Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner was employed by Respondent beginning in 1985 and, at all times material hereto, was supervised by Dr. Frank A. Coliazzi. Petitioner had been made aware of the rules and policy of the Respondent in regard to unauthorized leave of absence. Specifically, Petitioner was counselled in this regard on March 26, 1986, by Dr. Frank A. Colliazzi for his unauthorized leave of absence on March 25, 1986. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that un-authorized leave of absences could result in disciplinary action or the loss of employment through abandonment. Prior to April 14, 1986, Petitioner had a history of unauthorized leave of absences. In fact, Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on April 9 & 11, 1986, after being counselled as late as March 26, 1986 in this regard. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on April 14, 15 & 16, 1986. Petitioner appeared briefly at the work place on April 15, 1986 but did not go to work and left immediately when requested to work by Dr. Colliazzi, with a promise to return to work the next morning, April 16; 1986, at 8:00 a.m. The Petitioner did not request a leave of absence at this time and did not return to work on April 16, 1986 as promised. Respondent's certified letter of April 16, 1986, informing Petitioner that Respondent considered him to have abandoned his position because of his three (3) consecutive days of unauthorized leave was not received by Petitioner until April 24, 1986 due to Petitioner's failure to notify Respondent of his change of address. However, Petitioner was made aware of the letter and its contents by Maxine Fields on April 21, 1986. Petitioner's failure to return to work on April 17 & 18, 1986, lends support to Respondent's contention that Petitioner had abandoned his job since Petitioner was not aware of Respondent's position on his abandonment until April 21, 1986. At no time relevant to this proceeding was leave requested by Petitioner or granted by Respondent. Although Petitioner received notice of the hearings, he failed to appear at either one and present evidence in rebuttal to Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the Respondent in deeming the Petitioner to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service was correct and affirming such action. RESPECTFULLY ENTERED and SUBMITTED this 25th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2604 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(1), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 & 8. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 & 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Judy Waldman, Esquire General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Barbara Wingo, Esquire Associate General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 James H. Foster 3216 Lancastor Lane Tampa, Florida 33619 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner abandoned her position of employment in the career service system of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Helen L. Chappell, a career service employee of Respondent with the Polk County Public Health Unit at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Petitioner worked sporadically in Respondent's employment during the month of March, 1989. She was credited with a total of 28 hours of work during that month. Respondent's records reflect that Petitioner did not actually work any hours in the months of April or May, 1989. On May 5, 1989, Respondent received notification from personnel of the Division of Risk Management of the Department of Insurance that Petitioner, a recipient of workers compensation benefits, had reached maximum medical recovery from a previous injury. Shortly thereafter, the Division provided Respondent with a copy of a medical report documenting the extent of Petitioner's recovery. The medical report, while noting Petitioner's recovery, also restricted her employment activities to preclude activities involving "a lot of head and shoulder movement." By certified letter dated May 11, 1989, the acting administrative director of the Polk County Health Unit informed Petitioner of the receipt of the medical report and the medical restrictions contained in the report. Further, the letter set forth Respondent's position that such restrictions would not interfere with Petitioner's performance of her duties as a clerk specialist. The letter concluded by directing Petitioner to return to work immediately to avoid the presumption that she had abandoned her position of employment with Respondent. The letter's certified mail return receipt reflects that Petitioner received the letter on May 15, 1989. In the course of a telephone conversation with the acting administrative director on May 25, 1989, Petitioner was informed that she must return to work no later than June 2, 1989. Petitioner did not return to work on June 2, 1989, or at any time thereafter. On June 15, 1989, the acting administrative director notified Petitioner by certified mail that Petitioner was presumed to have abandoned her career service employment position with Respondent as a result of the failure to report to work within three days of the June 2, 1989 deadline. The certified mail return receipt documents delivery of the letter on June 20, 1989. On August 1, 1986, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of a copy of Respondent's employee handbook. Employees are placed on notice by contents of the handbook that any employee who is absent without authorization for three consecutive workdays may be considered to have abandoned his or her employment position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration concluding that Petitioner abandoned her position in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave for the period June 2-June 15, 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4183 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esquire HRS District 6 Legal Office 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Fifth Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33514 Helen L. Chappell Post Office Box 109 Lake Wales, Florida 33859 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aletta L. Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner received a salary overpayment from the Respondent for leave usage to which she was not entitled, as set forth in amended correspondence dated October 2, 2009, and, if so, the amount of any overpayment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ms. Anderson was employed by the Department as a full- time Career Service employee until her separation on August 11, 2009. She had one year and four months' service with the State of Florida. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Anderson was paid biweekly. Based on her years of service, Ms. Anderson accrued four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave each biweekly pay period. Ms. Anderson used the People First System to complete her timesheets, request approval of leave, and review her leave balances. At issue is the amount of annual and sick leave used by Ms. Anderson during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009 and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson entered her time in the computerized People First timesheet as follows: February 6, 2009 8 hours' worked February 9, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 10, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 11, 2009 3.25 hours' sick leave 4.75 hours' annual leave February 12, 2009 8 hours' personal holiday February 13, 2009 8 hours' annual leave February 16, 2009 7.25 hours' annual leave February 17, 2009 8 hours' worked February 18, 2009 8.75 hours' worked February 19, 2009 4 hours' sick leave 4 hours' annual leave The Pay Period Overview in the People First System for the pertinent time period reflected the following: Beginning balance 2/06/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Accrual 2/19/09: 4 hours' annual leave 4 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Used N/A : (24.00) hours' annual leave (23.25) hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Ending Balance 2/19/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday The Department's Policies and Procedures for Attendance and Leave provides in pertinent part: III. Standards and Procedures * * * Annual Leave Method of Earning Annual Leave * * * Bureau of Personnel 1. Annual leave earned during any period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period or, in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Annual Leave Employee 1. Use of annual leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited and shall only be used with the prior approval of the proper authority. * * * Sick Leave Method of Earning Sick Leave * * * Employee * * * 4. Sick leave earned during any pay period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period, or in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Sick Leave Employee 1. Use of sick leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited to the employee and shall only be used with the approval of the proper authority. The Department keeps an official record of an employee's leave balances and accruals for each pay period, and it conducts audits of an employee's leave upon separation. The Department performed an audit of Ms. Anderson's leave and created an Employee Leave Record setting out annual and sick leave earned and used by Ms. Anderson up to her date of separation in August 2009. The audit revealed that Ms. Anderson had 20 hours of annual leave and 19.25 of sick leave available as of January 6, 2009, and that she accrued 4 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave on February 19, 2009, which could be used beginning February 20, 2009. As shown on the People's First timesheet prepared by Ms. Anderson and set out above, Ms. Anderson used 24 hours of annual leave and 23.25 hours of sick leave during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009, and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson, therefore, used four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave to which she was not entitled during the pay period extending from February 6, 2009, to February 19, 2009, and she was paid for these hours in the salary warrant issued February 27, 2009. In calculating the amount of the salary overpayment to Ms. Anderson, the Department made allowance for the one hour's annual leave balance Ms. Anderson had when she separated from the Department. The Department, therefore, calculated the salary overpayment based on seven non-compensable hours, and the balance owed by Ms. Anderson to the Department for the salary overpayment is $66.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order requiring Lillian Anderson to remit to the Department of Juvenile Justice the amount of $66.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 19th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lillian Anderson 3617 Carambola Circle North Coconut, Florida 33066 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed by the City of Kissimmee (the City) from July 17, 1989, to the present as a tele- communicator in the Communications Center of the Police Department. Petitioner and his health care provider advised the City sometime in 1995 that Petitioner is diabetic. Diabetes has impaired Petitioner's work schedule and his willingness to train other employees but has not handicapped Petitioner. The diabetes has not substantially limited Petitioner in a major life activity and has not substantially limited Petitioner from performing a class of jobs or broad range of jobs in various classes. Petitioner is able to care for himself. Petitioner clothes himself, bathes, shaves, brushes his teeth, and combs his hair. Petitioner checks his own blood sugar level regularly during waking hours. Petitioner is able to perform other major life activities. Those activities include walking, driving a vehicle, performing manual tasks, seeing, speaking, hearing, learning, talking, and performing the duties of his occupation. Petitioner has walked for several years approximately 1.25 miles a day. Petitioner drives his own vehicle. Petitioner performs manual tasks. Petitioner operates a computer, though he has some difficulty doing so. Several months ago, Petitioner helped a friend hang an interior door. Petitioner has also helped friends paint walls in recent years. Petitioner has difficulty with his uncorrected vision. With reading glasses, however, Petitioner reads documents most of the time. Petitioner uses a device identified in the record as a CPAP machine to assist him in breathing at night. However, Petitioner does not need to use the machine during the work day to do his job. No health care provider has advised Respondent that Petitioner is disabled. Petitioner’s diabetic specialist is Dr. Jose Mandry. Dr. Mandry did not testify at the hearing. Dr. Mandry informed Respondent that Petitioner has diabetes in a note the City received on or about February 6, 1995, when Respondent attempted to schedule Petitioner for a night shift in the Communications Center. The note from Dr. Mandry did not indicate that Petitioner was handicapped (disabled), or that any accommodations were required in order for Petitioner to continue working. The note requested the City to keep Petitioner on daytime shifts "if possible." The note did not indicate that a daytime schedule was medically necessary. Rather, the note indicated that working day shifts would be “desirable.” On March 23, 1995, Dr. Mandry provided another letter to the City regarding Petitioner's medical condition. The note stated that Petitioner needed to “be accommodated with a normal daytime work schedule.” In July 1995, the City established a regular daytime work schedule for Petitioner. The City never regarded Petitioner as disabled, and the daytime work schedule for Petitioner was not an “ADA Accommodation.” The City employee who granted the request for a daytime schedule was identified in the record as Police Department Commander Johns. Commander Johns did not have authority to provide an ADA accommodation. The authority to provide an ADA accommodation is vested in the city manager and city attorney. They make a final determination of whether the City will provide an ADA accommodation to a particular employee. The city manager and city attorney did not authorize the City to provide any ADA accommodation to Petitioner. The daytime schedule granted to Petitioner is part of Respondent’s general practice and policy of working with impaired employees and employees who have personal needs. The policy attempts to help such employees with their schedules when it is possible to do so without an adverse impact on the City’s ability to provide services. Assuming arguendo that City employees had the authority to provide ADA accommodations to Petitioner in the absence of a formal determination by the city manager and city attorney, Petitioner relies on evidence of interactions between City employees and Petitioner in an attempt to show the City provided Petitioner with ADA accommodations. The relevant evidence involves two time periods. The first is the period from June 4, 1996, until June 5, 2002. The second is the period from June 5, 2002, through March 16, 2006, when Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission. The record evidence does not support a finding that City employees provided an ADA accommodation to Petitioner. The daytime work schedule authorized in 1995 remained in effect until June 4, 1996, when Dr. Mandry advised the City that Petitioner could work up to 12 hours a day, as long as the 12 hours were daytime hours. Between 1996 and June 5, 2002, the City allowed Petitioner to work overtime when he wanted to, based on Petitioner's self-assessment of his physical condition. Petitioner acknowledged the overtime schedule in a memo that he wrote to Lieutenant Donna Donato on June 5, 2002 (the memo). The memo described Petitioner's plans for his future work schedule. The memo stated that Petitioner was providing notice “that due to self-assessed health issues” Petitioner intended to restrict the amount of his overtime in the future. (emphasis added). In relevant part, the memo advised the City that Petitioner did not intend to “demand the imposition of the restrictions [on his work schedule] as addressed by City Management in June of 1995.” Instead, the memo advised that Petitioner would address his concerns “to the best of [his] abilities by modifying [his] agenda. " Petitioner listed a number of items that may be fairly described as terms or conditions for when and under what circumstances Petitioner would work overtime. Petitioner provided no new medical evidence to support a finding of medical necessity for the terms and conditions that Petitioner prescribed in the memo. Petitioner acknowledged that his concerns were based on “self-assessed health issues” and asserted that “no further documentation should be necessary.” Petitioner did provide a note from Dr. Mandry on June 20, 2002. The note states: The following is a letter as requested by the above-captioned patient [David Dey]. As you know, he suffers from diabetes and also requires insulin for his control. David needs to monitor glucose levels and follow fairly stable meal patterns in order to try to achieve good control of diabetes and avoid complications. It would certainly be to his advantage and much preferable if he could have a stable work shift where he could regulate his meals and his injections properly. (emphasis added) Respondent's Exhibit 18 (Hereinafter R-18, etc.). During the second period of time between June 5, 2002, and the Charge of Discrimination, the City hired a new manager for the Communications Center. In July 2002, the City hired Ms. Jean Moe to manage the Communications Center at the Police Department, and Ms. Moe remains responsible for the supervision and management of Petitioner. Ms. Moe is diabetic. Ms. Moe met with Petitioner on August 6, 2002. The two discussed the issues Petitioner raised in his memo and agreed on a number of items outlined in Ms. Moe’s memo of August 6, 2002 (the Moe memo). The Moe memo provides in relevant part: Beginning today, August 6, 2002 you will only work your twelve (12) hour shift assignment [sic]. You will not volunteer or be assigned any overtime. You are also no longer on the standby schedule. Here you had some concern on the overtime issue, however, as stated by your doctor in writing he is recommending that you do not work any extra hours. Should he feel your health improves and he authorizes your overtime, I will take his note under advisement. That does not mean I will immediately give you overtime but will review his letter and his suggestion. Along with the above issues, your supervisor has been advised under no circumstances will you miss your assigned lunchtime or breaks, these are important to keep you regulated on your medication per your doctor. You also requested you be allowed to lift your feet after working several hours, this will also be under consideration when I receive a note from your doctor stating it R-19. would be another requirement for health reasons. In 2004, the City Police Department considered changes to the normal work schedule for employees in the Communication Center. The City advised employees, including Petitioner, that the City would require employees to rotate work shifts between daytime and night shifts. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner wrote to the City Human Resources Department and requested a “final, permanent accommodation . . .” for daytime work only. Petitioner provided copies of documents from Dr. Mandry, which did not include a medical opinion that Petitioner is disabled. Assistant Human Resources Director Andrea Walton wrote to Dr. Mandry on July 15, 2004, and requested clarification of his letters in order for the City to arrange an appropriate schedule for Petitioner. Ms. Walton specifically inquired about the possibility of Petitioner's working a rotating work schedule and asked Dr. Mandry to clarify Petitioner's ability to work overtime. The City wanted Dr. Mandry to clarify previous statements that Petitioner could work overtime as a parking enforcement specialist but that Petitioner's overtime work as a tele-communicator must be limited. Dr. Mandry responded to Ms. Walton on July 26, 2004. The response explained that Petitioner was able to work in a rotating schedule and for unspecified amounts of overtime if control is optimal and under ideal circumstances. Dr. Mandry was unable at that time to give more specific information to the City. He explained: R-27. With regards to some of the other issues, again, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for me to give you a specific answer, and I would rather you talk to Mr. Dey specifically so that he can let you know what his current limitations are. On August 3, 2004, Ms. Beth Stefek, the director of Human Resources for the City, wrote to Petitioner and explained that the City was willing to work with Petitioner to arrive at an appropriate work schedule. Ms. Stefek did not indicate that the City considered Petitioner to be disabled. Sometime after August 3, 2004, Petitioner experienced further difficulties in controlling his diabetes. On August 10, 2004, Dr. Mandry wrote to the City again. Dr. Mandry told the City: I just saw David today who seems to be having some further difficulties with his health and his control of diabetes. At this time, I have reviewed his records, and I think it would clearly be in his best interest that from now on, he work only on a stable daytime work shift only [sic]. He certainly is not doing well when he tries to do overtime, and traditionally in the past has always become more complicated and his health has deteriorated whenever he tries to do either night shifts or overtime shifts. I have, therefore, at this time, recommended that David should not be allowed to work any overtime and/or nighttime shift. Of course, he needs to have accommodations for meals and monitoring or blood sugar levels as necessary, and he needs to have access to food in case he becomes hypoglycemic. R-29. The difficulties Petitioner experienced in controlling his diabetes were attributable to an increase in stress that Petitioner experienced between June and September 9, 2004. Petitioner's father died in June 2004, and three hurricanes impacted Petitioner’s home from August through September 2004. The hurricanes also increased stress at work due to increased demand on City services. On August 15, 2004, Petitioner advised Ms. Moe that he was intentionally running his blood sugars “higher than desired” at work to “offset and reduce the possibility of a hypoglycemic situation.” Toward the end of August 2004, the City moved Petitioner to the night shift in the Communications Center. Petitioner worked the night shift for a few nights. On September 5, 2004, Petitioner advised Ms. Moe that he was available to be part of a voluntary group of dispatchers to work catastrophic disasters like hurricanes if she decided to form the group. On or about September 9, 2004, while Petitioner was at home, Petitioner fell unconscious and was transported to the hospital for treatment. On September 16, 2004, Dr. Mandry wrote to the City and advised that it was necessary for Petitioner to refrain from working "any overtime shifts and/or nighttime shifts.” On or about September 21, 2004, Petitioner returned to work, and the City placed Petitioner on a daytime work schedule through the remainder of 2004. On January 6, 2005, Ms. Moe advised Petitioner the City needed Petitioner to work the night shift for a few nights. However, the City was able to satisfy its needs without placing Petitioner on the night shift at that time. Petitioner responded to Ms. Moe on January 6, 2005, by stating that he was going to begin a search within the City for another position that would meet his medical needs. On January 20, 2005, Petitioner inquired about an opening within the City for a parking enforcement specialist. On January 25, 2005, Petitioner informed Ms. Moe and others at the City that he would not consider either the parking enforcement position or a community service officer (CSO) position that had become available because both jobs contradicted his "medical requirements.” On April 4, 2005, Ms. Moe sent a memo to Petitioner advising him that the City would place Petitioner on a list identified in the record as the call-back list for emergency back-up in the Communication Center. Ms. Moe specified that the placement of Petitioner on the call-back list was subject to the work conditions previously established in July 1995 by Commander Johns. Ms. Moe advised Petitioner that he would be placed on the call-back list effective April 20, 2005, but only in those weeks when he was scheduled to work 33 hours so that his work week did not exceed 40 hours. She assured Petitioner that absent some extraordinary circumstances, the City would not call Petitioner back to work a night shift and would not schedule Petitioner on a call-back that would result in Petitioner working more than 40 hours in a work week. The memo from Ms. Moe expressly indicated that the City did not consider the Petitioner to be ADA disabled. Ms. Moe told Petitioner to advise her if he thought there was some medical or ADA reason why he could not be on the call-back list. On April 13, 2005, Attorney Edward R. Gay wrote to the City on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Gay stated that Petitioner believed there was a medical reason that prevented Petitioner from being placed on the call-back list. On April 21, 2005, Attorney Lucille Turner, the City’s special labor counsel, responded to Mr. Gay. Ms. Turner provided Mr. Gay with a copy of the City’s April 4, 2005, memo detailing the call-back restrictions applicable to Petitioner. Ms. Turner repeated that it was not the City's intent to call Petitioner back to work a night shift or to schedule Petitioner to work more than 40 hours a week in the absence of “some extraordinary circumstance." The City, through its counsel, expressly advised Petitioner that the City had never undertaken a formal review of whether Petitioner should be classified as a person protected by the ADA. Instead, the City had informally worked to develop a work schedule for Petitioner that takes into account the information provided by Petitioner's health care providers. The City provided Petitioner with written guidance concerning the procedure for Petitioner to follow to seek a classification from the City as ADA disabled. In relevant part, the letter advises: If [Petitioner] believes that his diabetes (or any other medical condition) requires the City to not include him on the call back list, or to change his work schedule, he should provide the City with further information in support of his request. This should include information about the legal basis for his disability claim . . . [keeping in mind case law cited earlier in the letter indicating diabetes is not a per se disability]. . . . The City will then review the information to determine whether Mr. Dey has a disability as defined by the ADA, and, if so, what accommodations can be reasonably made. R-54, at 3. Petitioner did not ask to be classified as disabled. Rather, Dr. Mandry wrote to the City on June 8, 2005. Dr. Mandry stated that he was writing at the request of Petitioner. In relevant part, Dr. Mandry explained: R-1. Mr. Dey is by no means disabled, and he can clearly work and satisfy the capacities of his job as long as there is some stability involved in it. (emphasis added) In March and August 2005, the City did not select Petitioner to fill respective vacancies for a shift supervisor in the Communication Center and a parking enforcement specialist for the City. Neither action constituted an adverse employment action against Petitioner. The job duties for the vacant shift supervisor in March 2005 required the successful applicant to work night shifts. Petitioner did not apply for the shift supervisor position. When the City posted the notice of vacancy for the shift supervisor, Petitioner requested Ms. Moe to provide Petitioner with information about the job requirements for the position. Ms. Moe responded on March 14, 2005, and advised Petitioner that the position was night shift duty and required the supervisor to train other employees. On March 23, 2005, Petitioner wrote to Ms. Moe indicating he had concluded that multiple aspects of my physical disability are contradictory to the requirements of the supervisory position and that he had elected not to apply for the position. If Petitioner were to have applied for the shift supervisor position, Petitioner was not qualified to perform the essential requirements of the position. Petitioner was unable or unwilling to work the night shift and was unable or unwilling to train subordinate employees. The Communications Center receives 911 calls from the public. Employees receive calls and dispatch them to the police department and fire department 24 hours a day. The work schedule at the Communication Center is divided into two shifts. The day shift begins at 6 a.m. and ends at 6 p.m. The night shift begins at 6 p.m. and ends the following day at 6 a.m. Approximately four to six employees work each 12-hour shift in the Communications Center. However, only one supervisor works each shift. A shift supervisor oversees the duties of all employees at the Communications Center and trains, advises, and assists subordinates. Supervisors are routinely required to work overtime, perform on-call duty, fill in for other shift supervisors, and hold over for indefinite times at the end of a shift to handle ongoing calls. Petitioner claims to suffer from hypoglycemic episodes in which he becomes unresponsive and dysfunctional. Petitioner has previously asked on two separate occasions to be relieved of responsibility to train personnel because it was too stressful for him. In each instance, the City relieved Petitioner of any training responsibilities. In August 2005, Petitioner applied for a job opening as a parking enforcement specialist for the City. The City selected another candidate identified in the record as Ms. Evelyn Thurman. The selection of Ms. Thurman over Petitioner to fill the vacant position of parking enforcement specialist was not an adverse employment action against Petitioner. Ms. Thurman was more qualified by training and experience. When the City selected Ms. Thurman to fill the vacant position of parking enforcement specialist, Ms. Thurman had 24 years of law enforcement and security experience in various agencies. From 1980 until 1996, Ms. Thurman worked as a crime scene investigator for the City of Miami Police Department, where she received numerous commendations, and her performance evaluations rated her as an above average employee. Ms. Thurman also worked at the Sheriff’s Office in Tampa, Florida, and in Security at the Florida Department of the Lottery. Petitioner was unable to meet the essential functions of the job requirements for a parking enforcement specialist. A parking enforcement specialist routinely works alone and is required to work at night. The nature of the job does not permit the type of schedule Petitioner requires. The work schedule of a parking enforcement specialist is not limited to daytime hours that do not exceed 33 to 40 hours a week. A parking enforcement specialist may be required to work evening shifts, long hours, overtime, and holidays. A parking enforcement specialist also must adjust his or her work schedule when needed. A parking enforcement specialist also must be available during emergencies to alleviate calls for service from patrol officers. A parking enforcement specialist works alone. Petitioner suffers from hypoglycemic episodes in which he becomes unresponsive and dysfunctional. The episodes can occur at any time, and Petitioner prefers not be alone on the job if possible. On October 31, 2005, Ms. Moe issued a verbal reprimand to Petitioner for insubordination. The verbal reprimand is not an adverse employment action against Petitioner. The City did not reduce Petitioner's pay and did not change the terms, conditions, or privileges of Petitioner's employment as a result of the reprimand. In preparation for Hurricane Wilma earlier in October 2005, Ms. Moe sent an e-mail to employees in the Communication Center instructing them to come to work the following day with the supplies they would need if events required them to stay at the Communication Center during the hurricane (the Moe email). Petitioner and most of the other employees did not bring their hurricane supplies with them when they reported to work the morning after the Moe email. The City sent Petitioner and the other employees home to fetch their supplies and did not impose a time limit for the task. Petitioner took about 90 minutes to get his supplies and return to work, and the span included the regular lunch hour. The time he took was not an issue of concern and did not provide a basis for the verbal reprimand. Petitioner did not eat lunch during the time he retrieved his supplies. Later in the day, Petitioner requested a meal break, and his supervisor denied the request. Petitioner took a second meal break. On October 23, 2005, Ms. Moe delivered to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Discipline for insubordination. On October 31, 2005, Ms. Moe issued an Oral Warning to Petitioner. Petitioner grieved the verbal reprimand. During the grievance procedure, the City offered to rescind the warning to resolve the grievance. Petitioner rejected the offer as unsatisfactory unless the City also destroyed the record of the discipline. The City advised Petitioner that it could not destroy the document because the document was a public record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 16th day of July 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may lawfully discipline Respondent due to excessive absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a police officer in the Operations Division of the Cape Coral Police Department (Department) from October 5, 1987, through approximately April 27, 1998, when Petitioner terminated her employment. As detailed below, Petitioner monthly provides its employees with a specified amount of leave, based on their years of service. Petitioner credits all leave in a single account. Employees then draw on their leave account by taking scheduled and unscheduled leave. This case involves Respondent's use of allegedly excessive amounts of leave. In 1989, Respondent used 125.76 hours of unscheduled leave. On May 23, 1989, she received an interim performance evaluation noting that she was "below acceptable" in unscheduled leave time and needed to improve her relations with other employees. On October 13, 1989, she received an annual performance evaluation stating that she had had 18 days "sick leave" in the preceding 12 months and was below "operational standard" in attendance and relations with others; all of her other categories were marked as meeting operational standard. The attached narrative notes a "slight improvement" since her May 1989 interim performance evaluation. In 1990, Respondent used 198.5 hours of unscheduled leave. Her October 12, 1990, annual performance evaluation states that Respondent was again below operational standard in attendance with 23.25 days of "sick leave." She had raised her relations with others to operational standard and work habits to above operational standard. The narrative attached to the evaluation states that the evaluator has spent a sizable amount of time conferring with Susan regarding causes to her illnesses and resulting time off due to illness. Officer Von Halla does have problems with migraine's and when she experiences one, she is [less than] an effective part of the shift in fulfilling her normal duties. I have tried to understand why she experiences so many migraines and have suggested different activities (i.e. physical exercise, stress reduction). I am confident that despite the significant amount of time taken due to illness, when this officer calls in sick, she is sick and does not use this time for other unknown reasons. I feel, currently, Officer Von Halla is attempting to minimize the amount of times she calls in sick. Despite some improvement recently, Officer Von Halla still is in need of progress in this area so her time reserved starts reflecting this. The narrative concludes that Respondent can improve her weak point, which is attendance, by "finding new ways to minimize the migraine potential and making a genuine effort towards this." Another evaluative document speaks in a very different tone from the annual performance evaluation, which is signed by a sergeant who was Respondent's immediate supervisor. On October 2, 1990--only 10 days before the 1990 annual evaluation-- a captain reviewed Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and warned: you are hereby notified that this level of unscheduled leave time usage will no longer be tolerated. You will be required to achieve a level of usage that is consistent with the national and department average which equates to approximately sixty hours per year, or five hours per month. If you fail to maintain this rate between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990 I will request that the Chief of Police consider terminating your employment effective January 1, 1991. If you are successful, you will be expected to maintain this average with the exception of documented major medical complications that require the use of extended leave. By memorandum dated December 14, 1990, from the captain to the police chief, the captain stated: On October 2, 1990, I advised Officer Von Halla that she would be required to maintain an acceptable level of unscheduled leave usage through December 31, 1990. The level of usage was established at five (5) hours per month, or a total of 15 hours for the period of October 2, 1990, through December 31, 1990. . . . Since October 2, 1990, Officer Von Halla has chosen to utilize forty (40) hours of leave. Thirty-two (32) hours were for illness as noted by her chiropractor and eight (8) for unexpected visitors. The captain's memorandum reasons: "In analyzing Officer Von Halla's unscheduled leave, it is clear that her utilization of unscheduled leave far exceeds any norms and Officer Von Halla is clearly abusing this city benefit." The memorandum states that, after consulting with the city attorney and city manager, the captain was recommending that Petitioner initiate termination proceedings against Respondent. By memorandum dated January 17, 1991, the captain asked a lieutenant to convene a Command Review Board to evaluate Respondent's excessive absenteeism and her violation of three groups of general orders prohibiting feigning of illness and failing to perform duties, abusing sick leave, and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the Department. The memorandum explains the last alleged violation as noting that the department had had to use 66 hours of overtime, at a cost of $1125, to cover shift shortages caused by Respondent's unscheduled absences. The Command Review Board sustained the allegation that Respondent had abused her unscheduled leave, but rejected the allegations of feigning illness and failing to perform duties and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the department. Accordingly, the Command Review Board recommended that the police chief suspend Respondent without pay for one day. By memorandum dated February 2, 1991, the police chief adopted the findings and determinations of the Command Review Board and suspended Respondent for one day. By memorandum dated February 14, 1991, Respondent protested the proposed discipline and demanded a hearing. The arbitrator entered a decision on June 24, 1991, that the police chief had just cause for suspending Respondent for one day without pay. Respondent served this suspension. The next annual performance evaluation is dated January 25, 1992. Respondent earned marks of above operational standard in job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, work habits, and appearance. Her only mark of below operational standard was in attendance. In the preceding 15.5 months, Respondent had used 18 days of "sick leave" and had one day without pay, due to her exhaustion of leave. From May 1990 through April 1991, Respondent used 148 hours of unscheduled leave. The evaluations and memoranda from 1992 through 1994 are largely the same: average or above-average performance in all areas but attendance. The records note only the excessive use of unscheduled leave, but do not attribute the use to fraud. From January 13, 1994 through December 26, 1997, Respondent used 691.72 hours of unscheduled leave. On February 12, 1995, the former captain, now a major, recommended that the Department suspend Respondent without pay for three days due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, the police chief, "with some reluctance," concurred with the recommendation of three days' suspension. On April 18, 1995, a Departmental disciplinary review board met and failed to agree on corrective action. The board recommended only that the Department remove Respondent from field duty and place her in a noncritical position. Upon further deliberations, the board agreed upon a two-day suspension. Respondent served this suspension in June 1995, and the following month a quarterly evaluation dated July 1, 1995, notes that she was still using unscheduled leave. A memorandum dated September 10, 1995, notes that Respondent used 213 hours of unscheduled leave in the first eight months of 1995. By memorandum dated September 20, 1995, the major and three of his subordinates, including the person with immediate supervisory authority over Respondent, recommended to the police chief that the Department terminate Respondent due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. Rejecting the recommendation for termination, the police chief imposed a 30-day suspension without pay, based partly on the assurance of Respondent's physician that the cause of her constant illness had been corrected. Respondent served her suspension from November 22- December 21, 1995. Quarterly evaluations in June 1996 and March 1997 note some improvement in the use of unscheduled leave. From October 1996 through September 17, 1997, Respondent used 180 hours of unscheduled sick leave. From October 1, 1997, through January 26, 1998, Respondent used 82 hours of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated January 26, 1998, the major advised the police chief of Respondent's continued use of unscheduled leave and recommended termination. By notice to Respondent from the police chief dated February 13, 1998, the chief advised Respondent that he was considering disciplinary action, including termination. The notice cites the following grounds from Article Seven, Section C, Ordinance 50-94: excessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work, violation of Department work rules or operating procedures, actions or conduct detrimental to Petitioner's interests, or any other properly substantiated cause that adversely affects Petitioner. The notice alleges that Respondent's conduct also violates department General Order D-1.IV.36, which prohibits excessive use of unscheduled leave. The notice summarizes Respondent's past use of unscheduled leave and the discipline that she had received. The notice asserts that she had used 96 hours of unscheduled leave in the past four months. By letter dated March 12, 1998, Respondent advised the police chief that her ear, nose, and throat physician had placed her on Predisone, which had eliminated her debilitating headaches. By letter dated March 16, 1998, the police chief provided Respondent final notice of proposed disciplinary action for the four grounds mentioned in the prior notice. Respondent has raised an issue of disparate treatment. However, the record fails to reveal other, similarly situated employees with comparable patterns of usage of unscheduled leave. The record contains a detailed record of Respondent's relevant payroll history from January 1, 1994, through May 1, 1998, on which date Petitioner terminated her. By year, these records disclose the following totals of hours for unscheduled leave and leave without pay, the latter of which is due to Respondent's exhaustion of her granted leave: 1994--190 and 48.22; 1995--201 and 148; 1996--94 and 42; 1997--174 and 58; and 1998 (four months)--32.72 and 0. The respective totals are 691.72 and 296.22 hours. Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and leave without pay far exceed the averages for the Department. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit, which is represented by the Florida State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Petitioner and FOP negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in effect from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 2000 (Agreement). Article 3, Section 1, of the Agreement provides: Except as specifically abridged or modified by a provision of this Agreement, City will continue to have, whether exercised or not, all of the rights, powers and authority heretofore existing, including, but not limited to, the following: . . . to hire, transfer, promote and demote employees; to direct employees, to take disciplinary action up to, and including, termination; to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; [and] to issue rules and regulations . . .. Article 10, Section 2, of the Agreement describes the forms of discipline as follows: In accordance with Police Department General Order D-1 (as dated April 1, 1993), forms of corrective action will be utilized by City with the approval of the Police Chief shall include: Counseling or Re-Training--to correct and improve employee performance; Reprimand--a written statement warning the employee of the consequence of future misconduct of a similar nature; Suspension-- suspension from duty without pay; Demotion--a change to a position of lesser responsibility and salary; and Termination--dismissal from the Police Department. Article 10, Section 3, of the Agreement provides that Petitioner shall use "[p]rogressive corrective action," unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action. Article 11 of the Agreement provides that Petitioner may take disciplinary action against an employee for "just cause." Article 15, Section 1(a), of the Agreement grants employees with five or less years of continuous service 25 days of annual leave per year. Article 15, Section 1(b), grants employees with 6-10 years of continuous service 30 days of annual leave per year. The remaining subsections grant more leave based on years of service. Article 15, Section 1(g), of the Agreement provides: The use of annual leave for other than illness must be scheduled with the employee's supervisor. In case of illness, an employee must notify his/her supervisor not later than two (2) hours before the beginning of the scheduled work day or in accordance with Police Department Rules and Regulations. The Agreement provides that Petitioner may discipline covered employees for "just cause," but does not identify what constitutes "just cause." Ordinance 50-94 (Ordinance) sets forth the rules and regulations governing all of Petitioner's employees. Article One, Section B.2, states that the Ordinance covers employees who are parties to a collective bargaining agreement, "except that in the event of a conflict between the terms of this Ordinance and the collective bargaining agreement, the collective bargaining agreement shall govern." Article Six, Section E, provides that an employee may be dismissed for "just cause," but that the department head must comply with the procedures in Article Seven prior to termination. Article Seven, Section B, requires progressive discipline for "the same or similar conduct by the employee," although Petitioner reserves the right to impose the most severe discipline as an initial measure "when circumstances warrant." Article Seven, Section C, cites several grounds for discipline, including "[g]ross neglect of duty or specific serious failure to perform assigned duties"; "[m]ental or physical impairment, normally as supported by written documentation from not less than two licensed physicians, that prevents the employee, even with reasonable accommodation, from performing the essential functions of his or her position"; "[a]bsence without leave, or failure to give proper notice of absence"; "[e]xcessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work"; "[v]iolation of Department work rules or operating procedures"; "[a]ctions or conduct detrimental to the interests of the City"; or "[a]ny other properly substantiated cause which adversely affects the City." Article Seven, Section D, requires that the employee proceed with a grievance for proposed discipline under the ordinance or collective bargaining agreement. Section E.5 describes the hearing conducted under the ordinance, which is the procedure that Respondent elected, and states, at Subsubsection 7, that the Administrative Law Judge is to determine if Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence "just cause" for the discipline. Subsubsection 8 provides that the order is a final order. Subsubsection 9 provides for judicial review. Article Eleven describes attendance and leave. Section A.6.a provides that fulltime employees shall be present at their assigned jobs, "unless absence from duty is authorized by the Department Head as provided herein." Section A.6.c states in part: Excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness shall be grounds for disciplinary action. For purposes of this paragraph, "excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness" shall mean use which is in excess of the average number of hours and/or occurrences of unscheduled leave taken by other City employees in the same or similar positions . . .. Article Seven, Section E.3, defines unscheduled leave as that which the employee requests and the supervisor approves on the day that it is taken. This section states: "An employee's excessive use of unscheduled leave may be grounds for disciplinary action." Section E.1 contains a schedule for the accrual of leave, and the applicable monthly accrual rate, which increases with seniority, applies to the total of each employee's scheduled and unscheduled leave. Department General Order D-1 (General Order), as last revised on December 11, 1995, provides, at Section II, that it applies to [ALL] members of the Department. This section states that the police chief will use progressive discipline, "unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action." Section IV prohibits various acts, including feigning illness, avoiding responsibility, or failing to perform one's duties; "excessive use of unscheduled leave"; or engaging in conduct that adversely affects the morale and efficiency of the department. By memorandum dated July 20, 1987, a major in the Department advised all operations division personnel that absences, "regardless of cause," weaken the Department's ability to serve the public though personnel shortages, increase personnel costs due to overtime to cover absences, and increase burdens on other employees. The safety of the public and law enforcement officers requires a minimum staffing of law enforcement officers on each shift. The absence of a scheduled officer requires that the Department pay overtime for an unscheduled officer to report for duty. The record does not demonstrate that unscheduled absences of an officer, up to the total amount of granted leave, compromise the safety of the public or other officers. The contrary inference is precluded in part by the fact that, in the Agreement, Petitioner grants each officer a certain amount of leave and does not further restrict the officer's choice to use his or her granted leave as unscheduled leave. However, the use of unscheduled leave in excess of the granted leave is not anticipated by the Agreement and may compromise the safety of the public and other officers.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit: constructively discharging Petitioner on the basis of handicap discrimination without reasonable accommodation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lake County Sheriff's Office (LCSO), constitutes an "employer" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Chris Daniels took office as the elected Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, in January 2005. He had been with Respondent LCSO for 18 years. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer for Lake County; operates the Lake County Jail for the Board of County Commissioners; and manages security and bailiffs for the Lake County Courthouse. His responsibilities also include providing final approval for staffing levels at the Lake County Jail. In 2005, Petitioner had been employed as a detention officer at the Lake County Jail for 16 years. He is a certified corrections officer. Corrections/detention officers assigned to the inmate housing/security areas at the jail work 12-hour shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. They are assigned to either "A," "B," "C," or "D" Squads. The squads rotate from day to night, and from night to day, shifts every four months. Officers assigned to inmate security are not normally assigned permanent shifts. Petitioner was such an officer. Working on rotating shifts is an essential function of working in the inmate housing area of the jail, as detailed in the job description for corrections officers as follows: . . . ensures a timely transmission of pertinent information and materials to other correctional personnel assigned to the same and/or the next shift. Petitioner understood at the beginning of his employment with LCSO that he was expected to work rotating shifts, and he did, in fact, work rotating shifts until 1996. Other corrections officers assigned to laundry, the jail kitchen, inmate transportation and other administrative functions permanently work days from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, without shift changes. Such positions with permanent day shifts have become available over the years. However, Petitioner last sought such a position in 1997 or 1998. Petitioner was working as a detention/corrections officer for Respondent when he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1996. Petitioner's diabetes causes tingling in his hands and feet, impotence, floaters in his eyes, dizziness, profuse sweating, frequent urination, a weakening immune system and occasional outbreaks of boils. Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 reveals that he takes multiple oral medications and that each kind of medication ideally should be taken at the same time of day, each day, but there are instructions on how to compensate if a dose is missed. With the exception of working rotating shifts, Petitioner was able at all times to perform the essential functions of a corrections officer for Respondent. The Veterans’ Administration pays Petitioner $218.00 per month because it believes his diabetes was induced by Agent Orange he encountered while in Viet Nam. At Petitioner's request, Respondent allowed Petitioner to work a permanent day shift from 1996 to June 30, 2005, when he retired. Petitioner testified he has worked in the past as a military medic and as a physician's assistant in correction facilities, so he is knowledgeable about the horrific, and sometimes fatal, effects of uncontrolled diabetes. Petitioner expected to live a normal life so long as he controlled his diabetes. Petitioner claims to have explained over the years to all his superiors that he needed to consistently take his medications at the same time of day. However, he did not offer any evidence in the present proceeding to explain why he could not take his medications consistently on a 24-hour clock, e.g. during nights, as opposed to during days. There have been periods when he experienced problems with his diabetes while working a permanent day shift. His medications have been adjusted several times since 1996. All witnesses agreed that Petitioner spent 18 months alone in a permanent day position in the third-floor control room. Petitioner claimed that he was assigned this long period of duty on the third-floor as “punishment” for being allowed to permanently work a day shift. He maintained, without any supporting evidence, that being assigned to a single position for more than a few months this way was unusual. However, although Respondent assigned Petitioner to the third-floor control room alone for a duration of 18 months, Respondent also assigned a non-diabetic employee alone there for about one year. Petitioner speculated, again without any supporting evidence, that the non-diabetic employee was also being punished for something. Both Petitioner and the non-diabetic employee experienced being confined to the control room without a restroom. Having to urinate when no other officer could stand- in for them created a hardship on both men. On one occasion, the non-diabetic employee urinated in a garbage can. At the date of hearing, Gary Borders had been with LCSO for 17 years and served as its Chief Deputy.1/ On the date of hearing, and at all times material, Chief Borders’ duties included responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the Lake County Jail and the Lake County Courthouse and for training. Petitioner claims to have frequently protested to many superiors about not having a restroom on the third-floor and not being allowed to bring food in for his diabetes. He also claimed to have specifically asked Chief Borders to be transferred from service on the third-floor, but Chief Borders did not recall more than one vague conversation concerning Petitioner’s complaint about how long Petitioner had been posted there and that he had told Petitioner he, Borders, had no problem with Petitioner’s being transferred elsewhere in the jail. It is not clear when, precisely, this 18 month-period occurred. Because Petitioner was on a permanent day shift from 1996-1997 to 2005 (eight years), and Petitioner testified his 18-month posting on the third-floor was "over" and was from 2003-2005, his time on the third-floor was not affirmatively shown to have occurred within the 365 days immediately preceding the filing of his Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on December 8, 2005. When Sheriff Daniels took office in January 2005, Chief Borders advised him that because the date for the squads to rotate shifts (see Finding of Fact 4) was due to occur on May 1, 2005, the number of persons assigned to permanent shifts was affecting Chief Borders' ability to make assignments. When corrections officers working in inmate housing of the jail are assigned permanent shifts, staff shortages can occur on other shifts. Chief Borders further advised the new sheriff that he, Borders, was receiving additional requests for permanent shifts. While discussing why there were so many employees assigned permanent shifts, and not subject to the standard four months' rollover of the squads from day-to-night and night-to- day shifts, Sheriff Daniels and Chief Borders concluded that LCSO needed a formal method of differentiating between those employees who genuinely needed a permanent day or night shift and those employees who merely wanted a permanent shift assignment. To determine which employees needed a permanent shift as an accommodation for their specific condition or situation, Sheriff Daniels instructed Chief Borders to send a memorandum to the 12-14 employees assigned to permanent shifts, requiring those employees to provide medical evidence of their need for a permanent shift assignment. On March 25, 2005, Chief Borders sent all employees assigned to permanent shifts the following memorandum: There is a requirement for rotating shift work for Detention Deputies, Auxiliary Detention Deputies and Deputy Sheriffs at the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Please ask your physician to review the Job Description for Detention Deputy (or Auxiliary) and ask if you can perform all the job requirements. If you are cross- sworn, also have your physician review the Deputy Sheriff job description and ask if you can perform all of the job requirements for that position. When your job description(s) have been reviewed, bring your physician's letter and all related supporting material (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment notes, test results and any other documents that would assist the agency in evaluating your request) to me so that our agency physician can review them for possible accommodation. Because shift changes will take place on May 1, 2005, you must have your documents to me no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, April 15, 2005. If I do not hear back from you by Friday, April 15, 2005 at 5:00 P.M., I will take it that you are available for rotating shift work assignment. The process envisioned by the Sheriff and Chief was that when an employee, who wanted an accommodation, provided the requested information from his own treating physician, that employee's supervisor would pass the information along to LCSO's physician, and an interactive process would begin. As of the date of hearing, LCSO had employees working in modified jobs, including job sharing, and an accommodation had been made for a person in a wheelchair. In 2005, LCSO also fully intended to accommodate those employees who provided proof from their physicians of their need for other accommodations. Petitioner testified that he did not want to repeatedly roll over from day-to-night shifts every four months because past experience had taught him that each time his shift changed, it took him at least two weeks to properly regulate and space his intake of food, liquids, and medications, in such a way that his diabetes was controlled and he felt alert and capable. In response to receiving the March 25, 2005, memorandum, Petitioner presented Chief Borders with a note from Petitioner's primary physician, Dr. Gelin, written on a prescription pad, stating: brittle diabetic pt needs to work day shift only. Petitioner did not present any other written information in response to Respondent LCSO’s detailed request. Petitioner testified that he discussed Dr. Gelin’s note with Chief Borders to the extent that he told Borders that if anyone on behalf of LCSO phoned Dr. Gelin, Dr. Gelin would discuss or fax further information to that person; Chief Borders does not recall this conversation. Chief Borders is a diabetic himself, but he had never heard the term, "brittle diabetic." It is Petitioner's position that because, in Dr. Gelin's private conversations with Petitioner, Dr. Gelin had told Petitioner that “any doctor” should know the sequelae and effects of "brittle diabetes," all Petitioner’s LCSO superiors needed to do was pass on Dr. Gelin’s prescription note to LCSO’s consulting physician in order for Petitioner to be accommodated. Petitioner believed it was his superiors' duty to make Dr. Gelin submit the written materials they wanted. Sheriff Daniels generally distrusted the information that physicians submitted on prescription pads, because, in his experience, when the employee or physician was pressed for details, there was often no supporting information forthcoming. Therefore, he did not believe the information on Petitioner's prescription slip, as described to him by Chief Borders, was sufficient to begin the interactive process with LCSO’s Human Resources Department or its consulting physician. Neither Sheriff Daniels nor Chief Borders presented Petitioner's prescription slip to them. It was decided between the Sheriff and the Chief, that Chief Borders would try to get more detailed information from Petitioner. Petitioner testified that he tried to get more information from his primary physician, Dr. Gelin, but Dr. Gelin would not provide in writing the detailed information requested by LCSO’s March 25, 2005, memorandum. On April 22, 2005, Chief Borders wrote Petitioner that Dr. Gelin's prescription pad note was insufficient and that Petitioner would not be reassigned to a permanent day shift position, stating: I have reviewed the information provided by your physician and find there is insufficient evidence presented to justify a permanent shift assignment. As such, your request is denied. You will rotate day/nights with your assigned shift during the normal rotation. None of the 12-14 employees assigned to permanent shifts, had submitted the requested information, so all of them, including Petitioner, were assigned to a rotating shift. The Sheriff and Chief received no report of complaints from any employee. However, on April 26, 2005, Petitioner received a memo stating that effective May 4, 2005, he would be assigned to "C" squad. "A" Squad, where Petitioner was then assigned, was scheduled to rotate from day shift to night shift on May 1, 2005, and "C" Squad was due to rotate from the night shift to the day shift on the same date. Accordingly, LCSO’s purpose in transferring Petitioner to “C” Squad was to provide him with four more months (until September 1, 2005) to obtain the required medical opinion and detailed supporting documentation from his treating physician. The "A" to "C" Squad change also would have allowed Petitioner to remain on a day shift, without interruption, and allow him an additional four months in which to gather medical information from any appropriate source to support his request to indefinitely remain on a permanent day shift. In fact, Petitioner was regularly seeing Dr. Flores, at the Veterans’ Administration, as well as Dr. Gelin. Dr. Flores coordinated oversight of Petitioner's medical condition with Dr. Gelin, who is Petitioner's private physician. However, Petitioner did not approach Dr. Flores, and he did not go back to Dr. Gelin, until after Petitioner retired. Petitioner had hoped to work another six years before retiring, but on May 13, 2005, while still assigned to the day shift, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation, hoping that someone in his chain of command would try to talk him out of leaving. He expected his supervisors to "workout" a permanent day shift for him, instead of permitting him to retire.2/ Petitioner's resignation letter stated: Regrettable [sic] I am submitting my letter of resignation effective June 30, 2005. Your recent decision denying me permission to remain on the day shift in spite of my doctor's recommendation to remain on the day shift because of my medical condition (brittle diabetic) has forced me to retire earlier than I had planned to. There is no other way that I can regulate my medication switching from days to nights . . . Respondent never required Petitioner to work the night shift, and he never did work the night shift after 1996-1997. Petitioner gave notice of his retirement in May 2005, rather than work in "C" Squad on the day shift until September 1, 2005, or continue to try to obtain additional medical information that would allow him to indefinitely remain on a permanent day shift. Petitioner elected to retire effective June 30, 2005, because, upon advice of “Retirement” he believed it was more financially beneficial for him to retire in June 2005, rather than wait until January 2006.3/ Since January 1, 2006, Petitioner has been employed managing real property in Florida and Costa Rica. Petitioner testified that when he retired, he could perform all the duties required by his detention/corrections officer job description, and perhaps other duties as well, except for the rotating shifts. He believes, but offered no supporting documentation, that rotating shifts are counter- productive and are on their way out in most jails. He further testified that he could probably even work the rotating shifts required by this employer but he believed that to do so would have put him in a health crisis due to his diabetes and multiple medications.
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 25th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 25th day of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grey C. English, has worked for DOT, primarily in its Okeechobee, Florida office, for approximately seven years. At the time in question, he was serving as an HMT II, crew leader, with job duties that included various equipment and machinery maintenance and general road work. In some cases he served as crew leader and in other cases, he was merely a member of the crew. In April, 1986, Mr. English filed a charge of discrimination against DOT before the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that he had been passed over for promotion and discriminated against therein because of his race (Black). Part of the allegation involved Mr. R. C. Roberts, who concurred in the selection of another applicant over the Petitioner when he knew there was an irregularity in the selection process. Petitioner presented this evidence in an effort to discredit Mr. Roberts' testimony for Respondent here on the basis of bias, but was unsuccessful. In January 1987, Petitioner and DOT entered into a settlement agreement which disposed of the Petitioner's charge of discrimination without assessing blame, but as a result of which, Petitioner was paid the sum of $2,656.40. This sum was paid by state warrant dated February 13, 1987 which, it is concluded, was received by Petitioner several days later. Attendance documents maintained by DOT reflect that on February 13, 1987, which was a Friday, Petitioner was on authorized leave without pay. On February 16, 1987, the following Monday, he worked 7.3 hours and was authorized leave the remainder of the time. Between Tuesday, February 17 and Thursday, February 19, 1987, Petitioner was present for duty performing safety duties. However, on Friday, February 20, 1987, he was placed on unauthorized leave without pay and remained in that status through March 19, 1987. Michelle L. King, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, relates that on February 19, 1987, when Petitioner came to work, she advised him where his work site would be and with whom he would be working. According to Ms. King, when so advised, Petitioner indicated he would not work with Mr. Mills, apparently one of his prospective co-workers, and walked off the job. Shortly thereafter, Ms. King received a phone call from Petitioner's mother who advised her that Petitioner's grandfather was seriously ill and in the hospital and Petitioner's presence was needed at the hospital to assist in caring for him. When Ms. King immediately went to look for Petitioner, she found him sitting in his car approximately one half block from the DOT yard where she advised him of the message she had received. At this point; Petitioner immediately left the area presumably to go to the hospital. According to Ms. King, he did not ask permission to leave then nor did he ask for any time off during the succeeding days for which he was marked in an unauthorized absence status. During that entire period, however, she did not try to reach him by phone or in person even though she had his phone number on record in the office and knew where he lived. She admits she made no effort to reach Petitioner to tell him his job was in jeopardy because she felt, he had walked off the job and was not, therefore, entitled to that consideration. She merely reported the Petitioner's status to her supervisor, Mr. Lanier, and considered the matter closed. Mr. Lanier indicates he made no effort to contact Petitioner either. Petitioner admits that he was sitting in his car with the mechanic who repaired it; away from the job site, when he was advised of his grandfather's illness. He contends he had left the job earlier that morning because he, himself, was ill, not because he did not want to work with Mr. Mills and he contends that his continued absence from work was occasioned by the need for him to remain with his grandfather in the hospital for the period of time of his absence because there were no other family members available to do so. He contends he stayed with his grandfather, who was ill with and ultimately died of cancer, the entire time. There is no evidence of record, however, to indicate that Petitioner requested or was placed on sick leave when he left work on the morning in question. Petitioner also claims that on one occasion several days after February 19, 1987, he met Ms. Kings, Ms. Chapman, and Mr. Lanier, another supervisor, in a local restaurant during the lunch hour. At that time he told them that he would have to have some time off for a few days because of his grandfather's illness but that he would stay in touch. Petitioner contends that this absence was approved by either Mr. Lanier or Ms. King and he was given no instructions to call in or take any other action regarding his absence. The meeting is confirmed by Mr. Branchaud, a co-worker, who observed Petitioner in a conversation with Mr. Lanier but he cannot say for certain what the specifics of the conversation were. Both Mr. Lanier and Ms. King deny any such meeting took place and this is confirmed by Ms. Chapman. Ms. King and Ms. Chapman, as well as Mr. Lanier, though all employees of DOT, have nothing to gain by telling an untruth or giving perjured testimony regarding the situation involving Petitioner. Consequently, it is found that Mr. English did not get permission from either Mr. Lanier or Ms. King to be absent, and that, therefore, his absence between February 19, 1987 and March 10, 1987 was unexcused. During the period of Petitioner's absence, on March 4, 1987; a DOT official, by certified letter, advised him of his continued absence without approved leave and directed him to report to his duty section by 8:00 am on March 9, 1987 under pain of termination for a failure to comply. The return receipt executed by someone reflecting Mrs. Grey English indicates that the letter was received at Petitioner's home address in Okeechobee on March 11, 1987, one day after the action was taken to terminate him. Petitioner contends that he did not receive that letter and that on the date in question, there was no Mrs. Grey English. He was living at that residence, he contends, with his mother whose name is not English. No other female at that address bore the name Mrs. Grey English. The girl friend who he sometimes identified as his wife was not living at his address at the time the letter was received and did not sign for it in his behalf. Be that as it may, the letter was receipted for by an adult at the Petitioner's address. He did not, however, thereafter comply with the terms of the letter and termination action was taken by DOT on March 10, 1987 when the District Director sent him a letter notifying him of his termination by certified mails return receipt requested. Petitioner, as was stated previously, denies any intention to abandon his position and denies having received any letter of warning. He was, however, fully aware of the department's procedures for obtaining leave authorization and obviously failed to take any of the necessary steps to secure that authorization, instead relying on a purported casual meeting with his supervisor at a restaurant where he supposedly received verbal permission to be absent. This is not persuasive. His credibility, in addition, is somewhat suspect in that he has already demonstrated his willingness to falsify official documentation if it suits his purpose. Petitioner admits that several years prior to the instance in question, he, though not married, filled out certain official documentation for DOT claiming his girlfriend to be his wife for the purpose of putting her on his record as beneficiary of his insurance with the department. He claims he was advised by some official of the department to do this but does not indicate who this individual was. Even if that were the case, he recognized at the time that the lady was not his wife and was nonetheless willing to falsify documentation if it was to his benefit to do so. Consequently, his willingness to be less than candid when it suits his purpose to be so has been established and in this case, the better weight of the evidence establishes clearly that notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, he walked off the job without authority and made no effort to take any action necessary to preserve his employment status. It is, therefore, concluded that he did abandon his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Grey C. English, be terminated from employment with the Department of Transportation effective March 11, 1987. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1931 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1-2. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 10, except for the last section thereof relating to a restatement of his testimony at the hearing, which is not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Petitioner was not terminated for excessive absenteeism. The respondent was considered to have resigned his position with the Department of Transportation and the rules regarding disciplinary termination are not relevant to this situation. 9-12. Irrelevant. 13-17. Rejected as not Finding of Fact. By the Respondent Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. 3-4. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. 8-9. Accepted. 10-13. Irrelevant. Rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isidro Garcia, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. 572 S.W. 2nd Street Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Respondent should be deemed to have abandoned her employment with Petitioner and resigned from Career Service on March 10, 1989.
Findings Of Fact From March 31, 1987 through March 6, 1989, Nguyet Mackay, Respondent herein, was an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner herein). Petitioner's workday commences at 7:30 a.m. At approximately 9:30 a.m., on March 6, 1989, Respondent called Larry Blackburn, a supervisory employee and advised that she was in Ohio and requested leave without pay (LWOP). Blackburn was without authority to approve LWOP and so advised Respondent, but agreed to submit Respondent's request to personnel for consideration. Blackburn expressed skepticism about granting LWOP to Respondent since Respondent, at the time, was on special probation for failing to achieve the required standards in her department. During the conversation with Blackburn on March 6, Respondent advised Blackburn that she was enroute to California to pick up her sister and other relatives and that she would again call the following day, i.e., March 7, to find out if her request for LWOP was granted. Blackburn, in an effort to make sure that in the event Respondent called prior to his arrival at work the following morning, left specific instructions with Marilyn Ford, a unit supervisor, on whether to grant or deny Respondent's request for LWOP. At approximately 8:30 a.m., on March 7, 1989, Respondent phoned to inquire whether her request for LWOP was approved. Ford inquired of Respondent the basis for her request for LWOP and determined that since it was not an emergency, Respondent was advised and placed on unauthorized LWOP and that disciplinary action was being contemplated. Ford further advised Respondent that she was to report to work the following day, March 8, 1989, at her regular reporting time. Respondent was cautioned that in the event that she failed to report to work by the close of business on Friday, March 10, 1989, her employment relationship with Petitioner would be severed for abandonment of position. Respondent advised supervisor Ford that she had flown to California from Ohio to meet with seven members of her family who were flying to California from Malaysia, a sister and brother-in-law and their five children, who had a language barrier and were unable to communicate in English. Respondent understood the directives issued by Ford respecting her unauthorized LWOP and her duty to report to work on March 8. Respondent did not report to work by the close of business on March 10, and her only communication with Petitioner following the March 7, 1989 conversation with Marilyn Ford, was a phone call during the week of March 13 to give her new address and directions for mailing her final paycheck. By letter dated March 13, 1989, Respondent was advised that she was deemed to have resigned from Career Service on March 10, 1989, based on her continuous absence from work without authorization during the period 7:30 a.m., Monday, March 6, 1989 through 4:00 p.m., Friday, March 10, 1989, since such absence without authorized leave for three consecutive work days constituted an abandonment of position. At the time of Respondent's employment on March 31, 1987, she received a copy of Petitioner's employee handbook and loyalty oath and acknowledged her responsibility to review the handbook in detail and request any clarification needed from either her supervisor or the personnel office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Respondent's petition for review of the facts herein based on the determination that Respondent abandoned her position of employment with Petitioner on March 10, 1989. DONE and ENTERED this 25th of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Shari N. Cortese, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 701 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Nguyet Mackay 6202 South Harold Avenue Tampa, Florida 33601 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 A. J. McMullian, III Interim Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position as a state employee.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issue of abandonment in these proceedings, Petitioner William Grimsley was a Career Service Employee, employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at Fort Myers, Florida, as a Public Assistance Specialist I. On January 4, 1989, the Petitioner learned that his father's brother had died in Georgia. Petitioner Grimsley requested one day of authorized leave from his supervisor in order to drive his father to the funeral in Colquitt, Georgia. The Petitioner's father was unable to drive himself to Georgia because of his heart condition, and the extreme stress he was under due to the fact that his wife's two children were in critical condition in Shand's hospital in Gainesville, Florida, during this time period. The Petitioner's father had recently suffered a heart attack, and was under doctor's orders not to drive alone for extended periods of time. When the Petitioner requested one day's leave for January 5, 1989, he anticipated that he would be able to return to work on January 9, 1989. The Petitioner was on a four-day work week, and the one day's leave gave him the opportunity to accomplish his task within a four-day time period. After the Petitioner and his father arrived in Georgia, they learned that there had been two other deaths in the family. On Saturday, January 7, 1989, the Petitioner attended his cousin's funeral. On Sunday, January 8, 1989, the Petitioner attended his uncle's funeral. On Monday, January 9, 1989, he attended his great aunt's funeral. As the family lives in a rural and impoverished area in Georgia, the Petitioner did not have access to a telephone until he drove into Bainbridge, Georgia, on January 9, 1989. The Petitioner was without money during his attempts to telephone his office from Bainbridge, Georgia. According to Petitioner, his money was stolen from his wallet by one of his deceased uncle's children during the funeral services. The Petitioner did not tell his father of the incident due to the current tension between his deceased uncle's children and the uncle's widow regarding the disposition of life insurance proceeds. The Petitioner's father was under enough stress, and the Petitioner believed he could contact his office without having to spend money. The Petitioner's attempt to charge the call to his home phone was unsuccessful because there was no one at his home to verify that he was authorized to charge calls to that telephone number. The Petitioner's attempt to place a collect call to his employer was unsuccessful because the Department refused to accept the collect call placed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner then placed a collect call to his mother's home in Fort Myers, Florida. Once his call was accepted, the Petitioner asked to speak to his sister, Iris Hill. Ms. Hill was instructed to contact the Petitioner's supervisor to inform her of the situation in Georgia. The Petitioner had to attend three funerals as opposed to one funeral, and his uncle's widow was in need of his father's assistance. No time frame was given to the Petitioner's sister regarding his anticipated return. His sister assured him that she would contact his supervisor to relay his message. The Petitioner's sister attempted to contact his supervisor by telephone several times, as she had been instructed. However, she was unsuccessful, and did not make contact until after her brother had returned to work on January 12, 1989. During her conversation with the supervisor, Petitioner's sister, Miss Hill, was surprised to learn that the Petitioner had returned to work that morning after driving from Georgia earlier that day. Upon his return to work, the Petitioner was informed that a Notice of Abandonment had been filed, and that he had been separated from his employment with the Department due to his absence without authorized leave for three consecutive work days. The Petitioner did not intend to abandon his position when he remained in Georgia for three additional days in order to assist his father in family matters. The Petitioner reasonably believed his supervisor had been informed of the reasons for his absence on Monday, January 9, 1989, and that he would return to work as soon as possible.
Recommendation Based upon the evidence, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Secretary of the Department of Administration issue a Final Order that Petitioner did not abandon his position in the Career Service System. That the Petitioner be reinstated to his position as a Public Assistance Specialist I with all rights and privileges attendant to that position before the dismissal date of January 11, 1989, and subsequent to that date. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1183 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2 and #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6 and #7 Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper summary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #5, #6 and #8. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted that Petitioner arrived at work on January 12, 1989. The rest of paragraph 8 is rejected as improper summary. Rejected. Witness incompetent to make legal conclusion. Rejected. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Tucker, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services 2209 Euclid Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Andrew J. McMullian General Counsel Interim Secretary Department of Health and Department of Administration Rehabilitative Services 435 Carlton Building 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Khan abandoned her career service position by failing to report for work, or to apply for and obtain leave for three consecutive days.
Findings Of Fact Olwen B. Khan was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Public Assistance Specialist in the medically needed program in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Khan is Jamaican, and cares for her elderly father. In order to provide for his care, she arranged to go to Jamaica to sell some property there. On March 1, 1988, Ms. Khan requested, and was granted, 32 hours of leave for March 7 through the close of business on March 10, 1988. Ms. Khan had accumulated annual leave and sick leave so that the annual leave requested did not exhaust the leave available to her. Ms. Khan purchased an airline ticket to Jamaica which would have resulted in her return the evening of March 10, 1988. On March 9, 1988, it became clear that Ms. Khan's business could not be concluded by March 10 and she would have to remain in Jamaica a few more days. She was then in Maninbay, Jamaica, where telephone service is not sophisticated. She had to go to the local telephone company office to make an overseas call when a line was available. She did so at approximately 2:45 p.m. on March 9 but when she reached the HRS office, she was placed on hold for an extended period of time. She then terminated the call and attempted to place another call on March 10 but was not able to get through to the HRS office. The evening of the 10th she made a collect call to her home in Fort Lauderdale at about 5:45 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The purpose of the call was to have her daughter request additional leave so she could conclude her business in Jamaica. Ms. Khan's ex-husband answered the phone, which surprised her. He agreed to make the request to the Department for additional leave. The following Tuesday Ms. Khan spoke with her ex- husband again, and he said that the message had been given and the additional leave had been taken care of. In fact, no one ever contacted the Department on Ms. Khan's behalf to explain her failure to report to work on Friday, March 11; Monday, March 14; or Tuesday, March 15, 1988. Ms. Khan's supervisor, Norma Levine, did ask one of Ms. Khan's coworkers if she knew where Ms. Khan was. The coworker, Judy Fiche, did not know. After three days had passed with no word from Ms. Khan, Ms. Levine discussed the matter with her supervisor, Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran recommended termination for abandonment of position because no one had heard from Ms. Khan since her approved leave had ended on Thursday, March 10, 1988. A memorandum setting out the facts was prepared for the personnel office, and through the personnel office a certified letter was sent to Ms. Khan on March 17, 1988, informing her that as of the close of business on March 15, 1988, her employment had been terminated for abandonment of her position. When Ms. Khan did return on March 16, she was informed that her position had been terminated. She attempted to see Mr. Moran that day but he was unavailable. She eventually did speak with him but was unsatisfied with his response and ultimately spoke with the personnel officer for HRS District X, Mr. Durrett, on March 30, 1988. Mr. Durrett maintained HRS's position that Mr. Khan had abandoned her job and was unmoved by her explanation that she had been out of the country to take care of a family problem and had thought that her message about needing additional leave had been relayed to the Department. When Ms. Khan was first employed by the Department, she signed a receipt for an employee handbook setting out its policies. The policy on absences requires that an employee who does not report to work notify the employee's supervisor by 8:30 a.m., and if that supervisor is not available, the employee is to notify another supervisor that the employee will not be in to work and state why. The employee performance appraisal for Ms. Khan completed in November 1988, was the last appraisal before her termination. It shows that she was regarded as achieving prescribed performance standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that under Rule 22A- 7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Olwen B. Khan abandoned her position by being absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays. DONE AND RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The burden of all proposed facts contained in Ms. Khan's proposed finding of fact have been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Lawrence D. Zietz, Esquire 8181 West Broward Boulevard #380 Plantation, Florida 33324 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
