The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of a perceived disability, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),2 the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Seiden's Relevant Employment. Petitioner Jane Seiden is an individual who was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections at Broward Correctional Institute (hereinafter referred to as "BCI") from December 1988 until the end of March 1999 as a licensed practical nurse. From April 1, 1999, until October 7, 2001, Ms. Seiden continued to work at BCI, but was employed by a private business, Prison Health Services. On October 8, 2001, Respondent Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Wexford") took over responsibility for providing medical services at BCI. Ms. Seiden became an employee of Wexford as of that date, after having received a letter dated June 20, 2001, signed by Wendy Mildner, as Wexford's Director of Human Resources/Risk Management, offering her employment with Wexford effective October 8th. Ms. Seiden accepted the offer of employment on June 25, 2001. Wexford is a provider of health care services to correctional facilities, including BCI. Throughout Ms. Seiden's employment at BCI, she received excellent work performance reviews. Wexford's Leave Policies. Wexford's policies concerning employee "Family and Medical Leave" at the time of Ms. Seiden's initial employment with Wexford were contained in the Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Employee Handbook (Respondent's Exhibit 9) (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee Handbook"). The Family and Medical Leave policy was, in relevant part, as follows: Employees who are eligible for Family and Medical Leave may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave. Employees are eligible if they have worked for at least one year, and for 1,256 hours over the previous 12 months. Reasons for taking unpaid leave are: . . . . ? for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the employee's job. . . . . The Wexford Employee Handbook, Revised 09/01/04 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Employee Handbook"), established policies governing "Time Off" in Section 5. Pursuant to Policy 5.3, all employees are allowed to apply for a leave of absence for medical reasons. The period of the absence is limited, however, to 12 weeks, consistent with the Family and Medical Leave Act (hereinafter referred to as the "FMLA"), unless the employee is eligible for "income replacement benefits," for example for a short-term disability pursuant to Section 4.5, which provides the following: Wexford provides some income protection for employees who are unable to work for an extended period of time due to illness or injury through its Short-Term Disability Leave (STD) insurance program. You are eligible for STD benefits if: You Have completed one year of continuous service You work a minimum of 30 hours per week and are covered by health insurance. Eligible employees are entitled to short- term leave for up to 26 weeks in a rolling 12-month period. The rolling 12-month period is calculated by counting backwards from the date of the leave request. For example, if you request a leave in November, the rolling 12-month period is from November of the previous year to November of the current year. You will be required to provide a medical doctor's certificate to qualify for short- term disability leave. STD runs concurrent with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Your weekly benefit is 50% of your weekly salary to a maximum of $300, whichever is less. . . . . Thus, Wexford policies, at the times relevant, allowed eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave pursuant to the FMLA and 26 weeks of what Wexford termed "short-term disability" leave, the latter to run concurrently with the 12 weeks of family medical leave. Policy 5.3 describes Wexford's policy concerning "When Return to Work is Not Possible": If following 26 weeks of medical leave you remain unable to return to work your employment will be terminated. If you are able to work at a later point in time, you are welcome to reapply for employment. Your past history and work background will be taken into consideration for reemployment purposes. Consistent with this policy, Wexford does not grant extensions of the 26 week, short-term disability maximum absence. Also consistent with the policy, Wexford treats an employee as terminated at the end of the 26 week short-term disability absence if the employee does not return to work. Policies 5.3 and 5.4 provide the procedural requirements for applying for a medical leave of absence (forms to file, providing health care professional certifications of illness, etc.) and other procedures and the conditions for which FMLA leave will be granted. Of relevance to this matter, one of the conditions for which FMLA leave will be granted is: "a serious health condition that makes you unable to perform the essential functions of your job." Policy 5.4. Policy 5.7 of the Revised Employee Handbook is the established procedure for "Personal Leave of Absence - Unpaid." That Policy provides, in pertinent part" With the approval of management and the Vice President of Human Resources, you may be granted an unpaid personal leave for unusual, unavoidable situations requiring an absence from work. The unpaid personal leave is for a pre-determined period of time. Unpaid personal leaves of absence are awarded at the discretion of management and cannot be presumed or guaranteed. You must use all available PTO [personal time off] before requesting personal leave. . . . As reasonably interpreted by Wexford, the Unpaid Personal Leave of Absence policy is not used or intended for use as a method of taking off time in addition to the time off allowed by Wexford's policies governing FMLA leave and short- term disability leave. Ms. Seiden's Absence from Wexford. Ms. Seiden, who acknowledged receipt of, and responsibility for reading, the Employee Handbook at the time she was employed by Wexford, was diagnosed with kidney carcinoma in 2004. As a result of her illness she did not rest comfortably and, therefore, woke up during the night, she could not sit for long periods of time, and, although not fully developed in the record, she required hospitalization. As a result of her illness, Ms. Seiden was, due to a "serious health condition," "unable to perform the essential functions of [her] job." As a consequence, the last day that Ms. Seiden worked at BCI was April 26, 2004. Ms. Seiden was provided a Memorandum dated May 6, 2004, from Tara M. DeVenzio, Risk Management/Leave Compliance Assistant (hereinafter referred to as the "May 6th Memorandum"). The May 6th Memorandum, which Ms. Seiden read, states that Wexford had been notified that she was requesting a leave of absence and is "in need of Family Medical Leave (FML) and Short Term Disability (STD) forms." Those forms were included with the May 6th Memorandum. The May 6th Memorandum goes on to explain the procedures Ms. Seiden was required to follow in making her request for leave and the extent of leave available to her. The May 6th Memorandum also informed Ms. Seiden that, consistent with Wexford's written leave policies, the "[m]aximum amount of time allotted for Short Term Disability is 26-weeks on a rolling twelve (12) month period . . ." and that "[i]f you do not return when your leave has ended, you will be considered to have voluntarily terminated employment." Consistent with the May 6th Memorandum and the policies of the Employee Handbook, Ms. Seiden completed the forms required by Wexford to apply for FMLA and short-term disability leave to begin in April 2004, and end in October 2004. Ms. Seiden executed a Wexford Family / Medical Leave of Absence Request (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Leave Request") on May 10, 2004. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). On the Initial Leave Request Ms. Seiden checked a box which indicated her reason for requesting leave was "Serious health condition that makes me, the employee, unable to perform the functions of my position." A space on the Initial Leave Request for "Date Leave of Absence to End" was left blank. Also provided to Wexford with the Initial Leave Request, was a Certification of Health Care Provider (hereinafter referred to as the "Certification"), as required by Wexford's leave policies. The Certification was from Nine J. Pearlmutter, M.D. Dr. Pearlmutter reported on the Certification that Ms. Seiden's "serious health condition" was a "renal mass" and that hospitalization was necessary. Dr. Pearlmutter also stated "yes at this time" in response to the following question on the Certification: If medical leave is required for the employee's absence from work because of the employee's own condition (including absences due to pregnancy or a chronic condition), is the employee unable to perform work of any kind? Ms. Seiden's Initial Leave Request was approved and she was provided a Memorandum dated May 25, 2004, from Ms. DeVenzio, memoralizing the approval. Ms. DeVenzio informed Ms. Seiden that her leave was approved "to commence on April 26, 2004." Ms. Seiden's 26-week period of leave began on April 26, 2004, ended October 25, 2004. Throughout this period, Ms. Seiden remained absent from BCI. On October 22, 2004, a Friday, Ms. Seiden telephoned Ellie Zeigler a Human Resources Generalist for Wexford, and spoke to her about the pending end of her approved leave. Ms. Seiden informed Ms. Zeigler that she wanted to request an extension of her leave, which Ms. Zeigler had not authority to grant or deny. Ms. Zeigler, who had not authority to approve or disapprove the request for an extension, told Ms. Seiden that she would send her forms, which she would have to file in order to request additional leave. Ms. Zeigler also explained to Ms. Seiden that the maximum leave available to her had been exhausted, and that, because her physician had not released her for return to work, her employment with Wexford would be considered terminated if she did not return to work the following Monday. Ms. Zeigler also told Ms. Seiden that a letter to that effect would be sent to her. Ms. Zeigler, as promised, sent Ms. Seiden a Wexford Family / Medical Leave of Absence Request. On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, two days after Ms. Zeigler's approved absence ended, Ms. Seiden executed the Wexford Family / Medical Leave of Absence Request (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Leave Request") which Ms. Zeigler provided to her. Again, she checked as the "Reason for Leave" the box indicating "Serious health condition that makes me, the employee, unable to perform the functions of my position" and the "Date Leave of Absence to End" space was left blank. A second Certification of Health Care Provider form (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Certification"), executed by Dr. Pearlmutter was provided with the Second Leave Request. Dr. Pearlmutter listed, among other things, carcinoma of the kidney as Ms. Seiden's illness. While Dr. Pearlmutter indicates a "2 month" duration for one of the listed conditions, she did not indicate when Ms. Seiden would be able to return to work at the end of two months. Again, Dr. Pearlmutter answered "yes" to the question quoted in Finding of fact 18. The Second Leave Request, which was sent by certified mail on Thursday, October 28, 2004, three days after the end of Ms. Seiden's approved leave, was received by Wexford on Monday, November 1, 2004, seven days after the end of her approved leave. The Termination of Ms. Seiden's Employment. On October 25, 2004, the last day of Ms. Seiden's approved absence, Arthur Victor, Wexford's Human Resources Manager, and Ms. Zeigler exchanged e-mails concerning Ms. Seiden. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Victor, Ms. Zeigler informed Mr. Victor that October 25, 2004, was the last day of Ms. Seiden's approved leave. In response to Ms. Zeigler's information, Mr. Victor wrote "[t]hen there is no extension. Six months is up 10/30/04. You need to talk to Ron Miller re. termination." This decision was consistent with Wexford’s written policies and was based upon Ms. Seiden's failure to return to work on October 25, 2004. Given Mr. Victor's statement that "there is no extension," it is found that Mr. Victor had been informed that Ms. Seiden intended to request an extension of her approved absence. It is also found that Wexford was aware of the reason for Ms. Seiden's absence: kidney cancer. Finally, it is found that, by terminating Ms. Seiden's employment, Wexford denied the requested extension. After receiving Mr. Victor's e-mail indicating that Ms. Seiden would be terminated, Ms. Zeigler wrote to Ron Miler and Judy Choate, Ms. Seiden's supervisor, and informed them of the following: I received a call from Jane last friday [sic] requesting an extension for her fmla. Jane's 26 weeks for her std/fmla has expired as of today (10/25/04). I just spoke with Jane and inform [sic] her that her Dr. has not released her for full duty and that she was exhausted all of her authorized fmla/std leave and that Wexford considers her to have resigned from her position. I told Jane that Judy will be sending her a letter confirming her of the above. To Ms. Choate, Ms. Zeigler continued: The letter should be sent from you. Attached you will find a copy of the letter that Art has drafted for your [sic] to send to Jane regarding her std/fmla. . . . . Also, please complete the "Termination Processing From" and forward it to the Pittsburgh office so I can term her out of the system. The draft termination letter provided to Ms. Choate and dated October 26, 2004, was signed by Ms. Choate and sent to Ms. Seiden. The letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Termination Letter") states, in part: As you are aware, you have exhausted all authorized Family and Medical/Short Term Disability leave. You were to return to work on October 25, 2004. Since you have not returned, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. considers you to have resigned your position as a Licensed practical [sic] Nurse, effective October 25, 2004. If you are in disagreement with this letter, please contact me immediately but no later than 4:00pm, on 10/28/02004 at If it is determined that there were extenuating circumstances for the absence and failure to notify, you may be considered for reinstatement. . . . . Ms. Seiden received the Termination Letter on November 3, 2004. She did not contact Ms. Choate about the matter. Although she had been informed on October 22, 2004, that she would be terminated by Wexford during her telephone conversation with Ms. Zeigler, November 3, 2004, constitutes the first official notice of Wexford's adverse action which Ms. Seiden received. The effective date of Ms. Seiden's termination was October 25, 2004. The Reason for Ms. Seiden's Termination. Ms. Seiden was terminated because, consistent with written Wexford policies which Ms. Seiden had been informed of on more than one occasion, Ms. Seiden had exhausted the maximum family medical leave and short-term disability leave she was authorized to take. Having used the maximum authorized medical leave, Ms. Seiden was still unable to perform any of the functions and duties required of her position. Due to her illness, she was simply unable to perform any work at all during the period relevant to this case, a fact Wexford was aware of. While she testified at hearing that she had been told by her physician that she would be able to return to work in January 2005, that testimony constitutes hearsay upon which a finding of fact will not be made. More significantly, Wexford was never informed by Ms. Seiden or her physician that she would be able to work. Wexford's policies gave Ms. Seiden leave in excess of the 12 weeks required by the FMLA. Wexford was not required to do more. Ms. Seiden's Claim of Discrimination. Ms. Seiden filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR on November 30, 2005, or 392 days after being informed that she had been terminated and 401 days after her actual October 25, 2004, termination date. After a Determination: No Cause was issued by the FCHR, Ms. Seiden filed a Petition for Relief in which she alleged that Wexford had "violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 by terminating [her] based upon a perceived disability." No allegation of failure to provide an accommodation for her disability was alleged in the Petition. Summary. The evidence proved that Ms. Seiden failed to file her complaint of discrimination with the FCHR within 365 days of the discriminatory act. She offered no explanation as to why she did not do so. Ms. Seiden failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful employment discrimination. While she did prove that she suffered from kidney cancer and that, as a result of her illness she was unable to perform the duties of her position, which may constitute a disability, she ultimately failed to prove that she was a "qualified individual" with or without an accommodation. From April 2004 through October 22, 2004, when she orally informed Wexford that she desired an extension of leave, her termination from employment on October 25, 2004, and on November 1, 2004, when her formal request for an extension of leave was received by Wexford, Ms. Seiden, along with her physician, reported to Wexford that she was unable to carry out her employment duties. Ms. Seiden also failed to prove that she was terminated because of her illness, on the basis of a perceived disability. Finally, Wexford proved a non-pretextual, non- discriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Seiden's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Jane Seiden. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of January, 2007.
The Issue Did the absenteeism of Respondent, Hector Marrero, amount to just cause to terminate his employment as a teacher with Petitioner, Polk County School Board (Board), under Article 4.4 of the County's Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement (Agreement)?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Marrero worked 20 some years in Polk County schools as an art teacher. Most recently, he taught art to the students of Palmetto Elementary School for eight years. The Board employed him pursuant to a professional services contract. Mr. Marrero's home life was difficult for him and his children. This was due to his wife's substance abuse, her domestic violence toward Mr. Marrero, and her mistreatment of their children. In 2016, these problems reached a crescendo. Authorities filed criminal child abuse and domestic violence charges against Mr. Marrero's wife. In October 2016, the criminal charges were resolved by judgment that included a prohibition against the wife possessing weapons, a prohibition against the wife contacting Mr. Marrero, 12 months' probation, and random drug tests of the wife. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) intervened to help protect Mr. Marrero's minor children. This resulted in requirements for counseling, which Mr. Marrero fulfilled. In August 2016, Mr. Marrero began a dissolution of marriage proceeding. It was contentious and abusive with numerous issues related to the problems identified above. The issues included critical child custody disputes. The disputes were resolved with Mr. Marrero being given full-time custody with the children and their mother permitted only supervised visits. Throughout this period, courts issued several restraining orders against the mother. Mr. Marrero, as the sole responsible parent, cared for his daughters, ensuring their continued participation in events at their separate schools. These demands and disruptions caused the absences resulting in his proposed termination. The absences described below were to attend various court hearings, attend litigation related conferences, attend required counseling sessions, transport his daughters to events, attend their events, and other obligations arising from the legal and DCF issues created by the behavior of Mr. Marrero's wife. The Polk County school system suffers from a significant absenteeism problem. The Board employs over 13,000 people. Approximately 9,000 of them are teachers or other instructional staff. During the 2018-2019 school year, the system imposed attendance related discipline 302 times. The Polk County school system has taken several actions to improve attendance. The actions include providing training and guidance to school principals and other administrative employees to help them assist employees to manage available leave time. The actions also include promulgating guidelines for principals and supervisory personnel to address absenteeism as a disciplinary issue. A teacher's presence in the classroom is a critical part of the job. The interruption of continuity of instruction that excessive absenteeism causes compromises student learning. It also injures co-workers asked to cover the absent teacher's duties. The entire school suffers as a result. The Agreement governs the availability of paid leave for Polk County teachers. Section 20.1 of the Agreement grants four days of sick leave as of a teacher's first day of employment. After the first day, teachers earn one additional day of sick leave for each month of employment. The system credits the day to the employee at the end of each month. The maximum number of sick leave days an employee may earn during any given school year is twelve. Unused sick leave accrues from year-to-year. The Agreement does not limit the number of days that teachers may accrue. Section 20.2 of the Agreement grants teachers six personal leave days during the school year. They are drawn from the pool of total available sick days. The distinction between personal days and sick leave days is that sick leave is intended to be taken because of an employee's or employee's family's illness or other health problem. Personal days may be taken for any reason. Personal leave days are a subset of sick leave days. A teacher may take personal leave days only if sick leave days are available to the employee. If an employee is absent and has no available sick leave time, then the employee is absent without authorization. Article XXI of the Agreement governs unpaid leave. It includes a variety of categories including medical leave, educational leave, and parental leave. There is no indication that Mr. Marrero inquired about unpaid leave or that the school administration suggested that he consider it. Mr. Marrero's struggles with attendance reach back to 2016. By letter dated February 12, 2016, his Principal, Edgar Santiago, documented a verbal warning for excessive absenteeism. The Principal noted that he held a conference with Mr. Marrero on the 12th and had discussed the fact that attendance records showed Mr. Marrero had missed 18 days of work during the school year. Eight days were unpaid because he had exhausted his available leave time. The letter cautioned that it was the first step of the Progressive Discipline process set forth in Section 4.4-1 of the Agreement. The letter concluded, "It is important to note that further disciplinary action, up to and including termination, will follow if unacceptable behaviors continue." On March 15, 2016, Principal Santiago delivered another letter to Mr. Marrero. The letter was a written reprimand under Step 2 of the Progressive Discipline process. The letter noted that by then Mr. Marrero had missed 23 days of work that school year, 13 of which exceeded his available leave time. The letter referenced the Agreement's Progressive Discipline section and noted that further disciplinary action could result in termination of Mr. Marrero's employment. On March 29, 2017, Principal Santiago wrote the Superintendent of the Polk County schools and advised her that Mr. Marrero continued to miss work after depleting his available sick and personal leave days. Principal Santiago noted that Mr. Marrero knowingly missed work without available sick or personal leave. His letter stated, "I am of the opinion that Mr. Marrero's recent absences without pay is [sic] a continuing trend and just cause for further disciplinary action." Principal Santiago recommended imposition of Step 3 of the progressive discipline process, suspension for up to five days without pay. He provided Mr. Marrero a copy of the letter. On April 19, 2017, the school administration provided Mr. Marrero a letter from Associate Superintendent Teddra Porteous notifying him that he was suspended without pay for three days for his absenteeism. The letter stated specifically that the suspension constituted Step 3 of progressive discipline under the Agreement. The letter also stated that further disciplinary action could result in termination. Because of Mr. Marrero's absenteeism, Principal Santiago placed him on a Professional Development Plan, which included goals and strategies for improving his attendance. After the suspension and imposition of the Professional Development Plan, Mr. Marrero completed the 2017-2018 school year without absences exceeding his accrued leave time.1/ Mr. Marrero's attendance problems returned in the 2018- 2019 school year. Beginning in August of 2018, Mr. Marrero missed work for one-half or more days on 23 different dates. These dates do not include his absences on May 30 and 31, 2019, which were the result of his suspension after the Superintendent recommended termination of his employment. As of January 24, 2019, Mr. Marrero had exhausted his available sick leave and personal time for one-half day or more on ten different workdays. Yet he was absent five days in April. Principal Santiago wrote the Superintendent on April 30, 2019, recommending termination of Mr. Marrero. This was Step 4 of the progressive discipline process. The Superintendent accepted the recommendation. On May 29, 2019, Principal Santiago delivered a May 23, 2019, letter from Associate Superintendent Porteous to Mr. Marrero. The letter stated, "Based on these facts [absences history], and in accordance with Step IV of Progressive Discipline in Article 4.4-1-Progressive Discipline of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Superintendent has determined that 'just cause' exists to recommend termination of your employment to the School Board of Polk County." The letter advised Mr. Marrero of his right to request a hearing. He exercised that right. During the 2016-2018 period, Mr. Marrero had advised Principal Santiago of the serious personal problems causing his repeated absences. Principal Santiago authorized Mr. Marrero to occasionally arrive late for work or leave early. He did not authorize Mr. Marrero to take full days or half-days off without charging them to available leave. Nor did Principal Santiago have authority to do that.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Hector Marrero, and dismissing him from his position with the Polk County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2020.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grey C. English, has worked for DOT, primarily in its Okeechobee, Florida office, for approximately seven years. At the time in question, he was serving as an HMT II, crew leader, with job duties that included various equipment and machinery maintenance and general road work. In some cases he served as crew leader and in other cases, he was merely a member of the crew. In April, 1986, Mr. English filed a charge of discrimination against DOT before the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that he had been passed over for promotion and discriminated against therein because of his race (Black). Part of the allegation involved Mr. R. C. Roberts, who concurred in the selection of another applicant over the Petitioner when he knew there was an irregularity in the selection process. Petitioner presented this evidence in an effort to discredit Mr. Roberts' testimony for Respondent here on the basis of bias, but was unsuccessful. In January 1987, Petitioner and DOT entered into a settlement agreement which disposed of the Petitioner's charge of discrimination without assessing blame, but as a result of which, Petitioner was paid the sum of $2,656.40. This sum was paid by state warrant dated February 13, 1987 which, it is concluded, was received by Petitioner several days later. Attendance documents maintained by DOT reflect that on February 13, 1987, which was a Friday, Petitioner was on authorized leave without pay. On February 16, 1987, the following Monday, he worked 7.3 hours and was authorized leave the remainder of the time. Between Tuesday, February 17 and Thursday, February 19, 1987, Petitioner was present for duty performing safety duties. However, on Friday, February 20, 1987, he was placed on unauthorized leave without pay and remained in that status through March 19, 1987. Michelle L. King, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, relates that on February 19, 1987, when Petitioner came to work, she advised him where his work site would be and with whom he would be working. According to Ms. King, when so advised, Petitioner indicated he would not work with Mr. Mills, apparently one of his prospective co-workers, and walked off the job. Shortly thereafter, Ms. King received a phone call from Petitioner's mother who advised her that Petitioner's grandfather was seriously ill and in the hospital and Petitioner's presence was needed at the hospital to assist in caring for him. When Ms. King immediately went to look for Petitioner, she found him sitting in his car approximately one half block from the DOT yard where she advised him of the message she had received. At this point; Petitioner immediately left the area presumably to go to the hospital. According to Ms. King, he did not ask permission to leave then nor did he ask for any time off during the succeeding days for which he was marked in an unauthorized absence status. During that entire period, however, she did not try to reach him by phone or in person even though she had his phone number on record in the office and knew where he lived. She admits she made no effort to reach Petitioner to tell him his job was in jeopardy because she felt, he had walked off the job and was not, therefore, entitled to that consideration. She merely reported the Petitioner's status to her supervisor, Mr. Lanier, and considered the matter closed. Mr. Lanier indicates he made no effort to contact Petitioner either. Petitioner admits that he was sitting in his car with the mechanic who repaired it; away from the job site, when he was advised of his grandfather's illness. He contends he had left the job earlier that morning because he, himself, was ill, not because he did not want to work with Mr. Mills and he contends that his continued absence from work was occasioned by the need for him to remain with his grandfather in the hospital for the period of time of his absence because there were no other family members available to do so. He contends he stayed with his grandfather, who was ill with and ultimately died of cancer, the entire time. There is no evidence of record, however, to indicate that Petitioner requested or was placed on sick leave when he left work on the morning in question. Petitioner also claims that on one occasion several days after February 19, 1987, he met Ms. Kings, Ms. Chapman, and Mr. Lanier, another supervisor, in a local restaurant during the lunch hour. At that time he told them that he would have to have some time off for a few days because of his grandfather's illness but that he would stay in touch. Petitioner contends that this absence was approved by either Mr. Lanier or Ms. King and he was given no instructions to call in or take any other action regarding his absence. The meeting is confirmed by Mr. Branchaud, a co-worker, who observed Petitioner in a conversation with Mr. Lanier but he cannot say for certain what the specifics of the conversation were. Both Mr. Lanier and Ms. King deny any such meeting took place and this is confirmed by Ms. Chapman. Ms. King and Ms. Chapman, as well as Mr. Lanier, though all employees of DOT, have nothing to gain by telling an untruth or giving perjured testimony regarding the situation involving Petitioner. Consequently, it is found that Mr. English did not get permission from either Mr. Lanier or Ms. King to be absent, and that, therefore, his absence between February 19, 1987 and March 10, 1987 was unexcused. During the period of Petitioner's absence, on March 4, 1987; a DOT official, by certified letter, advised him of his continued absence without approved leave and directed him to report to his duty section by 8:00 am on March 9, 1987 under pain of termination for a failure to comply. The return receipt executed by someone reflecting Mrs. Grey English indicates that the letter was received at Petitioner's home address in Okeechobee on March 11, 1987, one day after the action was taken to terminate him. Petitioner contends that he did not receive that letter and that on the date in question, there was no Mrs. Grey English. He was living at that residence, he contends, with his mother whose name is not English. No other female at that address bore the name Mrs. Grey English. The girl friend who he sometimes identified as his wife was not living at his address at the time the letter was received and did not sign for it in his behalf. Be that as it may, the letter was receipted for by an adult at the Petitioner's address. He did not, however, thereafter comply with the terms of the letter and termination action was taken by DOT on March 10, 1987 when the District Director sent him a letter notifying him of his termination by certified mails return receipt requested. Petitioner, as was stated previously, denies any intention to abandon his position and denies having received any letter of warning. He was, however, fully aware of the department's procedures for obtaining leave authorization and obviously failed to take any of the necessary steps to secure that authorization, instead relying on a purported casual meeting with his supervisor at a restaurant where he supposedly received verbal permission to be absent. This is not persuasive. His credibility, in addition, is somewhat suspect in that he has already demonstrated his willingness to falsify official documentation if it suits his purpose. Petitioner admits that several years prior to the instance in question, he, though not married, filled out certain official documentation for DOT claiming his girlfriend to be his wife for the purpose of putting her on his record as beneficiary of his insurance with the department. He claims he was advised by some official of the department to do this but does not indicate who this individual was. Even if that were the case, he recognized at the time that the lady was not his wife and was nonetheless willing to falsify documentation if it was to his benefit to do so. Consequently, his willingness to be less than candid when it suits his purpose to be so has been established and in this case, the better weight of the evidence establishes clearly that notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, he walked off the job without authority and made no effort to take any action necessary to preserve his employment status. It is, therefore, concluded that he did abandon his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Grey C. English, be terminated from employment with the Department of Transportation effective March 11, 1987. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1931 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1-2. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 10, except for the last section thereof relating to a restatement of his testimony at the hearing, which is not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Petitioner was not terminated for excessive absenteeism. The respondent was considered to have resigned his position with the Department of Transportation and the rules regarding disciplinary termination are not relevant to this situation. 9-12. Irrelevant. 13-17. Rejected as not Finding of Fact. By the Respondent Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. 3-4. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 9. 8-9. Accepted. 10-13. Irrelevant. Rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Isidro Garcia, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. 572 S.W. 2nd Street Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact On July 8, 1986, Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, sent Petitioner, Shirley Johnson, a letter to confirm her separation from employment as a Human Services Worker II in Pierce Cottage, Unit II, Facility IV, at the Gulf Coast Center in Ft. Myers. At the time, Johnson was a permanent employee of HRS. Her job at Pierce Cottage was to help care for 29 severely profoundly mentally retarded persons. On or about May 6, 1986, HRS' Gulf Coast Center instituted new policies for applying for authorization for leave from work. /1 No longer would Petitioner and fellow employees be required to notify their immediate supervisor, Twila Bevins, of their absence or tardiness. Instead, the employees are responsible only to notify the group shift supervisor on duty at Pierce Cottage. The employee only advises the group shift supervisor of the employee's intent to apply for authorization for leave and the amount and time the leave would be taken. The group shift supervisor does not approve leave. Authorization for leave must be obtained directly from the immediate supervisor, Twila Bevins, by explaining the reasons for the leave request which would entitle the employee to authorization for leave. Application for authorization for leave can be made either before or after the group shift supervisor is notified. However, no leave can be authorized for an employee who did not personally give notification of anticipated absence unless the employee is incapacitated. Petitioner is a mother of six. She also cares for her father, who has heart disease, and for her mother, who is overweight and has limited mobility. After a separation she has been reconciled with her husband, who, after being out of work, is now employed and contributes to the support of the family. On July 2, 1986, Petitioner and her immediate supervisor agreed that Petitioner would have July 3 and 4 off, but would work from 6:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. on July 5. Petitioner also was scheduled to work on July 6, 7 and 8, 1986. During the early morning hours of Saturday, July 5, between approximately 1:00 A.M. and 4:30 A.M., Petitioner's father had a heart attack and Petitioner and her husband went with him to the hospital and stayed there while he was being cared for. When they returned home at approximately 4:30 A.M., they were told by Petitioner's mother that Petitioner's brother was in jail in Ocala and that she was very concerned about her son. At her mother's request, Petitioner and her husband agreed to drive to Ocala to bail her brother out of jail. When they arrived in Ocala, Petitioner's husband, who was driving when they arrived in Ocala, was arrested for driving with a license under suspension and was himself put in jail. Petitioner herself then had to drive back to Ft. Myers to get money to bail her husband out of jail, drive back to Ocala to bail him out, and drive her husband back to Ft. Myers, a drive of a total of approximately 600 miles. Petitioner did not work and did not call in to work on Saturday, July 5. She was absent without authorized leave. On Sunday, July 6, 1986, Petitioner called into work at 6:30 A.M. to explain to the shift supervisor why she had been absent the previous day, and to notify him that she would not be in until approximately 10:00 A.M. However, tired from her ordeal the previous day and developing a severe headache, Petitioner did not work on Sunday, July 6. She called in later in the morning and spoke to one of the women working in Pierce Cottage but did not speak to the group shift supervisor. She was again absent without authorized leave. On the following morning, Monday, July 7, 1986, Petitioner called in at 6:25 A.M. to tell the group shift supervisor she would be late getting in to work. However, her headache got worse, and the pain traveled down to her neck and down one side of her body. The pain was so severe that she was crying uncontrollably. Although she still told her husband that she wanted to go to work to avoid any disciplinary problems, he talked her into letting him telephone Pierce Cottage to say that she would not be able to work on July 7. At approximately 6:45 A.M., her husband telephoned the group shift supervisor and told him that Petitioner would not be at work at all that day because of her physical condition. On Tuesday, July 8, 1986, Petitioner still was in approximately the same physical condition. At approximately 7:00 A.M., her husband telephoned the group shift supervisor at Pierce Cottage, reported her physical condition, and reported that Petitioner would not be in to work on July 8. Petitioner's husband also reported that Petitioner would probably have to see a doctor that day. Petitioner did indeed go to the Lee County Health Department on July 8, 1986, to be seen for her physical condition. Petitioner went to the Lee County Health Department because she and her husband could not afford to pay a private doctor. When Petitioner arrived at the Health Department at approximately 2:00 P.M., there was no doctor available to see her. She left at approximately 3:00 P.M. with a note confirming the she had been at the Health Department between 2:00 and 3:00 P.M., and that she needed a follow-up appointment. Although Petitioner still was suffering from a severe headache on Wednesday, July 9, 1986, she went to work, turning in her note from the Health Department. However, upon arriving, she was advised of HRS' July 8 letter confirming her separation from her employment. After reciting the grounds upon which HRS had taken the position that Petitioner should be deemed to have abandoned her position, the letter stated: "In the event it was not your intention to resign from employment, you are instructed to immediately contact me and provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for your unauthorized absence from your employment." Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on July 5 and 6, 1986. Petitioner was not incapacitated from telephoning her group shift supervisor on July 7 and July 8, 1986. However, under the circumstances, it was reasonable for her to have her husband telephone for her. She did not intend to abandon her position. As of July 2, 1986, Petitioner had 27 hours of annual leave and 8 hours of compensatory time in her accumulative leave records and available for use July 5 - 8, 1986. She also would earn an additional 5 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave by July 10, 1986. This would have been enough to cover her absences and permit her to be paid during her absences if authorized and approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact' and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order granting the petition in this case and ruling that the circumstances of this case do not constitute an abandonment of Petitioner's position. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1986.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was overpaid for the pay period ending July 5, 2001, warrant date July 13, 2001, for 40 hours, equaling $378.74.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, as a Senior Juvenile Detention Officer during the pay period of June 22, 2001 through July 5, 2001. Prior to June 22, 2001, Petitioner exhausted her accrued sick leave. During the referenced pay period, Petitioner claimed 40 hours of sick leave relying on leave that a fellow employee, Marc Gulley, attempted to donate to her. On June 24, 2001, Marc Gulley submitted an Interagency Sick Leave Transfer Request to Donate form to Respondent. On June 27, 2001, Petitioner submitted a Sick Leave Transfer Request to Use form to Respondent. Petitioner was paid, by salary warrant on July 13, 2001, for 40 hours of credited sick leave for the pay period of June 22, 2001 through July 5, 2001. On August 13, 2001, Respondent notified Marc Gulley that his request to donate sick leave to Petitioner was denied because he did not possess the requisite amount remaining of sick leave. On August 15, 2001, Respondent notified Petitioner of the salary overpayment of $378.74 and requested repayment. Respondent presented a salary refund calculation showing the amount Petitioner was paid, the amount she should have been paid when the sick leave transfer was denied, and the amount of the refund she owed to Respondent. Petitioner owed Respondent $378.74 as a result of an overpayment which occurred due to the improper crediting of 40 hours of sick leave transferred from another employee, Marc Gulley. Petitioner left the employ of Respondent on August 27, 2001; on August 24, 2001, Respondent appropriately withheld $378.74 from a warrant issued to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that the determination of Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice, that Petitioner, Janet Bing, was overpaid in the amount of $378.74 be upheld, that withholding $378.74 from Petitioner's pay was appropriate, that Petitioner's claim be denied, and the file be closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___ JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Bing 719 Waxwing Court Kissimmee, Florida 34759 Richard D. Davison, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Willie C. Haggins, began his employment with petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), in 1983. He held the position of bridge tender operator on the Indian River Bridge, a draw bridge in Martin County, Florida. Prior to employment with DOT, Haggins was employed by Ebasco Services. In April, 1980 Haggins suffered an injury to his left leg. The nature and extent of such injury is not of record. During the course of his employment with DOT, and in particular in October, 1984 and September, 1986, Haggins was specifically told that personnel rules and regulations must be followed when taking leave. Among other things, he was told that he must obtain approval for leave prior to it being taken. Respondent last appeared at work on June 8, 1987 when he completed a full shift. On June 9 he called in sick and sent his supervisor, George Wharton, a note from Dr. Andrew F. Greene, an orthopedic surgeon in Stuart, Florida. The note stated as follows: "No work until further notice." The note did not give the nature of Haggins' ailment, but at hearing Haggins indicated it related to the injury he had suffered in 1980. Haggins was accordingly authorized by Wharton to take leave at that time. Haggins never returned to work after June 8. Under DOT policy, and in accordance with Rule 22A-8.011(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code (1987), an employee who is absent because of illness or injury for ten consecutive days must furnish his employer a medical certification from a physician. The employee must also furnish additional certifications for each thirty consecutive days of absence thereafter. Haggins was aware of these requirements. At hearing, DOT acknowledged that it did not strictly follow the thirty day time frame but generally allowed an employee an extra five or ten days, if necessary, to file the certification. After the first thirty day period had run, and no certification had been filed, Wharton attempted to telephone Haggins on several occasions to advise him that a medical certificate was needed. Although Wharton was unable to personally talk to Haggins, he left several messages with Haggins' wife or daughter asking that Haggins either contact him concerning the absence or have a medical certificate brought to the DOT office. In response to Wharton's request, Haggins, through his wife, delivered a doctor's note to DOT on July 24. The note was dated July 22 and stated that "Mr. Haggins will return to see Dr. Greene on Thursday, August 6th. He will be unable to work until at least that date." The note carried a signature purporting to be that of Dr. Greene. On or about August 17, 1987 DOT received another note carrying what purported to be Dr. Greene's signature. It was dated August 11 and stated that "Mr. Haggins will be unable to work until at least Thursday, Sept. 17th, 1987." When Wharton did not hear from Haggins by September 17, he began leaving messages for Haggins advising him to either contact him or furnish another doctor's note. By September 26, 1987 Haggins had exhausted all of his sick and annual leave. He had also failed to contact his supervisor or furnish a medical certification as requested by Wharton. Because of this, beginning on September 27, and each workday thereafter, DOT considered Haggins to be absent without authorization. After not hearing from Haggins by October 15, DOT advised Haggins by certified mail that he had abandoned his job by being absent from work for three consecutive workdays after September 27, 1987 without authorization and that such termination was effective October 7, 1987. By letter dated October 29, 1987 Haggins requested a hearing to contest this action. That prompted this proceeding. At hearing Haggins suggested that DOT was simply using his absence as an excuse for firing him. However, he did not deny that he failed to obtain his supervisor's approval for taking leave on and after September 27, 1987. To justify his continued absence, at hearing Haggins submitted a note purportedly authored by Dr. Greene's nurse and sent to one Vincent A. Lloyd, P.A., advising that Dr. Greene had cancelled Haggins' appointment on September 17, 1987 and rescheduled the same for October 7, 1987. Haggins also submitted an unsigned letter dated October 28, 1987 and typed on Dr. Greene's stationery which stated that Haggins was "temporarily totally disabled for the foreseeable future." However, even if these notes were authentic and true, they were not submitted to DOT on a timely basis as required by DOT policy and Department of Administration rule. Further, Haggins did not contact his supervisor or any other DOT employee after September 26 to explain his circumstances or obtain authorization to continue his leave of absence. Therefore, the agency properly considered Haggins to have abandoned his job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that respondent abandoned his job as bridge tender with the Department of Transportation within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code (1987). DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in findings of fact 3-7. Covered in findings of fact 3-7. Covered in findings of fact 4-7. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Willie C. Haggins 1212 Avenue I Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Adis M. Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Pamela Miles, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against, by being separated from her employment with Respondent, because she sustained a back injury which Respondent perceived as a potential problem and whether she was the subject of disparate treatment as relates to the treatment Respondent afforded its other employees.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Joyce A. Dykes, was employed by Respondent, Quincy Telephone Company, for a period of approximately thirteen (13) years where she served as a service representative/cashier and an operator. Petitioner was laid off on May 27, 1983 based upon a company-wide employment reduction mandated by economic factors. Prior to her employment with Respondent, Petitioner was formerly employed as a bookkeeper with Higdon Furniture Company for approximately 17 years. Petitioner's first date of employment with Respondent was September 28, 1970. Approximately 7 years later, i.e., on November 21, 1977, Petitioner, during the course of her duties as an operator, left her work area and, upon return, sat down in a chair which she described as "wobbly." Petitioner fell backwards from the chair and "landed on her buttocks." Ann Kirkland, a fellow employee, was summoned to the scene of the incident and took Petitioner to the hospital for an examination. Petitioner stayed in the hospital approximately 3 days and returned to work. Since she returned to work, Petitioner has not requested any special treatment such as a convenient parking space, less strenuous duties or other more favorable treatment based on her "back problem." Petitioner expressed that she was leery of complaining to Respondent, and/or its agents, based on her back problem and therefore refused to make noises about that problem. During the summer of 1981, Petitioner experienced a traumatic incident involving the drowning of her son at the pool of a local motel. Petitioner's fellow employees, including Bladis Crow, an employee of Respondent during December, 1980 to October, 1981, and who was in overall charge of Petitioner, attempted to console her during her period of mourning by suggesting that she return to work where she would be in the company of fellow employees who could console her during this low period in her life. During the period of 1980-81 when Petitioner was under the supervision of supervisor Crow, she was "cross-trained" such that she could fill in for other employees during periods of other employee absences including vacations and other leaves. Petitioner, like other employees who were "cross-trained" did not like the idea of learning new tasks and being assigned to perform other duties temporarily. Supervisor Crow perceived Petitioner to be a valuable employee and considered that she got along well with other employees. One other employee, Eunice Hancock, a cashier and service representative, recalled Petitioner bringing in a heating pad and, on occasion, voicing complaints about a backache. During her period of employment with Respondent, Petitioner was perceived as a divisive employee in the minds of Respondent's managerial employees. (Testimony of supervisor Geary 1/; Lila D. Corbin, president and general manager; and Ann Kirkland, a former supervisor and business representative). Petitioner was viewed as an employee with a morale problem and often appeared unhappy and was a source of constant bickering between other employees. Petitioner was reprimanded by Bill Geary, who served as Respondent's supervisor for approximately one year from mid-1982 to the time of her layoff on May 26, 1983. Supervisor Geary interviewed Petitioner respecting a written reprimand he issued her on January 21, 1983. All of the items listed on that reprimand were discussed with Petitioner. Among the items discussed were Petitioner's fellow employees' complaints about her activities including moodiness, low morale and other problems dealing with the quantity and quality of Petitioner's work. Throughout the discussions with supervisor Geary, Petitioner repeatedly attempted to digress from the purpose of her interview and attempted to compare her work with that of other employees. From the time that Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Respondent has undergone three changes of ownership and is presently owned by Teledata Systems (TDS). With the change in ownership by TDS, a number of changes were instituted, some of which stem from the deregulation of the telephone industry. Upon becoming the owner, TDS immediately commissioned an overall forecast study of the operations in Quincy. Following that study, TDS determined that cutbacks in operating costs were necessary to insure profitability. The decision was therefore made to reduce employees and, in some instances, to reclassify positions or redefine the duties of its employees. In keeping with that goal, TDS, through its management, issued a directive to implement a work force reduction during May of 1983. Ms. Corbin, then the president and general manager, first learned of TDS' plans to institute the work force reduction during March of 1983. The plan was divulged to other supervisory and management employees during the week of approximately May 22, 1983. Pursuant to the company-wide reduction plan, TDS determined that of its complement of 83 employees when it took over during January of 1983, the work force needed to be reduced by approximately 11 employees. When the policy directive was issued to managers and supervisors, they were told to rid themselves of employees who did not meet certain criteria deemed critical by management such as the skills of each employee; the difficulty in replacing certain skilled employees and in training replacements; customer relationship; productivity level; ability to learn new skills; ability for overtime work, if and when needed; attendance; salary level; ability to work as a member of a new organizational structure and to be a team player; and the overall attitude toward company, customer and fellow employees. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Those employees considered as fitting within the category of employees needing to be laid off were employees who came in late and left early; were repeatedly absent; performed sloppy work; wasted time and material; engaged in personal telephoning; stretched breaks and lunch hours; spent too much time in the washrooms and talked to other employees about personal activities; rudeness that causes customer irritation and costly work errors. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) During the time when the work force reduction was implemented, Petitioner was on vacation. Prior to that time, she had been afforded training as a keypunch operator. Of the 3 employees who were given keypunch training with Petitioner, Petitioner was tested as having the least leadership skills of the three. When the work force reduction was implemented, 11 employees were laid off. Presently that number has increased from 11 to 19. The only area where there has been one (1) employee hired is an employee trained to operate the Respondent's "complex" PBX and PABX systems. It is true that there were employees with less seniority than Petitioner who were retained, however seniority (length of service) was considered to be only a factor if it is also indicative of the experience gained and versatility (of the employee). Respondent considered that there were other factors more paramount which would influence the retention decision. (Respondent's Exhibit 1, paragraph 2) Respecting Respondent's claim that the Respondent perceived her back injury as a handicap or a potential problem, the evidence fails to sustain her claim in that regard. What the facts show is that while Petitioner did sustain an on-the-job injury during 1977, evidence fails to support Petitioner's claim that the injury was perceived the Respondent as a problem it needed to rid itself of or that it was a physical handicap which could or would be the source of a problem for Respondent. Noteworthy is the fact that Petitioner never requested any preferential treatment in her job assignments based on this claimed handicap other than one isolated incident wherein she spoke to her then- supervisor Geary at the time that she was asked if she desired training as a keypunch operator. For all of these reasons and the wide range of layoffs implemented by this Respondent during May of 1983, Petitioner's claim does not appear meritorious but was rather necessitated by changes in the telephone industry which continues today to have an economic impact on the Respondent. Respondent developed nondiscriminatory criteria which were given to all management types to use in determining what employees should be retained. The criteria was not designed to weed out or eliminate troublesome employees but, rather, to determine those employees to be retained and the criteria which guided that retention decision. That decision appeared to have been based solely on economic and business decisions of the Respondent company as a whole. 2/ Petitioner failed to establish that she was the subject of unlawful disparate treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Brian Clancy was employed by the Department of Transportation in a survey crew and had been so employed since before April 19, 1983, until he was deemed to have resigned from his position by abandonment on July 7, 1986. In March or April, 1986, Petitioner discussed with his immediate supervisor on the survey crew, Ray Fletcher, the possibility of him taking leave in July to go to New York in time for the Statue of Liberty celebration July 4, 1986. Fletcher advised Petitioner that by that time he would have accrued enough leave to take ten days off. Petitioner interpreted that as approval for leave. On June 30, 1986, Petitioner did not report to work and his absence was reported by his supervisor as were his subsequent absences on July 1, 2 and 3, 1986. On July 3, 1986, James Lott, District Location Surveyor, sent a memo to his supervisor stating that Clancy had been absent from the position for three consecutive days and requested he be terminated by reason of abandonment. By letter dated July 7, 1986 (Exhibit 4) the Deputy Assistant Secretary - District One advised Clancy that he was deemed to have resigned his position by reason of abandonment and of his right to a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing. At no time did Petitioner request leave-in writing nor was he ever granted leave in writing. Other than his discussions with Fletcher in April or May regarding taking leave in July did Petitioner say anything else about his leave and Fletcher has no recollection that any specific time period for this leave was discussed. Petitioner contends that he never intended to abandon his position and thought that his discussions with Fletcher constituted approval of his leave request. By acknowledgment dated April 19, 1983 (Exhibit 2), Petitioner acknowledged receipt of Employee Handbook (Exhibit 1). Petitioner further contends that each time he took leave prior to June 30, 1986, his supervisor had the leave request prepared for him and brought it to Petitioner to sign, and that Petitioner never went to the office to initiate the paperwork. Petitioner did not testify that he ever departed on leave without having written approval prior to June 30, 1986.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of religion and national origin and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lalla is Hindu, and his religion is Hinduism. Mr. Lalla was employed in the County’s Enterprise Technology Services Department (ETSD). ETSD provides information technology (IT) services supporting the operations of other departments in the County. ETSD manages and maintains the IT infrastructure, including computer hardware and software, and the County’s electronic communications network. On January 31, 2005, Mr. Lalla was hired as an Operating Systems Programmer (OSP) in the Enterprise Security Office (ESO) of the County’s ETSD. An OSP is an advanced level technical professional, who may have duties in a number of different infrastructure support areas within ETSD. On December 18, 2007, Mr. Lalla received a written reprimand as a result of his failure to report a suspected security breach of the County’s computer security system. The written reprimand was for incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duty, negligence or willful misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a County employee. Further, connected to the reprimand, Mr. Lalla was reassigned within the IT infrastructure area to another division, the Data Center Division, at which he had new duties and responsibilities. His new supervisor was Adrienne DiPrima. In an email dated December 17, 2008, from Ms. DiPrima to Mr. Lalla, among other things, Ms. DiPrima welcomed Mr. Lalla, indicating that their group was “hoping for a new person to work with [them] on mainframe security” and acknowledging that he had a very limited background in mainframe security. Further, among other things, she advised him that, because it was “a difficult time of year to get started on anything long-term,” for now, he would be working closely with another employee to handle the “day-to-day RACF administration tasks” so that the employee could “concentrate on the upgrades being done for the new operating system release.” On or about January 15, 2008, Mr. Lalla’s reassignment was effective and that was when Ms. DiPrima first met with him. She was leaving the next day for a vacation. Ms. DiPrima met with Mr. Lalla briefly. During the meeting, among other things, she indicated to him that, during her absence, she wanted him to become familiar with the day-to-day operations and work with the person in the particular area that he (Mr. Lalla) was assigned, with that person also being Mr. Lalla’s mentor. Additionally, they discussed the potential for training Mr. Lalla in his new area and the possibility of the Data Center Division funding the cost for training courses. When Ms. DiPrima returned from vacation, she and Mr. Lalla also reviewed the procedure for requesting leave time. Among other things, she advised him that she does not generally deny leave if coverage for the absent person’s duties and responsibilities is available; but for extended leave, for instance a week or two, advance request/notice and approval were required in order to make sure that a person was available for coverage and to make arrangements for the coverage. For several months, Ms. DiPrima saw nothing in Mr. Lalla’s work performance that suggested any disciplinary issues might arise. Therefore, no disciplinary action was contemplated against him. At no time in the reassignment did anyone suggest or did Mr. Lalla believe that he was going to be subjected to any disciplinary action. However, having gone through the previous disciplinary action, together with learning new responsibilities and duties in what he believed to be a short period of time, Mr. Lalla was feeling pressured. The perceived pressure affected him mentally and physically. On April 3, 2008, Mr. Lalla submitted a leave of absence form to ETSD’s Personnel Officer, Shanda Mazzorana, for an unpaid leave of absence for the period from April 9, 2008, through April 9, 2009. The form contained, among other things, a section for the reason for the request, with one of the reasons being “Personal Reason” and subcategories being “Religious holidays,” “Education not related to the job,” and “Other.” He checked “Personal Reason,” “Education not related to the job,” and “Other.” Also, among other things, the leave of absence form provided two lines for the explanation for the request. Mr. Lalla provided as an explanation for the one-year leave of absence that the request was for “Religious and spiritual pursuits of Buddhism at overseas Monastery.” Mr. Lalla did not attach any documents to his request. Ms. Mazzorana asked Mr. Lalla to further explain why he wanted the unpaid leave. He informed her that he was seeking leave to study Buddhism. She requested him to provide some written information to supplement his request. In response to Ms. Mazzorana’s request, Mr. Lalla provided a single page informational sheet about the Buddhist Monastery that he had obtained from his mother. She attached the informational sheet to his request and forwarded the entire packet to the Director and Chief Information Officer, Donald Fleming, for his review and decision. Buddhism and Hinduism are interrelated. Mr. Lalla believed that the religion of Buddhism provided him a remedy to deal with the mental pressures that he was experiencing at work, instead of seeking medical or psychological assistance either privately or through his employer, the County. Nowhere in his request did Mr. Lalla express this reasoning for his request. Mr. Lalla’s religion of Hinduism did not require him to study Buddhism at a monastery for a year. Ms. DiPrima was unaware that Mr. Lalla wanted or had requested an extended leave of absence. Before making a final decision, Mr. Fleming inquired of Ms. Mazzorana whether any prior employees had requested an extended leave of absence that was non-health or non-medical related. Ms. Mazzorana provided two precedents that had occurred over a 25-year period. One situation involved a full- time employee who requested a leave of absence for six months in order to obtain an advanced degree, a Ph.D. The request was denied. Another situation involved a probationary employee who requested a six-week leave of absence to attend a religious retreat. A probationary employee did not have the right to request a leave of absence, and, as a result, his request was also denied. The County’s Leave Code, Section 8, Leave of Absence is applicable to the instant case. Section 08.01.01, as to a leave of absence generally, provides, among other things, that “A leave of absence is an approved absence without pay for a maximum period of one year.” No dispute exists that Mr. Lalla was eligible for a leave of absence as a permanent employee pursuant to Section 08.02.01. Also, Section 08.03.01 sets forth the reasons that a leave of absence may be granted, i.e., medical reasons, job- related reasons, personal reasons, and military, and provides in pertinent part: A leave of absence may be granted for the following reasons: Medical Reasons * * * Job-related Reasons Education related to the job . . . To serve as a full-time representative of an organization composed entirely of County employees To accept an exempt position For other job-related reasons in the best interest of the County service . . . Personal Reasons Education not related to the job . . . Dependent care for a child, spouse, parent or other dependent for federal income tax purposes who is physically or mentally incapable or caring for himself . . . For other personal reasons in the best interest of the County service . . . Military . . . . Additionally, Section 08.04.00 sets forth the application procedure for a leave of absence and provides in pertinent part: 08.04.01 Employees seeking a leave of absence must make a written request to their department director . . . * * * 08.04.03 The department director may request any additional information supporting the request for the leave of absence . . . 08.04.04 The department director may approve or deny requests based on the facts of each case. Approval or denial by the department director must be applied consistently and on the same terms within categories a, c and d of Leave of Absence (Section 08.03.01) although the terms for each separate category may be different. . . 08.04.05 Approval may be for the full period requested by the employee or any portion of such period. Further, Section 08.05.00 sets forth the benefits period for a leave of absence and provides in pertinent part: 08.05.01 A leave of absence may be granted for a maximum period of one year . . . and a minimum period of one pay period. Mr. Fleming considered the staff situation at the County. The County was in a hiring freeze and had lost positions. Mr. Fleming also considered the staff situation at the Data Center Division. A review by him showed that the Data Center Division was understaffed. Mr. Fleming was unable to determine how he would be able to burden the staff with the additional work, if Mr. Lalla’s request was granted, and get the work completed. Additionally, Mr. Fleming considered Mr. Lalla’s request as an academic request, with a religious course of study. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, as to the staff situation at the County and, in particular, at the Data Center Division, the inability to effectively and efficiently re-assign Mr. Lalla’s duties and responsibilities, during his one-year leave of absence, and the precedent of requests for extended leave of absence, Mr. Fleming determined that there was no reasonable basis to grant Mr. Lalla’s request. On April 7, 2008, Mr. Fleming denied Mr. Lalla’s request. Even if Mr. Lalla’s request were considered a religious request, the result would have been the same. Based on the same reasoning, Mr. Fleming would have denied a religious request. Mr. Lalla would have agreed to a shorter period of time as an accommodation to what he (Mr. Lalla) was requesting. However, neither Mr. Fleming nor Mr. Lalla suggested an accommodation of a shorter period of time for the leave of absence. Additionally, Mr. Lalla was aware that a Buddhist monastery was located in Homestead, Florida. He did not suggest to Mr. Fleming, as an option, attending the Buddhist monastery in Homestead, instead of in India. No evidence was presented that Mr. Fleming was aware of the monastery in Homestead. Ms. Mazzorana advised Mr. Lalla of the denial of his request for a leave of absence by Mr. Fleming and the reasons for the denial. She provided Mr. Lalla a copy of the completed leave of absence form that was signed by Mr. Fleming. Ms. DiPrima was also advised of the denial of Mr. Lalla’s request for the extended leave of absence. On April 14, 2008, Mr. Lalla requested approval from Ms. DiPrima for a two-week vacation beginning the next day on April 15, 2010. Among other things, he advised her that the union was attempting to get the one-year leave of absence approved; that there were certain things that he wanted to do in preparation for the one-year leave of absence; that the two-week vacation would provide him that preparation time; and that two co-workers were available to and had agreed to perform his duties during his absence. Ms. DiPrima denied Mr. Lalla’s request for the two- week vacation. She pointed out to him that there were assignments that he had not completed and that the request was not submitted sufficiently in advance to make sure that his work duties and assignments were covered. Mr. Lalla decided that he could no longer remain with the County. He decided to resign. Mr. Lalla did not discuss with anyone at ETSD that he was contemplating resigning or his decision to resign. On April 15, 2008, Mr.Lalla sent a memorandum to Human Resources regarding his resignation. He indicated, among other things, that, due to recent workplace circumstances, which “severely impacted [his] mental and spiritual health” and the denial of his request for a leave of absence, he was “forced to tender [his] resignation under duress, effective immediately.” Further, among other things, he set forth the workplace circumstances, which were, in essence, how ETSD handled the suspected security breach in the Security Office and handled him and his fellow employees in the Security Office; and set forth the circumstances of the denial of his request for a leave of absence, which he sought for “Religious and Spiritual pursuits,” attempting “to rebuild and repair [his] damaged mental and spiritual health.” Furthermore, on April 15, 2008, among other things, Mr. Lalla sent an email to Ms. DiPrima, while she was at lunch, indicating that, having reviewed what had occurred over the past 12 months, he was “forced” to resign, effective immediately, “under duress.” Further, he cleared his desk; reformatted his computer; and walked out of ETSD without speaking to anyone. The County’s policy required Mr. Lalla to give at least two weeks notice before resigning if he wanted to resign in good standing. By failing to give at least two-weeks notice, he did not resign in good standing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the County of Miami-Dade, FL ETSD did not commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Delano Lalla on the basis of religion and national origin and retaliated against Delano Lalla in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2010, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Delano Lalla 8051 Southwest 159th Court Miami, Florida 33193 Lee Kraftchick, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1993 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
