Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by HRS at the Broward County Public Health Unit ("BCPHU") as a Fiscal Assistant II, a career service position. Petitioner began working for HRS in approximately August, 1973. From approximately July of 1986 through July of 1991, Petitioner's supervisor at BCPHU was Sylvia Villafana. During this time period, Ms. Villafana frequently counseled Petitioner regarding excessive absenteeism and tardiness which interfered with Petitioner's ability to meet necessary deadlines at work. Even before 1986, Petitioner's personnel record reflects excessive use of sick leave and problems with prompt and consistent attendance at work. These issues were discussed with Petitioner on several occasions. In March of 1991, Ms. Villafana scheduled a meeting for March 21, 1991, with Petitioner and Jeff Keiser, the personnel manager for BCPHU. At that meeting, Ms. Villafana intended to issue a written reprimand to Petitioner regarding excessive absenteeism. The March 21, 1991, meeting was scheduled to begin at 2:00. Petitioner left the BCPHU building at approximately 1:00 p.m. that day and did not attend the meeting. Petitioner contends that she was having chest pains and went to the hospital that afternoon. Petitioner did not advise her supervisor that she was leaving the premises. Petitioner did advise at least one co-worker at BCPHU that she was leaving. The next day, Petitioner's daughter called Ms. Villafana and told her that Petitioner was in the hospital. Ms. Villafana told Petitioner's daughter that documentation would be needed of Petitioner's medical problems. No records of Petitioner's hospitalization were ever presented to Ms. Villafana or any other HRS supervisor. Petitioner was apparently discharged from the hospital on the evening of March 22, 1991. Petitioner contends that she called Ms. Villafana on Monday, March 25, and told her that she was still under a doctor's care and that she would return to work as soon as he released her. Ms. Villafana contends that the telephone conversation did not occur until March 29, 1991. In any event, Petitioner did not ask for authorized leave. During the telephone conversation, Petitioner indicated that she had a doctor's appointment on April 2. Ms. Villafana told Petitioner that medical documentation of her problem would be necessary. On April 3, 1991, Petitioner did not return to work. At this point, Ms. Villafana had virtually no information regarding Petitioner's alleged illness and/or condition. Ms. Villafana inquired of other employees regarding Petitioner's condition, but was unable to learn anything more. On the afternoon of April 3, 1991, Petitioner contacted Ms. Villafana and indicated that she would be back to work on April 9, 1991. The April 3 conversation was acrimonious. Because there were several large project deadlines coming due, Ms. Villafana emphasized that medical documentation was needed to support Petitioner's claim of illness. Petitioner did not show up for work on April 9, 1991. On April 10, 1991, Petitioner called and told Ms. Villafana that she was mailing in notes from her doctors and then hung up. On April 11, 1991, Ms. Villafana found notes from two doctors on her desk. The notes were submitted into evidence at the hearing, but were not authenticated by the physicians who purportedly authored them. One of the notes was allegedly from Dr. Murillo, a cardiologist. This note indicated that Petitioner would be able to return to work on April 15, 1991. The second note was from Dr. Love, an orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that he was scheduled to see Petitioner again on April 24, 1991, and that Petitioner was "unable to return to work" until then. No explanation was given as to the nature of Petitioner's injuries. At the hearing in this case, Petitioner contended that she was seeing Dr. Love in connection with injuries supposedly received during an automobile accident on February 20, 1991. No persuasive evidence was presented as to the nature and extent of those injuries. The car accident occurred on the evening of February 20 and Petitioner reported to work the next day. No evidence was presented to establish that Petitioner missed any work as a result of the car accident prior to the time she left work on March 20, 1991, complaining of chest pains. Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that the doctor's notes submitted on April 11 did not provide adequate documentation of her medical condition and/or inability to work. Petitioner did not report to work on April 25, 1991, and did not contact her supervisor. Neither Ms. Villafana nor the personnel office had a home phone number or current residence address for Petitioner. One of Petitioner's friends gave Ms. Villafana a P.O. Box number which Petitioner was using as a mailing address. On April 30, 1991, Ms. Villafana prepared a letter which was sent to Petitioner at her last known address and by certified mail to the post office box. That letter advised Petitioner that as of the close of business on Monday, April 29, 1991, she was absent without authorized leave and was in jeopardy of being deemed to have abandoned her position. The letter noted that the last medical excuse from Dr. Love expired as of the end of the normal work day on April 24, 1991. The certified letter was not claimed. On April 30, 1991, Petitioner spoke with Jeff Keiser who advised her that she would be receiving a letter regarding the possible abandonment of her position. Petitioner did not request and was not given authorized leave. During one of their conversations over this period of time, Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that she should document in writing a request for leave. No such written request was ever received. Also during one of these conversations, Petitioner acknowledged that she had received the April 30, 1991 letter. On May 2, 1991, Ms. Villafana received two additional notes on Dr. Love's letterhead. One of the notes was dated April 24, 1991, and indicated that Petitioner was scheduled for a follow up visit on May 8, 1991. The second note was dated May 1, 1991, and indicated that Petitioner was unable to return to work for two weeks. The note on Dr. Love's letterhead dated May 1, 1991, included some information regarding Petitioner's alleged medical problems. However, Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that she needed additional information regarding her condition. On May 13, 1991, Petitioner provided Ms. Villafana with a note on Dr. Love's stationery dated May 8, 1991. This note indicated that Petitioner was unable to work for two more weeks and was scheduled for a follow up visit on May 22, 1991. Ms. Villafana spoke with Petitioner on May 23, 1991. During that conversation, Petitioner indicated that she was returning to the doctor on May 30 and hoped to be in the office on May 31. Petitioner did not show up for work on May 31, 1991. On June 3, 1991, Petitioner called Ms. Villafana and advised her that she was going to see the doctor and, if he released her, she would be back at work on Wednesday, June 5. Petitioner did not show up for work on June 5, 1991. On June 20, 1991, Ms. Villafana received a note on Dr. Love's office letterhead indicating that Petitioner visited his office on June 14, 1991, and was unable to return to work for one week. Around this time, another note was received which indicated that Petitioner had an office visit on June 7, 1991, and was unable to return to work for one week. In a letter dated June 21, 1991, Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that her [C]ontinued actions have placed [her] employment with the HRS BCPHU in serious jeopardy. Leave of absence (sick leave and/or leave without pay) was never formally requested by you since your midday departure on 3/20/91 and was, therefore, not approved. Chapter 22A-8.002 of the State of Florida Career Service Personnel Rules and Regulations states that 'the granting of any leave of absence with our without pay shall be in writing and shall be approved by the proper authority within the agency.' This was not done. On various occasions, I requested that you inform me of your intentions in reference to your leave, which you did not communicate to me, your supervisor, of your plans. As of this date, you have been on unauthorized leave for three months... All avenues of communication to you have been exhausted; I am unable to call you because you state that you have no telephone; certified mailings to your P.O. Box and various addresses have been returned unclaimed; etc. On the few and far between telephone calls from you, I received the run around stating that medical notes are forthcoming in the mail. This practice will no longer take effect. You are therefore, Ms. Gray, to return to work on 8:00 a.m. on Monday, July 1, 1991... The June 21, 1991 letter was sent to Petitioner by certified mail. Copies were also sent to Petitioner's P.O. Box and last known address in unmarked envelopes. Petitioner did not show up for work on July 1, 1991. During the hearing, Petitioner contended that she did not receive the June 21 letter until July 3, 1991. Petitioner contends that Dr. Love did not release her to return to work until July 10, 1991. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she spoke to Ms. Villafana and Mr. Keiser on July 3, 1991. Neither of these supervisors gave her authorization for any additional leave. Petitioner contends that she told them that she would not return to work until released by her physician. There is no evidence that either Ms. Villafana or Mr. Keiser granted her leave to remain absent for any additional time. On July 10, 1991, Petitioner contacted her supervisor about returning to work, but was told that she was deemed to have abandoned her position. At the hearing Petitioner produced two typewritten notes on the stationary of Dr. Love dated June 21, 1991, and July 10, 1991 (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 2). Neither of these notes were properly authenticated and there is no evidence to establish who wrote them or when. As noted above, Dr. Love did not testify at the hearing. These alleged records of Dr. Love's treatment of Petitioner were not provided to Ms. Villafana or the BCPHU Personnel Office until after Petitioner as deemed to have abandoned her position. Petitioner contends that she provided the Personnel Office and/or her supervisors with a copy of Dr. Love's reports prior to receiving the June 21, 1991 certified letter. However, the more credible evidence established that from June 20 through at least July 10, neither Ms. Villafana nor the Personnel Office was provided with any documentation from any physician that Petitioner was unable to work. The evidence established that from June 21, 1991, until July 10, 1991, Petitioner did not show up for work, did not provide any additional documentation regarding her absences and was not granted authorized leave. During the time she was employed at BCPHU, Petitioner was presented with a copy of the HRS Employee Handbook. That Handbook advised employees that they could be deemed to have abandoned their position if they were absent for three consecutive work days without authorization. Ms. Gray should have been aware of the requirements regarding sick leave and leaves of absence and her need to provide documentation regarding her course of treatment to the BCPHU Personnel Office. By certified letter dated July 25, 1991, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was deemed to have abandoned her career service position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Inez Gray abandoned her career service position with HRS and is not eligible to be reinstated or to receive any back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 7 day of August 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7 day of August 1992. APPENDIX Only Petitioner submitted a proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 24. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 24. The last note submitted was dated June 14, 1991 and indicated that Petitioner was unable to return to work for one week. This last note was received by Petitioner's supervisors on June 20, 1991. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 19-22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. The first sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 25 and 27. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Rejected as vague and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Larry Strong, Acting Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Drive, Knight Building Koger Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Drive, Knight Building Koger Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Ben Patterson, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 1215 Thomasville Road P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Judith C. Engelberg Acting District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 513 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885
The Issue Whether Petitioner is "vested," as that term is defined in Subsection (45) of Section 121.021, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Prior to July of 2000, Petitioner worked on a permanent part-time basis as an adult education teacher for the Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board), accumulating 7.10 years of retirement credit. On Sunday, July 2, 2000, Petitioner was hospitalized because of a "blood disorder." Since his hospitalization on July 2, 2000, Petitioner has been under a doctor's care and has not been physically able to return, and therefore has not returned, to work. Petitioner was hospitalized again in 2001 and for a third time in 2002 for the same ailment. After each visit he has made to the doctor during the time he has been out of work, Petitioner has apprised the principal of the South Dade Adult Education Center (South Dade), where he had worked before his July 2, 2000, hospitalization, of his condition. It is now, and has been at all times following his July 2, 2000, hospitalization, Petitioner's intention "to return to work upon clearance from [his] doctor." Petitioner has not been paid by the School Board during the time he has been out of work. In April of 2001, Petitioner spoke separately with a representative of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and with a School Board staff member concerning his employment situation. The UTD representative advised Petitioner that Petitioner "was on an approved leave of absence." The School Board staff member told Petitioner that he "should be on an approved leave of absence"; however, she was unable to "find that authorization in the computer." She suggested that Petitioner go to School Board headquarters and inquire about the matter. Petitioner went to School Board headquarters, as the School Board staff member had suggested. The persons to whom he spoke "couldn't locate the [leave] authorization either." They suggested that Petitioner contact the principal of South Dade. Taking this advice, Petitioner wrote two letters to the principal inquiring about his employment status. He received no response to either letter. During the summer of 2001, Petitioner contacted the Division to ask about his eligibility to receive retirement benefits. Lisa Skovalia, a Benefits Specialist with the Division, responded to Respondent's inquiry by sending him the following letter, dated August 22, 2001: Our records indicate that you were neither actively employed (physically working and earning salary) as of July 1, 2001, nor on a school board approved leave of absence through that date. As such, you must return to active employment, to earn one additional year of service credit, before you will be vested in the Florida Retirement System and eligible for retirement benefits. I have enclosed a copy of the FRS Retirement Guide for the Regular Class for your information. Please call or write if you have any further questions. In February of 2002, Petitioner again made contact with School Board personnel and "was told that [his] name [had been] removed from the computer (school records)." In July of 2002, Petitioner wrote United States Senator Bob Graham "seeking [Senator Graham's] assistance in helping [Petitioner] get [his] retirement form Miami-Dade Public Schools." Petitioner's letter to Senator Graham was referred to the School Board's Superintendent of Schools, who responded by sending the following letter, dated August 29, 2002, to Petitioner: Your letter . . . to Senator Bob Graham was referred to me for response. A review of our records indicates that your earnings as a part-time teacher ended in July 2000. As a part-time employee, you were not eligible for a Board-approved leave of absence. You were notified by letter (copy attached) dated August 22, 2001 from Ms. Lisa Skovalia, Benefits Specialist, State of Florida, Division of Retirement, that because ". . . you were neither actively employed (physically working and earning salary) as of July 1, 2001, nor on a school board approved leave of absence through that date," you would have to return to active employment and earn one additional year of service credit before being vested in the Florida Retirement System. The State of Florida Division of Retirement is solely responsible for developing rules and procedures for implementing changes in the retirement law. If you disagree with their determination, you may request an administrative hearing by sending a written request to the Bureau of Retirement Calculations, Cedars Executive Center, 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. On September 12, 2002, Petitioner sent a letter to the Division's Bureau of Retirement Calculations (Bureau) "seeking [its] assistance in helping [him] get [his] retirement from Miami-Dade Public Schools." The Bureau responded to Petitioner's letter by providing him with the following Statement of Account, dated September 20, 2002: We audited your retirement account and you have 7.10 years of service through 07/2000. Please note that the vesting requirement for FRS members has been changed to 6 years of creditable service effective July 1, 2001 for those members who were actively employed on that date or on a board approved leave of absence. Former members with 6 years, but less than 10 years of creditable service who were not employed with a participating FRS employer on July 1, 2001, must return to covered employment for one year to become eligible for the six-year vesting provision. Per Maria Perez at the Miami-Dade County School Board you were not on a board approved leave of absence on July 1, 2001, nor were you eligible for a board approved leave of absence due to your position as a part time adult school instructor. Although your school may have allowed you to take a leave of absence, only board approved leaves fulfill the vesting requirements required by law. On November 15, 2002, Petitioner sent the Bureau a letter expressing the view that it was not "fair that, after all [his] efforts as a teacher, [he] should lose out [on his] retirement" and requesting "an administrative hearing concerning [his] efforts to get retirement benefits from Miami-Dade Public Schools." The State Retirement Director responded to Petitioner's letter by sending him the following letter, dated December 18, 2002: This is in response to your recent letter concerning your vesting and eligibility for retirement benefits. You currently have 7.10 years of retirement credit through July 2000, your last month of employment in a Florida Retirement System (FRS) covered position. [Section] 121.021(45)(b)1, F.S., states that "Any member employed in a regularly established position on July 1, 2001, who completes or has completed a total of 6 years of creditable service shall be considered vested. . ." An FRS employer (Dade School Board) last employed you in a regularly established position in July 2000 and you were not granted a leave of absence to continue the employment relationship. Dade School Board has informed us that as a part-time teacher, you were not eligible for an approved leave of absence. Therefore, you do not meet the statutory requirement for coverage under the six year vesting provision. [Section] 121.021(45)(b)2, F.S., provides the vesting requirement for members who were not employed on July 1, 2001, as follows: "Any member not employed in a regularly established position on July 1, 2001, shall be deemed vested upon completion of 6 years of creditable service, provided that such member is employed in a covered position for at least 1 work year after July 1, 2001 (emphasis supplied). It is certainly unfortunate that you had to leave your employment because of your illness, but the current retirement law requires that you must return to covered employment and earn one year of service credit to be vested and eligible for retirement benefits. This letter constitutes final agency action. If you do not agree with this decision and wish to appeal this action, you must file a formal petition for review in accordance with the enclosed Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) within 21 days of receipt of this letter. Your petition should be filed with the Division of Retirement at the above address. Upon receipt of the petition, you will be notified by the Division or the Administrative Law Judge of all future proceedings and hearings. If you do not file an appeal within the 21-day period, you will waive your right to request a hearing or mediation in this matter in accordance with Rule 28-106.111, F.A.C. By letter dated January 2, 2003, Petitioner "appeal[ed]" the "final agency action" announced in the State Retirement Director's December 18, 2002, letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not "vested," as that term is defined in Subsection (45) of Section 121.021, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 31st day of March, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John F. Morack, is a member of the Teachers Retirement System (TRS). The TRS is administered by respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (Division). On April 18, 1988, petitioner began working for a new employer and concurrently filled out an application form to enroll in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), a plan also administered by the Division. By letter dated June 27, 1988, the Division, through its chief of bureau of enrollment and contributions, Tom F. Wooten, denied the request on the ground Morack failed to qualify for such a transfer. Dissatisfied with the agency's decision, Morack initiated this proceeding. Petitioner first enrolled in the TRS on September 18, 1970, when he began employment as a dean at Broward Community College. At that time, he had no option to enroll in any retirement program except the TRS. Under the TRS, an employee did not have to make contributions to social security and earned "points" for calculating retirement benefits at a rate of 2% for each year of creditable service. In contrast, under the FRS, which was established in late 1970, members earned benefits at a rate of only 1.6% per year but were participants in the social security program. Finally, a TRS member could not purchase credit for wartime military service unless he was an employee at the time he entered the military service and was merely on a leave of absence. On the other hand, an FRS member could purchase credit for military service after ten years of creditable service as long as such military service occurred during wartime. When the FRS was established in late 1970, members of the TRS were given the option of transferring to the newly created FRS or remaining on TRS. Morack executed a ballot on October 15, 1970 expressing his desire to remain on the TRS. In November 1974, the Division offered all TRS members an open enrollment period to change from TRS to FRS. Morack elected again to remain on the TRS. In the latter part of 1978, the Division offered TRS members a second open enrollment period to switch retirement systems. On November 21, 1978, Morack declined to accept this offer. On January 1, 1979 Morack accepted employment with the Department of Education (DOE) in Tallahassee but continued his membership in the TRS. He remained with the DOE until July 1981 when he accepted a position in the State of Texas. However, because Morack intended to eventually return to Florida, he left his contributions in the fund. Approximately two years later, petitioner returned to Florida and accepted a position at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton as assistant vice president effective July 11, 1983. About the same time, he prepared the following letter on a FAU letterhead. To Whom it May Concern: This is to indicate that I elect remaining in TRS rather than FRS. (Signature) John F. Morack The letter was received by the Division on July 19, 1983, and the enrollment form was processed on November 2, 1983. Although Morack stated that he was told by an FAU official that he could not transfer plans at that time, there is no competent evidence of record to support this claim since the testimony is hearsay in nature. On November 18, 1985, Morack requested the Division to audit his account for the purpose of determining how much it would cost to purchase his Korean War military service. On January 24, 1986, the Division advised Morack by memorandum that because he had "no membership time prior to (his) military service, that service is not creditable under the provisions of the Teachers' Retirement System." During the next two years Morack requested two audits on his account to determine retirement benefits assuming a termination of employment on July 31, 1987 and June 30, 1988, respectively. On April 14, 1988, Morack ended his employment with FAU and began working on April 18, 1988, or four days later, at Palm Beach Junior College (PBJC) as construction manager for the performing arts center. When he began working at PBJC he executed Division Form M10 and reflected his desire to be enrolled in the FRS. As noted earlier, this request was denied, and Morack remains in the TRS. The denial was based on a Division rule that requires at least a thirty day break in service with the state in order to change retirement plans after returning to state employment. Because Morack's break in service was only four days, he did not meet the requirement of the rule. At hearing and on deposition, Morack acknowledged he had several earlier opportunities to transfer to the FRS but declined since he never had the benefits of the FRS explained by school personnel. As retirement age crept closer, petitioner began investigating the differences between the TRS and FRS and learned that the latter plan was more beneficial to him. This was because the FRS would allow him to purchase almost four years of military service, a higher base salary would be used to compute benefits, he could participate in social security, and there would be no social security offset against his retirement benefits. Also, petitioner complained that school personnel were not well versed in retirement plans and either were unaware of alternative options or failed to adequately explain them. As an example, Morack points out that when he returned from Texas in 1983 he was not told by FAU personnel about the change in the law now codified as subsection 121.051(1)(c). Finally he thinks it unfair that the Division counts four days employment in a month as a full month's creditable service for computing benefits but will not count his four days break in service in April 1988 as a full month for computing the time between jobs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request to change retirement plans be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, 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 7th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4183 Respondent: 1. Covered in finding of fact 6. 2-4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 10. 6-7. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 8 and 11. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John F. Morack 10474 Green Trail Drive Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Andrew J. McMullian, III State Retirement Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Adis Maria Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire general Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, C. DEAN LEWIS, was first employed on March 4, 1966 by the Lafayette County School Board and remained employed by that agency until September 1, 1975. From the time of his employment with that agency, Mr. Lewis was enrolled in the agency retirement system. On September 1, 1975, Petitioner was employed as County Attorney by Suwannee County, Florida. From the time of enrollment in 1966 until such time as the retirement system became non- contributory, sums were withheld from his salary for payment into the retirement fund. When Petitioner became County Attorney for Suwannee County in September 1975, he continued his enrollment in the Florida Retirement System. The evidence presented in the form of enrollment cards fails to show the exact date of enrollment or for what position of employment he was enrolled. However, it is quite clear that Petitioner was enrolled in the Florida Retirement System or its predecessor system continuously since the inception of his employment by a governmental agency. On July 1, 1979, the Division of Retirement issued new rules regarding membership in the Florida Retirement System contained in Section 22B-1.04(5)(6), Florida Administrative Code. On September 15, 1979, the Division of Retirement promulgated its Memorandum No. 79-20, to all Florida Retirement System reporting agencies outlining the new guidelines for enrollment. This memorandum specifically referred to attorneys and encouraged the agency to examine the employment status of attorneys to determine whether that individual was an employee of the agency or merely a contractor. Thereafter on February 26, 1981, the Division of Retirement sent out another memorandum, Number 81-38, again to all retirement system reporting units, which placed specific emphasis on those situations involving employees versus consultants/contractors. This situation clearly pertains to the situation of the Petitioner here. When these memoranda were received by Suwannee County, at least one was inserted in Petitioner's personnel file. At no time, however, was any consideration given to the Petitioner's situation nor was any mention made by the County to the Petitioner regarding these memoranda. In addition, at no time did any representative of the Florida Retirement System or the Division of Retirement have any contact with Petitioner either in person or through correspondence to advise him that his status was under reconsideration and that he had an obligation to clarify his standing to the satisfaction of the Division. In early 1984 the Division of Retirement forwarded an employment relationship questionnaire to the Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners requesting that it complete the questionnaire as it pertained to Petitioner, the County Attorney. This questionnaire was completed by Jerry A. Scarborough, Clerk of the Circuit Court, who was responsible for maintaining the personnel records of Petitioner and most other county employees. On the basis of Mr. Scarborough's answers to various questions, the Division of Retirement on May 14, 1984, advised Petitioner of its intention to disenroll him from the Florida Retirement System. The Division listed some seven areas wherein Mr. Scarborough's answers indicated that Petitioner was a "consultant or other professional person" as defined in Rule 22B-6.01(12), rather than a true employee of the county. As such, Mr. Tom F. Wooten, Chief, Bureau of Enrollment and Contributions, Division of Retirement, concluded that Petitioner was, therefore, not eligible to participate as a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Wooten further indicated the Division's intent to remove him from membership as of July 1, 1979. Thereafter, as was stated previously, on July 6, 1984, Mr. A. J. McMullian, III, State Retirement Director, by letter, advised Petitioner that he had considered his response to the original letter of intent but nonetheless, continued to conclude that he was not eligible to participate as a member of the Florida Retirement System. The July 6, 1984 letter by Mr. McMullian indicated the finality of the Division's decision. It is not now the Division's intention to disenroll Petitioner from the Florida Retirement System effective in 1979. Based on a recent decision of the Florida District Court of Appeals, the Division recognizes that it can reasonably disenroll him no earlier than the date he was first advised of the Division's concern regarding his status. That date is May 14, 1984, the date of the Division's initial letter of intent. The decision by the Division of Retirement to remove Petitioner and other professional contractors from the retirement system is based on its contention that the Petitioner and these other individuals are not bona fide employees of the agency under whose auspices they are enrolled in the system. It is not the position of the Division that only full-time employees can be enrolled. To the contrary, the agency is quite willing to accept that part-time employees are eligible for enrollment providing they meet the other criteria. With regard to the Petitioner and other professionals, primarily attorneys and physicians, it is the Division's contention that they are not true employees of the county but are independent-contractors or consultants who are not eligible for membership in the system. The factors leading to the conclusion drawn by the Division include such things as: Petitioner was not trained or schooled by the county in the professional work he performs; That he is not given instructions as to how the work is to be done; That he is not required to maintain regular office hours established by the county; That the county does not provide him with materials, tools, or equipment to perform his duties; That he is available to provide identical professional services to others in the county and in furtherance of that pursuit, maintains a business listing in the telephone book, and a trade journal to that effect as well as maintaining a private office for the practice of his profession; That he hires, pays, and supervises assistants who assist him in the performance of his law firm duties as well as those duties performed for the county; and That he is not eligible for annual or sick leave from the county. The Petitioner is hired by the county to advise the Board of County Commissioners, constitutional officers, and citizens of the county having business with the county referred to him by the Board. His private law firm also does additional work for the county in other areas for which it is compensated independently. Petitioner's yearly salary, which was recently increased from $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 per year is related solely to his performance of duties as county attorney. In that capacity he does not get involved in the county's litigation. His firm, as well as other firms in the area, is hired by the county separately for that function. Petitioner vehemently denies that any partner of his or any employee substituted or acted for him at meetings of the Board of County Commissioners in his capacity as county attorney. Whenever such partners or employees addressed the Board, they did so on work they were doing for the firm separately from that related to his position as county attorney. Petitioner contends that he spends an average of 10 hours per month on county business of which 80 percent is accomplished at the county courthouse. In addition to these 10 hours per month, citizens of the county, the press, and county officials contact him at home and at other places at all hours of the day and night regarding county business. He is not furnished an office in the county courthouse or any other county building. Though he contended that his seat in the county commission room is his office and the place where he accomplished most of his county related work, and though this contention was supported by the Clerk of Court, Mr. Scarborough, it is clear that in reality, Petitioner does not have an office furnished him by the county, and such work as he accomplished on the county's behalf is done primarily in the office of the official requesting it. It is also most likely that substantial correspondence and other clerical work is accomplished for the county by the petitioner in his private office and is accomplished by his own law firm employees. The county supplies him with some books and manuals including copies of various ordinances, codes, and attorney general opinions. The outside work which he does for the county, including, for example, such things as plat examinations, is billed to the county at a rate of $75.00 per hour. The amount he receives, however, never exceeds the amount received by the county for this service. In 1975, prior to his becoming county attorney, he discussed the potential for assuming this position with his predecessor and law partner, Mr. Airth. One of the major factors convincing him to accept the position of county attorney was the prospective retirement benefits he could expect after fulfilling a number of years in this job. Petitioner was hired by the County Commission on an oral contract basis and has never had a written contract with the county. At the first commissioner's meeting of each year, the Board considers Petitioner's continued relationship with the county and confirms it. It could, at any time, decline to extend the relationship, though it has not yet done so. This arrangement differs from that of a normal consultant in that the relationship with a relationship is terminated automatically when the specific job for which the individual is hired has been completed. Petitioner's relationship has been continuous since 1975 and at the present time there appears to be no indication that it will be terminated in the foreseeable future. His compensation is reported to the Internal Revenue Service on a form W-2. That which was submitted for the year 1983 reflects that social security taxes were withheld but no federal income tax. Petitioner explains this on the basis that he claims four dependents and that, therefore, no tax should have been withheld. This explanation is questionable at best. Petitioner takes exception to several of the answers by Mr. Scarborough on the questionnaire submitted to the Division of Retirement. For example, at question 4b, Petitioner contends that he does in fact attend regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of County Commissioners and other agencies and is, therefore, required to follow daily routines. He contends that he is given the specific work which has to be done and the time in which it is to be accomplished and is, therefore, instructed as to how the work is `to be done by his employer. He contends that this same relationship makes him no different than any other county agency or section director who have authority to accomplish their work with some latitude and discretion. Petitioner also contends that he was hired for one year, not an indefinite period, though he has continued to work since 1975 and anticipates no change in his relationship in the future. He contends that the requirement to attend meetings on definite dates at certain times, which takes up to 60 to 80 percent of his time on the job, constitutes the fixed hours and certain times mentioned in the questionnaire. Further, he indicates that with regard to the determination of the hours when the work should be performed, this decision is made not by the employee as indicated on the questionnaire, but by his employer, the county. Petitioner also contends that such help as he utilizes in performing county business is received from public employees, not from his own law firm employees, and that most of his work is done in the courthouse. While Petitioner does not earn annual leave, sick pay, bonuses, or other benefits, he has been enrolled in the retirement system, was eligible to purchase county insurance, and was carried as any other employee on the county's workers' compensation policy. He is authorized to miss one commission meeting per year for vacation and others during the year as excused for illness. Taken in its totality, it becomes obvious that Petitioner's relationship with Suwannee County, Florida is little different from that of any other attorney-client relationship of long standing. It is clear that Petitioner's relationship with the county, though it may have been intended since May, 1984 to fall within the guidelines set forth by Use Division of Retirement, did not do so from 1975 to the latter date. It is clear that the Petitioner's primary employment was that of a private practitioner. One of his clients, and perhaps his largest client in terms of population, is Suwannee County, but the relationship is that of attorney-client, not that of employer- employee. While Petitioner no doubt is the Suwannee County Attorney, he performs that function as a private practitioner and not as a member of the county work force even though his salary is paid from the general salary and wages account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, C. DEAN LEWIS, be disenrolled from the Florida Retirement System effective May 14, 1984. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Frieder, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207 - Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire c/o Airth, Sellers, Lewis & Decker Post Office Drawer 8 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On July 9, 1986 Petitioner, a Clerk Typist Specialist employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, signed a receipt acknowledging that she had received a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains the information that an employee who is absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization may be considered to have abandoned his or her position and thereby to have resigned. On September 3, 1987 Petitioner telephoned her supervisor to advise him that she had an interview scheduled and that she would be at work by 9:30 a.m. She, however, thereafter failed to appear at work and failed to make any further contact with her supervisor on September 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1987. On September 11, 1987 by certified letter the Department advised Petitioner that, as of the close of business on September 9, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service due to her unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, i.e., September 3, 4, and 8, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered deeming Petitioner to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of November, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Holloway-Jenkins 649 West 4th Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 K. C. Collette, Esquire District IX Legal Counsel 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: The Career Service Commission find that there was no just cause for the written reprimand concerning the charge of "leaving the assigned work station without authorization," and expunge said written reprimand from respondent's personnel file; and The Commission affirm the thirty day suspension without pay for insubordination and committing this offense while supervising children. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William Park, Esquire 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Freemon A. Mark, Esquire 1577 North Dixie Highway Post Office Box 1991 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Conley M. Kennison State Personnel Director Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1977. =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned his career service at South Florida State Hospital
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Mark Jenkins was a career service employee at South Florida State Hospital assigned to the living and learning unit commonly known as the Polk ward. Mr. Jenkins' responsibilities as a UTR-Specialist included the day-to-day management of mentally ill or retarded clients who were unmedicated and considered aggressive. Employees in this unit attempted to train the clients to eat, bathe, and function with some independence. On January 25, 1987, Petitioner requested annual leave for the period from March 17, 1987, through April 4, 1987. The purpose of this request was to allow Petitioner adequate time to participate in his school's annual chorale tour. Petitioner was a scholarship soloist with the chorale and, as such, he was required to make the tour. Petitioner was a full-time college student pursuing a B.S. in psychology. In the past, Petitioner's requests for leave to accommodate his school schedule had been granted. However, for the request made January 25, 1987, no formal response was given. On January 12, 1987, Petitioner was notified that conflicts between school requirements and job responsibilities would have to be resolved. Petitioner was advised that he would not be allowed to take leave time for singing activities unless the hospital were assured of adequate unit coverage. Petitioner had received twenty-five leave days for the period March 7, 1986, through March 30, 1987, which was considered excessive by the personnel director, Barbara Nickels. Richard Duncan was the schedule coordinator for the Polk ward. It was his responsibility to review the leave requests and to determine whether or not leave could be approved. Duncan determined there was inadequate unit coverage to allow Petitioner to take the leave requested. Duncan did not notify Petitioner that the leave was not approved. It was Duncan's practice to approve leave in writing. He would prepare the unit schedule, in advance, to reflect an approval. Petitioner did not receive an approval and the unit schedule did not reflect Petitioner's leave request had been granted. Petitioner did not report to work, as scheduled, for the period he had requested leave. Petitioner did not call in during that time as he was on tour with the school chorale.
Findings Of Fact Respectively on September 20 and September 9, 1988, the Petitioner and the Respondent submitted to the Hearing Officer their proposed Findings of Fact. In the Appendix To Recommended Order the Hearing Officer submitted recommending rulings thereon. The following constitutes the rulings in this Final Order on those proposed Findings of Fact. The petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbers 1 and 5 are hereby accepted and adopted in that they are supported by competent substantial, evidence. The petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is hereby rejected in that the petitioner did not terminate her position on August 17, 1987, and she was not reemployed on September 29, 1987, for the reasons stated above in paragraphs numbers 1 through 12. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is hereby rejected upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in paragraphs No. 7 and 8 above. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 4 is rejected as phrased, for the reasons and upon the grounds set forth in paragraph No. 4 above. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact numbers (1) through (7) are each hereby accepted and adopted in that they are each based upon competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner became a member of the Florida Retirement System in September 1987 and allowing Petitioner to transfer her previously-earned Teachers' Retirement System credits to the Florida Retirement System. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0673 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 7 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Ann Ash, Esquire Harold N. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 406 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. § 57.105(5), Fla. Stat.; and Order and Mandate in Case No. 1D04-4167, First District Court of Appeal. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (5) In administrative proceedings under chapter 120, an administrative law judge shall award a reasonable attorney's fee and damages to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and a losing party's attorney or qualified representative in the same manner and upon the same basis as provided in subsections (1)-(4). Such award shall be a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68. If the losing party is an agency as defined in s. 120.52(1), the award to the prevailing party shall be against and paid by the agency. A voluntary dismissal by a nonprevailing party does not divest the administrative law judge of jurisdiction to make the award described in this subsection. Subsection (5) of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, directs the undersigned to the preceding subsections which set forth standards to be applied in the analysis of entitlement to attorney’s fees. Subsection (1) provides that reasonable attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party to be paid by the losing party where the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the administrative tribunal or at any time before the administrative hearing, “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or [w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” The standards set forth in Subsection (1) and incorporated by reference in Subsection (5) were the result of an amendment to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in 1999. s. 4, Ch. 99-225, Laws of Florida. Prior to that amendment, the statute provided for the award of attorney’s fees when “there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party.” These new standards became applicable to administrative hearings in 2003 by s. 9, Ch. 2003-94, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of June 4, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition for Administrative Hearing in September 2003. Accordingly, the newer standards of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, apply to this case. In the case of Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court discussed the legislative changes to Section 57.105: [T]his statute was amended in 1999 as part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act in an effort to reduce frivolous litigation and thereby to decrease the cost imposed on the civil justice system by broadening the remedies that were previously available. See Ch. 99- 225, s. 4, Laws of Florida. Unlike its predecessor, the 1999 version of the statute no longer requires a party to show a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but instead allows recovery of fees for any claims or defenses that are unsupported. (Citations omitted) However, this Court cautioned that section 57.105 must be applied carefully to ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended, which was to deter frivolous pleadings. (Citations omitted) In determining whether a party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, frivolousness is determined when the claim or defense was initially filed; if the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed. (Citation omitted) In so doing, the court determines if the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.(Citation omitted) An award of fees is not always appropriate under section 57.105, even when the party seeking fees was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the action or summary judgment in an action. (Citation omitted) Wendy's v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523. The court in Wendy’s recognized that the new standard is difficult to define and must be applied on a case-by-case basis: While the revised statute incorporates the ‘not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by application of then-existing law to those material facts’ standard instead of the ‘frivolous’ standard of the earlier statute, an all encompassing definition of the new standard defies us. It is clear that the bar for imposition of sanctions has been lowered, but just how far it has been lowered is an open question requiring a case by case analysis. Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 524 citing Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d at 1155, n.4. (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). More recently, the First District Court of Appeal further described the legislative change: The 1999 version lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes . . . Significantly, the 1999 version of 57.105 ‘applies to any claim or defense, and does not require that the entire action be frivolous.’ Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, supra. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that the 1999 amendments to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, “greatly expand the statute’s potential use.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Richard Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 570, (Fla. 2005). The phrase “supported by the material facts” found in Section 57.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was defined by the court in Albritton to mean that the “party possesses admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the finder of fact.” Albritton, 913 So. 2d 5, at 7, n.1. Therefore, the first question is whether FAMU or its attorneys knew or should have known that its defense of Dr. Jain’s claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense when the case was initially filed or at any time before trial. That is, did FAMU possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its defense. The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation the day before the hearing. The Pretrial Stipulation characterized FAMU’s position as follows: It is the position of the University that Dr. Babu Jain retired at the close of business on May 30, 2003, pursuant to the provision of the DROP retirement program. Dr. Jain did not have the right, nor the authority, to unilaterally rescind his resignation and retirement date. In a letter dated May 5, 2003, the Division of Retirement informed Dr. Jain that it was providing him with the “DROP VOID” form that had to be signed by himself and the University, for his participation in DROP to be rescinded. No University official signed that form nor agreed to rescind his retirement. On May 30, 2003, Dr. Babu Jain knew that his retirement through DROP had not been voided and that he had in-fact retired. The University included the position that Dr. Jain occupied in its vacancy announcement in the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education.’ The University, through Dr. Larry Robinson notified Dr. Jain that his retirement rescission was not accepted. Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003. Finally, there was never a ‘meeting of the minds’, nor any other agreement between the University and Dr. Jain to void his retirement commitment. It [is] the University’s position that Dr. Babu Jain retired from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University effective at the close of business on May 30, 2003. Pretrial Stipulation at 14-15. (emphasis in original) The material facts known by FAMU necessary to establish its defense against Petitioner's claim at the time the case was filed included: Petitioner’s initial Notice of Election to Participate in DROP and Resignation of Employment in which Dr. Jain resigned effective the date he terminated from DROP (designated as May 30, 2003); Dr. Robinson’s letter dated May 27, 2003, which asserted that the University was not in agreement with Dr. Jain's decision and that the decision to terminate from DROP is a mutual one; Dr. Robinson's letter of May 30, 2003, which informed Dr. Jain that the two summer semester employment contracts were issued to him in error and informing Dr. Jain that he would be paid through May 30, 2003, his designated DROP date; the refusal of anyone from FAMU to sign the DROP-VOID form provided to Dr. Jain by the Division of Retirement; the reassignment of another instructor to take over Dr. Jain’s classes the first Monday following the designated DROP termination date; and the Refund of Overpayment of Salary Form and resulting salary deduction from Dr. Jain’s sick leave payout. It is difficult to determine what, if any, additional facts FAMU learned through discovery. That is, whether deposition testimony of FAMU officials enlightened FAMU or its attorneys as to material facts not known at the time the case was filed by Dr. Jain, is not readily apparent. However, a review of the pre-trial depositions reveals material facts which supported FAMU’s defense that the summer contracts were issued in error and that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding voiding Dr. Jain’s DROP participation. In particular, Dr. Robinson, Provost and Vice- President for Academic Affairs, testified in deposition that when he signed Dr. Jain’s summer employment contracts on May 20, 2003, he had no knowledge of Dr. Jain’s participation in the DROP program; that he first became aware that Dr. Jain was in DROP with a DROP termination date of May 30, 2003, upon receiving a May 21, 2003, memorandum from Nellie Woodruff, Director of the FAMU Personnel Office; and that Dean Larry Rivers did not have the authority to issue work assignments for any of his faculty beyond their DROP dates. Additionally, Dr. Henry Williams, Assistant Dean for Science and Technology, testified in deposition that when he signed the Recommendation for Summer Employment on May 5, 2003, which recommended Dr. Jain for teaching summer courses beginning May 12, 2003, he was unaware that there was a 30-day window during which a DROP participant could not be employed. Obviously, when the undersigned weighed all of the evidence, including evidence presented at hearing which is not part of this analysis, it was determined that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of Dr. Jain’s position. However, that is not the standard to be applied here. The undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU possessed admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact that it did not give written agreement to his decision to abandon DROP and resume employment if accepted by the finder of fact. While the finder of fact ultimately did not agree with FAMU, FAMU possessed the material facts necessary to establish the defense, i.e., admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the trier of fact, when the case was filed and prior to the final hearing. The second question is whether FAMU’s defense would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts, when the case was initially filed or at any time before the final hearing. In the Pretrial Stipulation, the parties referenced Sections 121.091(13) and 121.021(39), Florida Statutes, as provisions of law relevant to the determination of the issues in the case.2/ These statutory provisions were also referenced by the undersigned in the Recommended Order as “two competing statutory provisions.” Recommended Order at 15. Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, establishing the DROP program, was created by s. 8, Ch. 97-180, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of January 1, 1999.3/ Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.--In general, and subject to the provisions of this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as the DROP, is a program under which an eligible member of the Florida Retirement System may elect to participate, deferring receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with his or her Florida Retirement System employer. The deferred monthly benefits shall accrue in the System Trust Fund on behalf of the participant, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the participant shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee employment for the specified period of DROP. Participation in the DROP by an eligible member beyond the initial 60-month period as authorized in this subsection shall be on an annual contractual basis for all participants. Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: 'Termination' for a member electing to participate under the Deferred Retirement Option Program occurs when the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant ceases all employment relationships with employers under this system in accordance with s. 121.091(13), but in the event the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant should be employed by any such employer within the next calendar month, termination will be deemed not to have occurred, except as provided in s. 121.091(13)(b)4.c. A leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship. Unlike the situation in Albritton, supra, the DROP program was relatively new and the statutes creating the same were not well established provisions of law. Dr. Jain was in the first “class” of DROP for FAMU. FAMU and its lawyers did not have the benefit of established case law that discussed DROP and its provisions when this case was filed or at any time before the hearing. While general contract law also came into play, it had to be considered in the context of the DROP program, which had no precedent of case law. FAMU argues in its Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees that it interpreted the provision in Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, that requires written approval of the employer to be either the DROP VOID form provided by the Division of Retirement or a written document, executed by the designated University official, specifically approving Petitioner's decision. "The University did not believe the employment contracts that were issued to Petitioner in error, would constitute written approval." FAMU's Response at 5. This argument is consistent with the position FAMU took in the Pretrial Statement quoted above, that there was never a meeting of the minds "or any other agreement" that Dr. Jain's retirement rescission was accepted. A critical conclusion in the Recommended Order is found in paragraph 38: "Moreover, while the FAMU administration did not sign the DROP-VOID form, the contracts issued to Dr. Jain constitute written approval of Dr. Jain's employer regarding modification of his termination date." FAMU also took the position in the Pretrial Stipulation that Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003, based upon the material facts recited above. Under that reading of the facts, Dr. Jain did not work during the next calendar month after DROP, and, therefore terminated employment consistent with the definition of "termination" in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes. Again, while the undersigned did not agree with FAMU's application of the material facts to the then-existing law, FAMU's interpretation was not completely without merit. See Mullins v. Kennerly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1155. (Case completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by reasonable argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law is a guideline for determining if an action is frivolous.) Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU did not know and could not be expected to know that its defense would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the defense. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 March, 2006.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Mr. Joseph M. Lesko, violated the provisions of Section 238.181(2)(a), Florida Statutes, by being reemployed within twelve (12) months of retirement by an agency participating in the Florida Retirement System, and, if so, whether his retirement benefits were overpaid and need to be refunded to the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Joseph M. Lesko was employed as an instructor with the Palm Beach Community College (hereinafter "the College") and retired under the provisions of the Teachers' Retirement System (hereinafter "TRS"), Chapter 238, Florida Statutes, on July 1, 1986. In October of 1986 a science instructor at the College suffered a stroke and was unable to continue working. Dr. Paul Dasher, then the Chairman of the College's Science Department, called Mr. Lesko and asked him to be a substitute instructor for some of the classes of the instructor who had suffered the stroke. Mr. Lesko, a former Senior instructor in Chemistry, was the only qualified candidate who was known to be available on short notice. Although Mr. Lesko had not intended to teach at that point in his retirement, he agreed to teach for the balance of the semester to help the College during the incapacity of the stricken instructor. When the stricken instructor was unable to return during the next semester, Mr. Lesko also agreed to substitute in Chemistry for the following semester. The incapacitated instructor died in March of 1987, and Mr. Lesko finished substitute teaching for the balance of the semester. At the time Mr. Lesko was reemployed as described above, the College's Director of Human Resources, Mr. Schneider, was not aware that Mr. Lesko had retired under the TRS, because the vast majority of the College's instructors retire under the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Schneider believed that Mr. Lesko was covered by certain amendments to the Florida Retirement System that became effective in July of 1986. Those amendments allowed retired instructors who retired under the Florida Retirement System to be reemployed by community colleges on a noncontractual and part time basis after one month of retirement without loss of retirement benefits. Mr. Schneider was under the erroneous impression that those amendments applied to all retired instructors, because he did not recall receiving any information from the Division of Retirement indicating that retirees under TRS were to be treated differently from retirees under the Florida Retirement System for purposes of eligibility for reemployment. Three other instructors who retired at the same time as Mr. Lesko, and who were rehired during the same time period as Mr. Lesko, have not been required to repay any retirement benefits because they all retired under the Florida Retirement System. Neither Mr. Schneider nor Mr. Lesko were aware that Mr. Lesko's retirement benefit would be jeopardized by his returning to work for the College in October of 1986. Both believe that the information regarding TRS retirees provided by the Division of Retirement is at least unclear, if not misleading. Mr. Lesko would not have returned to teach at the College during the first year of his retirement if he had been aware that doing so would require him to lose his retirement benefits during that period. During the period from October 1986 through May 1987, Mr. Lesko earned $4,460.60 for the services he provided to the College. During that same period he received retirement benefits of $6,506.72.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued in this case requiring Mr. Lesko to repay retirement benefits to the Division of Retirement in the amount of $6,506.72. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2 day of April, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 2 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5717 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: First page, First unnumbered paragraph: All covered in the Preliminary statement portion of this Recommended Order. First Page, Second unnumbered paragraph: Accepted in substance. Second Page, Paragraph No. 1: Accepted in substance. Second Page, Paragraph No. 2: Accepted in substance. Second Page, Paragraph No. 3: Accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portion is portion following the comma. The rejected portion is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second Page, paragraph No. 4: Accepted in substance. Third Page, Paragraph No. 5: Rejected as irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Third Page, Paragraph No. 6: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Third Page, Paragraph No. 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting argument, rather than findings of fact. Third Page, Last paragraph of Findings: Rejected as constituting commentary about the proceedings, rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance, with certain unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 3 and 4: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary procedural details. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph M. Lesko 184 Meadows Drive Boynton Beach, Florida 33462 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
