The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer and a certified instructor, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued November 16, 2004, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer and as an instructor. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Indian River Correctional Institution (IRCI) with the rank of Major. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ken Torres was employed by the DOC at IRCI with the rank of Lieutenant. On June 11, 2003, Tvaris Burch, Errol Whiley, and Keith Conley were inmates at IRCI. At no time did any of these three inmates have authorization to be in Respondent’s office at IRCI. The only door to Respondent’s office opens to a long hallway. This door is normally locked. At approximately 6:15 p.m. on June 11, 2003, Respondent entered his office at IRCI and was followed by Lt. Torres. Respondent and Lt. Torres saw three inmates on the floor attempting to hide under Respondent’s desk. Each inmate attempted to conceal his identity by pulling his tee shirt up over his head. It is undisputed that both Respondent and Lt. Torres ordered the three inmates to come out from under the desk and the inmates refused those orders. It is also undisputed that the inmates came out from under the desk after Respondent threatened to order Lt. Torres to spray them with chemical agents. What happened next is the center of the dispute in this proceeding. Petitioner alleged that Respondent kicked one of the inmates and that he kicked and punched another inmate as they came out from under his desk. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent failed to file a mandatory Use of Force Report and that he lied to an investigator (Mr. Glover) in a sworn statement. Respondent asserted that he did not kick or otherwise use unauthorized force against any of the three inmates, that he had no reason to file a use of force report, and that he did not lie to the investigator. In support of its allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of inmate Burch, Mr. Glover, and Lt. Torres. In addition, Petitioner presented the investigative report prepared by Mr. Glover and certain affidavits gathered by Mr. Glover during the course of his investigation. The following facts are not in dispute. After the three inmates came out from under the desk and were on their feet, they were ordered to remove the tee shirts from their heads and were identified as being inmates Burch, Whiley, and Conley. They were stripped searched by Respondent and Lt. Torres and contraband was removed from them. Additional security was called and took the three inmates to the prison nurse for a pre-confinement physical. This type medical examination is mandatory for an inmate about to be confined for disciplinary purposes. The inmates did not complain to anyone that they had been injured or mistreated by Respondent or by anyone else. The nurses noted no injury on any of the inmates. The three inmates were then confined for disciplinary reasons. An incident report was written and a Disciplinary Report was filed for each of the three inmates. Neither Respondent nor Lt. Torres filed a Use of Force Report, which is a mandatory report after physical force is used against an inmate. On June 12, 2003, approximately 24 hours after the incident in Respondent’s office, both inmate Burch and inmate Whiley declared a medical emergency. Both inmates were promptly taken to the medial unit and examined by prison nurses. Inmate Burch told nurse Rhea Harris that he had been injured by being kicked in the head, but he would not identify the person who kicked him. At the final hearing, inmate Burch testified that Respondent kicked him in the head as he was coming out from under the desk and in the knee when he tried to stand up. He further testified that the blow to the knee caused him to fall to the floor, which broke his glasses. Ms. Harris observed a bump on the side of inmate Burch’s head that could be consistent with inmate Burch’s being kicked.5 Inmate Whiley was seen by Nurse Debra Barriner on June 11 and June 12, 2003. On June 12, 2003, inmate Whiley told Ms. Barriner that he had a sore neck and a sore area on his face on the left cheek. Ms. Barriner observed areas of slight swelling and discoloration that were consistent with inmate Whiley’s complaints. Inmate Whiley refused to tell the nurse what caused his neck and left cheek to become sore. In an affidavit subsequently secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Whiley alleged that Respondent had kicked him as he was coming out from under the desk and hit him in the stomach after he stood up. In an affidavit secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Conley stated that he was not struck by Respondent on June 11, 2003, but that he saw Respondent strike inmates Burch and Whiley. Approximately a week after the incident in Respondent’s office, corrections officers intercepted a note being passed from the cell of inmates Burch and Whiley to the cell of inmate Conley. This note was turned over to Lt. Torres, who was the shift supervisor, who testified that he threw the note away and could not recall its details. Lt. Torres did recall that the note made a reference to his being promoted as a result of the allegations that had been made against Respondent. In a sworn interview given to Mr. Glover, Lt. Torres stated that he saw Respondent kick inmates Burch and Whiley. He repeated that statement at the formal hearing. On closer examination, Lt. Torres testified that he did not witness Respondent make physical contact with any of the inmates, but that he saw him making kicking motions in the directions of the inmates. On further examination, the following exchange occurred between Petitioner’s counsel and Lt. Torres beginning at page 85, line 22 of the Transcript: Q. Let me ask you this: If you did not see Major Passino actually strike an inmate, why then did you feel that it was necessary to report such an incident.[6] A. Why did I feel that? That’s my responsibility. Q. At the time that this incident occurred, why did you consider that there had been a use of force. A. Why? Q. Yes. A. Only because of what the inmates said, that they were injured, did I suspect that there was a use of force. Q. And that was only after the inmates had declared a medical emergency – A. Yes, sir. Respondent’s testimony that he did not use unauthorized force against inmates Burch and Whiley is found to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent battered inmate Burch or Whiley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of, June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 24th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent’s law enforcement certification should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on March 21, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, David G. Delisle, is a certified correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Certificate No. 67615 on August 31, 1992, by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission). When the relevant events herein occurred, respondent was employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer at the Duval County Pre-Trial Detention Facility (detention facility). In an administrative complaint filed on March 21, 1996, the Commission charged that (a) on May 30, 1995, respondent “engage(d) in an unprofessional relationship with an inmate of said facility, under his supervision;” (b) on May 30, 1995, respondent unlawfully “receive from an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: cigarettes and/or rolling paper;” (c) on May 30, 1995, respondent unlawfully “(gave) to an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: cigarettes and/or rolling tobacco;” (d) on June 17, 1995, respondent engaged in “an unprofessional relationship with an inmate of said facility, under his supervision;” and (e) on June 17, 1995, respondent “(gave) to an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: food.” Respondent disputed these allegations and initiated this proceeding. At final hearing, petitioner voluntarily dismissed item (c). During respondent’s tenure as a correctional officer at the detention facility in 1995, James M. Bonner and James Barbour were inmates under his supervision. In May of 1995, respondent approached inmates Bonner and Barbour and offered them tobacco products, including rolling paper, and other considerations if they would “beat up” certain inmates, including one Max Harrison, who were “causing trouble,” for respondent. The purpose of such action was to cause those inmates to transfer out of the cellblock thereby relieving respondent of having to deal with them. In the case of inmate Max Herring, respondent wanted Henning to leave the cellblock because he was allegedly a homosexual. Bonner and Barbour agreed to beat up Herring and other unidentified inmates. On June 19, 1995, Bonner, Barbour and several other inmates, tied inmate Herring to a bed with sheets and began striking him with “flip-flops” and shower shoes. Herring suffered abrasions and bruises on his body. Bonner confirmed that, at the request of respondent, several other inmates, none of whom were identified, were also beaten. In return for these favors, respondent provided inmates Bonner and Barbour with extra portions of jail food, extra food brought into the facility from outside establishments, magazines, cigarettes, rolling paper, and radio privileges. Although not specifically identified at hearing, certain "regulations" of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office prohibit a correctional officer from furnishing such goods and services to inmates, and the introduction of illegal contraband into a jail violates state law. On at least one occasion, respondent received tobacco products and rolling paper from Bonner to give to other inmates. This also violated an unidentified facility rule as well as state law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order determining that respondent has failed to maintain good moral character and required by state law and that his law enforcement certificate be revoked.DONE AND ENTERED this 24th date of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark P. Brewer, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. David G. Delisle 5350 Arlington Expressway, No. 3902 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Tanika Parker was certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September 9, 2005, and was issued correctional certification number 251547. (admitted fact) From August 13, 2004, until July 13, 2006, Respondent was employed as a correctional officer by the Florida Department of Corrections and was assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution. (admitted fact) On January 9, 2006, Respondent applied for a correctional officer position with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. (admitted fact) On March 10, 2006, as part of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office application process, Respondent answered the written question: "Have you had an unprofessional relationship with an inmate, detainee, probationer or parolee, or community controlee [sic]?" by circling on the form as her response: "No." (admitted fact) Also during March 2006, George Montenegro, a Senior Inspector in the Department of Corrections Inspector General's Office assigned to the Dade Correctional Institution, received information from a confidential informant that Respondent "was involved with" an inmate with the nickname of "Plump." Although an investigation was begun, it was not until early July when a second confidential informant disclosed the identity of Plump. It was inmate Leroy Rogers. Thereafter, Plump's phone calls were monitored, and his cell was searched on July 21, 2006. Among other items in Plump's cell were 34 photographs. At that point Respondent had resigned and was no longer an employee of the Department of Corrections. Since Respondent was in the process of being hired by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Inspector Montenegro contacted that agency and spoke with Eric Monath, a Sergeant with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Division of Internal Affairs. The 34 photographs taken from Plump's cell included the following: one of a cake inscribed "Happy Birthday Plump"; one with a little girl licking the icing off the cake knife; two of the front of Respondent's residence with the little girl in front; eleven more of the little girl at various locations; one close-up of an adult female's breasts; six close-ups of an adult female's naked genitalia; eight of an adult female's genitalia and/or buttocks either partially or fully covered by underwear; one of a T-shirt decorated with two hearts, one of which was inscribed "Plump" and the other one "Plumpness"; and three of a woman in that T-shirt, wearing some of the same underwear depicted in some of the other pictures. The photos of the naked or clothed woman do not show the woman's face, head, or neck. They only focus on a particular part of the female's anatomy. One of the pictures, however, shows the female from behind with her hands on her hips, and that one reveals a scar or discoloration on the woman's left, inside forearm. On July 27, 2006, Respondent attended an orientation session at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, wearing a sleeveless shirt. Sergeant Monath saw that same identifying mark on Respondent's forearm. On August 1, 2006, Sergeant Monath met with Inspector Montenegro at the Walgreen's near Respondent's residence and presented the photos with the identifying Walgreen's information on the back of each one to the store's manager. The store manager confirmed that the identifying information was for that store and, using it, checked the store's computer records. The customer for whom the photographs were developed was Respondent. Inspector Montenegro and Sergeant Monath then drove to Respondent's residence and compared the front of the structure to the structure depicted in the photographs. It was the same, including the location of the sprinkler head in the front yard. The monitored phone calls made by Plump were to a female who was never identified in the phone calls. However, during one of the calls, the female yelled instructions to someone in the background named Taliyah. Respondent's application for employment by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office listed as the only person living with her, her daughter Taliyah Wilcox. Inmate Rogers' visitor log shows that Respondent visited him thirteen times between November 4, 2006, and July 7, 2007. She listed herself as a "personal friend."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking her correctional certificate numbered 251547. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire George G. Lewis, P.A. 950 South Pine Island Road, Suite 150 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sharon S. Traxler, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement - 7100 Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on October 1, 1987, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 83658. Respondent has been employed since that time by the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, assigned to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Institute, the stockade. He is also certified by the Commission as an instructor and has taught at the Academy. Respondent is a very professional, "by-the-book" correctional officer. He is considered by his supervisors to be an excellent correctional officer who performs his job efficiently. He has received numerous commendations while at the Department, including a humanitarian award and the Department's monthly recognition award. His annual evaluations rate him consistently above satisfactory or outstanding but for some need for improvement in attendance. January 28, 1994, was Respondent's birthday. He and Pamela Gray, the woman with whom Respondent then lived, walked on the beach together and then went to Denny's Restaurant. While there, they encountered three young women whose car had been stolen while they were inside Denny's. Respondent offered them a ride home, and they accepted. Respondent, in Gray's car, and Gray drove the women to Hamlet Estates Apartments and entered through the security gate. Once inside the complex, Respondent and Gray were walking the women to their apartment when they saw a juvenile walking around looking in the recreation room. They commented to each other that it was too late for a child that age to be out. Since it was after 3:00 a.m., Respondent and the others approached the juvenile who appeared to be 10 to 12 years old. Respondent asked him why he was out at that time of the morning, and the juvenile said he lived there. Respondent asked him which apartment he lived in, and the juvenile stated an apartment number. The young women with Respondent and Gray advised that the apartment complex used letters, not numbers, on the apartments there. Respondent asked the juvenile to show Respondent where he lived, and Respondent and the boy walked off together. The boy was unable to identify an apartment where he lived. The boy was also evasive about his name and telephone number. Respondent and the juvenile returned to where Gray was waiting for them. The young women went to their apartment, and Respondent and Gray drove the juvenile to the security guard booth at the entrance to the complex. Gray waited in the car, while Respondent and the juvenile walked over to the booth and spoke to the security guard. Respondent identified himself to security guard Marvel Williams as Officer Ford and showed her his correctional officer badge. Respondent asked Williams if the juvenile lived there, and she confirmed that he did not. Respondent used the telephone to call the telephone number the juvenile told him was his parents' telephone number, but the number was disconnected. Respondent was concerned about leaving the juvenile at the complex where the juvenile had no right to be. He was concerned that something might happen to the child or that the child might be intending wrongdoing. Respondent then called the Miami-Dade Police Department precinct nearby and requested that a patrol car be sent to pick up the juvenile and take him home. Respondent was told that no unit was available to come there. Respondent then decided that he would drive the juvenile to the precinct and leave him there until the police could take him home. He told the juvenile to come with him, and they walked over to Gray's car. Respondent opened the back door, and the juvenile got in. Respondent then got in the car and drove out of the complex. Because the security guard had some concern about a child going somewhere with a stranger, she copied down Respondent's license number and a description of the vehicle as Respondent exited the complex. She then pushed the redial button on the telephone to verify that Respondent had in fact called the police and discovered that he had. She then wrote an incident report describing what had happened. When Respondent arrived at Station 6, he, Gray, and the juvenile went inside. Respondent and the juvenile approached the desk officer, and Gray sat down in the waiting area. Respondent introduced himself as Officer Ford and showed the police officer his correctional officer badge and identification. He then told the police officer what had transpired and requested that the police take the juvenile home. At the request of the police officer, Respondent wrote down his name, his badge number, his identification number, and his beeper number. The desk officer then buzzed the door to the back area to unlock it and allow Respondent and the juvenile to enter the back area of the station. Respondent held the door for the desk officer and the juvenile, and the juvenile walked into the back area. Respondent told the desk officer that he was tired and was going home. He then walked out of the station, and he and Gray drove home. The desk officer did not try to stop Respondent from leaving. Not knowing what to do next, the desk officer contacted his supervisor, asking him to come to the station to deal with the juvenile. When his supervisor arrived, he described what had happened. In doing so, he told his supervisor that Respondent was an off-duty police officer. This erroneous assumption arose from the fact that Miami-Dade police officer badges and correctional officer badges look alike, but for the wording across the top of the badge. The desk officer's supervisor called Respondent's beeper, and Respondent returned the call. In a hostile and profane manner he told Respondent to return to the station and fill out appropriate paperwork. Respondent told him he would not come back to the station and hung up on him. The supervisor again beeped Respondent, and Respondent again called him back. The supervisor threatened to call Respondent's precinct and report him to internal affairs, and Respondent advised him that Respondent was not a police officer but was a correctional officer. The supervisor then contacted correctional internal affairs and reported Respondent for impersonating a police officer. The police attempted to find out the juvenile's name and address, but he only gave them false information. They finally fingerprinted him and discovered that his fingerprints were on file and that there were several outstanding warrants/pick-up orders against him. Instead of taking him home, they transported him to juvenile hall. Respondent did not identify himself as a police officer to anyone that night. Respondent did not restrain the juvenile or imprison him against his will. The juvenile went with Respondent both to the security guard booth and to the police precinct without protestation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Braverman, Esquire 2650 West State Road 84 Suite 101A Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue Whether Rule 33-3.002(11), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Darryl James McGlamry, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 33-3.002(11), Florida Administrative Code. Prior to incarceration, the Petitioner wore his hair in a manner that covered his ears and collar. If allowed to, the Petitioner would continue to wear his hair in the manner he wore it prior to incarceration. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-3.002(11), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.002(11), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"), provides, in pertinent part, the following: (11) Male inmates shall have their hair cut short to medium length at all times with no part of the ear or collar covered. . . . The Challenged Rule applies to male, but not female, inmates. The Challenged Rule is necessary in order to reduce the ability of male inmates to change their identity by changing their hair style. The Challenged Rule alleviates security problems, including the ability during an escape to alter an inmate's appearance more rapidly by cutting long hair. Long hair can also constitute a security problem because of the ability to hide contraband in it. The rationale for the Challenged Rule was explained in the Final Order entered in Redman v. Department of Corrections, DOAH Case No. 84-0598R, April 19, 1984, as follows: Mr. Watson explained the considerations behind forbidding full beards and requiring short haircuts. According to his uncontroverted testimony, uniformity of prisoners' appearance is a desideratum in and of itself. There are health and sanitation problems with longer hair. Many inmates are involved in food preparation. The prison issues toothpaste, but not shampoo. In a fight, long hair can be pulled more readily than short hair. Some inmates work in close proximity to machinery. Although some visitors to the prison have short hair and do not wear beards, it is easier, in general, to distinguish inmates from visitors if the former are all close shorn. (Prison uniforms also help in this regard.) Escapees would be able to alter their appearance more rapidly if they had long hair (by cutting it off) or a beard (by shaving) than if they were put to the trouble of acquiring a wig or a false beard. This is still the Respondent's rationale for the Challenged Rule. Hair Length for Female Inmates. The Respondent does not have a rule governing female inmate hair length. It is the policy of the Respondent to allow female inmates to wear their hair at a length that is consistent with the community standard for females. Conditions are imposed by the Respondent on the way female inmates wear their hair. Female inmates are not allowed to wear their hair in what is considered a radical style or to cut designs into their hair. Nor are female inmates allowed to wear their hair in a traditionally male style. Radical braiding is also not allowed. The Challenged Rule is not applied to female inmates because the community standard for female hair styles is different than the community standard for males. The length that females keep their hair can range from relatively short to below the shoulder. Like their male counterparts, allowing female inmates to have long hair causes some of the same problems that caused the Respondent to limit the length of male inmate hair styles. Longer hair for female inmates can create security problems because of the ability to hide contraband and the ability to alter appearances during escape attempts. There are also hygiene problems relating to lice and inadequate shampooing and safety hazards related to female inmates with long hair. It is easier to handle some of the security problems associated with female inmates hiding contraband because there are only 2,500 female inmates to be searched. There are approximately 43,000 male inmates, making it more difficult to conduct searches of the hair of male inmates who might choose to grow their hair long. There are significant differences in the manner in which female and male inmates are treated because of the differences in their gender. It is easier socially for a male inmate to accept short hair. Requiring short hair for males does not create the type of adverse reaction it could cause for many female inmates. Due to the possible adverse impact and the message it might send to female inmates that they are different from other women in society, requiring short hair for female inmates is not justified by the security, hygiene, safety and other concerns which justify short hair for male inmates.
The Issue The issue is whether the correctional officer certification of Steven S. Wright should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Steven S. Wright is a certified correctional officer, having been issued certificate number 43-88-502-05 on December 19, 1988. Mr. Wright was employed as a Correctional Officer I at Lake Correctional Institute in June 1989. On the morning of June 20, 1989, and on other occasions, Mr. Wright had discussed drugs with inmates. He did not encourage or support the use of drugs. He believed these discussions were a useful part of the rehabilitation process. Later on June 20, 1989, Inmate Clinton Gholson approached Mr. Wright in the Food Services area and placed a piece of paper in Mr. Wright's pocket. Mr. Wright was planning to be married in a short time. Gholson had indicated that he and some other inmates wanted to make a wedding present for Wright in Arts and Crafts. Because inmates are generally prohibited from giving gifts to correctional officers, Mr. Wright and Gholson had agreed to a paper work process which was to be followed if Gholson and the others wished to make the gift for Mr. Wright. Authorization was to be sought before Mr. Wright actually received the gift. Gholson was to give Mr. Wright a choice of gifts Gholson could make. Mr. Wright understood that Gholson was to give him a short written list from which to pick. While Mr. Wright was working on June 20, 1989, Gholson approached him from behind and slipped the piece of paper into Mr. Wright's back pocket. Gholson indicated it was the gift list and Mr. Wright was to circle the gift he wanted. Gholson said something like, "You do that and that's what we'll make." Mr. Wright did not look at the note then. He forgot about it and finished his work. When Mr. Wright got home that evening, he discovered the note in his pocket. When he opened it, instead of a gift list, he found $3.00 and a note asking Mr. Wright to smuggle drugs (a "twenty cent piece") into the prison and they would make $240.00 from it. Mr. Wright was scheduled off from work the next two days. He was afraid he would lose his job because of what Gholson had done. When Mr. Wright returned to work on June 23, 1989, he told Sergeant Alexander what had happened. She sent him to Major Collier to make a report. Wright made the report and submitted it. He had forgotten to bring the note and money that day, so he could not attach it to the report. When Mr. Wright returned home that night, the note and money were gone. It was never determined if his wife or his nephew or someone else had thrown it away. Once Gholson knew he had Mr. Wright in a bad position, he used it to his advantage. He began demanding money from Mr. Wright and stated at various times that he had given Mr. Wright $10.00 to buy drugs and that he had loaned Mr. Wright $10.00. Mr. Wright reported these incidents immediately. When Gholson wrote another note demanding $10.00, Mr. Wright immediately turned that note over to Major Collier. A hearsay statement from Gholson in the form of a taped interview was submitted into evidence. It is found that Gholson's statements are so unbelievable as to be unworthy of any credibility. Even if the statements were not hearsay, they would be too unbelievable to form the basis for a finding of fact. Mr. Wright was fired from his job at Lake Correctional Institute as a result of these incidents and Gholson's statements. While there are some insignificant inconsistencies among the various statements and reports given by Mr. Wright, I find that his testimony and account of these events is absolutely credible and worthy of belief. While it is not disputed that Mr. Wright left the correctional institute on June 20, 1989, with a note and $3.00 which Gholson slipped into his pocket, it is affirmatively found that Mr. Wright had unwittingly done so. Mr. Wright had no idea that Gholson had placed money into his pocket until he reached home later that night. Mr. Wright did not knowingly accept money from Gholson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Steven S. Wright. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of June, 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Scott R. Blair (Respondent Blair) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner) as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 30982 on December 22, 1989. At all times material hereto, Charles A. Piazza (Respondent Piazza) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 25166 on August 11, 1988. At all times material hereto, Robert C. Singleton, Sr. (Respondent Singleton), was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 71355 on August 24, 1988. At all times material hereto, Thomas A. Sayed (Respondent Sayed) was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer, having been issued correctional certificate number 98281 on March 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, all of the Respondents were employed as correctional officers with the Martin County Sheriff's Department in the Martin County Detention Center. In or around December 1989, a new Detention Center was constructed and opened. Prior to that time, the old Detention Center, called the "stockade," was located in Indiantown approximately 19 miles from the site of the new facility. The stockade contained a commissary which was used by both inmates and correctional officers. The commissary was a separate area of the stockade, which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes, and sodas for the benefit of the inmates of the facility, who could purchase the items with monies maintained in their individual accounts controlled by the Detention Center. 3/ None of the inmates had unsupervised and continuous access to the commissary. Even though the commissary was for the benefit of the inmates, correctional officers from time to time would remove items from it. There existed an unwritten honor policy that any item removed by a correctional officer would have to be paid for by that officer. A container was placed in the commissary and a correctional officer would place money in the container for the item removed. If an officer was unable to pay for the item at the time of its removal, a supervising officer could approve payment at a later time. An inventory was performed on a weekly and monthly basis, with no shortage of money being reported. This honor policy was well known to and acquiesced in by the commanding officer of the stockage, Major Murphy. Respondent Singleton, who was employed at the stockade, frequently used this honor policy. He would remove items from the commissary and put money in the container for the items. At times, he would not be able to pay for an item until payday, and he was allowed to pay for the item at that time by his superior officer on duty at the time. Respondent Blair was also employed at the stockade and used this honor system. When the new facility opened in or around December 1989, the commissary structure and procedure pertaining to inmate use remained the same, but the procedure pertaining to correctional officer use was changed by Major Murphy. Although the commissary continued to be for the benefit of the inmates, no longer were the correctional officers suppose to utilize it. The container for payment by the correctional officers for items removed no longer existed. Now, the correctional officers were suppose to obtain their items from an area within the new Detention Center specifically set-aside for them, which was separate and some distance away from the commissary. This area contained coin-operated machines which contained a variety of snack foods, cigarettes and sodas. However, although there was suppose to be this new policy, no one, other than administrative personnel and high ranking correctional officers, were aware of the change. No written policy was issued for the new facility to countermand the unwritten policy used at the stockade. This nonaction resulted in no notification to the correctional officers of the new policy. Without the written policy, some correctional officers who worked at the stockade continued their practice in the new facility of removing items from the commissary even though no container existed in which the officers could pay for the items removed. In particular, at the new facility one correctional officer on the night shift had removed some items from the commissary. Being unsure as to how to pay or who to pay for the items, he waited the next morning, before going home, for the person who purchased items for the commissary, so that he could pay for the items. The commissary purchasing person worked only on the day shift. At that time, he was notified by the commissary purchasing person that he no longer could obtain items from the commissary, but she did accept his money for the items and informed the officer's superior of the incident. Then and only then did he become aware of the policy change. Major Murphy continued as the commanding officer at the new Detention Center. He too used the commissary and the honor policy. At the stockade he would order boxes of cigars through the commissary, either prepaying for them or paying for them when they came in. He continued this practice at the new facility, which was at odds with his new unwritten policy of prohibiting correctional officers from using the commissary. Everyone was aware of Major Murphy's practice. Approximately a year and a half after the new facility opened, on June 13, 1991, through an inmate informant, Major Murphy became aware of possible inmate theft of cigarettes from the commissary. The alleged theft occurred the night before on June 12, 1991, which was the usual periodic time that inmates' requests for commissary items were filled by other inmates under the supervision of correctional officers. The inmates who were assigned to fill inmate requests from the commissary were questioned by an officer assigned to the investigation by Major Murphy. Implicated by the inmates interviewed in the June 12, 1991 theft of cigarettes were themselves, other inmates and several correctional officers, including Respondents. Besides officers actually removing cigarettes, one inmate was allegedly directed by one officer to deliver some cigarettes to another room and by another officer, Respondent Piazza, to deliver some cigarettes to her. Possible officer theft was a surprising development. On the basis of only the inmates' statements, on June 13, 1991, Respondents were notified to report to Major Murphy without notifying them about the nature of the meeting. The written procedure for investigating officers was not followed. Major Murphy dictated the procedure to be followed in the investigation. Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed met with Major Murphy and two of his ranking officers. Major Murphy did all the talking at the meeting. He cited the theft statute, notified them of the allegation against them and instructed them to tell what they had done. Major Murphy further told the Respondents that, if they did take the cigarettes, it would be the most expensive pack of cigarettes that they had ever had. At least one of Major Murphy's ranking officers perceived this statement by Major Murphy as a threat to the Respondents. Only Respondent Blair admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes after changing his story several times as to how many packs he had removed. Respondent Sayed denied taking anything but at the conclusion of the meeting requested to meet with Major Murphy privately. In that private meeting, with one of Major Murphy's ranking officers also present, Respondent Sayed admitted to removing, but not stealing, two packs of cigarettes and attempted to give Major Murphy the money for the cigarettes. Major Murphy refused to take the money. Respondent Piazza denied taking any cigarettes from the commissary. Respondent Singleton was late for the meeting because he had not received notification of it. Again, Major Murphy did all the talking. He gave Respondent Singleton the same introductory comments regarding the theft statute, what was alleged, and requested his story of what happened. When Major Murphy completed his comments, Respondent Singleton admitted that, during his night shift, he had taken, but not stolen, a pie to eat because he lacked change for the machines and had intended to pay for the pie later. Respondent Singleton also admitted that in the past he had removed snack items from the commissary but had paid the commissary purchasing person for them later. 4/ His statement pertaining to paying for the items later is found not to be credible. If he had engaged in this type of conduct, it is reasonable to assume that the commissary purchasing person would have informed him that he could no longer engage in such conduct, as she had done with the correctional officer discussed in Finding of Fact 15. Respondents were suspended from their positions that same day and subsequently terminated. Prior to the meeting with Major Murphy, there was nothing other than the statements by inmates to connect the Respondents to the theft of cigarettes from the commissary. Moreover, no inventory was performed on the commissary items. No evidence existed to show that any unauthorized items had been taken from the commissary or that Respondents had taken any items from the commissary. Even though Major Murphy found the inmates' statements, standing alone, credible to initiate an investigation against the Respondents and personally question them, he failed to find these same statements from these same inmates credible to investigate any of the other correctional officers named in the statements and question them. Furthermore, no other correctional officer named on that evening shift was disciplined by Major Murphy. One of the inmates from whom the so-called credible statements were taken testified at the hearing that, when he assisted in the new commissary, it was not uncommon for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary. 5/ At the hearing, the inmate refused to name correctional officers other than those named in his investigative statement, which included Respondents Blair, Piazza and Sayed, because he was fearful of what might happen to him at the new Detention Center at which he was now again incarcerated. Importantly, before he agreed to give a statement during the investigation in which he named officers, he was told by the investigating officer that other inmates had already given statements and named officers. The inmate's testimony at hearing is found to be credible. Regarding Respondent Piazza, this inmate was directed by Respondent Piazza to take some cigarettes to another room within the facility where other officers were located, but none of whom personally accepted or received the cigarettes. Approximately four days after the Respondents' meeting with Major Murphy, on June 17, 1991, he issued a written memo regarding correctional officers removing items from the commissary. Major Murphy indicated in the memo that through an investigation, without revealing the nature of the investigation, "apparently there was a practice of correctional employees removing items from the commissary, on all four shifts, without paying for them but that the practice would not be tolerated." Moreover, he further indicated that employees who had participated in the practice could remain anonymous and pay for the items, describing the procedure to follow, and that in the future a container would be placed in the commissary for the correctional employees who remove items to pay for them at the time they are removed. It is inferred from Major Murphy's memo that he believed, and it is found, that it was common practice for correctional officers to remove items from the commissary without paying for them as described by the Respondents. Even though other correctional officers who participated in the practice were provided an opportunity to pay for the items they had removed from the commissary, Major Murphy denied the Respondents this same opportunity. Prior to the memo of June 17, 1991, and after Major Murphy's meeting with the Respondents, another officer who was named in an inmate statement admitted to Major Murphy that he had removed a cigar from the commissary without paying for it. No disciplinary action was taken against that officer. Also, additional correctional officers were named in additional statements by one inmate. Major Murphy determined the extent of the investigation (limited only to the evening of June 12, 1991), and who would be investigated and disciplined (only Respondents and the inmates). Before issuing the memo of June 17, 1991, Major Murphy had decided not to pursue an investigation of any additional correctional officers because he believed that the disciplining of Respondents had sent a message to the other officers that the practice would not be tolerated and because he did not want to have to suspend and possibly terminate the majority of his staff. No criminal charges were recommended or filed against Respondents. The investigating officer recommended, and Major Murphy agreed, that the incident did not warrant theft charges. Respondents have not been employed as correction officers since June 13, 1991. Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The inmates who stole cigarettes on the evening of June 12, 1991, were also disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding the Respondents. Placing the Respondents on probationary status for six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of June 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 17th day of June 1994.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully terminated the employment of the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was born in 1964 as an anatomical male named Andrew Allen Shepley. The Petitioner married a female in 1984. The couple separated in December 2000. During the course of the marriage, the couple produced four children. They divorced in July 2002. The Respondent is a large recreational vehicle dealership located in Seffner, Florida. The winter months are the busy season for sales and service of recreational vehicles, and the Respondent may employ several hundred employees at that time. In August 1999, the Petitioner began employment as a technician (essentially a mechanic) with the Respondent. His duties as a technician included inspections and service and repair responsibilities for recreational vehicles. He also sometimes performed "walk-throughs" with vehicle purchasers at the time of delivery during which features and operations of the vehicle are discussed with the new owner. The Petitioner worked for the Respondent for approximately one year, and then in about August 2000, he moved with his wife and children to Chicago where his wife's family was located. In December 2000, the Petitioner returned to Florida after separating from his wife. He sought a job and was again employed as a technician by the Respondent. Although the Petitioner was born anatomically male, he psychologically identifies himself as female. The Petitioner has been aware of the issue since his early childhood. For various reasons, in Spring 2001, the Petitioner began a course of psychotherapy. During the psychotherapy, the Petitioner was diagnosed with gender identity disorder, a condition wherein the psychological perspective of a person does not correspond to the anatomical gender into which the person was born. After the diagnosis, the Petitioner continued with psychotherapy and in June 2001 began transitioning into living as a female, initially on a part-time basis. He lived as a female during non-work hours and as a male during his hours of employment. As time passed, the Petitioner decided to begin living as a female on a full-time basis. In July 2001, the Petitioner requested approval from the Respondent to take the last week of the year as vacation during which he planned to visit his children in Chicago. He also intended to begin living full-time as a female during the vacation. Some co-workers were already aware of the Petitioner's intent to begin living as a female. The Respondent's technicians work in teams of between six and ten employees per team. Each team has a foreman. Andrew Dietz was the foreman for the Petitioner's team. The Petitioner advised Mr. Dietz at some point in mid-2001 that he had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and was planning to transition to life as a female. The Petitioner believes that for various reasons other employees may have been aware of the situation. In August 2001, the Petitioner informed the Respondent's human relations office that he intended to begin living as a female on a full-time basis and would return to work after the December vacation as a female. The human relations office apparently was supportive of the Petitioner's decision. The human relations office informed Allen Kelley of the Petitioner's intent to begin living as a female. Mr. Kelley was the manager in charge of the Respondent's service and delivery operations. There is no evidence that Mr. Kelley had any concerns about or objections to the Petitioner's decision to live as a female. In September 2001, the Petitioner began hormone treatments which resulted in physical changes to the Petitioner's body including breast development, but the Petitioner testified that the changes were not likely visible to an "untrained eye." The Petitioner also began to let his hair grow longer than he had previously. He began to wear acrylic fingernail extensions without polish. His ears were pierced. In December 2001, the Petitioner received a merit pay increase and was part of a team of technicians receiving an award for superior service. As planned, the Petitioner took the last week of December 2001 as vacation. During the Petitioner's vacation, Mr. Kelley conducted a series of meetings with the teams of service personnel and advised them that the Petitioner would return to employment as a female. Some employees expressed discomfort with the Petitioner's decision during the meetings, but Mr. Kelley advised them that the Respondent was going to "work as best we can to accommodate him." Also during the Petitioner's vacation, the Respondent re-labeled an existing single-user lockable restroom (previously identified as a women's facility) as a "unisex" facility to provide restroom access for the Petitioner. On January 2, 2002, the Petitioner returned as a female to his employment with the Respondent. He wore the same uniform he wore prior to the vacation. He put colored nail polish on the acrylic fingernails he had already been wearing. He added breast forms under the bra he had been wearing prior to his vacation. He wore makeup, including eye shadow and lipstick. The Respondent provided to the Petitioner, a nametag for his uniform identifying him as "Madalynn." There is no evidence that any person employed by the Respondent in a management position made any derogatory comments about the Petitioner, suggested that there should be any change in the Petitioner's appearance or behavior, or was otherwise unsupportive of the Petitioner's decision to return to work as a female. Mr. Kelley testified that beginning with the Petitioner's return to work on January 2, 2002, Mr. Kelley spent approximately two hours of each day dealing with issues related to the Petitioner's return to work as a female. Mr. Kelley testified without contradiction that there were complaints from several unidentified customers, to him and to sales staff, about having to interact with the Petitioner. The Petitioner acknowledged being aware of one specific customer who complained. Mr. Kelley testified that he advised customers that the Petitioner was a good technician, but that other employees were available to work with customers upon request. Mr. Kelley subsequently decided to address the issue by assigning other technicians to conduct vehicle walk-throughs with customers, and so informed the Petitioner. Mr. Kelley had to twice warn one employee (Bruce Dickens) who was loudly unhappy with the Petitioner's decision to live as a female, but after Mr. Kelley advised Mr. Dickens that further disruption by Mr. Dickens would result in unpaid suspension, Mr. Dickens refrained from continuing his complaints. Mr. Kelley testified as to "threats" relayed to him by employees who claimed to have knowledge that other employees were planning some unidentified action against the Petitioner, but Mr. Kelley was unable to recall the names of any of the employees involved in either the threats or the reporting of the threats. He did not advise the Petitioner of the alleged threats. He did not contact law enforcement about the situation. He made no written record related to the threats. Mr. Kelley monitored the employee parking area to ascertain whether any inappropriate activity was occurring, but observed nothing of concern. Mr. Kelley testified that between six to twelve times daily, he observed various groups of technicians standing around talking, and that he had to enter the service area and direct them to return to work. He did not overhear any conversations, but assumed that the conversations were related to the Petitioner. An incident involving graffiti placed in the "unisex" bathroom was resolved by removal of the graffiti after the Petitioner reported it to management. On January 7, 2002, the Petitioner was called to the human resources office where Mr. Kelley informed him that he was a substantial disruption in the workplace and that his employment was being terminated. Mr. Kelley testified that he was solely responsible for making the termination decision. There is no evidence that Mr. Kelley discussed the termination with the owner of the Respondent, or that any other employee was involved in Mr. Kelley's decision. The Respondent employed several homosexual technicians during the period of the Petitioner's employment who were not subjected to any adverse employment action. The Respondent employed a female employee who underwent breast enlargement surgery during the time the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. The Petitioner testified that the female was a "distraction" at work that was not subjected to any adverse employment action.
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 complaint of discrimination filed by the Petitioner in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esquire Luisette Gierbolini, Esquire Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800 Post Office Box 1378 Tampa, Florida 33601-1378 Craig L. Berman, Esquire Berman Law Firm, P.A. 111 Second Avenue, Northeast Suite 810 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are presented based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent accusing the Respondent of entering into a drug trafficking agreement with an inmate in a correctional facility where the Respondent worked. This is in violation of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes, per the Administrative Complaint, in that should the allegations be proven, Respondent is not felt to be qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, in that he has committed conduct unfitting for a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wayne A. Thomas, was a correctional officer employed at the Union Correctional Institution from August 4, 1981 through March 3, 1983. He served there under the authority of a certificate as correctional officer, which certificate had been issued by the State of Florida. At present, the Respondent's correctional officer certificate is in an inactive status. This case was presented for formal hearing based upon the Respondent's timely request for such treatment of the controversy. On March 2, 1983, Sergeant Sterling M. Esford, a correctional officer in the Union Correctional facility, was approached by an inmate, Ronald Thompson. Thompson was a person whom Esford had used as a confidential informant in the past and had found to be reliable. Thompson told Esford he had information to the effect that the Respondent was bringing quaaludes into the correctional facility to be sold. In exchange for assistance to be given an inmate Bell who was having difficulty with the prison authorities related to certain charges that they had brought against him, Thompson agreed to assist the internal security section of the institution in its efforts to investigate allegations against the Respondent. Lieutenant R. T. Lee, internal security officer, was made aware of the claims of Thompson related to Respondent's alleged drug activities and the offer by Thompson to help in the apprehension of the Respondent. Thompson told the authorities that he would need $50 to make a drug Purchase from Respondent. Lee gave Thompson $50 of money in which the serial numbers had been recorded prior to the transfer of the currency, money which had been dusted with a powder which could not be detected unless subject to ultraviolet light. Thompson then took the money on March 3, 1983 and later met with the Respondent. At the time of the meeting between Thompson and the Respondent, Thompson did not tell the Respondent that he wished to purchase drugs as he had indicated to the internal security officers that he would do. Thompson instead asked that the Respondent transmit the $50 in currency to a Marvin Jackson who was being held in a confinement section of the institution. Thompson made it known that this money was being transmitted for the benefit of one Doyle Heard, a friend of Jackson's. Thompson then gave money to the Respondent. The exact amount of the money given was not revealed, in that only $45 of the money was ever recovered and it is uncertain whether the remaining $5 was kept by Thompson, the Respondent or Marvin Jackson, who received the $45. Authorities searched the person of the Respondent and Jackson and did not find the $5. Thompson was not searched. (Respondent claims that the transmittal of the currency was in exchange for information which Thompson gave him on the subject of unauthorized weapons, which were hidden in the institution. He further claims that Thompson assisted him in searching for those weapons, although none were found. Given the testimony of other witnesses to the effect that those kinds of weapons were readily discoverable through routine searches by authorities and the fact that doing favors for inmates in exchange for information was a matter done under the guise of official sanction by authorities within the institution, which was not the case here, and the failure of the Respondent to disclose to authorities his alleged transmittal of the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of weapons in the institution, Respondent's explanation is not believed. In other words, Respondent is not found to have told the truth when he says that he transmitted the currency between Thompson and Jackson in exchange for information related to the location of illegal weapons within the institution.) When the Respondent gave the money to Jackson, he told him that the money had been sent to him by Doyle Heard, his acquaintance. He further stated that the money was being given to him because Jackson was being transferred from that institution to another. In carrying this money from Thompson to Jackson, Respondent recognized that it was contrary to law and policy to do so, in that United States currency is considered contraband if found in the hands of an inmate and to assist in its transmittal, as opposed to turning in the contraband is a specific violation of the laws and rules of the institution. After the money transfer, Thompson indicated that he had conferred with the Respondent about the purchase of marijuana for $50 to be delivered at a later time. The authorities were led to believe from Thompson's remark that the purchase was quaaludes in exchange for $50. (Thompson denies ever having met Jackson at the time of the money being provided to Jackson in this incident.) He said he subsequently became aware of Jackson's existence. Considering his demeanor and his other testimony presented in the course of the hearing, Thompson is not believed when he says that a drug transaction took place between he and the Respondent on March 3, 1983, related to the exchange of $50 in return for drugs to be delivered at a future date. The facts demonstrate that Thompson misled the authorities about the reason for obtaining the $50 and did so to benefit Heard and Jackson. Thompson established a "scam" in order to obtain $50 for the benefit of those two inmates, and to facilitate those purposes lied about the Respondent's involvement in the subject drug deal which supposedly occurred on March 3, 1983. When the Respondent was leaving the institution on the evening of March 3, 1983, he was confronted by Lieutenant Lee and denied knowing Thompson and denied any involvement in a drug deal. The powder from the marked money was later discovered on his trousers and when confronted with that discovery, the Respondent acknowledged knowing Thompson and stated that he had delivered money to Marvin Jackson. In this interview, Respondent acknowledged that the transmittal of the currency was in violation of institutional policy. As identified by Sergeant Esford and confirmed by other correctional officers who gave testimony in the hearing, transmittal of the contraband, i.e., the U.S. currency, caused the Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a correctional officer. Respondent resigned his post following the incident. At the time of the departure, officials within the institution had found his overall performance to have been satisfactory.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a perceived disability and retaliated against her in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the Liberty Correctional Institution (LCI). She was hired as a Correctional Officer in LCI's Security Department effective December 21, 1990. In February 1991, Petitioner was counseled regarding her failure to report for duty or to notify the institution of an intended absence. On April 1, 1996, Petitioner's supervisor counseled her regarding her failure to report to work in a timely manner. Petitioner had been tardy to work three times in March 1996. On May 30, 2001, Respondent counseled Petitioner regarding her excessive absenteeism. Petitioner had five unscheduled absences. Respondent promoted Petitioner to Correctional Officer Sergeant effective November 1, 2001. In October 24, 2003, Respondent gave Petitioner an oral reprimand for abuse of sick leave. Petitioner had developed a pattern of absenteeism in conjunction with her regular days off. In December 2004, Respondent gave Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand was based on Petitioner's failure to follow oral and/or written instruction, continued absenteeism, and abuse of sick leave. On July 7, 2007, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. The injury was diagnosed as carpel tunnel syndrome. Petitioner underwent surgery for this condition in December 2007. On or about April 8, 2008, Petitioner reached statutory Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI). Petitioner had a Permanent Impairment Rating (PIR) of six percent. On April 15, 2008, a functional capacity evaluation revealed that Petitioner was able to perform light work with lifting restrictions. The restrictions prevented Petitioner from performing the essential functions of a Correctional Officer. Pursuant to policy, Respondent immediately conducted a job search. At that time, a Clerk Typist Specialist position was available at LCI. Petitioner was qualified to perform that job. She submitted an application for the position on or about June 5, 2008. In a letter dated June 10, 2008, Respondent offered Petitioner the Clerk Typist Specialist position in LCI's Classification Department. On June 26, 2008, Petitioner signed an Acknowledgement, accepting a voluntary demotion from Correctional Officer Sergeant to Clerk Typist Specialist and stating that she agreed to perform the duties of the new position to the best of her ability. Petitioner returned the Acknowledgement to Respondent. At the same time, Petitioner questioned whether she would be able to perform the duties of a Clerk Typist Specialist due to her carpel tunnel condition. In a letter dated June 27, 2008, Respondent requested that Petitioner take an essential functions form to a July 8, 2008, doctor's appointment. Respondent wanted the physician to complete the essential functions form and return it to Respondent by July 18, 2008. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether Petitioner was able to perform as a Clerk Typist Specialist. On or about July 24, 2008, Petitioner advised Respondent that she was going to have a nerve conduction test on July 30, 2008. She advised Respondent that she would provide the results to Respondent as soon as possible. In a letter dated August 20, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner that, pending the results of a pre-determination conference, Petitioner could be dismissed from her employment as a Correctional Officer effective September 11, 2008. Respondent proposed this action because Petitioner had not provided Respondent with a doctor's report regarding Petitioner's ability to perform the essential functions of a Clerk Typist Specialist. A pre-determination conference was held on August 27, 2008. In a letter dated September 12, 2008, Warden Douglas advised Petitioner that she would not be dismissed because she had provided medical documentation of her ability to perform the position of a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner began working in that capacity on September 19, 2008. In December 2008, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Respondent's Secretary, Walt McNeil. In the e-mail, Petitioner complained that Respondent had not returned her to work as a Correctional Officer Sergeant after being medically cleared to work in that capacity. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner had been medically released to work as a Correctional Officer in December 2008. Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner had made a request or filed an application to return to work as a Correctional Officer at that time. Respondent subsequently requested Petitioner's doctor to provide an updated opinion regarding Petitioner's ability to work as a Correctional Officer. On or about January 15, 2009, Petitioner's doctor approved Petitioner's return to work as a Correctional Officer with no restrictions. In a memorandum dated February 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was medically cleared to work as a Correctional Officer but that she would need to apply for openings. The memorandum stated that Petitioner had to be reprocessed as a Correctional Officer, including having a drug test and physical examination. The February 9, 2009, memorandum also reminded Petitioner that she would be required to serve another probationary period if she received an appointment as a Correctional Officer. There is no promotion track between the Security Department and the Classification Department. Petitioner applied for four Correctional Officer positions between February and May 2009. Two of the applications were for positions located at LCI. The third application was for a position at Calhoun Correctional Institution (CCI). The fourth application was for a position at Franklin Correctional Institution (FCI). On February 10, 2009, Warden Chris Douglas at LCI declined to interview or rehire Petitioner as a Correctional Officer for position number 7002037. Warden Douglas made this decision based on Petitioner's previous and current employment history showing attendance problems. Petitioner's testimony that she never applied for this position is not persuasive. Petitioner's application for a Correctional Officer position at FCI was never completely processed. In a letter dated April 9, 2009, Respondent advised Petitioner that she needed to provide additional information to support her application for employment in position number 70039564 at FCI. Petitioner did not respond to the request because she decided that she did not want to commute to work so far from her home. On April 23, 2009, Petitioner received her Performance Planning and Evaluation. Her direct supervisor, Kim Davis, Respondent's Classification Sentence Specialist, rated Petitioner as performing "Above Expectation" in all applicable categories. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner requested Warden Douglas to let her complete her mandatory firearm training because her weapons qualification was about to expire. Warden Douglas promptly responded that she could be scheduled to take the next firearms class. Petitioner re-qualified with specified weapons on May 11, 2009. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was interviewed for a position as a Correctional Officer at LCI. She gave correct and appropriate answers to all questions during the interview. Even so, Warden Douglas decided not to hire Petitioner due to her past and current attendance problems. Warden Adro Johnson did not give Petitioner an interview for Correctional Officer position number 70041507 at CCI. He made his decision in July 2009 based on information indicating that Petitioner was already employed at LCI. In July 2009, Respondent's supervisor counseled Petitioner regarding her attendance. She had been absent for four unscheduled absences in the past 90 days. She had missed approximately 40 work days or eight weeks of work during the 11 months she was in the position of Clerk Typist specialist. On August 3, 2009, Petitioner filed her initial complaint with FCHR. Ms. Davis was the person who trained Petitioner as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Petitioner's job included filing documents related to approval or disapproval of inmate visitation. The original documents were sent to the inmates. Respondent was supposed to file copies of the documents in the inmates' classification files. During the time that Petitioner worked as a Clerk Typist Specialist, Ms. Davis had to counsel Petitioner approximately ten times regarding the filing of the inmate visitation documents. Ms. Davis stressed the importance of Petitioner completing her work and filing the documents in a timely manner. Additionally, Ms. Davis noted that Petitioner occasionally failed to properly file the documents. Petitioner was trained to remove duplicate copies of documents from inmate files. Duplicate copies of documents could be shredded. Petitioner was not instructed to shred the inmate visitation documents. If the documents were not legible, another copy was supposed to be made, using the copy machine to darken the print. Willie Brown is one of the Assistant Wardens at LCI. His office was close to Petitioner's work area. Assistant Warden Brown occasionally counseled Petitioner regarding the need to file the papers on her desk. On August 18, 2009, Assistant Warden Brown observed a large amount of paperwork that Petitioner had not filed. Once again, Assistant Warden Brown told Petitioner that she needed to file on a timely basis. He explained that Petitioner could file on the schedule she developed, but that it might be necessary to file everyday. Later on August 18, 2009, Heather Barfield, a Correctional Sentence Specialist, observed Petitioner feeding a large amount of paper into a shredder, causing the shredder to jam. Ms. Barfield subsequently attempted to clear the shredder jam and noticed that the papers belonged in the inmates' files. Ms. Barfield reported her observations to Assistant Warden Brown and Cynthia Swier, the Classification Supervisor. Assistant Warden Brown confirmed that the partially shredded documents were legible and should have been filed. Ms. Davis was informed about the shredding incident when she returned to work the following day. Ms. Davis verified that the shredded documents had been legible and were not duplicates of documents in the inmates' files. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner intentionally shredded the documents in order to clear her desk. Petitioner's testimony that she was shredding them because they were not legible is not credible and contrary to more persuasive evidence. On August 26, 2009, Respondent terminated Petitioner employment as a Clerk Typist Specialist. Because she was on probationary status, she had no appeal rights.
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. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 11th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Gertrude Berrieum 5032 Martin Luther King Road Bristol, Florida 32321 Todd Evan Studley, Esquire 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Walter A. McNeil, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
