The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer, failed to maintain good moral character by testing positive for a controlled substance, marijuana, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Willie B. Ward, is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida. He was issued Correctional Officer Certificate No. 193831 on October 20, 2000. Respondent was employed by the Highlands County Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer during the period March 6, 2000, through March 13, 2002. On or about April 22, 2002, Respondent was referred for a random drug test. Respondent signed the certification indicating that he provided his urine specimen to the collector; that he had not adulterated it in any manner; that each specimen bottle used was sealed in a tamper-resistant seal in his presence; and that the information provided on the Custody Control Form and on the label affixed to each specimen bottle was correct. The sample was then sent to LabCorp for analysis. It was received with the seal intact. The sample was initially screened at a screening cutoff of 15 nanograms per milliliter. The sample showed positive for cannabis. Since the sample was positive, it was sent for gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) confirmation testing for a specific marijuana metabolite. The results by LabCorp reflected a positive drug test on the initial screening and the confirmation test. On or about April 25, 2002, the electronic positive result was then sent to the National Medical Review Corporation, along with a faxed copy of the Custody Control Form. Dr. John Eustace, M.D., medical review officer (MRO) for National Medical Review Corporation, provides MRO services to the Highlands County Sheriff's Office pursuant to a contract for a drug-free workplace. Dr. Eustace received the Custody Control Form from LabCorp showing a positive drug test on Respondent for a test taken on April 22, 2002. Dr. Eustace processed the final certification of the Custody Control Form, Copy 4, certifying the drug test as positive. Dr. Eustace requested LabCorp to quantify the amount of the chemical present and document it on a Forensic Drug Analysis Report. LabCorp reported 28 nanograms of cannabinoid. It did not change the positive result; it merely quantified it. The MRO and his assistant then attempted to contact Respondent. They finally made contact with him on May 1, 2002. Respondent indicated he had tested positive a year and a half prior to this test of April 22, 2002. He also stated that he took over-the-counter pain killers, Advil or Aleve. Dr. Eustace stated these medications would not cause a false positive for marijuana. The GC/MS test rules out the possibility of a false positive. The MRO contacted the Human Resources Department of the Highlands County Sheriff's Office to report the positive drug test result after speaking with Respondent. Human Resources then contacted Respondent's supervisor, Captain Hinman, who sent a memo to Sheriff Godwin requesting an investigation. An investigation was opened; Respondent was called in and gave a statement. He had no explanation or mitigation for his positive drug test result. He admitted that he had followed all of the chain of custody procedures and that he had seen the lab technician place the seal on the container. Respondent had a prior positive drug test in April 1999 that was not prosecuted because the confirmation levels were not codified by sheriff's office policy. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was terminated from the Highlands County Sheriff's Office. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent tested positive for a controlled substance, marijuana, during a random drug test administered on April 22, 2002.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2001). Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Willie B. Ward 1043 Booker Street Sebring, Florida 33870 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Dr. Steven D. Shanklin is a Doctor of Osteopathy, maintaining a general practice at 3304 Giddens Street, Tampa, Florida, 33610. During the year 1980, Dr. Shanklin treated numerous Medicaid patients and received payment for these services from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as agent for Medicaid payments in the State of Florida. In 1981 the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services conducted a routine, computerized assessment of payments made to its Medicaid providers. This assessment identified the respondent for further audit. A level two audit was conducted, which resulted in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services requesting 30 specifically identified patient files from Dr. Shanklin. The 30 designated patient files were identified as the result of a disproportionate random sample, which groups by the dollar volume of services rendered. In this method, the total dollar value of Medicaid services is divided by five and the total patient population divided into five subsets in which the value of the services rendered to all the patients in the subset equals 1/5 of the total dollar volume of Medicaid payments. The practical result of the disproportionate random sample is that the subsets become smaller as the dollar value of the services rendered for each individual patient becomes greater. Specifically, in this case, there were 471 patients in subset one, 202 in subset two, 130 in subset three, 78 patients in subset four, and 43 patients in subset five. A sample of six patients was taken from each subset for a total of 30. This is a statistically significant sample of Dr. Shanklin's total Medicaid patient population. Dr. Shanklin transmitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 28 of the files specifically identified by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In addition, Dr. Shanklin provided the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services two additional files for patients having the same last name as patients whose file had been requested by HRS. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services forwarded 30 files to the Peer Review Committee of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association, which was chaired by Dr. H. Jerome Koser, D.O. The Peer Review Committee consisted of seven Doctors of Osteopathy, five of whom were general practitioners, and two of which were specialists. The Peer Review Committee set aside two of the files furnished them by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which contained no records. The remaining 28 files were divided among the seven reviewing doctors, each of whom reviewed approximately four files. The individual files were not assessed by the Peer Review Committee acting as a whole, or by a sub-grouping of the Committee. The Peer Review Committee identified seven files in which the reviewing Doctor determined there was over-utilization. In the Peer Review Committee's group discussion, the Committee determined that the over-utilization was minimal. As Chairman of the Committee, Dr. H. Jerome Koser prepared a letter of June 20, 1983 which published the Committee's findings. A copy of Dr. Koser's letter of June 20, 1983 was forwarded to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services together with the 30 files which HRS had forwarded to the Peer Review Committee. Upon receipt of the Peer Review Committee's findings, the assigned auditor and Orson Smith, M.D., specializing in Cardiology reviewed the files. Dr. Smith and the Department's auditor determined there was over-utilization in 18 of the 30 cases as indicated in the recoupment determination received as an attachment to petitioner's exhibit nine, the claim letter of October 11, 1983. Based upon the determination of over-utilization by the Department's auditor and Dr. Smith, a percentage of over-utilization in each of the five subsets was determined which was then extended to the total patient population and the amount of recoupment calculated. The recoupment determination form, referenced above, provides as follows: "This form explains how the amount of the recoupment was determined in the peer review process. All of the claims for the sample of recipients were returned to the Medicaid Office by the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association with a cover sheet indicating whether or not there exists misutilization or over-utilization for each recipient. The claims were then reviewed by the Medicaid Medical Consultant to determine the claims that were for services considered to be not medically necessary and that are consequentially being denied in light of the findings of the Peer Review Committee. This first step in the determination is to find the average amount paid, and the average overpayment for the recipients in each stratum of the sample as indicated in this chart:" Based upon the calculations, it was determined that Dr. Shanklin was overpaid $7,808.39.
Recommendation Having found that the amount of recoupment was not based upon the seven specific files identified by the Peer Review Committee as the rules require, it is recommended that the Department not recoup the $7,808.30 originally claimed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Pierce, Supervisor HRS Medicaid Investigative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ted Mack, Esquire HRS Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S. D. Shanklin, D.O., pro se 3304 East Giddens Avenue Tampa, Florida 33610
The Issue On or about November 18, 1992, the Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, filed a five-count Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Anthony W. Rhea, Dept. of Agriculture Case No. 92-1427, alleging essentially that, on or about July 17, 1991, the Respondent made an inspection of a residential structure for wood-destroying organisms and failed to report visible and accessible evidence of wood-destroying organisms and damage caused by them, in violation of Section 482.226(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. (1991). The Administrative Complaint also alleges that the Respondent used an obsolete report form, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 10D-55.142(2)(c), 1/ and that the Respondent was negligent, in violation of Section 482.161(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Anthony W. Rhea, is an employee of Ace Professional Pest Control, Inc. He is part of the company's inspections sales staff. He has been in the inspection business for 15 years and previously has not been the subject of disciplinary proceedings. On or about July 17, 1991, the Respondent inspected a residence at 501 Poinsettia Road, Belleair, Florida. His report of inspection was made on the May, 1983, HRS Form 1145. 2/ His report of inspection noted that the tub trap and remote attic areas were not inspected because they were inaccessible but that inspection of the rest of the house revealed no visible evidence of wood- destroying organisms, no live wood-destroying organisms, no visible damage, and no visible evidence of previous treatment. The Respondent did not recommend treatment. It is found that, at the time of the Respondent's inspection, there was no live infestation, but there was clearly visible and accessible evidence of: (1) subterranean termites, and the damage caused by them, in the garage above the master bedroom of the house and in the garage rafters; (2) drywood termites in the attic around an old chimney stack; and (3) previous treatment. 3/ It is found that the Respondent was negligent in the performance of the inspection and in the completion of the inspection report form. In part in reliance on the Respondent's inspection and report, the current owner bought the house at 501 Poinsettia Road. It has cost him between approximately $7,000 and $8,000 to repair the damage discovered in October, 1991. Liability insurance coverage maintained by the Respondent's employer has paid for the repairs. Neither the insurance company nor the Respondent's employer has agreed to pay for treating the house, or for the removal and replacement of plants and shrubs that will be killed during tent fumigation of the residence, in the event tent fumigation is required. These additional items will cost the homeowner approximately $4,000. The Respondent was not aware of the additional items referred to in the preceding paragraph until hearing the homeowner's testimony at final hearing. He thought the homeowner was satisfied by the insurance benefits that were paid. The HRS October, 1989, Form 1145 became effective October 25, 1990. Active enforcement began on January 1, 1991. The Respondent's company continued to use the obsolete form at least through July 17, 1991, because it incorrectly understood that, when HRS gave it permission to deplete its current stock of WDO inspection/treatment notices and contracts, it also was giving it permission to deplete its current stock of May, 1983, Form 1145s. The only difference between the May, 1983, and October, 1989, Form 1145 was that the earlier form specified that WDOs included "wood-boring beetles, wood-boring wasps and carpenter bees," while the later form instead specified only "oldhouse borers."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Agriculture enter a final order (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 482.226(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. (1991), and F.A.C. Rule 5E-14.142(2)(c), and therefore Section 482.161(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991), and also guilty of violating Section 482.161(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1991); and (2) imposing a $500 administrative fine on the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 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 26th day of May, 1993.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Florida-licensed registered nurse, holding license number RN 2061632. At all times material to this case, the Respondent resided with her daughter in an unidentified city in Massachusetts. In February 2001, the Respondent sought employment at the Pleasant Manor Health and Rehabilitation Center ("Pleasant Manor"), a facility located in Attleboro, Massachusetts. As part of the employment application process, the Respondent was required to submit a urine sample to a Pleasant Manor employee. The evidence fails to establish that the procedure utilized by the Pleasant Manor employee in collecting the urine specimen was sufficient to preclude contamination of the specimen. Prior to the urine collection procedure, the Pleasant Manor employee did not require that the Respondent wash her hands. The Respondent was taken into a restroom to provide the specimen. The Pleasant Manor employee waited outside the restroom while the Respondent collected the urine sample. The water in the toilet bowl was clear. Hot and cold running water was available in the restroom sink. After the sample was taken, the Respondent remained with the Pleasant Manor employee while the sample was sealed and packaged for transportation to the testing lab. The urine specimen was submitted to a LabCorp testing facility in North Carolina for analysis. The initial LabCorp test on the Respondent's urine specimen produced results indicating the presence of cannabinoids and opiates. The Respondent's urine specimen was subjected to confirmation testing and returned a test result of 31 ng/mL for cannabinoids and 920 ng/mL for opiates/codeine. The evidence establishes that the LabCorp tests were performed according to appropriate standards and practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Deborah Ketz. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 5th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexis J. DeCaprio, Esquire Division of Medical Quality Assurance Bureau of Health Care Practitioner Regulation Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Suzanne H. Suarez, Esquire 447 3rd Avenue, North Suite 404 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dan Coble, R.N., Ph.D., C.N.A.A. C, B.C. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 Reginald D. Dixon, Esquire Division of Medical Quality Assurance Bureau of Health Care Practitioner Regulation Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
The Issue The issue for final determination is whether William Barber's employment with the Monroe County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The federal Omnibus Transportation Employees Testing Act (Act), enacted in 1991, mandates, among other things, that employers with fifty (50) or more employees begin drug testing programs on January 1, 1995. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) to prescribe regulations requiring motor carriers to conduct drug and alcohol tests on drivers, including random urine drug tests. Testing procedures are mandated to be conducted in accordance with the procedures established by the federal DOT. The procedures are set forth at 49 C.F.R. Part 40, "Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs" (DOT's Regulations). DOT's Regulations are explicit and very detailed, including providing for security measures for the test site, procedures for the taking of urine samples, chain of custody for urine samples, and guarantees of privacy for tested employees. Monroe County School Board (School Board) began the federally-mandated drug testing in January 1995. The School Board's drug testing program (Testing Program) is administered to all employees who are required to have a commercial drivers license and who are in safety-sensitive positions, which includes all bus drivers and mechanics. The parties agree that DOT's Regulations require the School Board's Testing Program to use the split sample method, found at 49 C.F.R. Section 40.25(f)(10)(i)(B). The School Board's practice is to notify employees in safety-sensitive positions about the Testing Program, including the Testing Program's policies and procedures, through an informational packet of materials. Included in the informational packet are the citation to the DOT's Regulations, a brief synopsis of specific areas of the DOT's Regulations required to be included, and the policies and procedures of the School Board's Testing Program. The employees sign the first page of the packet to acknowledge that they have received the informational packet. The signed acknowledgment is retained in each employee's personnel file. The School Board's bus drivers are not expected to have in their possession, during working hours, the informational packet. William Barber was employed by the School Board as a bus driver. On January 6, 1995, Mr. Barber signed an acknowledgment that he had received the informational packet. A little more than two years later, on the morning of May 22, 1997, Mr. Barber was ordered by his supervisor to report for a random drug test at Truman Medical Center. Mr. Barber complied with the directive. Since 1995, Truman Medical Center maintained written procedures for collecting urine for drug tests. Its procedures were consistent with DOT's Regulations. On May 22, 1997, Truman Medical Center's lab technician collected Mr. Barber's urine. It is undisputed that the lab technician collected only a single specimen, not a split sample as required by DOT's Regulations and the School Board's Testing Program. The lab technician had been employed at Truman Medical Center in that capacity for five years, and one of her responsibilities was collecting urine specimens for drug testing. During the five-year period, Truman Medical Center's nurse, who was also the lab manager, had provided the lab technician with some "hands-on" training in the collection procedures followed by Truman Medical Center. During her employment, the lab technician had performed from 1,200 to 1,800 collections for DOT-mandated tests. In May 1997, neither the lab manager nor the lab technician was aware that a split sample, rather than a single sample, collection method was required by DOT's Regulations and by the School Board. After Mr. Barber's urine sample was collected, he signed step 4 of the custody and control form, which states as follows: I certify that I provided my urine specimen to the collector; that I have not adulterated it in any manner; that each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tamper-evident seal in my presence and that the information provided on this form and on the label attached to each bottle is correct. The lab technician followed the proper procedures for the collection of the single urine sample.1 Mr. Barber's urine sample was sealed in a specimen container and forwarded to the laboratory, Quest Diagnostics in Teterboro, New Jersey, for testing. The specimen container was forwarded in a sealed, tamper-proof box, together with the custody and control form. The urine specimen received by Quest Diagnostics was not tampered with during transport. Also, at the laboratory, the specimen was not tampered with or mistaken for another specimen. There is no evidence to indicate, and an inference is made, that the laboratory did not make a notation that a split sample was not received. Further, an inference is made that the laboratory proceeded on the basis that the urine sample was a single, not a split, urine sample. Quest Diagnostics performed a screening test and a confirmation test (a second testing method) on the urine specimen. The testing of the urine specimen was performed in accordance with DOT's Regulations. There were no irregularities as to chain of custody, calibration of laboratory equipment, and quality control. A laboratory report was issued. The screening test on Mr. Barber's urine specimen was positive for the presence of marijuana. The confirmation test was also positive. A positive result indicates that anywhere from a couple of days to two and one-half weeks, Mr. Barber had taken marijuana into his body. The laboratory results were certified. In accordance with DOT's Regulations, the positive results were forwarded to the Medical Review Officer (MRO) assigned to Mr. Barber's case. The MRO was employed by National Medical Review Offices, Inc., in Los Angeles, California. On May 28, 1997, six days after Mr. Barber's urine sample was collected, the MRO called Mr. Barber to discuss the positive results of the tests. The telephone call was made pursuant to DOT's Regulations. During the telephone discussion, Mr. Barber denied that he had used or had ever used marijuana, but provided no information to the MRO which tended to provide a medically alternative explanation as to the cause of a positive test. The MRO informed Mr. Barber that he had 72 hours to request a re-test or a re-analysis. An inference is drawn that Mr. Barber expressed an interest in a re-analysis or a re-test as a result of Mr. Barber accessing a recorded message which provided information regarding the re-test or re-analysis. Mr. Barber accessed the recorded message. The message stated, among other things, that Mr. Barber, as the donor and a DOT regulated employee, had 72 hours after the discussion with the MRO to request a re-analysis; that the urine sample would be forwarded to another certified laboratory for testing; that the cost for the re-analysis was $125.00; and that payment must be made within five (5) working days. Mr. Barber did not request a re-analysis of the urine sample because he was unable to pay the cost of the re-analysis. Mr. Barber was aware that, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the bargaining unit of which he was a member, he was responsible for paying the cost for the re-analysis. However, Mr. Barber was unaware that he was not required to pay the cost for the re-analysis prior to the re- analysis being performed. The evidence is not persuasive that the recorded message notified Mr. Barber that his employer may require him to re-pay the cost for the re-analysis. However, the evidence is persuasive that, had Mr. Barber known that he was not required to pay the cost for the re-analysis up front, he would have requested the re-analysis. At no time was Mr. Barber or the MRO aware that a split sample had not been collected. According to DOT's Regulations, had Mr. Barber requested a re-analysis, the MRO would have been notified at that point that no split sample was available for a re-analysis, and the MRO would have cancelled the test and reported the testing as being negative, not positive. As a result of Mr. Barber not requesting a re-analysis, the MRO reported the test results as positive to First Lab, the School Board's third party administrator for the Testing Program. In turn, First Lab reported the positive results to the School Board's Personnel Director and drug manager, who reported the positive results to the School Board's Executive Director of Support Services. School Board Policy GBEC, "Drug-Free Workplace," provides in pertinent part: No School Board employee shall unlawfully . . . possess, or use on or in the workplace . . . marijuana. . . . Workplaces in the District shall be considered as work performance sites; School Board property; school-owned vehicles or school-approved vehicles for transporting students to and from school or school activities; and off-school property during any school-sponsored or school-approved activity, event, or function in which students are under District jurisdiction. As an employment condition, individuals shall: abide by the provisions of this School Board Rule. * * * The School Board based on the Superintendent's recommendation shall take one (1) or both of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notification as described in Subsections (1)(b) and (2) herein: Initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the employee which may be nonrenewal, suspension, or dismissal of employment as provided in Sections 230.23(5) and 231.36, Florida Statutes. Allow the employee to participate in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved by the School Board. Failure of an employee to satisfactorily complete such program may result in nonrenewal, suspension, or termination of employment. The School Board shall offer assistance and information on drug abuse to maintain a drug-free workplace by providing School Board employees with * * * (c) An Employee Assistance Program or access to such a program to provide counseling, treatment, or rehabilitation. School Board Policy GDQD, "Discipline, Suspension, and Dismissal of Support Staff," provides in pertinent part: Noninstructional staff members may be suspended from duty by the Superintendent or the School Board. . . . Prior to making a recommendation for dismissal, an administrative investigation shall be completed and an informal hearing shall be conducted at which time the employee shall have an opportunity to refute the charges or provide additional information or evidence. When a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, good and sufficient reasons shall be stated. A noninstructional staff member may only be dismissed by the School Board's action. The School Board shall take final action on the Superintendent's recommendation. Any suspension or dismissal shall be pursuant to Florida Statutes. * * * Cause for dismissal shall include, but not be limited to: * * * (c) Reporting to work under the influence of intoxicants or possessing alcohol or illegal drugs while on the job [refer to the School Board Rule entitled "Drug-Free Workplace" (File: GBEC);. . . . Even though the above School Board policies do not provide for mandatory termination from employment for employees who test positive in the School Board's Testing Program, the established practice of the School Board is to terminate such employees. The rationale for the School Board's established practice is that, because the results of a positive DOT drug test does not indicate precisely when the employee used drugs, the School Board has decided to "err . . . on the side of children" and terminate the employee. Prior to Mr. Barber, four employees had tested positive. Of the four, two employees resigned, one employee never returned to work, and one employee was terminated. Regarding discipline, the collective bargaining agreement, Section 12: "Drug and Alcohol Testing," provides in pertinent part: The purpose of drug and alcohol testing is to deter the use of drugs and alcohol in the workplace by establishing standard procedures for drug and alcohol testing for all employees required to hold a commercial driver's license. . . . The School Board shall be responsible for the cost of drug and alcohol testing of employees with the exception of administrative and legal challenges to test results, which shall be paid by the employee. * * * Return to Duty Testing All employees who previously tested positive on a drug or alcohol test must submit to a Return to Duty Test and test negative prior to returning to duty. Follow-up Testing Unannounced follow-up alcohol and/or controlled substance testing as directed by a substance abuse professional in accordance with the FHWA Regulations shall occur when it is determined that a covered employee is in need of assistance in resolving problems associated with alcohol misuse and/or use of drugs. The number and frequency of follow-up testing shall be determined by the substance abuse professional. If an employee elects to request additional testing of the split urine sample, the employee shall be required to pay for the test. Positive Tests 1. Employees who have a confirmed positive drug or positive alcohol test may be disciplined, up to and including discharge. The Board may, if the circumstances so warrant, offer rehabilitation. If the rehabilitation is offered and accepted by the employee, the employee will be responsible for all costs associated with participation in the rehabilitation program. The informational packet of materials provided to employees, regarding the School Board's Testing Program, provides in pertinent part: Under what circumstances will a driver be subject to testing? * * * Return -to-duty testing: . . . Each employer shall also ensure that before a driver returns to duty in the performance of a safety-sensitive function, after engaging in prohibited conduct regarding controlled substance use, the driver shall undergo a return-to-duty controlled substances test with a verified negative result for controlled substance use. In the event a return-to-duty test is required, the driver must also be evaluated by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and participate in any assistance program prescribed. Follow-up testing: Following a determination that a driver is in need of assistance in resolving problems associated with alcohol misuse and/or use of controlled substances, each employer shall ensure that the driver is subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and/or controlled substances testing as directed by the substance abuse professional. The driver shall be subject to a minimum of six follow-up controlled substances and/or alcohol tests in the first 12 months. * * * What procedures will be used to test for the presence of controlled substances or alcohol? Controlled Substances All testing for controlled substances shall be performed on urine specimens and be accomplished by means of an initial screen (Enzyme Immunoassay or EIA), followed by a confirmation of any positive findings by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry or GC/MS. All controlled substances testing will be carried out at a laboratory certified by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). * * * What are the consequences for drivers found to have violated the prohibitions of this rule? Drivers who are known to have engaged in prohibited behavior, with regard to alcohol misuse or use of controlled substances, are subject to the following consequences: -- Drivers shall not be permitted to perform safety-sensitive functions. -- Drivers shall be advised by the employer of the resources available to them in evaluating and resolving problems associated with the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances. -- Drivers shall be evaluated by substance abuse professional (SAP) who shall determine what assistance, if any, the employee needs in resolving problems associated with alcohol misuse and controlled substance use. -- Before a driver returns to duty requiring performance of a safety-sensitive function, he/she shall undergo a return-to-duty test with a result indicating a breath alcohol level of less than 0.02 if the conduct involved alcohol, or a controlled substances return-to-duty test with a verified negative result if the conduct involved controlled substance use. -- In addition, each driver identified as needing assistance in resolving problems associated with alcohol or controlled substances shall be evaluated by a SAP to determine that the driver has followed the rehabilitation program prescribed. -- The driver shall also be subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and controlled substances testing. The number and frequency of such follow-up testing shall be as directed by the SAP, and consist of at least six tests in the first 12 months. The School Board's Director of Transportation admits that rehabilitation is a potential alternative to dismissal. However, the Director of Transportation is of the opinion that parents of children would have no confidence in a school bus driver who has gone through drug rehabilitation; and she, therefore, agrees that school bus drivers who test positive for drugs should be terminated. The Director of Transportation did not present any basis for her opinion. By letter dated May 30, 1997, the Superintendent of Monroe County Schools notified Mr. Barber, among other things, that he was suspended, with pay, until the next School Board meeting, and that a conference for the record would be held prior to the School Board meeting. On June 6, 1997, a conference for the record was held. Among those in attendance were Mr. Barber and the School Board's Executive Director of Support Services. The conference for the record was, among other things, a fact-finding meeting regarding Mr. Barber testing positive for marijuana. Mr. Barber denied that he had used or had ever used marijuana. Additionally, at the conference for the record, Mr. Barber expressed his concerns regarding the collection procedure used by Truman Medical Center for the collection of his urine sample. The Executive Director of Support Services investigated Mr. Barber's concerns regarding the collection procedure, including talking with the employees at Truman Medical Center and the testing laboratory. The Executive Director concluded that the procedures followed by Truman Medical Center were proper and that the positive result was valid. As a consequence, the Executive Director recommended to the Superintendent that Mr. Barber be terminated. By letter dated August 4, 1997, the Superintendent notified Mr. Barber that, among other things, he was terminated from employment with the School Board. Mr. Barber requested a formal hearing regarding the termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board enter a final order declaring the drug test results of William Barber to be invalid and reinstating William Barber to his position. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of July, 1998.
