The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged, pursuant to Chapter 465, Florida Statutes (2006), with regulation of the practice of pharmacy. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida, holding license number PS 26142. On May 3, 2005, a Final Order (DOH-05-0782-S-MQA) was filed based on the stipulated resolution of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent by the Petitioner in DOH Case Nos. 2002-27092 and 2002-25746. The Final Order imposed a suspension of the Respondent's license as follows: Respondent's license to practice pharmacy shall be suspended until such time as Respondent petitions and appears before the Board and can demonstrate that he is able to practice pharmacy with skill and safety to patients. Proof of his ability to practice safely shall include an evaluation of respondent by the Professional Resources Network (PRN) and a recommendation from PRN to the Board that Respondent can practice pharmacy with reasonable skill and safety to patients. The Final Order imposed a probationary period as follows: Upon the termination of suspension of Respondent's license, Respondent's license shall be placed on probation concurrent with the PRN contract or three (3) years whichever is longer. If, after completing an evaluation of Respondent, the PRN deems it necessary for Respondent to execute a contract for supervision and/or treatment, the three-year probationary period shall run concurrent with the PRN's contract. During the period or probation Respondent shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent or his employer shall submit written reports to the Compliance Officer at the Board office. The written reports shall contain Respondent licensee's name, license number, current address and phone number; current name, address and phone number of each pharmacy in which Respondent is engaged in the practice of pharmacy; the names of all pharmacists, pharmacy interns, pharmacy technicians, relief pharmacists, and prescription department managers working with the Respondent. These reports shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer every three (3) months in a manner as directed by the Compliance Officer. * * * Respondent shall submit documentation evidencing that his employer, or if employed as a relief pharmacist, his supervision pharmacists(s) and the relief agency, have been provided with a copy of the Final Order describing these probationary terms within ten (10) days of the entry of the Final Order or upon initiation of employment. Respondent shall ensure that his employer or, if employed as a relief pharmacist, the supervising pharmacist at each pharmacy at which the Respondent works, submits written reports to the Compliance Officer for the Board of Pharmacy. These reports shall contain: the name, current address, license number, and telephone number of each pharmacy intern, pharmacy technician, relief pharmacist, and prescription department manager working with the Respondent in the prescription department; a brief description of Respondent's duties and responsibilities; and Respondent's work schedule. These reports shall be submitted by the employer to the Compliance Officer every three (3) months in a manner directed by the Board. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine of $2,000. In the stipulation for settlement of the disciplinary cases, the assessment of costs was addressed as follows: Respondent agrees to reimburse the Department for any administrative costs incurred in the investigation, prosecution, and preparation of this case, not to exceed eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). The total amount of the costs will be assessed at the time the stipulation is presented to the Board. The fine and costs are to be paid by the Respondent . . . within sixty (60) days of the filing of a Final Order accepting and incorporating this Agreement. The copy of the stipulation admitted into evidence at the hearing included a handwritten notation related to the time for payment of the fine and costs and appears to indicate that the 60-day deadline for payment was extended to six months. The source of the handwriting was unclear; but in any event, the Final Order adopted the agreed stipulation and assessed costs of $10,852.66. The Final Order extended the deadline for payment of the costs to six months from the date of the Final Order, but did not specifically reference the deadline for payment of the administrative fine. The evidence establishes that both the fine and the assessed costs were to be paid within six months of the date of the Final Order, or by November 2, 2005. The evidence establishes that the Respondent paid neither the fine nor the assessed costs by the November 2, 2005, deadline. There is no evidence that the Respondent has made any attempt to pay any portion of the financial penalty, and the $12,852.66 remained unpaid at the time of the administrative hearing. The Respondent's suspension was lifted pursuant to an Order of Reinstatement filed June 28, 2005, at which time the probationary period began. According to the Respondent's Responses to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, the Respondent was placed by "Healthcare Consultants" to work in relief status at the Winn-Dixie #736 pharmacy and at the Winn-Dixie #741 pharmacy for a total of five days during the month of August 2005. According to the terms of the stipulation as adopted by the Final Order, the Respondent's first quarterly report was due three months following the beginning of the probationary period, or approximately September, 28, 2005. Cheryl Sellers, a compliance officer for the Petitioner, was assigned the responsibility of monitoring the Respondent's compliance with his obligations under the May 3, 2005, Final Order. The Respondent had several extended telephone conversations with Ms. Sellers shortly after the Respondent's probationary period began. During the conversations, the specific disciplinary requirements of the stipulation and Final Order were discussed at length. Additionally, in 1997, the Petitioner had incurred a substantially similar penalty, including a suspension, a fine, and compliance with quarterly reporting requirements. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was aware of, and understood, his obligations under the May 3, 2005, Final Order. As was her standard practice, Ms. Sellers sent a package of information to licensees with disciplinary restrictions, including various forms, related to compliance with requirements set forth by Final Orders. The package was mailed by regular mail to the Petitioner on August 4, 2005; but for reasons unknown, the information was not delivered to the Respondent and was returned to the Petitioner by the postal service. The package was not re-mailed to the Respondent until October 12, 2005. The Respondent filed his quarterly reports on October 19, 2005, several weeks after the deadline had passed. Apparently the first Employer's Quarterly Report was completed by an individual identified as Robert Miller, presumably employed by Healthcare Consultants, an otherwise unidentified entity which supposedly placed the Respondent in the Winn-Dixie pharmacies for the August 2005 employment. Mr. Miller was not the pharmacist in charge of the Winn-Dixie units where the Respondent had been employed. By letter dated October 21, 2005, Compliance Officer Cheryl Sellers notified the Respondent that he was "not in compliance" with the May 3, 2005, Final Order and stated as follows: Guidelines for submitting Employer Quarterly Reports were sent to you on October 12, 2005, the Employer's Quarterly Report from Robert Miller received on October 19, 2005, is not acceptable. Efren Rivera the PDM at the Winn Dixie store #736 is the appropriate person to complete this form. [sic] The Employer's Quarterly Report subsequently submitted by Efren Rivera was dated and notarized on November 1, 2005, and was filed thereafter. The Respondent filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in late 2005 and was discharged from debt on January 31, 2006. The Respondent has asserted that his obligation to pay the administrative fine and assessed costs was discharged through the bankruptcy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Pharmacy, enter a final order directing that the Respondent pay a total of $16,352.66, to the Petitioner. The total reflects the $12,852.66 imposed by the May 3, 2005, Final Order and the additional $3,500 penalty related to the violations set forth herein. Additionally, the final order should extend the Respondent's current probationary period by 18 months to be served consecutively to the current probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 10th day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick L. Butler, Esquire Billie Jo Owens, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Denis R. Bousquet 5125 Cedar Springs Drive, Unit 203 Naples, Florida 34110 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rebecca Poston, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discharging the Petitioner from his position with the Respondent. Petitioner contends that he was discharged on account of his sex. Respondent contends that Petitioner was discharged on account of a severe attendance problem. Petitioner contends that female employees with similar or worse attendance problems were not terminated.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a corporation which does business in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a distribution warehouse for Seven-Eleven Stores. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977. Petitioner is a male citizen of the United States. He was employed in various capacities by the Respondent from January, 1974, until he was discharged on November 24, 1981. At the time of his discharge, he was employed as a receiving clerk in one of the Respondent's warehouse facilities. Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations concerning his discharge in a timely manner. A determination of reasonable cause was issued by the Commission, effort at conciliation failed, and Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief in a timely manner. From late in 1978 until the time that Petitioner was discharged, all of the Petitioner's supervisors at the Respondent experienced difficulties with Petitioner due to a poor attendance record. At the time, the Respondent followed a four-step disciplinary procedure. Step 1 was employee counseling. Step 2 involved issuance of what was called a "pink slip," or unsatisfactory employee report. At Step 3, a final letter of warning would be issued. Step 4 was discharge. The first formal record that Respondent entered Step 1 of the disciplinary procedure was an employee counseling record issued October 31, 1978. It was therein noted that Respondent had failed to call in prior to an absence from his work shift. The second employee counseling record was issued April 4, 1978. The Petitioner's supervisor discussed repeated tardiness and absences with him on that occasion. Additional counseling records were issued April 11, 1979, and April 30, 1979, and raised the same problems. While these were apparently the only formal records of employee counseling, the Petitioner had been counseled on numerous other occasions regarding excessive tardiness and absenteeism. Respondent entered Step 2 of the disciplinary procedure on November 28, 1979, when a "pink slip," or unsatisfactory performance report, was issued. It was therein noted that the Respondent had been counseled about excessive absenteeism and that his performance had not improved. Petitioner's record did not improve, and on March 19, 1980, a warning letter was issued, thus placing Petitioner in the third step of the disciplinary process. The Petitioner's record regarding excessive tardiness and absenteeism was set out in the warning letter, and it was stated that if Petitioner did not improve, it could lead to termination of his employment. Despite issuance of the warning letter, Petitioner's performance did not improve. He continued to be frequently absent or tardy. A second warning letter was issued January 28, 1981. It was therein stated: As indicated to you on your performance review January 14, 1981, you have shown little or no improvement in your attendance since the warning letter of March 19, 1980. Since several months have passed without action, you are being given this letter to serve as formal notice that you remain at the third step of our disciplinary policy. If immediate improvement in [sic] not shown it could lead to termination of your employment. Despite the second warning letter and continuing efforts by Respondent's supervisor to counsel Petitioner, Petitioner's record of excessive absenteeism and tardiness continued. On November 24, 1981, his employment was terminated. At the time of Petitioner's termination, the Respondent did not have an established policy regarding how many times an employee could be late or absent without being subjected to various stages of the Respondent's disciplinary process. The Respondent did, however, have good grounds for counseling, reprimanding, warning, and ultimately terminating Petitioner. The Respondent's supervisors were lenient with Petitioner. He was counseled continuously and warned twice, once more than usual, before he was terminated. Petitioner alleged that three specific female employees of the Respondent had absentee problems as severe or more severe than Petitioner's, but were not terminated. The evidence does not support this allegation. Each of the three female employees, Theresa Roberts, Lisa Watt, and Gloria Sanders, had attendance problems. Each was subjected to disciplinary action by the Respondent. Sanders had received a Step 3 warning in October, 1981. Roberts had received a Step 2 unsatisfactory performance report in November, 1981. Watt had been counseled respecting her problem. None of these three female employees had attendance problems as severe as Petitioner's. Furthermore, each showed some improvement following counseling, unsatisfactory performance reports, or warnings. Nothing in the treatment of these three women vis-a-vis the Respondent's treatment of Petitioner demonstrates any sex-based bias, or discriminatory action, on the part of Respondent. The Respondent now has a set policy that includes a point system regarding discipline based upon excessive absences. The policy was not in effect when Petitioner was terminated. Some people with absentee problems less severe than Petitioner's were terminated for excessive absences during the years 1977 through 1981. Other employees with attendance problems more severe than Petitioner's were not terminated. It does not appear that this disparity had any basis other than the fact that Respondent had no set policy regarding excessive absences and dealt with the issue through its individual supervisors subjectively on a case-by-case basis. In 1981, the Respondent had approximately 170 laborers or unskilled workers in its warehouse. Forty-four of them were females. During the period 1977 through 1981, 20 employees at the warehouse were terminated for excessive absences or tardinesses. Thirteen of them were male, and seven were female. Five of the seven women who were terminated had fewer absences or tardinesses than Petitioner after receipt of the Step 3 warning. Neither these statistics nor any specific evidence regarding disciplinary action taken by Respondent demonstrates any sex-based bias or discrimination.
The Issue Whether the suspension of the Petitioner Nelson was based on just cause.
Findings Of Fact Allen T. Nelson, Petitioner, was employed by the Department of Education, Division of Universities, University of Florida, as a Career Service employee Custodial Worker in the Physical Plant Division. During a three and a quarter month period of time the official attendance record disclosed 20 attendance deficiencies ranging from 15 minutes tardy to unauthorized absences for a full day. The employee had received an oral reprimand on July 8, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance; a written reprimand on July 29, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance and on September 29, 1977 was advised that his probationary period as a Groundskeeper II was unsatisfactory because of his attendance record. Because his probation was unsatisfactory, he was returned to his permanent position as a Custodial Worker. Notwithstanding official reprimands as well as counseling from his immediate supervisor, Mr. Earl Davis, and the Personnel representative for the Physical Plant Division, Mr. Danny Busseni, the employee's pattern of poor attendance and tardiness continued. While suggesting that some of his tardiness was caused by transportation problems and some of his absences were caused by family sickness and personal business, the employee was unable to give any clear or convincing reason why his attendance patterns were in any manner excusable. The employee indicated that he felt that the agency had not treated him fairly and this was one of the reasons for his poor attendance. Documentary evidence submitted by the employer confirms the steps of progressive discipline taken against the employee in an effort to improve his attendance record. The Guidelines for Standards of Disciplinary Action promulgated by the University provide that for unsatisfactory attendance the first offense shall result in an oral reprimand, the second offense in a written reprimand and that following a third offense the employee may be suspended for one week or dismissed. 8, All employees were aware of the guidelines which were incorporated in an Employee Handbook, covered in employee orientation sessions as well as being posted in areas where Career Service Employees are employed. Competent substantial evidence exists to sustain the action of the agency and "just cause" for the suspension of the employee is evident.
Recommendation Sustain the decision of the Respondent University of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen T. Nelson 227 N.W. 7th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32611 Ashmun Brown, Esquire 207 Tigert Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent, City of Largo, as employer of Petitioner, Cleareather B. Gross, committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, a black female, was hired as a Clerical Assistant I for the City of Largo's City Clerk's Office on September 21, 1981 and was assigned to the mail room. The Petitioner was hired for the position by City Clerk Kay Klinsport, a white female. The interview went well and, although there were other candidates for the position, the Petitioner was hired. Shortly after commencing work with the City Clerk's Office, the relationship between the Petitioner and her supervisor, Kay Klinsport, began to turn sour. Ms. Klinsport utilized very strict management and supervisory techniques and was not considered a very good personnel manager by many of her subordinates. The Petitioner is an extremely assertive person and takes pride in her willingness to "speak her mind" in all situations. Ms. Darlene Trowell, a white female, worked as a secretary in the City Clerk's Department during the time in question. Ms. Trowell also had trouble with Ms. Klinsport's management and supervisory techniques, but decided that the best way to deal with her was by keeping quiet and having limited contact. Ms. Klinsport antagonized several of her subordinates, both white and black. Ms. Klinsport decided that the Petitioner should be watched especially close and asked Ms. Trowell to "keep an eye on her (Petitioner)." This occurred as a result of Ms. Klinsport's management techniques, the Petitioner's overall assertive attitude and several complaints that were received regarding the Petitioner. Ms. Klinsport no longer works for the City of Largo. Darlene Trowell frequently complained to the City Manager regarding Ms. Klinsport's managerial techniques. The City of Largo has written guidelines governing employee conduct and discipline; those guidelines are titled "Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Measures" and a copy is provided to all employees. The guidelines require that supervisors pursue a philosophy of "progressive discipline" by administering gradually increasing disciplinary actions for each successive instance of employee misconduct. Possible disciplinary actions include oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and ultimately, dismissal. Kay Klinsport received several complaints regarding the Petitioner, at least one of these complaints came from the Fire Chief and one complaint came from an employee of the Police Department. In her position with the City Clerk's Office, the Petitioner had occasion to come into contact with employees of the Police and Fire Departments. One of the complaints about Petitioner came from a black employee of the Police Department. On December 3, 1981, J. G. Knight, Fire Chief, sent an interoffice memorandum to Kay Klinsport complaining of the Petitioner's behavior. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Mr. Knight had received numerous verbal complaints and at least two written complaints of confrontations and harrassments by the Petitioner when it becomes necessary for fire department clerical employees to conduct business in or around the mail room. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Petitioner wrongfully opened a sealed envelope addressed to an employee of the fire department concerning the death of a member of his immediate family. On January 29, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued the Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand specifically addressed friction between the Petitioner and other employees and noted the following: 11-16-81 - Failure to complete a project from personnel; 12-1-81 - A confrontation with Becky from the Fire Department; 12-10-81 - A confrontation with Barbara from Public Works Department Refusal to stamp signatures on annexation notices; A confrontation with Bonnie concerning Vivian and Marlene; Problem involving mail from P. O. Box 137 and directions given from Lynn in Finance; A confrontation with Charlotte regarding mail pick-up during distribution; 1-25-82 - Compensatory time confrontation as to date used; 1-26-82 - Attitude involved throughout day and into next.' The written reprimand stated that if Petitioner received another reprimand for the same reason, she would be suspended without pay for five days in accordance with personnel rules and regulations. On February 16, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner. This reprimand involved a complaint that Ms. Klinsport had received from the Police Department concerning the Petitioner's use (or rather misuse) of the microfilming equipment. The Police Department allows the City Clerk's Office to use certain camera equipment for microfilming records. Specifically, the reprimand alleged that the Petitioner continued to run documents through the machine without proper preparation (i.e., removing staples and paperclips) despite being instructed as to the proper use of the equipment. Improper use of the machine by failing to remove staples and paperclips can cause the machine to malfunction because the staples and paperclips accumulate in the bottom of the machine. The written reprimand warned Petitioner that if she continued to misuse the camera equipment at the Police Department, she would be suspended for three days. On October 8, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner. The written reprimand cited the following: 10-1-82 - Incident involving Lynn McKenzle, Finance Department, in failure to readily relinquish use of the computer; 10-6-82 - Copy paper incident with Brenda stemming from incorrect certificate of indebtedness turned into supervisor, department head; and Verbal complaints from several other employees. On the basis of this written reprimand, the Petitioner was suspended for five days without pay. The Petitioner was warned that should her attitude continue to interfere with subordinate and/or fellow employee relationships, she would be dismissed. On November 12, 1982, the Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against the City of Largo with the Equal Opportunity Commission (case #025830181). On November 30, 1982 Kay Klinsport issued a written reprimand to Petitioner, Specifically, the reprimand addressed the Petitioner's poor attitude and ability to deal with subordinates and/or fellow employees and noted a confrontation between the Petitioner and "Kay and Leah." On the basis of this written reprimand, the Petitioner was suspended without pay for five days, with termination of employment to take effect on December 7, 1982. Effective July 4, 1982, the Petitioner was moved from Clerical Assistant I to Acting Clerical Assistant II. On September 29, 1982, the Petitioner sent a memo to Kay Klinsport indicating her desire to apply for the permanent position of Clerical Assistant II. On November 21, 1982, the Petitioner was returned to her permanent position of Clerical Assistant I. Lynn McKenzie, a white female, was hired to fill the Clerical Assistant II position. The Petitioner performed poorly on the Clerical Assistant II written test and was not hired for the vacant position. Of the five people that took the examination, the Petitioner placed last; however, Ms. McKenzie did not make the highest score. On March 21, 1982, the Petitioner's probationary appraisal was made by Kay Klinsport. In the evaluation, the Petitioner was rated "satisfactory" on overall performance. With the exception of "attitude," all factors were rated "satisfactory;" attitude was indicated as "generally neutral; disposition and outlook varied with mood." On September 21, 1982, the Petitioner received her "anniversary performance appraisal" which was completed by Kay Klinsport. The Petitioner's overall performance was rated as "satisfactory." Ms. Klinsport did, however, mention that the Petitioner's attitude varied with her mood. The Petitioner appealed her discharge and on September 19, 1983, an order of the Federal Mediation and Faciliation Service was issued directing that the City of Largo reinstate the Petitioner without any back pay to the position held by her on the date of her discharge. The Mediation order found that the Petitioner's conduct warranted a disciplinary penalty short of discharge. The Petitioner returned to work on October 5, 1983. However, the Petitioner resigned on February 4, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's Petition for Relief be denied in that no unlawful employment practice has been shown. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Aurelio Durana, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Ms. Patricia Catalano Personnel Analyst City of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo, FL 33540 Ms. Cleareather B. Gross 915 North Garden Avenue Clearwater, FL 33515 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq. P. O. Box 639 201 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 838 Tampa, FL 33601
Findings Of Fact The non-teaching staff of the University of South Florida (USF) includes both the University Services Personnel System and the Administrative and Professional staff (A & P). The former is a career service personnel system that includes the prohibition against terminating an employee except for cause. A & P employees do not acquire tenure, and A & P employees can be "non- reappointed" at will, subject to applicable personnel procedures and, in the case of some A & P employees, subject to the provisions of a union contract covering those employees. The Petitioner's position is not covered by any union contract. Besides, the union contracts that cover some of the other A & P employees do not affect the "non-reappointment" of A & P employees. USF hired the Petitioner as a coordinator of student affairs on January 29, 1991. This position was and is part of USF's Administrative and Professional staff. It normally is a one-year contract of employment. The Petitioner's initial contract expired on August 6, 1991. The Petitioner's contract was renewed in August, 1991, and again in August, 1992. The last annual contract was to expire on August 8, 1993. On November 23, 1992, USF's Provost, Gerry G. Meisels, wrote the Petitioner a letter advising the Petitioner that USF would not be re-appointing him upon expiration of his contract on August 8, 1993. The letter included reasons for the decision not to re-appoint the Petitioner. The Petitioner's compensation continued through the remainder of his contract. The Petitioner filed a grievance pertaining to USF's notice of non- reappointment. After Step 2 of the grievance proceeding, the Petitioner requested administrative proceedings under Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the University of South Florida, enter a final order dismissing the petition for administrative proceedings in this case. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 23rd day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Walker, Esquire 1432 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Henry W. Lavandera, Esquire Assistant General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 Gerry G. Meisels, Provost University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 226 Tampa, Florida 33620-6100 Noreen Segrest, Esquire Acting General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250
Findings Of Fact David M. Blackketter is a Career Service Employee with appellate rights who was suspended for two days by the Department of Transportation and who filed a timely appeal of said suspension to the Career Service Commission. David M. Blackketter was employed by the Department of Transportation in June 1976 as a Highway Technician III with duties as a crew foreman for the Department of Transportation. On June 28, 1976, T. C. Bradford, District Maintenance Engineer, was in his office at the Department of Transportation maintenance facility and from the window of said office observed what appeared to him to be a fight. (T-7) He observed John Knight, a Highway Technician II, swinging his fist at the Appellant, David M. Blackketter. Blackketter was several feet from Knight and was moving toward Knight. (See T-8) Bradford did not see Blackketter strike at Knight, although he saw Blackketter move toward Knight with his hands in front of him. (T-10,11) Bradford directed Angel Alvarez, his Maintenance Supervisor, who was present in Bradford's office, to go out into the yard and stop the men and have them report to Bradford that afternoon. (T-7) Angel Alverez left Bradford's office and went to where the men were. When he left Bradford's office, he observed the Appellant Blackketter moving towards John Knight and Knight taking off his cap and sun glasses, throwing them to the ground, and moving toward Blackketter. (T-21,23) The men immediately thereafter adopted a boxing-type combative stance several feet from one another. At this point Alvarez observed that Blackketter was cut above the eye and on the mouth in such a manner that it appeared to him that Blackketter had been struck in the face. He saw no marks on Knight. (T-24) He did not observe either man strike at the other. (T-22) At that point, Alvarez directed them to stop, at which point both Blackketter and Knight stopped. Alvarez directed both men to report to Bradford that afternoon. That afternoon, Blackketter stated that Knight had hit him unexpectedly while the men were engaged in an argument, which is consistent with the injuries Alvarez observed. Having presented the foregoing testimony, the Department of Transportation rested its case and the Appellant moved for a directed verdict.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the facts and reached the foregoing Conclusions of Law recommends to the Career Service Commission that the Agency's action be reversed, and the two-day suspension be set aside. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ephraim Collins, Esquire Atlantic Plaza 6856 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Leatharine Leon. She has been employed by Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, for more than 13 years. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner was employed in the position of Criminal Justice Administrator. Petitioner supervised a section within the Crime Information Bureau. In October, 1988, Martha Wright, a white female, became the Bureau Chief of the Crime Information Bureau. After evaluating the needs and personnel of the Bureau, Wright consulted with other Respondent management personnel and began the implementation of organizational changes within the Bureau. On or about November 22, 1988, Wright notified Petitioner that she was to be reassigned to duties as an Administrative Assistant II. The position was specifically created to provide administrative support to the Bureau. Wright wanted Petitioner to accept the transfer voluntarily. After thinking overnight about the matter, Petitioner refused and the reassignment was made on an involuntary basis. Upon the expiration of a required 14 day notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner in the early part of December, 1988, to the administrative assistant position. Petitioner continued to enjoy her same salary and pay grade. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-238, Respondent's transfer to the Administrative Assistant II position was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. At the time of Wright's action transferring Petitioner, Wright had already determined to make other organizational changes to the Bureau. Subsequently, implementation of those changes resulted in the merger of two sections of the Bureau; the criminal history input section formerly headed by Petitioner, a black female, and the criminal history bureau section headed by a white female. The white female head of the criminal history bureau section, Judi Croney, became a unit supervisor within the new section and was given additional special projects. Iris Morgan, a senior management analyst employed in a position with a higher pay grade than that held by Petitioner, assumed Petitioner's previous supervisory duties. Further, Morgan assumed additional duties and responsibilities associated with determining the viability of the merger of the two bureau sections and then supervising the merger. Respondent's management wanted to continue a higher level manager position over the enlarged section resulting from the merger action. Wright envisioned that the new section supervisor position would require an individual adept at conceptual work, as opposed to operational management. Since she met all minimum qualifications for the position, Morgan was selected to continue as the new section head. Petitioner did not adapt well to her position as the Administrative Assistant II. She was unable to perform duties of the position in an independent fashion. Consequently, she received below satisfactory performance evaluations on March 28, 1989, May 2, 1989, June 1, 1989, and July 28, 1989. After the last unsatisfactory performance evaluation, Petitioner was demoted from the Administrative Assistant II position, a pay grade 18 position, to a technician position with a pay grade of 14. However, Petitioner's salary was not reduced and has not been reduced to date. After Petitioner was removed from the Administrative Assistant II position in July or August of 1989, the position was filled by Jerrie Bell, a black female, who is still employed in that position. Bell has performed satisfactorily in the position and has the ability to work independently without constant instruction and supervision. As a result of reorganization, supervisory positions were reduced from ten to seven positions within the Bureau. All other affected supervisors, a total of five individuals, were white. All but one of them voiced objection to Respondent's actions; however, none of the objections varied or prevented implementation of Respondent's proposed changes. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's race. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4270 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-45. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 46.-48. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 49. Adopted by reference. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq.. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Leatharine Leon 1751 Centerville Road Tallahassee, FL 32317 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Petitioner, Deputy Michael Hughes, violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; and (2) Whether Petitioner violated Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.1.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: At all times pertinent to this case, Deputy Hughes was employed by the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff. At the time of hearing, Deputy Hughes had over eighteen years' experience with the Sheriff's Office. On January 12, 2002, Deputy Hughes was working as a deputy sheriff and as a Field Training Officer in the Field Training Section of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. He was accompanied throughout his shift by a trainee, Deputy Mark Shorter. At approximately 2:55 a.m. on January 12, 2002, Deputies Hughes and Shorter responded to 5125 Betty Street in St. Petersburg to assist Deputies Michael Pulham and Vance Nussbaum, who were already on the scene of a traffic stop where the driver was suspected of having active warrants for his arrest. Deputies Hughes and Shorter had already responded to two calls at 5125 Betty Street, both involving complaints by neighbors that persons in the house were causing a public disturbance. After the traffic stop, the deputies noticed yet another disturbance occurring in the residence at 5125 Betty Street. The four deputies entered the residence. As the deputies walked in, one of the occupants, later identified as Donald Hillebrand, punched Deputy Hughes in the mouth with his closed fist. The deputies attempted to place Mr. Hillebrand under arrest for battery upon a law enforcement officer. A melee ensued between the four deputies and several occupants of the residence. Donald Hillebrand was subdued, handcuffed, and arrested. Two women who participated in the fight were also arrested. Mr. Hillebrand was then escorted to Deputy Hughes’ cruiser and placed in the rear seat, without the use of a seat belt. Two other arrestees, Lisa Ruthven and Barbara Metzler, were placed in the rear of the Pulham/Nussbaum cruiser for transport. Because several other people were coming out of the residence and the situation remained volatile, the deputies decided they would regroup at a more secure location a short distance from the Betty Street residence to complete their paperwork on the arrests. From the time he was placed in the back of the cruiser, Mr. Hillebrand spewed a stream of racial invective at Deputies Hughes and Shorter in the front. Mr. Hillebrand is white. Deputies Hughes and Shorter are black. Lt. John Bocchichio, the shift commander, met the four deputies at the secure location. He noted that Mr. Hillebrand was screaming "nigger this and nigger that" from the rear of Deputy Hughes' cruiser. While Deputies Hughes and Shorter completed their paperwork at the rear of their cruiser, Lt. Bocchichio opened the door of the cruiser, leaned into the car, and attempted to speak to Mr. Hillebrand in an effort to calm him. Mr. Hillebrand continued yelling and screaming, and eventually spit at Lt. Bocchichio, who gave up and closed the door of the cruiser. Lt. Bocchichio did not tell Deputy Hughes that Mr. Hillebrand spit at him, but he thought Deputy Hughes might have seen the spitting through the rear window of the cruiser. Alex Metzler, another participant in the brawl at the Betty Street residence, rode up to the secure location on a bicycle. He claimed he was merely riding to a store, but the deputies believed he was there to interfere with them. The deputies arrested him, handcuffed him, and placed him in the rear of Deputy Hughes' cruiser along with Mr. Hillebrand. Mr. Metzler was seated on the passenger's side, and Mr. Hillebrand was seated on the driver's side of the back seat. Both men were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. The cruiser had a plexiglass shield behind the driver's side of the front seat, and a steel cage behind the passenger's side of the front seat. Deputies Hughes and Shorter, with Shorter driving the cruiser, commenced their travel to the Pinellas County Jail facility, located at 144th Avenue and 49th Street in Clearwater. Mr. Hillebrand continued his tirade at both Deputy Hughes and Shorter, calling them "niggers," inviting them to "suck his dick," and offering to perform various sex acts on their mothers. While the cruiser was traveling on 49th Street approaching 144th Avenue, Mr. Hillebrand leaned over to Mr. Metzler’s side of the police cruiser and spit through the steel cage into the face of Deputy Hughes. Deputy Hughes instructed Deputy Shorter to stop the vehicle. Deputy Shorter stopped the cruiser in the left-hand turn lane at the intersection of 49th Street and 144th Avenue, within sight of the jail. After the cruiser was stopped, Deputy Hughes exited the vehicle, walked around the rear of the vehicle and opened the rear driver’s side door. Mr. Hillebrand was lying on the back seat across Mr. Metzler. Deputy Hughes admitted that he was angry at being spat upon, but maintained that his purpose in stopping and exiting the vehicle was to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him a second time by securing his seatbelt. Deputy Hughes reached into the back seat of the vehicle in an attempt to make Mr. Hillebrand sit up on his side of the seat. Mr. Hillebrand resisted. Deputy Hughes noted that Mr. Hillebrand was on top of the seat belt buckle and decided that he needed to remove Mr. Hillebrand from the vehicle. Mr. Hillebrand continued to resist, lying back on the seat and using his legs and feet to prevent his removal from the vehicle. Deputy Hughes leaned into the vehicle in order to grasp Mr. Hillebrand's shoulders to gain hold of him. At this point, Mr. Hillebrand agreed to cooperate. He sat up, turned to sit sideways in the vehicle and placed his feet on the ground outside of the vehicle. Mr. Hillebrand then stood up outside the cruiser. Deputy Hughes testified that he thought Mr. Hillebrand was attempting to head-butt him, though he admitted that Mr. Hillebrand's actions were also consistent with the moves that a handcuffed person would have to employ to exit a vehicle. In response to the perceived head-butt, Deputy Hughes struck Mr. Hillebrand in the chest with a forearm strike and followed with a knee strike to the abdomen. Deputy Hughes briefly pinned Mr. Hillebrand against the rear quarter panel of the cruiser, then returned him to the back seat and attempted to fasten Mr. Hillebrand with the seat belt. Deputy Hughes was unable to fasten the seat belt because the buckle had worked its way under the back seat. Deputy Hughes looped the shoulder harness portion of the seat belt over Mr. Hillebrand’s chest and tucked the end of it underneath the seat to give Mr. Hillebrand the impression that the seat belt was properly fastened. Deputy Hughes closed the rear door of the vehicle and returned to his own seat in the cruiser. Deputy Shorter resumed the drive to the Pinellas County Jail, which took no more than two minutes. Mr. Hillebrand was turned over to corrections officers without further incident and charged with two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer (one for punching Deputy Hughes and one for spitting on Deputy Hughes) and one count of resisting an officer with violence. Deputy Hughes admitted that he did not prepare a use of force report as to this incident. His arrest report detailed the brawl at the Betty Street residence, but made no mention of the subsequent stop after Mr. Hillebrand spit on him. After the incident, Mr. Hillebrand's mother filed a complaint alleging the physical abuse of Donald Hillebrand during the course of the arrest. The complaint triggered an investigation by the Inspections Bureau of the Sheriff's Office regarding the incidents leading to the arrest of Mr. Hillebrand and the use of force by Deputy Hughes and the other deputies involved. At the conclusion of the investigation, an Administrative Review Board reviewed the allegations and evidence compiled by the Inspections Bureau and determined that Deputy Hughes had violated the Pinellas County Civil Service Act and the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the Shriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board's memorandum, dated August 3, 2002, set forth the following specific violations: Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five Violation), 5.15 relating to the Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners, to-wit: Arrestees/Prisoners shall be kept secured and treated humanely and shall not be subjected to physical abuse. The use of physical force shall be restricted to circumstances specified by law when necessary to accomplish a police task. Synopsis: On January 12, 2002, you removed a secured prisoner from the rear of your cruiser while enroute [sic] to the jail and subjected him to physical force, which was not specified by law or necessary to accomplish a police task. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 3.20, relating to the Use of Force Reporting, to wit: Whenever a member either on or off duty, is required to use physical force against another person, the member shall immediately notify a supervisor of the action taken and complete the necessary documentation for review. Synopsis: On January 12, 2002, you used physical force against another person, but failed to complete the necessary Use of Force Report for review. The Administrative Review Board did not conclude that Deputy Hughes pulled Mr. Hillebrand out of the cruiser for the purpose of abusing him, or that Deputy Hughes used such force as would constitute a violation of state law or the United States Constitution. The Board unanimously concluded that the force utilized with regard to Mr. Hillebrand was unnecessary and served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, thereby violating General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners. The Board found that Deputy Hughes' actions toward Mr. Hillebrand were inappropriate, given that his reason for stopping the car and commencing the chain of events that led to his use of force was to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him again. The Board found that Deputy Hughes could have avoided being spit on without pulling Mr. Hillebrand out of the vehicle, and thus that there was no legitimate law enforcement purpose served by his use of force. The Board noted several factors to support its finding. Deputy Hughes stopped the cruiser less than two minutes from the jail, where corrections officers could have taken Mr. Hillebrand out of the cruiser without the use of force. Deputy Hughes could have found something in the cruiser, such as a rain slicker, to place over the cage behind him and block any further spit from the rear of the vehicle. Once the prisoner was secure and in custody, Deputy Hughes' primary duty was to transport him safely to jail without exposing the prisoner, the law enforcement officers, or the public to the risk of further injury. By stopping the vehicle and opening the rear of the caged and locked police cruiser, Deputy Hughes exposed himself, his partner, both prisoners, and possibly the general public to an unnecessary risk of injury. Deputy Hughes' actions created the situation that resulted in the need to use force on Mr. Hillebrand, and those actions were not necessary to accomplish the primary police task of transporting Mr. Hillebrand safely to the jail without further incident or injury. In short, the Board found that Deputy Hughes used appropriate force for the situation, but found that he violated regulations by allowing the situation to develop in the first place. Sheriff's Office General Order 10-2 provides guidelines for imposition of discipline by an Administrative Review Board, including a point system based on the number and severity of violations. The violations found against Deputy Hughes resulted in a cumulative point total of 65 points: 50 points for the violation of General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners and 15 points for the violation of General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 3.20, relating to use of force reporting. Sheriff's Office General Order 10-2 provides that the point total accumulated by Deputy Hughes allows for discipline ranging from a seven-day suspension to termination of employment. Deputy Hughes received the minimum seven-day suspension. Deputy Hughes appealed only the finding with regard to the violation of General Order 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners. Deputy Hughes did not contest the finding that he violated General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 3.20, relating to use of force reporting. Deputy Hughes contended that he acted in self-defense to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from continuing to spit on him. This contention was illogical. By opening the rear of the vehicle and manhandling his prisoner, Deputy Hughes made it easier for Mr. Hillebrand to spit on him again. Further, the self-defense contention was beside the point, as the Sheriff's Office did not allege that Deputy Hughes had no right to protect himself. Rather, the Administrative Review Board found that Deputy Hughes chose the worst of several possible methods to prevent Mr. Hillebrand from spitting on him. The essential finding was that Deputy Hughes used poor judgment, not that he used excessive force. Deputy Hughes also contended that the Sheriff's Office was at fault for not equipping his cruiser with restraints designed to prevent prisoners from spitting. Whatever the value of such restraints, their absence did not prevent Deputy Hughes from improvising a protective device from the materials available in his cruiser. Finally, Deputy Hughes pointed to the fact that the Sheriff's office has no rule or regulation prohibiting a deputy from attempting to seat belt a prisoner in the rear of the vehicle to prevent him from spitting through the open portion of the cage. It defies reason to contend that the Sheriff's Office must develop a rule or regulation for every possible condition that may occur in the field, or that an experienced deputy may abandon common sense in the absence of a rule or regulation covering a situation in which he finds himself. The evidence presented at the hearing fully supported the findings of the Administrative Review Board and the penalty imposed upon Deputy Hughes for the violation of General Order 3- 1.1 (Level Five violation), 5.15, relating to Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Michael E. Hughes guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as set forth in the August 3, 2002, inter-office memorandum and upholding the suspension of Michael E. Hughes from his employment as a deputy sheriff with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office for a period of seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 28th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth J. Afienko, Esquire Kenneth J. Afienko, P.A. 560 1 Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Jean H. Kwall, General Counsel Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue has violated the requirements of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to adopt the June 1998 edition of its Code of Conduct and the July 1995 edition of its Disciplinary Procedures and Standards as rules pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, including the Prehearing Stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Facts which the parties admitted and which required no proof1 The Department of Revenue is an agency within the meaning of Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes. Ms. Obinyan was a career service employee of the Department until she was discharged on January 12, 1999. Ms. Obinyan has standing to challenge the June 1998 edition of the Code of Conduct Guidelines, Department of Revenue Policy Statement #1141-2 ("Code of Conduct"), and the July 1995 edition of the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards, Department of Revenue Policy Statement #1141-9. The Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards are official policy statements of the Department. The Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards are agency statements of general applicability that are generally and equally applicable to all Department employees and were applicable to Ms. Obinyan when she was an employee of the Department. The Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards are agency statements that prescribe and implement policy. The Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards are agency statements that are intended by their own effect to require compliance. The Department has a policy and practice of requiring all of its employees to sign a written acknowledgement of receipt of the Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards and an acknowledgement that the employee understands that his or her violation of any of the conduct standards contained in the Code of Conduct or in the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards shall be grounds for disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the disciplinary action procedures contained in the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards. It is the Department's policy and practice to require its employees to comply with the procedures and standards reflected in the Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards. It is the Department's policy and practice, in administering discipline, to follow the disciplinary procedures set forth in the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards and to apply the disciplinary standards set forth therein to avoid disparity as to the type and severity of discipline administered for the violations specified in the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards. It is the Department's policy and practice to take disciplinary action in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards when an employee violates the Code of Conduct or the disciplinary standards contained in the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards. The Department has taken disciplinary action against its employees, including Ms. Obinyan, pursuant to the disciplinary procedures and standards in the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards since its adoption in 1995. The Department has not adopted the Code of Conduct or the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards as rules or initiated the rulemaking process to adopt either of these statements as a rule. Additional facts established by the evidence The Code of Conduct compiles in one twenty-page document both conduct prescribed or proscribed in statutes and rules and conduct which is prescribed or proscribed by Department policy. It is not intended to be all-inclusive, but an employee is subject to disciplinary action if he or she fails to conform to the provisions contained in the Code of Conduct. The proposed Code of Conduct was submitted to the Governor and Cabinet, as agency head, for review prior to implementation. The Department's Disciplinary Procedures and Standards contain forty-five standards, and violation of any of these standards is grounds for disciplinary action. The disciplinary procedures must be complied with whenever discipline is to be administered to career service employees of the Department. The proposed Disciplinary Procedures and Standards were submitted to the Department of Management Services for approval prior to implementation, as required by Rule 60K-9.002, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed procedures and standards were approved by the Department of Management Services after they were reviewed for consistency with the standards of other agencies and after they were submitted to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) for review and comment. The Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards do not apply to anyone other than the Department's employees and include disciplinary standards and conduct prescriptions and prohibitions unique to those employees. The provisions of the Code of Conduct and the Disciplinary Procedures and Standards are detailed and precisely describe the disciplinary procedures, disciplinary standards, and prescribed and proscribed conduct which govern the Department's employees.
Findings Of Fact During early 1993, the St. Petersburg's Times (the Times), a local newspaper, conducted an investigation of the Pinellas County school board's personnel including compiling arrest records of all its employees. Included in the Times' compilation of arrest records was a record involving Respondent which indicates that on September 27, 1978, Respondent pled guilty to the offense of indecent exposure for which he successfully completed a term of six (6) months probation. Respondent also was obliged, as part of his probation, to serve approximately seven (7) hours of community service at the Salvation Army. Respondent satisfied the community service obligation. Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board in excess of twenty (20) years. His on the job performance has been satisfactory, having been disciplined only on one occasion for being asleep while on duty. Respondent is, and has been since his early childhood, mentally retarded and he suffers from a severe speech impediment. Respondent was arrested when he relieved himself (urinated) in the presence of three or four minor children. A review of the arrest records and the statements of the arresting officers in the case reveal that Respondent was educably handicapped to the point wherein he had little, if any, understanding of the arrest or the reasons for which he was arrested. The officers questioned whether Respondent understood the Miranda rights read to him when he was arrested. Respondent's difficulty stemmed from his learning disability. Respondent was employed as a custodian with the school board. In performing his duties as a custodian, Respondent's contact with students and other personnel is minimal. Other than the subject incident, Respondent has no prior arrest record nor has there been any subsequent arrest record involving Respondent. Petitioner's administrator, James Barker, who recommended Respondent's dismissal, relates that Petitioner's policy for discipline of support service employees is contained in its Rule 6GX52-7.12 entitled Work Performance and Discharge - Support Service Personnel. Administrator Barker admits that Petitioner's policy allows the Superintendent to impose discipline in a less severe manner than Respondent was disciplined, i.e., a reprimand or suspension. Petitioner's policy calls for progressive discipline. Administrator Barker has also reviewed Respondent's personnel file which indicates that Respondent has been a satisfactory employee throughout his tenure with Petitioner. Respondent's mother, Maggie Jordan, had little recall of the 1978 incident other than the fact that Respondent entered a "plea of convenience". Ms. Johnson noted that Respondent, while a student, was classified as being educably handicapped and was educated with students with special learning disabilities (SLD). Respondent takes his job seriously and would like to return to work for Petitioner as a custodian.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order reinstating Respondent to a position of Plant Operator (Custodian). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1993, 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 2nd day of November, 1993.
