The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of a handicap or disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner became employed on an annual non-renewing contract as a paraprofessional at Park Elementary School during the 1993-94 school year. The Petitioner was assigned to work in a classroom program for developmentally disabled preschool children. The children were three to four years of age and very active. There were between five to nine children in the classroom. The Petitioner was generally assigned to work with two children and was responsible for monitoring their activity. She was also responsible for physically controlling the children and changing diapers when required. The substantial part of the workday was spent standing, bending, lifting, and moving about with the children. The Petitioner continued her employment in the 1994-95 school year and received satisfactory evaluations. During the 1995-96 school year, the Petitioner continued her employment as a paraprofessional. Although there is evidence that the Petitioner's job performance was of some concern to the class teacher and to the school principal, the Petitioner was not formally evaluated because her employment was interrupted as set forth herein. There is no evidence that anyone discussed the concerns with her or that she had an opportunity to remedy any alleged deficit in her job performance. On January 2, 1996, the Petitioner was riding in a car being driven by her husband and was involved in an automobile accident when another driver struck the Petitioner's car. The Petitioner was injured in the accident and was taken to a hospital where she was treated and released. Subsequent to the accident, the Petitioner continued to have pain in her neck and sought treatment from a chiropractor. Eventually, the chiropractor referred the Petitioner to a neurologist in an attempt to determine the cause of the pain. The medical professionals determined that the Petitioner's injuries were not permanent. The Petitioner's chiropractor described the pain as a "typical soft tissue injury" and eventually stopped treating the pain because the pain did not improve and was not supported by diagnostic testing. The Petitioner's neurologist opined that the neck pain was not a "disability." The Petitioner returned to the school on February 14, 1996, and discussed her physical limitations with the school principal. She showed the principal a copy of a letter from her chiropractor to an insurer that stated that she was "able to work in a limited capacity . . . with a 15 pound limit" and that "she is to avoid excessive bending, stooping and standing." The Petitioner asserts that the school principal told her to go home and return a week later. The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner informed the Principal that she could do the job but only under the restrictions set forth in the chiropractor's letter. The evidence establishes that the discussion related to whether or not the Petitioner was able to return to work was centered on her ability to perform her responsibilities and that the Petitioner decided she was unable to return to work at that time and would return a week later. By letter dated February 15, 1996, the School Board's personnel coordinator advised the Petitioner that she had used all of her sick leave and would not receive any additional pay until she returned to work. The letter suggested that she request an official leave of absence effective January 2, 1996, in order to permit her retirement benefits to be maintained because "time spent on an official leave of absence can be bought back by the employee from the Division of Retirement." On February 21, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and informed him she would be unable to return on that day due to family matters. On February 22, 1996, the Petitioner returned to the campus and spoke with the principal. The Petitioner told the principal she did not feel physically capable of working as a paraprofessional in the preschool classroom and asked him to provide her with other employment. The principal told the Respondent he did not have any open positions at the school for which she would be physically suited. The principal was also concerned that because the Respondent was physically restricted from bending, stooping, and standing for an extended time, she would not be able to perform the responsibilities of her employment. There is no evidence that on February 22, 1996, or at any time during the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, there were jobs available at the school that did not require physical activity beyond the Petitioner's abilities. On February 26, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and said she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator. The principal believed there was a misunderstanding about the availability of the leave of absence to an annual contract employee and suggested that she speak to the personnel coordinator. The principal also called the coordinator and requested that he clarify the matter with the Petitioner. On February 27, 1996, the personnel coordinator telephoned the school principal and said that the Petitioner had been informed that she was not eligible for a leave of absence and said that the Petitioner had suggested she would resign her employment. On March 1, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the principal and said she wanted to apply for a leave of absence. The principal contacted the personnel coordinator who suggested that the Petitioner submit to the school superintendent a letter requesting the leave along with a copy of the chiropractor's letter and then let the superintendent decide whether or not he would recommend to the school board that her leave request be granted. The information was relayed to the Petitioner, who stated that she would submit the letter. By letter dated March 7, 1996, the Petitioner relayed the events to the superintendent and requested "any consideration you can give in resolving this matter." In the March 7 letter, the Petitioner writes, "[d]ue to the activeness of the children in this class the possibility of re-injuring myself is very high." She also advises that she informed the principal that the personnel coordinator suggested that she request the leave of absence and that the principal suggested that she write the letter to the superintendent. The Petitioner asserted that she would not resign from her position. Attached to the March 7 letter were past evaluations, a March 6 letter "to whom it may concern" from her chiropractor restating the symptoms of her injury, and the February 15 letter she received from the personnel coordinator suggesting the leave of absence. By letter dated March 19, 1996, the Petitioner referenced a March 15 meeting with the superintendent and states "[i]f there are no reasonable accommodations for a job replacement, I would like to request a medical leave of absence for the remainder of this year." She enclosed the letter from the chiropractor with the letter to the superintendent. There appears to have been no response from the superintendent to the Petitioner's request for a leave of absence. By letter dated June 4, 1996, the personnel coordinator responded to the request for leave of absence by stating that because the Petitioner was on an annual contract, the request for a leave of absence could not be granted. The letter also stated that due to a lack of funding, some employees would not be called back to work in the 1996-97 school year, and suggested that she should apply for a future vacant position "when you are again able " According to the leave policy set forth in the school board's employment handbook, any employee may request a leave of absence. Such requests must be made at least seven days prior to the requested leave period except in the case of emergency when the request must be made "as soon as possible." The policy requires that the leave application be made in writing and on the form provided for such requests. The policy provides that the School Board "may grant leave, with or without pay." The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner followed the school system policy in requesting a leave of absence after her accident. The Petitioner did not complete and sign a form requesting a leave of absence. The first written request to the school superintendent for a leave of absence was the letter of March 19, approximately 70 days after the accident. The first time the issue of a leave of absence was verbally addressed by the Petitioner was on February 26, 1996, approximately 50 days after the accident, when she told the school principal that she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator in his letter of February 15. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has a handicap or disability as those terms are defined under applicable statutes and case law. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in any employment decision on the basis of a handicap or disability. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner filed a Request for Disability Accommodation at any time prior to the end of the 1995-96 school year. For the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, a substitute teacher filled in for the Petitioner. The job remained open and available to the Petitioner through the end of the school year. The position was not filled on a permanent basis because school officials were uncertain about whether the Petitioner would be able to return for work. Paraprofessional employees working for the Highlands County School System are employed as annual employees for the first three years. After successful completion of the third year, the paraprofessional becomes eligible for consideration for continuing contract employment. An employee under an annual contract has no automatic right to re-employment. Continuing contract employment provides increased job security to an employee because termination of employment must be for "just cause" or when required by a "reduction in force." Continuing contract employees also receive preference over non-contract employees when workers are recalled after a reduction in force. The successful completion of the third year does not guarantee that the paraprofessional will receive the continuing contract, but only provides that such employee is eligible to receive such a contract The Respondent requires that in order to work a "complete" year, an employee must work for at least 150 days in a school term. Because the Petitioner did not work for at least 150 days in the 1995-96 school term, she did not complete the third year of employment and is not currently eligible for a continuing contract as a paraprofessional employee. The Respondent may permit a paraprofessional employee to work a fourth year, after which the employee automatically receives a continuing contract. Because there were concerns related to the Petitioner's job performance in the 1995-96 school year, the principal of the school would not likely have recommended that a fourth year of employment (and a resulting automatic continuing contract) be permitted.
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 Mary Ann Kerney. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, 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 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Katherine B. Heyward, Esquire John K. McClure, P.A. 230 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Mary Ann Florida Kerney 33870 4524 Elm Sebring, Avenue Florida 33870 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wallace Cox, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' factual stipulations, the following relevant facts are found. Miami-Dade Community College is a public educational institution operated by the District Board of Trustees. Its North Campus has an enrollment of approximately 14,000 students, and employs approximately 340 professional faculty and administrators and 300 clerical personnel. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Joseph T. King was employed on an annual contract basis as an instructor in the Division of Occupational Careers, Business Data Processing Department, at the North Campus. As pertinent here, his latest annual contract was for the period from August 1984 to August 2, 1985. That contract has not been renewed and did not create the expectancy of employment beyond August 2, 1985. As pertinent to this proceeding, the organizational administrative structure of the North Campus, in descending order, is as follows: the President of the College, the Campus Vice-President, the Dean of Academic Affairs, the Associate Deans of the various divisions, the department Chairpersons and instructors. The North Campus Vice-President is the chief administrative officer at that campus and is responsible for providing broad leadership and administrative direction for all of the campus programs and services. The Dean of Academic Affairs is the chief academic officer and is responsible for the faculty and for providing the planning, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the various instructional divisions. During the time periods relevant herein, Dr. Lukenbill was the Dean of Academic Affairs and Dr. Kelly was the North Campus Vice-President. Dr. Lukenbill had been employed at the college since 1972 and was appointed as the North Campus Dean of Academic Affairs on January 28, 1985. Dr. Kelly, having served in various levels of college administration for 23 years, was appointed as the North Campus Vice-President during the first week of February 1985. The Acting Associate Dean of the Division of Occupational Careers was Blanca Gonzalez. Within this Division is the Department of Business Data Processing, chaired by Lincoln Andrews. The Respondent King was an instructor in that Department. From January 30, 1985 through February 17, 1985, Respondent was unable to work due to medical reasons. On February 11, 1985, Respondent was advised by telegram from the Director of Personnel Services that he would be required to present a physician's statement to the Associate Dean of his Division substantiating that he is physically able to resume his duties. During the period between January 30, 1985 and February 17, 1985, Respondent did hand-deliver a letter from himself to the College President on January 30, had one dinner engagement, made two visits to a former faculty member's home and had one faculty member in his home. February 18 was a school holiday. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on February 19, 1985, Respondent returned to the North Campus and reported to Associate Dean Gonzalez' office for the purpose of providing documentation regarding his ability to return to work. With him was Harry Forster, a former faculty member who had been terminated and had been asked not to return to the campus. Respondent presented Ms. Gonzalez with certain documentation from his physician and requested her to sign a receipt for the documents. Ms. Gonzalez signed and returned the documents to the Respondent and the conversation between them concluded. At that point, Mr. Forster told Ms. Gonzalez that he wanted to speak with her about the Chairperson of the Business Data Processing Department. Ms. Gonzalez then telephoned Mr. Lukenbill, the Dean of Academic Affairs, and asked him to come to her office to join the meeting because she felt the Academic Dean should be a part of the discussion which Mr. Forster desired to initiate. Having been recently appointed as Academic Dean, and Respondent having been on sick leave since January 30, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill had not met Respondent prior to February 19, 1985. As he walked into Ms. Gonzalez' office, he introduced himself to the Respondent and shook his hand. A discussion thereafter ensued between Dr. Lukenbill, Mr. Forster and Ms. Gonzalez, with the Respondent taking no part in the discussion. The matters discussed by Mr. Forster related to his concerns or beliefs regarding certain activities and personnel at the College. They did not involve the Respondent, though both the Respondent and other administrators had previously heard the allegations made by Mr. Forster. At the conclusion of the discussion between Forster, Lukenbill and Gonzalez, Dr. Lukenbill turned to the Respondent and stated that he would like to have a few words with him and asked if he had a few moments. His purpose in initiating that discussion was a combination of courtesy, to establish a rapport with a faculty member he had just met, and to assure himself that Respondent was physically able to resume his duties as an instructor. It was not unusual for Dr. Lukenbill to speak directly with faculty members, in spite of the organizational it chain of administrative command. In response to Dr. Lukenbill's invitation to talk together, Respondent produced his attorney's business card and responded that he would not speak with Dr. Lukenbill. Respondent then left Ms. Gonzalez' office with Mr. Forster, and attended his scheduled classes. For some time prior to February 19, 1985, Respondent had been involved in a contract dispute with the College concerning his salary. His retained attorney had written a letter dated February 14, 1985, to President McCabe regarding this matter and had requested a response within five days. Respondent was of the impression that he should not speak to college administrators concerning his contract dispute or the Forster allegations in the absence of his attorney. When Dr. Lukenbill asked to speak with the Respondent on the morning of February 19, neither he nor the Respondent mentioned Respondent's salary or contract dispute with the College. Dr. Lukenbill had no knowledge of the February 14 letter from Respondent's attorney to President McCabe. While Respondent testified that he would have spoken to Dr. Lukenbill had Dr. Lukenbill advised him that he wished to discuss academic matters with him, the evidence is clear that Respondent did not express this to Dr. Lukenbill nor did he inform Dr. Lukenbill that he only did not feel at liberty to discuss his salary dispute or the Forster allegations in the absence of his attorney. Dr. Lukenbill did not intend to speak with Respondent concerning either Respondent's contract dispute with the College or the allegations made by Mr. Forster. He had previously heard those allegations and felt that they concerned matters unrelated to the Respondent. Dr. Lukenbill was concerned that Respondent's refusal to speak with him created a situation whereby he, as the Dean for Academic Affairs, could not fulfill his responsibilities of managing the assignment of faculty and the conduct of classes. For this reason, he contacted Vice- President Kelly after the February 19 incident and expressed his concern that Respondent's refusal to speak with him impaired his ability to carry out his responsibilities. Dr. Kelly was also concerned and puzzled about Respondent's refusal to talk with the Dean, and agreed that the situation needed to be immediately resolved. At approximately 11:00 a.m. on February 19, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill instructed Ms. Gonzalez to deliver a note to Respondent requesting him to come to Dr. Kelly's office to meet with Dr. Kelly and Dr. Lukenbill at 11:30 a.m. Ms. Gonzalez had a memorandum prepared and attempted to have it delivered to Respondent's lab. The evidence is conflicting as to the time of the attempted delivery and as to the Respondent's schedule of classes and/or labs on that particular day and time. Respondent did attend two of his classes on the morning of February 19. In any event, the memorandum of February 19 was not delivered to the Respondent. On the morning of February 20, 1985, Dr. Lukenbill again requested Ms. Gonzalez to prepare and deliver a note to Respondent requesting him to meet with Dr. Lukenbill and Dr. Kelly in Dr. Kelly's office at 12:15 p.m. Ms. Gonzalez prepared the memo and attached the similar memo of the previous day. Neither memo stated the reason or purpose of the scheduled meeting. The February 20 memo and attachment were delivered to the Respondent during his scheduled class, and Respondent appeared at Dr. Kelly's office at the scheduled time. Vice-President Kelly had never met Respondent prior to February 20, 1985. He was aware that there had been some problems with faculty members missing classes in the Respondent's Department and had heard the Respondent's name in this regard. His concern, however, on February 20 was to attempt to understand and remedy the Respondent's refusal to speak with his Academic Dean on February 19. Dr. Kelly had no knowledge of Respondent's contract dispute with the College and perceived no connection between Mr. Forster's allegations and the Respondent. Respondent appeared at the February 20 meeting with Dr. Kelly and Dr. Lukenbill and the three individuals sat at a small conference table. Respondent immediately placed a tape recorder on the table and asked if there were any objections to the meeting being taped. Drs. Kelly and Lukenbill both indicated they had no objection. Respondent turned on the tape recorder, taped some background information and then indicated to the others that they could proceed with the discussion. It is undisputed that the discussion began with Dr. Kelly stating that they wished to speak with the Respondent about what occurred on the previous day. What Dr. Kelly was referring to, and what Dr. Lukenbill understood to be the purpose of the meeting, was the Respondent's refusal to speak with his Academic Dean on February 19. In response to Dr.,Kelly's opening statement, Respondent threw his attorney's business card on the conference table and refused to speak to the Vice-President or the Academic Dean. Dr. Kelly explained to the Respondent that he considered Respondent's behavior, both then and on the previous day, to be inappropriate, intolerable and a very serious matter. He informed the Respondent that if he were not going to speak with Dr. Kelly or Dr. Lukenbill, there would be no way Respondent could remain on campus and that he would recommend his suspension to the College President. Respondent inquired as to whether Dr. Kelly was ordering him to leave the campus; Dr. Kelly responded that he was requesting him to leave the campus and Respondent then left Dr. Kelly's office. Respondent offers the explanation that, since the notice of the February 20 meeting did not set forth the subject matter or reason for the meeting, he had no way of knowing what Dr. Kelly meant by stating that he wished to discuss what occurred on February 19. This explanation is not credible and does not justify his conduct of refusing to speak to his college administrators. First, even if Respondent had been instructed by his attorney not to discuss his contract dispute in her absence, there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent's contract or salary dispute was ever mentioned during the February 20 meeting. Dr. Kelly was not even aware of such a dispute. While Respondent testified that he himself inquired as to whether the meeting had anything to do with his contract, he further testified that Dr. Kelly responded that he did not want to talk about a contract dispute but instead wanted to talk about what happened with Dr. Lukenbill the previous morning. Thus, even accepting the Respondent's versions of the February 20 meeting, it is clear that Respondent understood, at some point in time, that the intended purpose of the meeting was to discuss Respondent's refusal to speak with Dr. Lukenbill. Respondent never offered any explanation to Dr. Kelly or Dr. Lukenbill as to why he would not speak to them. It is clear that the meeting started and ended with the key administrators of the North Campus expressing their desire to have Respondent explain to them and change his position concerning his unprofessional behavior on that day and the previous day. Respondent's own fears or concerns regarding either his contract dispute or the Forster allegations do not excuse his willful and continued failure to communicate with the top two administrators responsible for his employer's functions and operations. By telegram dated February 20, 1985, Dr. McCabe, Petitioner's President, advised Respondent that he was suspended without pay pending Dr. McCabe's recommendation for dismissal to the District Board of Trustees. By letter dated March 1, 1985, Dr. McCabe advised Respondent that he would recommend Respondent's termination at the March 26, 1985, District Board meeting based upon the charge of gross insubordination. At that meeting, the District Board suspended Respondent without pay pending the termination proceedings. The Petition and Notice for Dismissal was served on April 2, 1985, and Respondent requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Joseph T. King be dismissed from employment retroactively to the date of his suspension for gross insubordination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of December, 1985. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent have been approved and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner: 7 and 8. Rejected as to date of February 19, 1985, due to evidence to the contrary. 32. Partially rejected, no competent, substantial evidence regarding Respondent's schedule between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. 51. Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent: P. 3, last full sentence Rejected, not a factual finding. in last paragraph. Last paragraph beginning Rejected, not a factual finding on P. 3. And irrelevant and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald M. Middlebrooks, Esquire and Nancy E. Swerdlow, Esquire Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Neil Flaxman, Esquire Flaxman and Flaxman, P.A. 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 311 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Robert H. McCabe, President District Board of Trustees Miami-Dade Community College 11011 Southwest 104th Street Miami, Florida 33176
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to membership in the State University System Optional Retirement Program (SUSORP), rather than the Florida Retirement System (FRS).
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner, Qiu-Xing Jiang, is a faculty member in the Department of Microbiology and Cell Science at the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science (UF IFAS). 2 Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, is the state agency with the responsibility to administer the FRS and the SUSORP. Petitioner was a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, when he received a written offer letter from UF IFAS for his current faculty position on August 14, 2015. The offer letter was delivered to Petitioner via his personal e-mail address, which is a Yahoo account. The offer letter is five pages long, including an addendum containing conditions of employment. The two-page addendum includes the following information regarding retirement options: You are required to participate in at least one of the retirement programs offered by the State of Florida, unless you have received a pension or distribution of employer contributions, including a rollover, from a retirement program administered by the State of Florida. If you have received a distribution as described, you are not eligible to participate or renew membership in a State of Florida retirement plan. Otherwise, an employee contribution of 3% is mandatory and you may select the retirement program you wish to enroll. For more information, please attend new employee orientation or visit the UF Retirement website at http://hr.ufl.edu/benefits/retirement. Should you have any questions regarding benefits or retirement, please contact University Benefits and Retirement at (352) 392-2477. Petitioner electronically signed and accepted the offer of employment, and initialed the two-page addendum, on August 14, 2015. The website to which the offer letter to Petitioner referred contained all the information regarding the SUSORP, including eligibility, enrollment, contribution rates, forms, publications, and other resources. With respect to enrollment, the website informed new hires of the two steps for enrollment: Open an account with an investment provider. Fax completed Optional Retirement Program Enrollment Form (https://www.rol.frs.state.fl.us/forms/orp- enroll.pdf) to UF Benefits at (352) 392-5166 within 90 calendar days from hire. Prior to receiving the written offer letter, Petitioner travelled to Gainesville to enroll his children in school and complete other tasks to settle his family in a new location. Petitioner’s children began school on August 15, 2015. Petitioner’s hire date was September 1, 2015. UF has adopted an online hiring process, known as “GatorStart,” to expedite payroll enrollment of new hires. To reduce the paperwork required, the system requires new hires to create an e-signature and review and initial all the necessary forms online. The GatorStart system shows that Petitioner accessed the system on August 31, 2015, and acknowledged receipt by initialing several forms, including the W-4, Direct Deposit, the FRS Certification, and the Benefits and Retirement Information. The Benefits and Retirement Information form includes the following pertinent information: Welcome to the University of Florida! The university offers a comprehensive array of benefits to employees. This provides a brief introduction to those benefits. Specifically, please take note of the enrollment deadlines associated with insurance and retirement benefits. In addition to our website, you may refer to the New Employee Orientation Guide at http://hr.ufl.edu/working-at-uf/new- employees/employee-handbook/. Throughout your employment, you can always contact us by email as well. Benefits: benefits@ufl.edu Retirement: retirement@ufl.edu * * * Retirement Enrollment in a retirement plan is mandatory. You have 90 days from your date of hire to enroll in the SUSORP. To select the FRS Investment Plan, you must enroll by the end of the 5th month after your month of hire. If you do not actively enroll in a plan, you will default into the FRS Pension Plan. Health Science Center faculty are mandatory SUSORP participants. For more information, visit https://www.hr.ufl.edu/retirement. The form then lists the three plan choices (SUSORP, FRS Investment, and FRS Pension), as well as the voluntary plans (403(b) and 457). At hearing, Petitioner denied that he accessed and acknowledged receipt of the online hiring forms on August 31, 2015. Instead Petitioner maintained that someone in his department must have done that on his behalf. However, Petitioner admitted that he accessed the online retirement tutorial at some point prior to September 1, 2015,1/ but was unable to enroll because he was not yet “in the University system.” On or about September 17, 2015, Petitioner met with Kathy Higgs. Ms. Higgs has been employed with IFAS HR for 10 years and assists new employees with benefits enrollment. Her primary duties are with respect to enrollment in medical and supplemental insurance plans. Ms. Higgs has no expertise in state retirement options. With respect to retirement options, it is her practice to inform new employees of the enrollment deadlines and direct them to the website which lists investment providers and their local representatives. Ms. Higgs has prepared a summary chart of the three retirement options, including eligibility, vesting time, and enrollment window, which she generally provides to new employees. New employees enroll in medical and supplemental insurance plans through the People First portal. Every employee has a unique password to access the portal. Petitioner faults Ms. Higgs for misleading him into waiting to enroll in a retirement plan until after he received his People First password. Ms. Higgs denied having instructed, or otherwise advised, Petitioner to wait until he received his People First password to enroll in a retirement plan. Based on the evidence, Petitioner misunderstood certain communications from Ms. Higgs. Petitioner’s employment at UF is a blend of two different positions: 0.8 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) for IFAS and 0.2 FTE for Sponsored Research. On September 21, 2015, Ms. Higgs e-mailed Lisa Hodges, UF HR Assistant Director of Benefits, to determine whether Petitioner needed to enroll for benefits separately in each position. On September 22, 2015, Ms. Hodges replied via e-mail that, for the state plans, Petitioner should enroll as usual in People First and that the two FTEs would be combined, but for UFSelect plans, Petitioner should enroll under the 0.8 FTE. Ms. Hodges added, “The only enrollment that he would need to enter on both is LTD since it has to factor in the salary on the .80 and .20 FTE job.” On September 22, 2015, Ms. Higgs forwarded Ms. Hodges’ e-mail explanation of benefits enrollment to Petitioner at his UF e-mail address. She included the following message by way of introduction: “Good morning, Dr. Jiang, Please read below email from University Benefits to make sure your enrollments are processed successfully.” On that same date, Petitioner responded, “Thanks for your help. I will wait for the ID/passwd. What is LTD? Best, Qiu-Xing.” Ms. Hodges was copied on that e-mail exchange between Petitioner and Ms. Higgs, and replied to Petitioner on September 30, 2015, that LTD means “Long-Term Disability” and referred Petitioner to the UF website containing a tutorial on both the state and UFSelect benefits plans. The e-mail exchanges were clearly limited to benefits enrollment, not retirement. Also on September 22, 2015, UF HR, through its Benefits office, sent Petitioner an e-mail regarding all three retirement options and instructions on how to enroll. The e- mail was sent to Petitioner’s e-mail address at Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Petitioner did not receive the e-mail. Petitioner faults UF HR for failing to send the e-mail to the correct address. Ms. Hodges characterized the e-mail as a “courtesy” that is sent to all new employees as a reminder of the retirement options. Respondent provided no satisfactory explanation for why the courtesy e-mail reminder was sent to Petitioner’s former university e-mail address. On October 7, 2015, Petitioner sent Ms. Higgs an e- mail in regard to hiring a scientist for his lab. Petitioner only had an Other Personal Service (OPS) position available, but the scientist was a current UF employee enrolled in the FRS. Petitioner inquired of Ms. Higgs if he could hire the scientist in the OPS position but “pay extra money to continue his FRS pension program he is currently in as he will continue to work for UF.” On October 9, 2015, Ms. Higgs sent Petitioner an e- mail wherein she included the link to the SUSORP page of the retirement benefits website. This e-mail was sent to Petitioner 39 days after his hire date. Petitioner did not make a retirement election within 90 days of his hire date and, thus, defaulted to membership in the FRS. Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated January 11, 2016, that because he had not selected a SUSORP provider company within 90 days of his hire date, Respondent transferred his retirement contributions to the FRS Trust Fund. On or about February 19, 2016, Petitioner contacted Ms. Hodges to determine why he was not enrolled in SUSORP. Ms. Hodges explained that since Petitioner “did not make an active retirement plan election within 90 days from hire, [he was] defaulted into the Pension Plan. Ms. Hodges also forwarded Petitioner’s request to Eric Kegley, a UF HR Retirement Specialist, for review. Mr. Kegley subsequently investigated Petitioner’s allegations that he had been misled by Ms. Higgs into waiting for his People First password in order to enroll in retirement, faulting IFAS HR for failing to provide him with advice from someone who was knowledgeable in retirement benefits, and faulting UF HR for sending the courtesy reminder to an invalid address. On February 22, 2016, Petitioner completed a SUSORP enrollment form, which UF submitted on his behalf to Respondent. However, following UF HR’s investigation, UF determined that its staff were not to blame for Petitioner’s failure to make an active retirement election within 90 days of his hire date. Thus, UF did not support Petitioner’s instant request to transfer from the FRS to the SUSORP plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request to enroll in the SUSORP. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 6th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether the suspension of Petitioner was for good cause shown as indicated in the letter of suspension dated August 19, 1976.
Findings Of Fact Ralph L. Wilson was suspended for a three (3) day work period August 20, 1976 through August 24, 1976. The certified mail letter to Mr. Wilson stated, "This suspension is caused by your unauthorized absence for the period August 10 through August 13, 1976." Appellant Wilson is an Accountant at Florida A & M University working under the direct supervision of William Schnitt, Acting Budget Officer at Florida A & M University. Vinod K. Sharma Associate University Comptroller at Florida A & M University, is the supervisor of William Schmitt. James R. Barrett, Comptroller of Florida A & M University, is the supervisor of Vinod K. Sharma. Appellant Wilson requested a leave of absence from his position to attend a church conference to be held in Lake City, Florida, on August 10-13 1976. His immediate supervisor, Mr. Schmitt, orally refused the request but advised Mr. Wilson that the denial could be appealed to Mr. Vinod K. Sharma. Mr. Wilson appealed in writing the denial by Mr. Schmitt on August 4, 1976 to Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma, on August 4, 1976, sustained the denial of the request citing as the basis an August 1, 1976 memorandum to all fund accountants from J. R. Barrett, University Comptroller, asking all fund accountants not to request annual leave during the period from August 3, 1976 through September 7, 1976. The Appellant called in sick on August 9, 1976. He also called in sick on August 10, 1976. He did not call in to explain his absence on August 11, 12, and 13, 1976. Appellant Wilson presented a memo signed by W. H. Baker, M.D., as follows: "8-9-76 Mr. Ralph Wilson visited my office today because of illness." There was uncontroverted testimony that Appellant Wilson attended a church meeting on August 11, 12 and 13, 1976, in Lake City, Florida. Evidence was submitted that Appellant Wilson was an active member of the conference in Lake City who served, according to a portion of the program for the conference, as a member of the Board of Examiners at said conference. Appellant Wilson was transferred to the Comptroller's Office on July 10, 1976. His job description included the following statement by Mr. Barrett: "Your immediate supervisor will be Bill Schmitt, who at his discretion, may assign you additional duties." Appellant Wilson admitted that he was in Lake City, Florida on August 11, 12 and 13, 1976, and took an active part in a church conference in Lake City during that period. He admitted that he knowingly violated the personnel rules of being absent without proper authorization. The Appellant contends that he is discriminated against by his supervisors in that a statement from the doctor is required of other employees and that he is required to bring in certification on sickness anytime that he is sick for more than two (2) days. Appellant contends that his duties assigned are not nearly as much as the Respondent claims them to be, that he was given no credit for coming to work before 8 o'clock or while he stayed at work while his supervisors went on coffee break daily from around 8:15 to 9:00 A.M., that each time he was going to be more than fifteen (15) minutes late he did call in and report the same. Appellant further contends that the Respondent did not prove that he was not sick on the days claimed. He stated he was sick August 9-13, 1976. Appellant Wilson was notified by mail that he was suspended for three (3) days by the Agency Head, President B. L. Perry, Jr. Said suspension notice stated that the suspension was for being absent without authorization. He was without authorized leave.
Recommendation Inasmuch as the Appellant has been orally reprimanded and reprimanded by written notice, it is recommended that the three (3) day suspension without pay be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ralph L. Wilson Post Office Box 2392 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bishop Holifield, Esquire Legal Department Florida A & M University Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the School Board of Lake County, Florida (Board)(Petitioner). It is charged with operating and managing the public school system in Lake County, Florida, otherwise known as the Lake County School District. The Respondent, at times pertinent hereto, was employed by the Board as a school guidance counselor at Sawgrass Elementary School. Her principal was Rhonda Hunt. During the 2005-2006 school year, the Respondent missed 71 days from her job. In the 2006-2007 year, she missed 97 days. In the 2007-2008 school year, the Respondent missed 87 days from work. The contract for a guidance counselor requires that they work for 221 days per school year. During these times, especially in the 2007-2008 school year, the Respondent had been making repeated requests for leave. Ms. Hunt, her principal, became concerned and in May of 2008 reported the situation about extensive absences, and leave requests, to Ms. Rebecca Nelsen, the Board's Supervisor of Compensation, Benefits and Employee Relations. In the 2007-2008 school year, when Ms. Hunt brought the issue to Ms. Nelsen's attention, the Respondent had missed work the number of days found above, which represented all the days in the school year from February 13th through the end of the school year. In the previous year, she had missed work from the middle of January through the end of the school year. Ms. Nelsen prepared a memo to Deke DeLoach, the Board's Chief of Human Resources, apprising him of the situation regarding the Respondent's absences. She explained to him the situation involving the excessive absences over a 5-year period. She explained to Mr. DeLoach that when an employee has been on extended unpaid leave that, according to Board policy 6.50, her return to employment is dependant upon a position being available. Therefore, while an individual is on extended leave, which is approved, their position becomes available to be filled at the decision of an individual school administrator. Moreover, unpaid leave, the status applicable to the Respondent's situation, must be approved in advance. An employee may not go off-duty on unpaid leave and then get approval for it at a later time. Approval must be requested in advance. A formal request must be made to the Superintendent, for the Superintendent's recommendation to the Board. Extended Illness Leave is a leave category that is required to be approved by the Board as well. Ms. Nelsen therefore explained to Mr. DeLoach that the Respondent had been on extended unpaid leave and, according to the above-referenced Board policy, her return to employment was dependent upon a position being available. Employees are required to have approval for some form of leave before they take leave or miss time from work. If an employee does not have approval for some form of leave and does not come to work, then under Board policy they are deemed to be absent without leave. If that is the situation, the employee can be terminated under Board policy. The School Board must have a recommendation from the Superintendent in order to be able to act on any sort of leave request. Under Board policies, an Extended Illness Leave is required to be approved by the Board. The school fiscal year ends June 30th. July 1, 2008, therefore, was the beginning of the new fiscal year for the 2008-2009 school year. The regular school session then began near the end of August 2008. Ms. Nelsen wrote to Ms. Chavous on August 19, 2008, explaining to her that she had been on unpaid sick leave numerous days, and giving her options to consider. Ms. Nelsen informed her that she must report to work or be considered absent without approved leave, that she could explain to her supervisor any accommodations that she may need, or that she could request Extended Illness Leave. That communication, from Ms. Nelsen to Ms. Chavous, references a July 29, 2008, request for sick leave. Ms. Chavous completed the July 29, 2008, request for sick leave on a Request for Leave of Absence form, which is the form required to be completed by employees who are requesting any kind of leave from the School Board. The July 29, 2008, leave form depicted a request for leave from August 4, 2008, through August 19, 2008. The reason for the leave requested was indicated as "Illness of self.” The Respondent did not have any sick leave available to her at that time. In the 2008-2009, school year, the Respondent was not eligible for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. This was because she had not worked enough days in order to trigger eligibility under that law. This leave request was denied because the Respondent was on unpaid sick leave the prior year, had missed 87 days, and had never offered an explanation for her need to use sick leave. Therefore, the Board had no basis on which to approve the additional leave request and the Respondent's approved leave ended June 30, 2008. Any leave that the Respondent would have received for any extended illness would have been for the previous school year which was over at the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2008. Ms. Nelsen gave the Respondent two options in her August 19, 2008, letter: To report to work or be considered absent without approved leave, or To submit a leave request form asking for extended illness leave for the remainder of the year. On August 28, 2008, a request was faxed from the Respondent seeking extended illness leave. The attached doctor's note did not explain the nature of the medical situation or condition, in terms of providing justification for the leave requested. The Respondent submitted a leave request form with that August 28, 2008, request. It did not confirm that she was asking for extended illness leave for the school year. Instead she requested leave from August 4, 2008, until October 30, 2008. Since School Board policy required the Respondent, in this situation, to request leave for the remainder of the school year, Ms. Nelsen sent an e-mail to the Respondent telling her that she had no available sick leave to use and again telling her that she had the option to either report to work or to request an extended illness leave for the remainder of the year. That communication was sent on August 29, 2008, the day after the Respondent faxed the form requesting leave through October. The Respondent then sent Ms. Nelsen another leave request form in response to the August 29, 2008, e-mail. It again requested leave from August 4, 2008, through October 30, 2008. On September 9, 2008, a letter was sent from the Superintendent to the Respondent, explaining that the Respondent had not reported to work and that she had not requested extended illness leave. Consequently she was informed that she was now considered “absent without approved leave” and would be recommended to the School Board for termination of employment. When the Superintendent sent the letter to the Respondent, on September 9, 2008, the Respondent was not on approved leave. She was absent without leave under the terms of the School Board policy. Pursuant to that policy she was therefore subject to being terminated. Ms. Nelsen received three leave request forms from the Respondent, none of which requested leave for the remainder of the school year, and none of which gave an explanation for the basis of the medical condition. The Respondent's response to these facts was her statement to the effect that "[I]t was just always told to me that you can't request for more leave than what your doctor has put on the form. So, therefore, that's why I put the dates there." She also acknowledged that sometimes she does not remember some things or doesn't respond as fast as she should. Therefore she simply stated that she believed, in effect, that she had submitted everything that she could and had explained her situation to the best of her ability at the time. The collective bargaining agreement between the Lake County School District and the Lake County Education Association includes the position of guidance counselor. That contract references the Board policy which makes it a terminable offense to be absent without leave. The recommendation to the Board, prior to the Respondent making a Request for Hearing, was that she be terminated for being absent without leave. The Respondent's prior leave had expired at the end of the 2007-2008 school year. When the first day of school started in the current school year of 2008-2009, the Respondent did not report to work. The Respondent probably would have been unable to work because of her illness before January 2009. She would therefore have missed all of August, September, October, November, and December.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Lake County School Board finding that the employment of the Respondent, Latonya Chavous, be terminated for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 26th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Latonya Chavous 136 Desiree Aurora Street Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Dr. Susan Moxley, Superintendent Lake County Schools 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2496 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Respondent has been a permanent full-time employee of petitioner's for over 22 years and at the time of the alleged abandonment was employed as a Engineer Technician III in petitioner's Second District and is subject to the Career Service rules of Chapter 22A, Florida Administrative Code. Walter Henry Skinner, III, is the District Engineer, Second District, with offices in Lake City, Florida, covering a 16 county area over northeast Florida. In this instance, directly below Mr. Skinner in the chain of command is Raymond O. Humphreys, Resident Construction Engineer. His is a supervising position as contract administrator for road and bridge contracts let by the petitioner to private contracting firms for construction of roads and bridges within 9 counties of the second district. Respondent has worked within Mr. Humphreys' jurisdiction since March, 1976. The record is not clear, but apparently there is at least one other supervisor between Mr. Humphreys and respondent, the position of survey crew chief. Respondent was granted leave of absence without pay on Humphreys' recommendation on May 1, 1983 through July 12, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9); October 3, 1983 through April 2, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8); and again on April 3, 1984 for 6 months (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). Respondent returned to work before the end of this 6 months leave of absence without pay. The record does not reflect when respondent returned to work but apparently he returned to work sometime after his release from the Hamilton County Jail on July 9, 1984. The record shows that respondent was working on September 21, 1984 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). Respondent was granted 4 hours annual leave on September 24, 1984, 8 hours of annual leave on September 25, 1984 and 8 hours annual leave on September 26, 1984. On September 27, 1984 petitioner placed respondent on unauthorized leave of absence without pay. On September 27, 1984 petitioner was advised by Roger Tanner, respondent's probation officer, that respondent had bean incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail on September 26, 1984. Petitioner knew that respondent had 78.2 hours of accrued annual leave and 524.0 hours of accrued sick leave. Petitioner did not notify respondent that he had been placed on unauthorized leave without pay on September 27, 1984 until October 4, 1984 when petitioner delivered to respondent a letter from Skinner advising him that he had abandoned his position with the petitioner. Respondent had been incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail on: (1) April 22, 1983 to July 5, 1983; (2) July 23, 1983; (3) August 11, 1983 to August 12, 1983; (4) September 22, 1983 to July 9, 1984; and (5) September 26, 1984 to October 6, 1984. The evidence reflects that respondent had a "drinking problem" of which petitioner was aware but did very little "counseling" with respondent in this regard. On October 1, 1984 Mr. Markham, Humphreys Resident Office Manager, contacted Judge John Peach's office and was informed by his secretary, after she discussed the matter with Judge Peach, that respondent's "problem would be resolved in a few days" or at least "by the weekend." Respondent worked with a survey crew taking final measurements and checking work in the field completed by the contractors. Respondent was assigned to this survey crew by Humphreys because respondent did not have a valid driver's license. Walter H. Skinner had been delegated authority to take this type action against respondent by Mr. Pappas, Secretary of the Department of Transportation and such delegation was in effect at all times material herein.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that it be found that respondent did not abandon his position and resign from the Career Service as contemplated under Rules 22A-7.1O(2)(a) and 22A-8.O2, Florida Administrative Code and that respondent be reinstated to his position of Engineer Technician III as of September 27, 1984. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 17th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald K. Hudson, Esquire Post Office Box 948 Jasper, Florida 32052 Daniel C. Brown Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel 562 Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Phillip Ortwein was employed by USF December 1, 1966 on a 7-month contract expiring June 30, 1967. On his application for employment (Exhibit 16) he indicated that he held a Masters Degree in Physical Education from Indiana University in 1948 and that he had done 1 1/2 years work on a Doctorate Degree which he expected to complete in 1968. He was employed in the Physical Education Department and assigned duties in the functional program as well as in the activities program instructing in tennis. His contract was renewed on July 1, 1967 for the period 9/1/67 to 6/30/68 on a 12-month appointment (Exhibit 4). His contract was again renewed July 1, 1968 for the 12-month period ending 6/30/69 (Exhibit 5). By memo dated March 3, 1969 Petitioner was notified that his contract would not be renewed effective June 30, 1970. Upon receipt of this notice Petitioner went to the Director of the Physical Education Division who had authored the notice to see if there was any hope his contract would be renewed. The Director, Dr. Bowers, advised Petitioner that there was always hope but that the notice remained effective. He was advised that he should upgrade his knowledge of changes in the academic physical education field. Petitioner was also aware that his immediate superior, Professor Prather, was not satisfied with his performance in the functional program of the Physical Educa-tional Division. Then or shortly thereafter Petitioner requested to be relieved of his duties in the functional program to devote more time to upgrading his knowledge and this was granted. Some six months later Petitioner first spent time in the library for this purpose. On January 27, 1969 the Physical Education Tenure Committee was requested by Bowers to submit a recommendation regarding the tenure status of Ortwein. At this time Ortwein was not eligible for tenure as he had not been employed by USF for the three years required. However, this was the only professor evaluation committee extant and Bowers, in order to get faculty input on whether or not to recommend renewal of Ortwein's contract, asked for the evaluation. On February 26, 1969, Bowers was advised the committee had voted 3 for granting tenure and 3 for deferring tenure. By letter dated December 22, 1969 Dean Edwin P. Martin, following a discussion with Ortwein, advised Petitioner that, due to an apparent misunderstanding by Ortwein regarding Bowers' notice he, Martin, was rescinding the termination notice of March 3, 1969, and that his employment would be terminated December 31, 1970. Following further discussion with Bowers Petitioner requested the full faculty in the Physical Education Division be polled to evaluate him. Results of this poll were 3 recommending granting tenure, 9 opposed, and 3 undecided. Due to administrative error Appointment-Reappointment Notice dated September 1, 1970 (Exhibit 7) renewing Petitioner's contract from" September 18, 1971 to June 13, 1971 was forwarded to and accepted by Petitioner. By letter to Ortwein dated October 9, 1970 (Exhibit 11) Dean Martin acknowledged that the contract (Exhibit 7) served to extend Petitioner's termination dated to June 13, 1971. Exhibit 12, letter of December 14, 1970, incorrectly dated December 14, 1971, Harris Dean, Acting President of USF, notified Petitioner that his employment would be terminated at the end of quarter 1, 1971, more than one year from the date of the letter. Exhibit 8, Notice of Appointment - Reappointment dated December 14, 1970 extended Ortwein's appointment to December 16, 1971. The parties stipulated that evidence subsequent to this latter termination date was not relevant to these proceedings. The pleadings indicate Ortwein was finally terminated in June, 1975. The letter of termination (or nonreappointment) dated December 14, 1970 was the first notice received by Respondent signed by the president of USF and this notice provided twelve months advance notice to Ortwein that his appointment would not be renewed. By letter of December 10, 1970 (Exhibit 13) Bowers presented to Acting President Dean four reasons for the recommendation not to reappoint Ortwein. These were: (1) Lack of performance in the area of functional physical education; (2) Contribution limited to area of tennis; (3) No contribution to the department outside the area of tennis; and (4) When the entire faculty of the Physical Education Division were polled there were 3 votes for and 9 against his continuing employment with 3 abstentions. Petitioner's performance in the Physical Education Division was unsatisfactory. He exhibited difficulty handling large groups and communicating instructions to them. His contributions at staff meetings were non-existent or negligible. His relations with students were considered brusk and too militaristic by his superiors. Neither Petitioner nor any other witness testified to any personal animosities between them and Petitioners; or of any conflict with any religious, political or social philosophies between them and Petitioner. In fact all witnesses testified no such personal difficulties existed or were apparent.
Conclusions It is hereby ordered and adjudged that Petitioner's complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed. Even if the complaint were to stand, the record supports, with competent substantial evidence, the conclusion that the Petitioner should not be re-employed by the University. Therefore, that decision is affirmed and adopted as the final action of this agency. Done and ordered at Tampa, Florida, on September 14, 1977. Wm. REECE SMITH JR. President
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis Ward Carroll held a Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 169701, which was valid from July 1, 1972 until June 30, 1982. As a certificate holder Respondent was disciplined on August 7, 1979, when the State Board of Education entered an Order adopting a set of stipulated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Board's Order suspended Mr. Carroll's license to teach for sixty (60) days beginning on June 15, 1979. This discipline resulted from Mr. Carroll's numerous absences from school due to his drinking alcohol. The stipulation recited several arrests and numerous admissions to the Detox (detoxication) Center for disorderly intoxication. These instances occurred between 1976 and 1978. According to the stipulation Mr. Carroll voluntarily entered an alcoholic treatment program on December 4, 1978 for a period of six (6) months. During all times pertinent to the Amended Administrative Complaint Mr. Carroll was employed as a full-time science teacher by the School Board of Duval County at Fletcher Senior High School. On May 18, 1979, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel of the School Board of Duval County, Florida, sent a letter to Mr. Carroll informing him that he would be employed for the next school year, but he was warned that, Any further indiscretion, however, such as public drunkeness or drinking while on the job will be reported to the Professional Practices Council and could result in a recommendation for your dismissal in accor- dance with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. May 1980 Absence During the 1979-80 school year, Mr. Carroll was absent from his teaching duties without prior approval for approximately one week in May, 1980. Before and during his absence Mr. Carroll failed to give notice of his absence as required by school policy. Upon his failure to appear for teaching as scheduled his principal, Dr. Knight, became concerned about his welfare and sent Mr. Daugherty, his administrative assistant, to look for Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll could not be found during the school day, but after work Mr. Daugherty, who was going to the grocery store with his wife, saw Mr. Carroll walking down the street. He was "in real bad shape" and was redolent of alcohol. When Mr. Carroll was offered a ride home he declined stating, "No, I want to go to the lounge." Mr. Daugherty then took Mr. Carroll to the Jax Liquor Store Lounge and promptly found a police officer. Mr. Daugherty explained his concern about Mr. Carroll to the officer. The officer picked Mr. Carroll up from the lounge and transported him to the Detox Center. Mr. Daugherty, who is now a school principal in Okeechobee, Florida, would not, if requested, hire Mr. Carroll as a teacher in his school. He believes that due to Mr. Carroll's drinking problem he could not be relied upon to appear as scheduled for teaching his classes. Dr. Knight has the same opinion. April 14, 1981 Arrest During the afternoon of April 14, 1981, a passing motorist notified Officer Russell of the Duval County Sheriff's Department that a man was staggering down the middle of East Point Road in Jacksonville, Florida. The patrolman went to the location described, and observed Mr. Carroll walking down the centerline of the street. Mr. Carroll smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet. Because of his condition he was transported by Officer Russell to the Detox Center where he was later arrested. July 21, 1981 Arrest At approximately 1:15 a.m. on July 21, 1981, Officer Nixon, a patrolman with the Duval County Sheriff's Department, received a complaint from Mr. Carroll's sister that he was creating a disturbance in her home. She reported that Mr. Carroll was drunk and she wanted him to remain in the house because she thought his condition was too dangerous for him to be out in public. Upon his arrival the police officer attempted to talk with Mr. Carroll but he refused to respond at all. He was quite intoxicated and had to be physically assisted out of the house and into the patrol car. Mr. Carroll was charged with disorderly intoxication and taken to the Detox Centers. Spring 1981 Absences According to Fletcher High School policy teachers were required to either give advance notice of their absences or if such notice was not possible to call the school secretary before 7:00 a.m. of the date on which they would be absent. This notice was required because substitute teachers needed to be obtained as rapidly as possible. If a teacher is too late in giving notice of his absence, it is impossible to obtain a substitute. Other teachers are then required to cover for the absent teacher with the consequential disruption of their omen teaching schedules. During the months of February and March, 1981, there were numerous times when Mr. Carroll did not report his absence as required. He either gave no notice or the notice he gave came after 7:00 o'clock. As a result of his unauthorized absences it was discovered that Mr. Carroll left either inadequate lesson plans or no lesson plans at all for the substitutes who appeared to instruct his class. The failure of Mr. Carroll to timely submit his lesson plans substantially interfered with the ability of the substitutes to teach the appropriate subject material. During one of his absences due to drinking student grades for the third nine-week period were due. Mr. Carroll did not leave any grades with the school administration to be given in his absence. Initially, the administration was unable to obtain the grades from Mr. Carroll. When it appeared that no grades would be available, students were told that they would receive an "I" (Incomplete) grade. This possibility caused much confusion and consternation among the students' parents. It resulted in numerous explanations to them by Mr. Carroll's principal. At the very last moment Mr. Carroll's mother delivered his grade book to the school. The "I's" which were previously placed on the students' report cards had to be removed and the correct grades were then posted. Respondent's unauthorized absences were the result of his being an alcoholic. Frequently Mr. Carroll was unable to go to school because he was in the Detox Center. Finally Mr. Carroll was given a leave of absence beginning on April 21, 1981 in order to seek treatment for his problem. Effectiveness Mr. Carroll's effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously reduced by his alcoholism. He cannot be depended upon to appear at the required time for the instruction of his classes. In two instances he appeared at school with the odor of alcohol on his breath. 1/ Knowledge of and rumors about his alcoholism have reduced the respect accorded him by students at Fletcher High School. On March 12, 1981 Mr. Carroll received an official reprimand from his principal, Dr. Jim Ragans. The reprimand noted that Mr. Carroll had been delinquent in giving notice of his absences to the school administration. The reprimand also noted deficiencies in Mr. Carroll's lesson plans and his completion of the student attendance register. He was warned that any reoccurrences of the enumerated delinquencies would result in a recommendation for his dismissal from teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate 2/ of Otis Ward Carroll for a period of two years pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and that once the revocation period has expired he be recertified only upon an affirmative demonstration that he is rehabilitated from alcoholism. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue The issues presented for decision in the above-styled matter are as follows: Can tenure be denied, as opposed to being granted or postponed, during the fifth year of employment? If so, was petitioner wrongfully denied tenure? Did respondent wrongfully determine that petitioner's employment contract would not be renewed beyond June of 1975? 4 Was petitioner wrongfully terminated before he received a due process hearing?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the admissible oral ad documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioner Jeffrey Rosner was hired by the respondent in September of 1969 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, a tenure-earning position. He was reappointed to this position for the school years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. During the period of time between September, 1969 and June of 1975, petitioner received and reviewed student evaluations of his teaching effectiveness. Although his student evaluations improved over the five-year period in question, petitioner's evaluations from students were consistently below the college median. Also, for the calendar year 1973, rating scores were assigned to all fifteen faculty members of petitioner's department. In the area of teaching, petitioner ranked fourteenth. 1/ At all times, petitioner's primary assigned duty was teaching. At all times relevant to this proceeding - from the time petitioner received his first appointment to the present time - the Florida Board of Regents had established and set forth three areas in which faculty members would be evaluated for purposes of tenure, promotion, salary and retention. These three areas are teaching, research and other creative activities and service. Also, "tenure" has been consistently defined in terms of a high degree of competence in the three areas mentioned above. The respondent University, at least since 1970, has employed the use of "tenure forms" in order to gather information from the individual faculty members being considered for tenure in the areas of teaching, research and service. Such forms may be supplemented as was done in the instant case by a six-page supplementary statement. In the middle of his fifth year of continuous employment at the University of South Florida, petitioner was considered for tenure. It was the common practice in the Political Science Department to consider faculty members for tenure during their fifth year. The faculty member himself is not given a choice as to whether he wishes to be considered or postponed for tenure. At the time petitioner was considered for tenure, from December of 1973 through March of 1974, the procedure utilized in the Political Science Department was as follows. The tenured faculty members of the Department review the candidate's file, which is at least partially prepared by him, and then vote by secret ballot to either grant, deny or defer the tenure decision. An advisory committee consisting of four persons (three acting and an alternate) elected by the faculty members also reviews the candidate's file. Each member of the advisory committee makes an independent evaluation of the candidate and then the members' get together, rate the candidate on a scale of 1 to 5 in the areas of teaching effectiveness, research and creative activity, service and overall quality. The committee members than vote upon the recommendation to be made to the Department Chairman to either grant, deny or defer tenure. The Department Chairman then reviews everything to date, rates the candidate on the same areas and makes his decision. The candidate is then notified of the Department's decision and is given an opportunity to request to meet with the Chairman and/or the advisory committee to discuss reconsideration of the decision. Thereafter, the recommendation is finalized and everything is sent to the Dean of the College. The Dean recommends to the Vice president of Academic Affairs and the Vice President recommends to the President of the University. The above procedure was followed in Dr. Rosner's case and the following transpired: The tenured faculty, consisting of six persons, voted four opposed to granting tenure, two to defer the tenure decision and none in favor of granting tenure. During its first consideration, the departmental advisory committee, consisting of three faculty members - one tenured and two non-tenured - voted as follows: two opposed to granting tenure, one to defer the tenure decision and none in favor of granting tenure. That committee found that while petitioner's areas of specialization were relevant to the Department's needs, plans and goals, his performance in the categories of evaluation - teaching, research and service - "is insufficiently high to justify granting him tenure." On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 - below average, 3 - average, 5 - above average) the committee rated petitioner 2 in teaching effectiveness, 2 in research and creative activity, between 2 and 3 in service and 2 in overall quality. Upon the first evaluation, the Department Chairman, Dr. Robert Bowman, voted that he was opposed to granting tenure. He rated Rosner between 2 and 3 in teaching effectiveness, 1 in research and creative activity, between 3 & 4 in academic advisement, between 2 & 3 in service and 2.33 in overall quality. The Chairman also found that Rosner's talents and resources did not fit the needs, plans and goals of the Department. Upon reconsideration at petitioner's requests the advisory committee and the Chairman rated Rosner 2.5 in teaching effectiveness, 1.5 in research and creative activity, 2.5 in service activities and 2.0 as the overall evaluation. (Attachments 1 through 4 of Exhibit 1 lists the material relied upon in arriving at these ratings). The Department therefore recommended "denial of tenure and absolute termination at the end of the 1974-75 contract period." The Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Dr. Travis Northcutt, having the choices set forth on a form to recommend either the granting, denying or deferring of tenure, voted to recommend the denial of tenure in Rosner's case. He based this decision on a full review of all materials submitted by Rosner and the file sent by the Chairman. The Vice president for Academic Affairs, Dr. Carl Riggs, also recommended that tenure be denied. On March 15, 1974, Dr. Riggs notified petitioner of his decision not to recommend to President Mackey that Rosner be granted tenure. Petitioner was further notified by the same letter that "your employment will not be renewed after Quarter III of the academic year 1974/75." Petitioner was further advised of the opportunity for review of cases in which a faculty member asserts that his contract of employment is not being renewed for constitutionally impermissible reasons. Upon petitioner's request, Dr. Riggs explained in writing the reasons for the non-renewal of petitioner's appointment. The reasons listed related to the denial of tenure. This memorandum is dated June 19, 1974. On December 13, 1974, Dr. Bowman wrote petitioner a letter denying his request to be considered for tenure for 1975-76 for the current (1974-75) evaluation cycle, because of the previous decision to deny tenure and terminate his appointment effective June 19, 1975. On May 22, 1975, Dr. Rosner filed his complaint with the University President and asked that it be referred to the Academic Relations Committee. After receiving the Committee's report dated June 18, 1975, the President determined that he was not prepared to render a decision in petitioner's favor, and ordered that the complaint be considered in a plenary proceeding as defined in F.A.C. 6C-5.08(3). On July 16, 1975, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Steven Wenzel, General Counsel of the University, requesting, on behalf of the President that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct the plenary hearing. The undersigned Hearing Officer was so assigned, and, on July 31, 1975, notified Dr. Rosner of certain procedural problems relating to the complaint. Between this date and the date of the prehearing conference in this matter, numerous inquiries were made by the undersigned to the petitioner and his counsel as to the status of the case and anticipated dates for a hearing. Little, if any, response was forthcoming until early October, when this case, along with six others, was set for prehearing conference. On September 6, 1975, Dr. Rosner sent a letter to president Mackey stating: "Because it now appears that the administrative hearing in my case will not be scheduled until after classes begin for the fall term, I am requesting that I be given an interim faculty appointment, beginning with the fall term and continuing until the case is decided." Dr. Mackey responded on September 12, 1975, that ". . .Inasmuch as your contract expired according to its terms following the tendering of the appropriate notice of non-renewal, I am not prepared to direct that you be reemployed during the pendency of your hearing."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for the reasons that petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the decisions to deny tenure and to not renew his employment contract were unlawful. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1975.
