw hats and safety helmets shall be considered tools of the trade and will be issued directly to the department requiring them. The superintendent will, on recommendation and justification by department head, determine what items are to be purchased and issued to inmate. All items issued on a departmental basis that can be appropriately marked shall have the standardized department initials stenciled on the item. It will be the responsibility of the superintendent to establish a laundry schedule for these items. Only those inmates who work outside for eight hours each day are issued long underwear during the winter months. The inmates do not go outside when the temperature is below 40 degrees. The laundry does not issue raincoats to the inmates. The raincoats are under industry inventory and each department can draw raincoats out of that inventory. The raincoats are paid for by the department drawing them out and the work supervisor from that department issues them to the inmates. Raincoats are sold in the canteen at Union Correctional Institution. The laundry stocks long underwear but no longer stocks T-shirts. The laundry does not stock sweatshirts. There are two types of blue uniforms. The laundry issues coveralls to special jobs but no coveralls are issued to inmates personally. It is within the laundry manager's discretion as to when he issues new clothing as opposed to used clothing. It is the laundry manager's responsibility to remain within his budget for the year. T-shirts are not included in the list of clothing issue items in Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure 81-82. This may be due in part to budget restrictions. T-shirts are included in the "maximum clothing issue" list in Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13. Practically every inmate in Union Correctional Institution is required to go outside in order to go to work or to school. The inmates must also go outside in order to go to the chow hall or the clinic. The west unit is approximately a 4 or 5 minute walk from the chow hall. Union Correctional Institution Operating Procedure No. 81-82 is signed and issued by the Superintendent of UCI and cites as its authority Florida Statutes 945.21, 944.09, Section 20.315, and Rule 3303.02(6), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent has not contested the fact that the operating procedure was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. There was no evidence presented as to the procedures followed in adopting the Policy and Procedure Directive 2.02.13.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner herein, Michael J. Hunter, was employed by the Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI) in Sneads, Florida in November, 1979. Immediately after his employment he was given five weeks training at Raiford, Florida and served as a correctional officer at ACI from that point until July 7, 1983. The four performance reports rendered on him during the period of employment were all satisfactory or above and other than the instant case, he was subject to no disciplinary action during the entire period he worked for the Respondent. His function as a corrections officer was to maintain order in the dormitories, security for the area, and to protect inmates' safety. He worked the evening shift from 4 pm to midnight for three years and on the midnight shift from midnight to 8 am for 6 months. During the period of his employment he was instructed, and it was his understanding, that a corrections officer may touch a prisoner in the line of duty only to maintain order, to break up a fight, and to protect the safety of himself, the prisoner, or others but not to abuse a prisoner or to administer punishment. On June 3, 1983, he was instructed by his supervisor, Sgt. Hines, to proceed to the basement of the dormitory in which he was working to open up the TV room and the clothing line. When he arrived there, he found that the people assigned to operate the clothing line had not shown up yet so he went to the TV area to check on it. When he came back to the clothing room, he saw that two inmates, Wilkins and Ashbury, had broken into the room and stolen some underwear. He apprehended them and told all the prisoners in the area to go upstairs. All did except prisoner Watkins, the victim of the alleged assault in issue here who refused to go. It has been Petitioner's experience that some inmates refuse to obey the directions of anyone holding a rank less than sergeant. In any case, Petitioner was able to convince Watkins to go to the guard room upstairs and while there, Watkins and Petitioner got into a verbal dispute. Just as they were arguing, Petitioner's supervisor, Sgt. Hyatt, came into the office. At this point, Watkins jumped up and yelled at him and accused Petitioner of hitting him. Petitioner categorically denied striking Watkins. He admits telling Watkins he could have his "ass" for this but he does not believe that in the context of which that statement was used and the circumstances under which the situation took place, use of that word was necessarily inappropriate. It is Mr. Hunter's belief that a corrections officer such as he was would be ineffective and ignored if from time to time he did not use this type of language. He based this on his knowledge of the background and character of the inmates as well as their education level for the most part. According to Hunter, when Hyatt came in, Watkins jumped up and moved off to the side and yelled at Sgt. Hyatt to get Hunter "out of his face." Though Mr. Hunter denies intentionally touching Watkins, he admits it is possible that his finger may have touched Watkins' nose because at the time, they were very close. Young John Allen, another corrections officer at ACI, was on duty in the general area of this incident on the night in question. He overheard a disturbance downstairs and thereafter walked into the dormitory office. When he did, he saw 15 inmates come up from downstairs, excited, to see the duty sergeant. In response, Allen called Sgt. Hyatt who came into the room and started talking to the inmates. Just then, according to Allen, Hunter came in. At this point Hunter and Watkins started arguing. Hunter walked up to Watkins and talked to him in strong terms. Allen overheard Hunter say, "Boy, I want you bad." and put his finger in Watkins' face. During this time, the other inmates surrounding the individuals were becoming more and more excited. At this point, according to Allen, Hyatt called Hunter but Hunter did not respond. Notwithstanding Hunter's denial that he hit Watkins, Allen indicates that he saw Hunter hit Watkins with a short, quick punch to the left side of abdomen. Admittedly, this punch was not hard enough to knock Watkins down. While this was all going on, Allen heard Hyatt call to the Petitioner several times to no avail. Finally, Hyatt told Watkins to go outside and sit down. He also got Hunter to come back to the rear of the office. Once this was done, Petitioner again went out to where Watkins was sitting and again called him "Boy" and put his finger in Watkins' face. At this point, another officer came up and prevailed upon the Petitioner to leave. Allen contends that he was in the room with Hunter and Watkins at the time of the incident. Hunter contends that Allen was standing outside the room in the dormitory looking in through a wide glass window. He says that though he was at all times looking directly at Watkins, his peripheral vision is such that he was able to see Allen off to the side where he was standing. Allen contends he was approximately 6 to 8 feet away, slightly off to the side, and there were no obstructions to his view of the incident even though there were a lot of people in the room. Allen also contends that throughout this entire fracas, Watkins never jumped at Petitioner as is claimed but was trying to break away at all times. Watkins was sent for medical evaluation immediately after the incident as a part of standard procedure and it was determined that he received no injuries as a result of it. Watkins, sometime after the incident, but within a short time, came to Allen indicating his displeasure with the way Allen had handled the situation. In this conversation, Watkins indicated to Allen he did not want to see Petitioner fired on the basis of this incident. The structure of the guard force at ACI is quite similar to that of a military organization. The guards do wear uniform but do not carry weapons inside the prisoner area because of the volatile situation that can rapidly develop into a confrontational situation. While the use of bad language is not unusual, corrections officers generally have to, if at all possible, maintain their equilibrium because when an officer is upset and becomes involved in a scene, inmates also get upset. Because no weapons are carried, therefore, the officers have to be careful not to create, encourage, or maintain an explosive situation wherein they or someone else could get hurt. Within the guard structure the lowest or first level is that held by both Petitioner and Mr. Allen, corrections officer 1. Hyatt is a corrections officer 2, equivalent to the rank of sergeant, and in a lead worker position. Both CO 1 and CO 2 positions are in the same collective bargaining unit. A CO 2 has no disciplinary action authority and is not considered to be management. As such, a CO 2 can neither hire nor fire but may recommend either discipline or termination of employment. The supervisory level starts with CO 3, a grade equivalent to that of a lieutenant. This individual can approve leave, assign personnel, and effectively recommend disciplinary action which, ordinarily, is taken by the superintendent of the facility. Al Cook has been the superintendent of ACI for 9 years and as such has the authority to discipline and terminate employees in accordance with Department of Corrections rules and the appropriate statutes. After an investigation into the incident in issue here, he ultimately discharged Petitioner for striking an inmate. During his 15 years as a superintendent at one institution or another he has discharged one other corrections officer for physical abuse. Petitioner here was, he believes, however, the first. The other, a white officer, was discharged for kicking an inmate. Race was not in issue in the dispute here. Hunter and Watkins are both black. After the incident in question, Hyatt allowed Hunter to go see the lieutenant who gave him the opportunity to either go back to work or go home for the evening. Because he did not wish to work with Hyatt any more that evening, Petitioner chose to go home and report the following morning. When he did he was again told to go home, this time for several days, and return the following Tuesday. At this time he was interviewed by Colonel Jones who advised him to come back and see the superintendent on Wednesday, which he did. After waiting all day on Wednesday to see the superintendent, he was told to come back on Thursday. When he did, after waiting another hour, he was interviewed by Mr. Cook who heard his story. When he was finished, Cook indicated that he believed the other officers' stories over Hunter's and gave him the option to either resign or be fired. When Hunter refused to resign, he was discharged on July 7, 1983. Later that day he was shown the statements signed by 5 inmates and the other officers including Hyatt who said they saw him hit Watkins. These statements were not introduced into evidence at the hearing. However, Petitioner admits in his testimony that he saw them and that they exist. He also admits having come close to Watkins in an altercation which involved the use of bad language and which resulted from high feeling. Though he admits that his finger may have touched Watkins' nose, he denies punching him. However, the testimony of Mr. Allen, if believed, tends to indicate that he did. The inconsistency between the testimony of Petitioner and that of Allen as to where Allen was standing can be resolved easily in favor of Mr. Allen because, in light of the circumstances involving high feeling and the fact that Petitioner admits he saw Allen only out of the corner of his eye, it is most probably that Allen was in the room and not outside as Petitioner contends. In any case, in this specific as in the specific as to whether or not Watkins was hit by Petitioner, the resolution of the dispute if not clear from the evidence must be made on an analysis of the evidence on the basis of, inter alia, who has the most to gain or lose by telling the truth or a falsehood. In this case, it is clear that Petitioner has the most to lose by telling the truth because under the statute in question, if he did in fact unlawfully strike Watkins, he is subject to termination. Another factor to consider is the demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand. Here both Allen and Petitioner appeared to know what it was they were saying and did not appear to be rehearsed. Their testimony appeared spontaneous and was believable. In light of the above, it can be concluded, therefore, considering the nature of the altercation and the high feeling involved, that Petitioner did in fact strike Watkins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED THAT the Petition of Michael Hunter, to be reinstated to his position of employment and to be awarded back and front pay, benefits, and costs and attorney's fees be denied. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Preston T. Everett, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Dana Baird, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Bldg. F Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION OF HUMAN RELATIONS MICHAEL HUNTER, EEOC Case No. 046842030 Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 84-0316 DOAH Case No. 84-2891 vs. FCHR Order No. 86-015 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE Panel of Commissioners The following three Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter: Commissioner John J. Sulik, Panel Chairperson, Commissioner Robert L. Billingslea; and Commissioner Robert R. Joyce. APPEARANCES For Petitioner Michael Hunter: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32325 For Respondent State of Florida, Department of Corrections: Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Preliminary Matters Michael Hunter, Petitioner herein, filed a complaint of discrimination with this Commission pursuant to the Human Rights Act of 197, as amended, Sections 760.01-760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), alleging that State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Respondent herein, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race (black). In accordance with the Commission's rules, the allegations of discrimination set forth in the complaint of discrimination were investigated and a report of said investigation was submitted to the Executive Director. On June 29, 1984, the Executive Director issued his Determination finding no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. On July 31, 1984, the petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the conduct of a formal proceeding pursuant to Rule 22T-8.16(1). The formal proceeding was held on January 3, 1985, in Chattahoochee, Florida, before Arnold H. Pollock, DOAH Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order in this matter on February 19, 1985. Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. Respondent filed a response. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was originally held on April 19, 1985, at which time the parties were advised that the Commission was unable to locate the record in this proceeding. The parties ultimately produced a copy of the record 2 and the deliberation was rescheduled to February 28, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida before the aforementioned Panel of Commissioners. After oral argument was presented by counsel for the respective parties, the Panel conducted its deliberation in this matter and determined the action to be taken upon the petition. Petitioner's Exceptions and Respondent's Response Petitioner excepts to the Hearing Officer's failure to find that confrontations with inmates involving Correctional Officers Foran and Mayo were not comparable to Petitioner's confrontation. Petitioner further excepts to the Hearing Officer's failure to consider Petitioner's statistical evidence showing that 17 percent of Respondent's workforce is black, whereas 75 percent of the individuals terminated in 1982 through 1984 at Petitioner's worksite, Apalachee Correctional Institution, were black. Respondent counters by asserting that the confrontations involving Correctional Officer's Foran and Mayo were not comparable to the confrontation involving Petitioner inasmuch as Respondent's internal investigations supported the respective disciplinary actions taken. Respondent further asserts that Petitioner's statistical computations, based upon only four terminations, were meaningless. Analysis and Discussion The record reveals that the Hearing Officer limited the scope of the proceeding to incidents which had occurred at Respondent's Apalachee Correctional Institution where Petitioner was employed at the time of termination. In his findings of fact, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was one of two correctional officers to be terminated by the superintendent of the institution for abuse to inmates. Petitioner was the first correctional officer discharged by the superintendent for such offense. The other correctional officer was white. We believe that the Hearing Officer improperly limited the evidence to incidents of like nature at Apalachee Correctional Institution. Petitioner claimed that white correctional officers had engaged in behavior similar to that with which Petitioner was terminated, but the white correctional officers were not similarly punished. If white correctional officers had been engaged in similar improper conduct known to Respondent and those correctional officers were not similarly punished, an inference is raised that Petitioner was disciplined for reasons other than improper conduct. Petitioner should have been allowed to present such evidence before the Hearing Officer because it would have tended to indicate that Respondent's reasons were pretextual. Support for this conclusion is derived from McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 972, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In McDonnell Douglas, the black plaintiff had been accused of illegal activity against the employer. The employer cited such unlawful conduct as a legitimate, nondis- criminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The supreme Court accepted this reason, but then held that the plaintiff had to be given the opportunity to rebut the legitimate reason. Plaintiff must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that petitioner's stated reason for respondent's rejection was in fact pretext. Especially relevant to such a showing would be evidence that white employees involved in acts against petitioner of comparable seriousness to the "stall-in" were nevertheless retained or rehired. Petitioner may justifiably refuse to rehire one who is engaged in unlawful, disruptive acts against it, but only if this criterion is applied alike to members of all races. Id. at 804. In this cause, Petitioner should similarly be afforded a fair opportunity to show that Respondent's stated reason for Petitioner's termination, corporal punishment of an inmate, was a pretext. The statutory provision governing corporal punishment of inmates which had been in effect from 1957 through the date of Petitioner's termination reads: Corporal punishment prohibited; penalty. It is unlawful for any corporal punishment, any cruel or inhuman punishment, or any punishment by which the flesh of the body is broken, bruised, or lacerated to be inflicted upon any prisoner at any time. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be discharged immediately and shall not again be employed in any capacity in connection with the correctional system and shall be punished as provided by law for whatever offense he may have committed in perpetrating the act. No prisoner shall be punished because of any report or represen- tation which he may have made to any inspector. Section 944.35, Fla. Stat. (1983). Inasmuch as this statutory provision had statewide application, the discipline given for corporal punishment of inmates should have been evenhandedly applied at Respondent's various correctional institutions. Moreover, evidence of Respondent's application of this statutory provision throughout its various institutions becomes especially relevant where the terminations at Apalachee Correctional Institution reflect a proportionately greater number of blacks being terminated at the institution than whites, but where Petitioner was the first person terminated at such institution for that particular offense. Therefore, petitioner should be afforded the opportunity to present evidence that white employees violated the above-cited statutory provision but were nevertheless retained. Remand Accordingly, the panel remands this cause to the Hearing Officer for further evidentiary proceedings consistent with this Order. It is so ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of September, 1986. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: BY: Commissioner Robert L. Billingslea; and Commissioner Robert R. Joyce. Commissioner John J. Sulik, Panel Chairperson, dissenting. I would limit the scope of the evidentiary inquiry to Apalachee Correctional Institution and/or its superintendent and adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation of dismissal. FILED this 30th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. Betsy Howard, Clerk of the Commission
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on his physical disability, and if so, to what relief is he entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began working as a correctional officer at Franklin Work Camp, a facility operated by Gulf Correctional Institution, in April of 1994. At that time, he had no physical condition which would interfere with his ability to perform the duties of a correctional officer. A correctional officer's principle duties include being responsible for the supervision, custody, care, control and physical restraint of inmates when necessary. A correctional officer must be able to sit, walk, stand, bend, stoop, squat, kneel, run, lift, carry and drag heavy objects (such as an inmate). A correctional officer is subject at all times to assignment at any one of several security posts. Whatever the circumstances, the officer must be willing and able to perform the duties and follow the post orders of an assigned post without physical limitation. There are assignments which may not require an officer to perform all of the duties of a correctional officer on a daily basis. However, there always is the possibility that an emergency may require an officer to perform any or all of those duties. Almost all posts require prolonged standing, and running as needed. Respondent has established an alternate duty policy for employees which provides as follows in pertinent part: GENERAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES A. A Department of Corrections employee who sustains a job-connected injury or illness that results in a temporary partial disability shall return to the work setting if the prognosis from the approved physician reasonably indicates a future return to alternate duties and the employee is able to perform some meaningful work. Employees with non-job connected injuries or illnesses shall not be considered for alternate duty. * * * Individuals employed in a Certified Officer's position must be prepared and able at all times to perform all the duties of an Officer. In keeping with that philosophy, if approved for [a]lternate [d]uty, individuals employed in the Certified Officer's position shall be temporarily assigned to non- Certified Officer duties for the period of time that are determined to have a temporary- partial disability by the Division of Risk Management. In no case shall Certified Officer duties be performed by an alternate duty employee. * * * PROCEDURES General Provisions [1.] When an employee is being considered for [a]lternate [d]uty, the Servicing Personnel Office and Appropriate Authority will determine the alternate duties to be performed. 2. These tasks shall be some type of work that is beneficial to the Department and consistent with the employee's disability. Use of Alternate Duty 1. In accordance with Chapter 60K- 5.012(1)(d), F.A.C., an employee who sustains a job connected temporary-partial or temporary-total disability shall be considered as a candidate for alternate duty if the prognosis from the approved physician indicates a future return to full duties within a reasonable amount of time and the employee can perform some type of work. Alternate duty shall be approved by the Appropriate Authority for a period not to exceed 90 calendar days. However, an extension of up to an additional 90 calendar days may be approved by the Appropriate Authority if there is a medical statement from the approved physician indicating the employee's current medical condition and prognosis for full recovery. An employee may be approved for alternate duty beyond 180 [calendar days], but no more than 365 calendar days with the approval of the Regional Director or appropriate Assistant Secretary. Respondent does not have a policy establishing "light duty" positions for correctional officers with non-work related injuries or illnesses or with permanent/chronic disabilities. Petitioner claims that a doctor diagnosed him as having osteoarthritis of the left knee in March of 1995. There is no evidence indicating that Petitioner's alleged illness was or is related to his employment as a correctional officer. Petitioner testified that Dr. Nina Camperlengo at the Veteran's Administration Clinic in Tallahassee, Florida, was his treating physician for osteoarthritis in 1996. According to Petitioner, Dr. Camperlengo recommended that Petitioner use a cane to relieve the pressure on his knee in June of 1996. Petitioner told, Tom Smith, the officer in charge at Franklin Work Camp, about Dr. Camperlengo's alleged recommendation. Mr. Smith informed Petitioner that he would not be allowed to enter the compound while using a cane. Petitioner continued to work at the work camp facility, without the cane, until June 26, 1996. Petitioner took annual leave between June 26 and July 5, 1996. Before he returned to work, Petitioner called the personnel office at Gulf Correctional Institution. During this conversation, Petitioner advised Paul Herbert, a personnel officer, that he had to use a cane and that he would be taking one with him when he reported for work the following Monday. Mr. Herbert stated that Petitioner could not work in the compound if he needed a cane. Mr. Herbert told Petitioner that before he could return to work, he would have to furnish Respondent with a physician's statement clarifying Petitioner's medical condition and any physical limitations necessitated by that condition. Later that day, Petitioner's personnel office gave him a physicians' statement form and a correctional officer position description to take to his physician. Petitioner had an office visit on or about July 8, 1996 with Dr. Camperlengo. Petitioner testified that the doctor used the physician's statement form to outline the restrictions she felt were necessary due to Petitioner's condition. He furnished a copy of the physician's statement to Respondent. The statement included the following restrictions: (1) no prolonged standing; (2) no running; (3) no physical force to be used by or against patient; and (4) needs to use cane. Limitations like the ones imposed by Dr. Camperlengo would make it impossible for Petitioner to perform the duties of a correctional officer. Respondent appropriately informed Petitioner that he could not return to work until the medical restrictions were lifted by a doctor. A letter dated July 8, 1998, advised Petitioner that Respondent was placing him on leave for a non-work related illness, from June 26, 1996, through September 18, 1996. Petitioner was entitled to this leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Respondent's letter informed Petitioner that he would have to furnish Respondent with a doctor's statement of release, returning Petitioner to his regular duties without limitations, when he returned to work. On September 17, 1996, Petitioner provided Jerry Keel, Personnel Manager at Gulf Correctional Institution, a note indicating that his condition had not changed and would not likely change in the future. Petitioner's note stated that he needed a cane to ambulate. Petitioner also furnished Mr. Keel with a note from Second Lieutenant Smith, a physician's assistant assigned to Tyndal Air Force base, limiting Petitioner's return to full duty. According to the note from Second Lieutenant Smith, Petitioner needed to use a cane for ambulation, secondary to pain. Additionally, Second Lieutenant Smith's note stated that Petitioner's condition was chronic but that he could return to work provided he used his cane and was not forced to stand for prolonged periods of time. In a letter dated September 18, 1998, Petitioner stated that he could perform his duties but that he still needed to use a cane to walk. He requested that Respondent afford him the opportunity to work with an accommodation for his handicap or place him in another job assignment. Respondent did not allow Petitioner to return to work on September 19, 1998, because he did not provide a medical release stating that he could perform his duties without physical limitation. Respondent did not request an extension of his medical leave. By letter dated October 11, 1998, Al Solomon, as Acting Superintendent of Gulf Correctional Institution, sent Second Lieutenant Smith a letter asking for clarification of his earlier note. Specifically, Mr. Solomon inquired as to what, if any, physical limitations would prevent Petitioner from performing his duties as a correctional officer. Second Lieutenant Smith did not respond to Mr. Solomon's letter in writing. In a telephone conversation, Mr. Keel informed Second Lieutenant Smith that his response to the written inquiry had to be written, as well. Respondent did not receive a written response from Second Lieutenant Smith prior to Petitioner's dismissal. A copy of Dr. Camperlengo's progress notes dated October 17, 1996, states as follows in its entirety: Mr. David Kelly was seen today in clinic for his ongoing medical conditions. He still requires a cane for ambulation. Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated November 20, 1996, that charges were being brought against him which could result in his dismissal. Specially, Respondent charged him with inability to perform his duties and/or excessive absenteeism. The only medical information available to Respondent at that time indicated that Petitioner had a chronic condition which limited his ability to perform his regular duties due to a non-work related injury. The letter advised Petitioner that Respondent had conducted a job search and found no other position available for which he was qualified. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a predetermination conference on December 6, 1998. Petitioner did not present any additional information indicating that his medical condition had improved or would improve so that he could perform, without limitation, the duties of a correctional officer. H.D. Alford, Superintendent of Gulf Correctional Institution, dismissed Petitioner from his employment effective December 10, 1998. Petitioner made no independent effort to identify another position with Respondent for which he would have been qualified. Respondent attempted to find Petitioner another position within the agency's Region One area, but there were no position available to match his qualifications. Petitioner received unemployment compensation for a while. He then sought outside employment and received a job offer. He did not accept the job because he hoped to return to work with Respondent. On April 10, 1997, Respondent received a handwritten note from Second Lieutenant Smith stating that the use of a cane is incompatible with the position description for a correctional officer. Petitioner is able to golf and walk for exercise one or two times a week. He personally does not feel that his osteoartritis is a serious condition. He believes that he has always been physically able to perform a correctional officer's duties. However, Petitioner feels more comfortable when he has the cane to relieve pressure on his knee in case he needs such relief. According to Petitioner, his ability to walk or stand for long periods of time depends on the weather and his level of activity. Petitioner did not present the testimony of a medical expert to establish the following: (1) the exact nature and severity of his disability; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; or (3) the permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission On Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Russell Scholz, Esquire Rish and Gibson, P.A. Post Office Box 39 Port St. Joe, Florida 32457 Ernest L. Reddick, III, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a perceived disability and retaliated against her in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the Liberty Correctional Institution (LCI). She was hired as a Correctional Officer in LCI's Security Department effective December 21, 1990. In February 1991, Petitioner was counseled regarding her failure to report for duty or to notify the institution of an intended absence. On April 1, 1996, Petitioner's supervisor counseled her regarding her failure to report to work in a timely manner. Petitioner had been tardy to work three times in March 1996. On May 30, 2001, Respondent counseled Petitioner regarding her excessive absenteeism. Petitioner had five unscheduled absences. Respondent promoted Petitioner to Correctional Officer Sergeant effective November 1, 2001. In October 24, 2003, Respondent gave Petitioner an oral reprimand for abuse of sick leave. Petitioner had developed a pattern of absenteeism in conjunction with her regular days off. In December 2004, Respondent gave Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand was based on Petitioner's failure to follow oral and/or written instruction, continued absenteeism, and abuse of sick leave. On July 7, 2007, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. The injury was diagnosed as carpel tunnel syndrome. Petitioner underwent surgery for this condition in December 2007. On or about April 8, 2008, Petitioner reached statutory Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI). Petitioner had a Permanent Impairment Rating (PIR) of six percent. On April 15, 2008, a functional capacity evaluation revealed that Petitioner was able to perform light work with lifting restrictions. The restrictions prevented Petitioner from performing the essential functions of a Correctional Officer. Pursuant to policy, Respondent immediately conducted a job search. At that time, a Clerk Typist Specialist position was available at LCI. Petitioner was qualified to perform that job. She submitted an application for the position on or about June 5, 2008. In a letter dated June 10, 2008, Respondent offered Petitioner the Clerk Typist Specialist position in LCI's Classification Department. On June 26, 2008, Petitioner signed an Acknowledgement, accepting a voluntary demotion from Correctional Officer Sergeant to Clerk Typist Specialist and stating that she agreed to perform the duties of the new position to the best of her ability. Petitioner returned the Acknowledgement to Respondent. At the same time, Petitioner questioned whether she would be able to perform the duties of a Clerk Typist Specialist due to her carpel tunnel condition. In a letter dated June 27, 2008, Respondent requested that Petitioner take an essential functions form to a July 8, 2008, doctor's appointment. Respondent wanted the physician to complete the essential functions form and return it to Respondent by July 18, 2008. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether Petitioner was able to perform as a Clerk Typist Specialist. On or about July 24, 2008, Petitioner advised Respondent that she was going to have a nerve conduction test on July 30, 2008. She advised Respondent that she would provide the results to Respondent as soon as possible. In a letter dated August 20, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner that, pending the results of a pre-determination conference, Petitioner could be dismissed from her employment as a Correctional Officer effective September 11, 2008. Respondent proposed this action because Petitioner had not provided Respondent with a doctor's report regarding Petitioner's ability to perform the essential functions of a Clerk Typist Specialist. A pre-determination conference was held on August 27, 2008. In a letter dated September 12, 2008, Warden Douglas advised Petitioner that she would not be dismissed because she had provided medical documentation of her ability to perform the position of a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner began working in that capacity on September 19, 2008. In December 2008, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Respondent's Secretary, Walt McNeil. In the e-mail, Petitioner complained that Respondent had not returned her to work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant after being medically cleared to work in that capacity. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner had been medically released to work as a Correctional Officer in December 2008. Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner had made a request or filed an application to return to work as a Correctional Officer at that time. Respondent subsequently requested Petitioner's doctor to provide an updated opinion regarding Petitioner's ability to work as a Correctional Officer. On or about January 15, 2009, Petitioner's doctor approved Petitioner's return to work as a Correctional Officer with no restrictions. In a memorandum dated February 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was medically cleared to work as a Correctional Officer but that she would need to apply for openings. The memorandum stated that Petitioner had to be reprocessed as a Correctional Officer, including having a drug test and physical examination. The February 9, 2009, memorandum also reminded Petitioner that she would be required to serve another probationary period if she received an appointment as a Correctional Officer. There is no promotion track between the Security Department and the Classification Department. Petitioner applied for four Correctional Officer positions between February and May 2009. Two of the applications were for positions located at LCI. The third application was for a position at Calhoun Correctional Institution (CCI). The fourth application was for a position at Franklin Correctional Institution (FCI). On February 10, 2009, Warden Chris Douglas at LCI declined to interview or rehire Petitioner as a Correctional Officer for position number 7002037. Warden Douglas made this decision based on Petitioner's previous and current employment history showing attendance problems. Petitioner's testimony that she never applied for this position is not persuasive. Petitioner's application for a Correctional Officer position at FCI was never completely processed. In a letter dated April 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she needed to provide additional information to support her application for employment in position number 70039564 at FCI. Petitioner did not respond to the request because she decided that she did not want to commute to work so far from her home. On April 23, 2009, Petitioner received her Performance Planning and Evaluation. Her direct supervisor, Kim Davis, Respondent's Classification Sentence Specialist, rated Petitioner as performing "Above Expectation" in all applicable categories. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner requested Warden Douglas to let her complete her mandatory firearm training because her weapons qualification was about to expire. Warden Douglas promptly responded that she could be scheduled to take the next firearms class. Petitioner re-qualified with specified weapons on May 11, 2009. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was interviewed for a position as a Correctional Officer at LCI. She gave correct and appropriate answers to all questions during the interview. Even so, Warden Douglas decided not to hire Petitioner due to her past and current attendance problems. Warden Adro Johnson did not give Petitioner an interview for Correctional Officer position number 70041507 at CCI. He made his decision in July 2009 based on information indicating that Petitioner was already employed at LCI. In July 2009, Respondent's supervisor counseled Petitioner regarding her attendance. She had been absent for four unscheduled absences in the past 90 days. She had missed approximately 40 work days or eight weeks of work during the 11 months she was in the position of Clerk Typist specialist. On August 3, 2009, Petitioner filed her initial complaint with FCHR. Ms. Davis was the person who trained Petitioner as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner's job included filing documents related to approval or disapproval of inmate visitation. The original documents were sent to the inmates. Respondent was supposed to file copies of the documents in the inmates' classification files. During the time that Petitioner worked as a Clerk Typist Specialist, Ms. Davis had to counsel Petitioner approximately ten times regarding the filing of the inmate visitation documents. Ms. Davis stressed the importance of Petitioner completing her work and filing the documents in a timely manner. Additionally, Ms. Davis noted that Petitioner occasionally failed to properly file the documents. Petitioner was trained to remove duplicate copies of documents from inmate files. Duplicate copies of documents could be shredded. Petitioner was not instructed to shred the inmate visitation documents. If the documents were not legible, another copy was supposed to be made, using the copy machine to darken the print. Willie Brown is one of the Assistant Wardens at LCI. His office was close to Petitioner's work area. Assistant Warden Brown occasionally counseled Petitioner regarding the need to file the papers on her desk. On August 18, 2009, Assistant Warden Brown observed a large amount of paperwork that Petitioner had not filed. Once again, Assistant Warden Brown told Petitioner that she needed to file on a timely basis. He explained that Petitioner could file on the schedule she developed, but that it might be necessary to file everyday. Later on August 18, 2009, Heather Barfield, a Correctional Sentence Specialist, observed Petitioner feeding a large amount of paper into a shredder, causing the shredder to jam. Ms. Barfield subsequently attempted to clear the shredder jam and noticed that the papers belonged in the inmates' files. Ms. Barfield reported her observations to Assistant Warden Brown and Cynthia Swier, the Classification Supervisor. Assistant Warden Brown confirmed that the partially shredded documents were legible and should have been filed. Ms. Davis was informed about the shredding incident when she returned to work the following day. Ms. Davis verified that the shredded documents had been legible and were not duplicates of documents in the inmates' files. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner intentionally shredded the documents in order to clear her desk. Petitioner's testimony that she was shredding them because they were not legible is not credible and contrary to more persuasive evidence. On August 26, 2009, Respondent terminated Petitioner employment as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Because she was on probationary status, she had no appeal rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Gertrude Berrieum 5032 Martin Luther King Road Bristol, Florida 32321 Todd Evan Studley, Esquire 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Walter A. McNeil, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer and a certified instructor, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued November 16, 2004, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer and as an instructor. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Indian River Correctional Institution (IRCI) with the rank of Major. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ken Torres was employed by the DOC at IRCI with the rank of Lieutenant. On June 11, 2003, Tvaris Burch, Errol Whiley, and Keith Conley were inmates at IRCI. At no time did any of these three inmates have authorization to be in Respondent’s office at IRCI. The only door to Respondent’s office opens to a long hallway. This door is normally locked. At approximately 6:15 p.m. on June 11, 2003, Respondent entered his office at IRCI and was followed by Lt. Torres. Respondent and Lt. Torres saw three inmates on the floor attempting to hide under Respondent’s desk. Each inmate attempted to conceal his identity by pulling his tee shirt up over his head. It is undisputed that both Respondent and Lt. Torres ordered the three inmates to come out from under the desk and the inmates refused those orders. It is also undisputed that the inmates came out from under the desk after Respondent threatened to order Lt. Torres to spray them with chemical agents. What happened next is the center of the dispute in this proceeding. Petitioner alleged that Respondent kicked one of the inmates and that he kicked and punched another inmate as they came out from under his desk. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent failed to file a mandatory Use of Force Report and that he lied to an investigator (Mr. Glover) in a sworn statement. Respondent asserted that he did not kick or otherwise use unauthorized force against any of the three inmates, that he had no reason to file a use of force report, and that he did not lie to the investigator. In support of its allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of inmate Burch, Mr. Glover, and Lt. Torres. In addition, Petitioner presented the investigative report prepared by Mr. Glover and certain affidavits gathered by Mr. Glover during the course of his investigation. The following facts are not in dispute. After the three inmates came out from under the desk and were on their feet, they were ordered to remove the tee shirts from their heads and were identified as being inmates Burch, Whiley, and Conley. They were stripped searched by Respondent and Lt. Torres and contraband was removed from them. Additional security was called and took the three inmates to the prison nurse for a pre-confinement physical. This type medical examination is mandatory for an inmate about to be confined for disciplinary purposes. The inmates did not complain to anyone that they had been injured or mistreated by Respondent or by anyone else. The nurses noted no injury on any of the inmates. The three inmates were then confined for disciplinary reasons. An incident report was written and a Disciplinary Report was filed for each of the three inmates. Neither Respondent nor Lt. Torres filed a Use of Force Report, which is a mandatory report after physical force is used against an inmate. On June 12, 2003, approximately 24 hours after the incident in Respondent’s office, both inmate Burch and inmate Whiley declared a medical emergency. Both inmates were promptly taken to the medial unit and examined by prison nurses. Inmate Burch told nurse Rhea Harris that he had been injured by being kicked in the head, but he would not identify the person who kicked him. At the final hearing, inmate Burch testified that Respondent kicked him in the head as he was coming out from under the desk and in the knee when he tried to stand up. He further testified that the blow to the knee caused him to fall to the floor, which broke his glasses. Ms. Harris observed a bump on the side of inmate Burch’s head that could be consistent with inmate Burch’s being kicked.5 Inmate Whiley was seen by Nurse Debra Barriner on June 11 and June 12, 2003. On June 12, 2003, inmate Whiley told Ms. Barriner that he had a sore neck and a sore area on his face on the left cheek. Ms. Barriner observed areas of slight swelling and discoloration that were consistent with inmate Whiley’s complaints. Inmate Whiley refused to tell the nurse what caused his neck and left cheek to become sore. In an affidavit subsequently secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Whiley alleged that Respondent had kicked him as he was coming out from under the desk and hit him in the stomach after he stood up. In an affidavit secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Conley stated that he was not struck by Respondent on June 11, 2003, but that he saw Respondent strike inmates Burch and Whiley. Approximately a week after the incident in Respondent’s office, corrections officers intercepted a note being passed from the cell of inmates Burch and Whiley to the cell of inmate Conley. This note was turned over to Lt. Torres, who was the shift supervisor, who testified that he threw the note away and could not recall its details. Lt. Torres did recall that the note made a reference to his being promoted as a result of the allegations that had been made against Respondent. In a sworn interview given to Mr. Glover, Lt. Torres stated that he saw Respondent kick inmates Burch and Whiley. He repeated that statement at the formal hearing. On closer examination, Lt. Torres testified that he did not witness Respondent make physical contact with any of the inmates, but that he saw him making kicking motions in the directions of the inmates. On further examination, the following exchange occurred between Petitioner’s counsel and Lt. Torres beginning at page 85, line 22 of the Transcript: Q. Let me ask you this: If you did not see Major Passino actually strike an inmate, why then did you feel that it was necessary to report such an incident.[6] A. Why did I feel that? That’s my responsibility. Q. At the time that this incident occurred, why did you consider that there had been a use of force. A. Why? Q. Yes. A. Only because of what the inmates said, that they were injured, did I suspect that there was a use of force. Q. And that was only after the inmates had declared a medical emergency – A. Yes, sir. Respondent’s testimony that he did not use unauthorized force against inmates Burch and Whiley is found to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent battered inmate Burch or Whiley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of, June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 24th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Joel Keel, is an inmate at the correctional institution in Raiford, Florida. The Union Correctional Institution is a confinement facility operated by the Respondent, Department of Corrections. Section 945.091, Florida Statutes, permits the Respondent to adopt rules and regulations which modify the limits of an inmate's confinement under specified conditions. In January 1986, the figures of the statistics of the Department of Corrections reflect that there were approximately 1300 new commitment intakes per month. As the year 1986 progressed up through the months of April and May, this rate went up to approximately 1400 to 1600 per month, and in June, the figure stood at 1680 new commitment intakes; a new record. This record, however, has been broken since that time with a monthly intake of 1700. This large number of intakes created a terrible strain on the system which at the time had reached the federal standards and the state cap on inmate strength of 98 percent. These caps are placed on inmate strength as an effort to reduce the extreme safety and security problems created by inmate overcrowding. Because there was no new staff assigned to the Department of Corrections during the period of this increase, the staff/inmate ratio decreased as the hot summer months approached with the pressure that the climate imposes. Both interior and perimeter security of the various institutions within the Department of Corrections became more and more strained. The stress on staff caused an increase of absenteeism and illness. In addition, during this period of increased temperature and the concomitant stress related thereto, assaults and escapes become a greater and greater problem. In June 1986, the inmate population in the Florida prison system went up to 99 percent, a figure approved by the Florida Legislature due to a change brought about by an automated accounting system for prisoners. The achievement of the 99 percent plus prison population constituted an "emergency" due to overcrowding. As a result, it became obvious that there was a need to increase the number of inmates eligible for pre-expiration of sentence release. Consistent therewith was the need to establish a fair and objective way of placing inmates into this pre-release program that would protect the public. It was determined necessary to screen out from participation in the program certain prohibited types of inmates such as sex offenders unless they have been cleared and determined to be harmless. Up to the point of this determination, there appeared to be no substantial or valid guidelines. Another intent of the framers of this emergency rule was the desire to set up a procedure to remove inmates placed into the pre-release program from the program for cause in accordance with due process and constitutionality. It was deemed necessary to make clear within the parameters of the program and within the instructions for the program what had to be done and how it was to be accomplished. Nonetheless, the overriding consideration which constituted the "emergency" situation was the overpopulation in the prison system. As a result, the Department of Corrections in July 1986 promulgated and published its Emergency Rule 33ER 86-3 dealing with supervised community release which rule was to take effect upon being filed with the Department of State. This rule provided that all inmates who are within 90 days of their release date will be eligible for placement on supervised community release if they meet certain specified requirements. The emergency rule listed as the basis therefor, "this emergency rule is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of Florida by providing criteria that the inmates to be placed in supervised community release must meet to help assure the safety of the public." It goes on also to indicate that the rule is necessary to prescribe appropriate sanctions for inmates within the program in the event they violate the terms and conditions of the release agreement. The program provides that the initial process is for the staff within the Department of Corrections to screen all inmates within 90 days of the end of their sentence. It was envisioned as an extension of the work release program already existing. It is for that reason that only those on or eligible for work release can participate in this new program. This is consistent with the statutory mandate to include in pre-release programs only trustworthy inmates. Inmates are also screened to ensure that they have demonstrated this trustworthiness by performing well in the more restrictive work release program. Other methods of demonstrating trustworthiness and eligibility is for the inmate to invest time in self-improvement projects such as the GED Program and to have through his past practice, shown that he will return to the prison setting at night. This screening is done monthly of all inmates with a temporary release date of 120 days in the future. By so doing, this gives the staff 30 days to develop a plan for the individual inmate to ensure a stable environment for the inmate to go to. Prior to the implementation of Chapter 86-46, Laws of Florida, the statutory authority for the current program, there was no provision for the program in issue. As soon as this law was passed the legal staff within the Department of Corrections prepared the instant emergency rule as soon as possible. Had they not been able to do an emergency rule and had the regular rulemaking process been necessary, it is most likely that they would not have had established criteria and guidelines to apply to those who had to be released due to the fact that the prison population had reached the statutory cap. In fact, it was shown that state attorneys would not cooperate with the Department of Corrections and process violations of the program unless there were specific guidelines contained therein, and, since it was necessary to reduce the inmate population, it was therefore necessary to utilize the emergency role process. With that in mind, the safety of the public into which these inmates would be released was the primary concern and generated the need to ensure that only qualified and safe inmates were released. Under the new statute and the emergency rule, 1125 inmates have been released as of the date of the hearing. Approximately 750 inmates are in the program at any given time. As a result of the implementation of this program, the prison population has dropped and remained within the new 99 percent of capacity state cap. Experience with the programs so far has shown that the inmates in the program have been guilty of only minor violations such as assault on witnesses, DWI, simple assault, and larceny. And all of these offenses came up after implementation of the emergency rule. In the case of misconduct by a released inmate which does not result in immediate charges and incarceration, such as leaving the county where placed or the state, the disciplinary team from the Department of Corrections will evaluate the inmate and impose the penalty. These penalties could include removal of gain time while still remaining within the program up to removal from the program and loss of gain time. Conditions of enrollment in the program include, as to the inmate, that he (a) stay in the area where assigned; (b) refrain from the use of drugs; (c) comply with instructions given; (d) pay court costs imposed; and (e) pay a $30 a month fee to the Department of Corrections to cover administrative costs. Though the emergency rule appears to be working satisfactorily, the Department of Corrections is in the process of regular rulemaking to adopt a permanent rule identical to the emergency rule in issue here.
