The Issue Whether the Respondent, Kenneth M. Watson, abandoned his career service position with the Department pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by being absent from work without authorization on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Watson was employed by the Department from June l2, 1985, until November 6, 1987. When Mr. Watson was first employed by the Department he was given a copy of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook. Mr. Watson was, therefore, informed of the following, which appears on page 43 of the Handbook (DOT exhibit 5-B): JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. The leave policy of the Department requires that employees "[g]et your supervisor's approval before taking leave." Page 21 of the Handbook (see DOT exhibit 5-A). In November, 1987, Mr. Watson was employed by the Department as a Highway Maintenance Technician II. He was a Career Service employee. In November, 1987, Mr. Watson worked under the direct supervision of Tommy Gay. Mr. Gay was a welder and had no authority over Mr. Watson other than to supervise work they performed together. Mr. Gay had no authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson's next immediate supervisor was Elzie Mercer, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor IV. Mr. Mercer had authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson's next immediate supervisor was Joseph Heath, the District Bridge Inspection Engineer. Mr. Heath also had the authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. On November 3, 1987, Mr. Watson was absent from work. This absence had been approved by the Department. Mr. Watson was supposed to return to work on November 4, 1987. He was supposed to be at work on November 5 and 6, 1987, also. Mr. Watson did not report to work with the Department on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Neither Mr. Mercer or Mr. Heath approved Mr. Watson's absence for November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Mr. Watson did not directly contact Messrs. Gay, Mercer and Heath, or anyone else at the Department about his absence on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Mr. Watson did not request approval for his absence on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. A woman who identified herself as Mrs. Green called the Department on November 4, 1987, and spoke with the receptionist, Carol Ellis. Mrs. Green informed Ms. Ellis that "if Mr. Watson does not show up at his job in a couple of days he is probably in jail." Ms. Ellis informed Messrs. Gay and Mercer about this conversation. Mrs. Green called again on November 6, 1987, and spoke with Barbara Taylor, a secretary with the Department. Ms. Taylor informed Mr. Heath of this phone call. Mr. Heath had Mr. Gay call the Duval County Jail. Mr. Gay verified that Mr. Watson was in jail. Mr. Watson first spoke with Mr. Heath on November 10, 1987. Mr. Watson informed Mr. Heath that he was in jail. Mr. Watson requested approval of annual and sick leave for the period of his absence. Mr. Watson was told that he could not use sick leave for the absence. Mr. Heath also informed Mr. Watson that he was denying the request for annual leave and that Mr. Watson would be treated as having abandoned his position with the Department because of his unauthorized absence. Mr. Watson spoke with Mr. Heath by telephone again on November 13, 1987. Mr. Heath again denied Mr. Watson's request for leave. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Watson appeared at work for the first time since before his authorized absence on November 3, 1987. He was informed that he could not work and he left. Messrs. Mercer and Heath were not contacted by Mr. Watson and requested to approve his absence from work on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987, until November 10, 1987, or later. At no time did Mr. Watson obtain approval of his absence. Mr. Watson was informed by letter dated November 24, 1987, that he had abandoned his position with the Department. The Department received a letter on November 25, 1987, requesting a formal administrative hearing. Mr. Watson had sufficient annual leave to cover his absence from the Department on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987. He did not have sufficient annual leave to cover his absence through November 17, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Administration concluding that Kenneth M. Watson abandoned his career service position with the Department. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Case Number 88-0798 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2-3 4. 4-5 5. 6 7. 7 11. 8 13. 9 11-15. 10 16. Hereby accepted. See 17. 13 13. 9. But see 16. Mr. Watson attempted to return to work on November 17, 1989. Hereby accepted. 16 18. 17-18 2. 19-20 Although generally true, the Department failed to present evidence sufficient to support these policies. See Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 3-6. 2 7. 3 9. 4 11. 5 12. Except for the last three sentences, these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last three sentences are accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant in this de novo proceeding. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. See 20. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS #58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In 1980 or 1981, records of a criminal charge involving the petitioner Stephanie D. Grooms were ordered sealed. The attorney representing petitioner in that proceeding was Abe Rigau, now deceased. In late July of 198G, petitioner was charged by a two- count information with the crime of issuing worthless checks. She entered a plea of guilty to the charges and the County Courts in and for Hillsborough County withheld adjudication of guilt and imposed a fine of $35 on August 25, 1982. In the Fall of 1984, petitioner was a candidate for the Office of County Commission of Hillsborough County. During the campaign, a newspaper reporter contacted the petitioner in reference to a criminal charge involving worthless checks. Concerned about the election and the implications a criminal charge would have upon her political aspirations, petitioner telephoned Roger Rigau, an attorney and the son of deceased Abe Rigau, for advice. Roger Rigau recalls that petitioner telephoned his office between September and November of 1984. It was Mr. Rigau's impression that petitioner contacted him because she was concerned that information concerning her previous charges could be politically embarrassing, that she was under the impression that the record had been previously sealed by his father, Abe Rigau, and that she was confused as to how a reporter could have obtained information regarding the prior criminal record which had been sealed. At all times, it was the understanding of Roger Rigau that petitioner was referring to the case which his father had handled for her. He was not aware of any new charges beyond those which were the subject of the record sealed in 1980 or 1981. Roger Rigau expressed surprise to petitioner that a member of the press would be able to obtain information regarding a sealed record. His office file contained paper work indicating that petitioner's record had been sealed by Abe Rigau. Roger Rigau was concerned that something was incorrect, either as a result of his father's error or a court clerk's office error. He told petitioner that he would check into the matter, did so and learned that the case his father had handled had indeed been sealed in 1980 or 1981. He so advised petitioner and also advised her that when a record is sealed, she need not relate to anyone that she had been arrested for or convicted of a crime. Sometime after petitioner submitted her application for licensure as a mortgage solicitor in April of 1985, she again contacted Roger Rigau regarding sealed criminal charges. Roger Rigau again advised petitioner that when records are sealed or expunged, one may properly refuse to acknowledge or may deny the fact that one has been charged with or arrested for a crime. Roger Rigau is knowledgeable about the law concerning the sealing and/or expunction of criminal records. Had he understood that petitioner was, either in 1984 or 1985, ever inquiring about her 1982 charges or record, he would have advised her that it is legally impossible to have more than one criminal record sealed. As noted above, Roger Rigau never had any knowledge concerning the 1982 worthless check charges and his advice to petitioner was, at all times, with reference to her 1980 sealed record. Petitioner has a different recollection of her ., conversations with Roger Rigau. She remembers contacting Roger Rigau in 1984 around election time after a news reporter called her regarding some criminal charges. She states that she asked him if the 1982 charges and record could be expunged and that he replied that he would check into the matter. Sometime thereafter, she called his office and a secretary from his office, not identified or called as a witness in this proceeding, led petitioner to believe that the matter had been taken care of. In March of 1985, petitioner went to work for Cameron- Brown, Co. In April of 1985, she filled out an application to the Comptroller's Office for registration as a mortgage solicitor. The application form requires answers to 18 questions and the signature of the applicant in affirmation under penalty of perjury that the answers provided are true and correct. Question 5 of the application states: "Have you ever been arrested, or indicted for a crime?" Petitioner answered this question "NO." Petitioner recalls that, prior to submitting her application, she telephoned Roger Rigau or a secretary in his office, inquired as to how she should answer question 5 on the application and was advised that since her record had been sealed, she could fail to acknowledge or deny any charges which had been sealed. Petitioner recalls making the following statement to Roger Rigau: "My worthless check charges that your dad had expunged and that you had taken care of for me, can I legally put down there "no," or how can I answer that?" Roger Rigau does not specifically recall talking to petitioner prior to the time she submitted her application, but does recall talking to her either during the time of the respondent's investigation or after petitioner received notice of the respondent's intent to deny her application. In any event, he gave her the same advice he had given her in 1984 -- that she need not acknowledge and may deny a sealed criminal charge. Again, he was not aware that petitioner was involved in any criminal charges beyond that 0th which his father was involved in 1980 or 1981. After the submittal of the petitioner's application, respondent's financial examiner/analyst, Jana Synatschk. conducted a routine investigation, which included a review of Court files. It was discovered that petitioner was the subject of two criminal actions - one in 1980 and one in 1982. The 1980 file was sealed, but the 1982 file was open for review. Ms. Synatschk telephoned petitioner on May 30, 1985, told her she had found two cases against a Stephanie Grooms for worthless check writing and asked petitioner if she was aware of this. Petitioner responded that she had no knowledge of such charges, and Ms. Synatschk required petitioner to submit an affidavit to that effect. After reviewing the notarized affidavit stating "I, Stephanie Grooms, have no knowledge of a record on a check charge mentioned by Jana Synatschk," Ms. Synatschk determined that the social security numbers, driver's license numbers and birth dates of the person involved in the 1982 worthless check charges and the petitioner/applicant were identical. She thereupon turned the case over to her supervisor, Arthur M. James. Petitioner recalls speaking with Roger Rigau prior to submitting the affidavit to the respondent and again receiving the advice that she could properly deny a sealed criminal charge. Mr. Rigau does not recall speaking to the petitioner about the affidavit she was required to submit during the application process. He does recall that petitioner requested him to sign an affidavit after she received notice that her application had been denied. Supervisor Art James telephoned petitioner on June 20, 1985, and asked her specific questions relating to the 1982 criminal charges. After denying that she had written the bad checks, Mr. James told her that the signatures on the checks appeared to be similar to her signatures on the affidavit and on her application. He invited her to come to his office to discuss the matter. She responded that her attorney would get in touch with him. Mr. James waited three or four days and, when he did not hear from petitioner's attorney, the petitioner's file was forwarded to Tallahassee. On July 22 1985, the respondent denied petitioner's application for a mortgage solicitor's license based upon her lack of integrity, truthfulness and honesty as evidenced by her false statement in response to Question 5 on the application. On or about the time of the respondent's denial order, but prior to petitioner's knowledge of the denial, petitioner telephoned the respondent's Tallahassee office to inquire about the status of her application. Joseph Ehrlich, the Assistant Director for the respondent's Division of Finance, informed petitioner that her application was being investigated and asked her about her arrest record. Petitioner denied any such record. It was not until after the respondent's order of denial dated July 22, 1985, that she explained to respondent's personnel that she denied the 1982 worthless check charges because she thought that case had been sealed or expunged and that she accordingly had a legal right to deny all charges in connection with that case.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Stephanie D. Grooms for licensure as a mortgage solicitor be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dick Greco, Jr., Esquire Molloy, James & Greco, P.A. Suite 910 501 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Wendy M. Mitchler, Esquire Greg Cummings, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted, below. Petitioner 2 - 3. Rejected to the extent that it implies that petitioner informed Mr. Rigau that she was referring to the 1982 charges. 3. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 10. . First sentence rejected as to the time petitioner consulted with Mr. Rigau or his office not supported by competent substantial evidence. 15. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 17. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Respondent 13. Rejected, not relevant or dispositive of any issue in this proceeding. 15. Last sentence rejected, not relevant or dispositive of any issue in this proceeding.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s employment should be suspended and terminated for the reasons set forth in the Amended Petition for Involuntary Resignation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began her employment with Petitioner as a substitute teacher in November of 1997, and was later hired as a regular teacher in January of 2000. Respondent held a temporary teaching certificate which expired after the time period at issue in this case. Respondent was first assigned to teach at Santaluces High School and was later assigned to Bear Lakes Middle School, where she taught geography. On April 12, 2002, Respondent was injured in the line of duty while attempting to assist another teacher control unruly students. In that incident Respondent fell and injured both her back and her knee. Respondent was authorized by Petitioner’s workers’ compensation administrators to treat with both Dr. Wexler and Dr. Lichtblau for her injuries.1 Following the accident on April 12, 2002, Respondent continued to work at Bear Lakes Middle School until on or about November 11, 2002, when she was placed on a light duty assignment at another location. Respondent had been placed on light duty by Dr. Wexler because he felt it was medically necessary. Thereafter, Respondent was given several light-duty assignments to accommodate her physician-imposed work restrictions, including assignments to Conniston Middle School, Risk Management, JFK Middle School, Gold Coast Community, and the District’s substitute office. Respondent was placed on light-duty assignments by the Palm Beach County School Board (School Board) for a total of more than ten months. The light-duty assignments provided by the School Board are temporary assignments that are made available in lieu of workers’ compensation payments to employees who are able to perform light duty. They are not offered for an indefinite period of time, nor are they offered as a permanent employment option. Following some confused communications about Respondent’s certification status and some further confused communications as to whether Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement and could return to a seven-and-a-half hour per day classroom teacher position, Respondent was offered a job teaching full-time (seven-and-a-half hours per day) at Jeaga Middle School. Respondent was supposed to begin teaching at Jeaga Middle School in September of 2003. On September 10, 2003, Dr. Wexler, one of Respondent’s treating physicians wrote that he agreed with another physician’s assessment that Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement and could work eight hours per day with certain restrictions that could be accommodated in a classroom teaching setting. Later that month, Dr. Wexler explained that there had been some confusion on September 10, 2003, and that he was of the view that Respondent had not yet reached maximum medical improvement and that Respondent’s work hours should be restricted to four hours per day. Respondent declined the offer of the full-time teaching position at Jeaga Middle School and requested that the School Board offer further light-duty work assignments of no more than four hours per day. The School Board promptly informed Respondent that she would not be offered any further light-duty assignments and that if she was not going to accept the full- time position at Jeaga Middle School, she should apply for leave without pay in order to avoid being terminated by the School Board. At an earlier time following her April 12, 2002, injury, Respondent was on leave without pay for a period of time. During that period she received workers’ compensation benefits in lieu of wages or salary. During that period of time Respondent was dissatisfied with the workers’ compensation benefits she received. Because of that prior negative experience, Respondent did not want to again request leave without pay, which would require her to rely on workers’ compensation benefits until she reached maximum medical improvement. Respondent did not accept the full-time position at Jeaga Middle School and did not apply for leave without pay. Respondent did not apply for any other regular employment opportunities with the School Board. Respondent did continue to request assignment to a light-duty position for four hours per day. The School Board advised Respondent on several occasions that she would not be assigned to any further light-duty positions and that it would be in her own best interest to apply for leave without pay to avoid termination from the School Board. As a teacher employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the CTA (CTA Contract). The subject of unpaid leaves is addressed at page 55 of the CTA Contract, which includes the following language: SECTION C - UNPAID LEAVES: GENERAL PROVISIONS All absences of employees from duty shall be covered by leave applications which are duly authorized, a copy of which shall be provided employees upon request. Except for short-term leaves of absence, and intermittent political leave, unpaid leaves shall be timed such that the employee returns at the beginning of a new grading period. Except for extenuating circumstances, Sick Leave without Pay for Personal Illness or Illness/death of a Family Member, for more than ten (10) days, also shall be timed so that the employee returns at the beginning of a grading period. An employee taking an approved unpaid leave shall retain the same contractual and salary credit status as he/she had upon taking such leave and shall be returned to the same school, and within certification, to the same assignment he/she held prior to taking the leave, if said leave is for a duration of twelve (12) months or less. However, an employee while on an unpaid leave shall be subject to the Excessing Procedure and the Lay-Off/Call-Back Procedure of this Agreement the same as if they were not on leave. If these procedures become operative and affect the employee on leave, he/she may not be returned to the same position he/she held prior to taking leave. Likewise, employees while on an unpaid leave maintain their rights to apply for transfers and/or reassignments as provided by this Agreement. * * * SECTION D - UNPAID LEAVES: SPECIFIC PROVISIONS Short Term Leave of Absence - Any employee desiring short term leave of absence shall make written application for such leave to the Principal or immediate supervisor. Except in emergency situation, such applications shall be approved in advance. Leave for emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance, if prompt report is made to the proper authority. The first five (5) requested days of short term leave, whether covered by one (1) or more than one (1) request, will be approved. Requests for short term leave thereafter, regardless of length, will be granted or denied by the District in its discretion. Applications for more than five (5) working days will require that a reason be given and shall be subject to approval by the Superintendent. Employees shall not be gainfully employed during normal working hours while on such leave. Long Term Leave of Absence - A long term leave of absence is permission granted by the Board, at the District’s discretion, for an employee to be absent from his/her duties for specified periods of time with the right of returning to duty on expiration of the leave. Leave shall be officially granted in advance by the District and shall be used for the purpose set forth in the leave application. Such long-term unpaid leave, when granted, will be for the remainder of the school year, unless otherwise approved with the initial leave request. In addition, up to one (1) additional year of leave shall be granted upon receipt of a written request from the employee, unless the employee has not been reappointed in keeping with other provisions of the Agreement for the next school year. Such extension of long-term leave shall be timed such that the employee returns at the beginning of a new grading period. Once an employee has exhausted the leave privileges under this subsection (Long-term Leaves), the employee shall be required to return to duty for a full year before being eligible for another long-term unpaid leave. As a School Board employee, Respondent is subject to applicable School Board rules and regulations, including School Board Policy 3.80 and School Board Directive 3.27. School Board Policy 3.80 addresses unpaid leaves when an employee’s sickness has extended beyond all compensable leave. School Board Directive 3.27 addresses the general topic of separation from employment. Under the caption “Suspension/Termination” the directive provides: 3. The Principal/Department Head may recommend to the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations disciplinary action against an employee if the employee commits one or more of the following offenses, including but not limited to: * * * b. Willful absence from duty without leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes (now § 1012.67, Fla. Stat.). * * * e. Incompetent to perform regular work duties. Incompetency is defined as incapacity to perform due to lack of emotional stability or physical ability; or lack of adequate command of the designated area of work. Employees are also incompetent when they repeatedly fail to perform duties prescribed by law and by this district. [2] Respondent was personally advised on numerous occasions that if she did not apply for a leave of absence, she would be absent without approved leave and would be subject to termination. Respondent was absent without authorization.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 20th day of April, 2005.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner's suspension of Respondent on March 6, 1979, 1/ from his employment duties without pay based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence introduced, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein the following relevant facts are found. Otha Reddick, Respondent, was employed by the Leon County School Board, Petitioner, as a Systems Analyst during November of 1974, a position he held until his suspension on March 6. His rate of pay at the time of his suspension was $1,326.00 per month. On April 11, Petitioner's superintendent, Dr. N.E. (Ed) Fenn, filed a Notice of Charges against Respondent. At its meeting of April 17, the School Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Charges alleged in pertinent part that: Respondent, Otha Reddick, was absent from work for the period February 15 through March 2, during which period he willfully neglected his duties at the Data Processing Center. On or about March 1, Respondent committed misconduct in office in that he represented to his supervisor, Ott Carraway, that because of medical reasons he was unable to return to work when, in fact, he was operating a private business, Top Bookkeeping Services, during regular school work hours. The Respondent, Otha R. Reddick, is guilty of willful neglect of duties and misconduct in office in that he operated a private business, Top Bookkeeping Services, during regular school work hours. Based on these charges, the Petitioner seeks to convert its suspension of Respondent into a permanent termination of his employment. Respondent's duties as a Systems Analyst with Petitioner included supervising programmers in the Data Processing Center. His work hours consisted of a normal eight hour day. In addition to his employment by Petitioner, Respondent owned two businesses: Top Bookkeeping Services, a business engaged primarily in the preparation of tax returns and related bookkeeping functions; and Twin Oaks Production, a company involved in the promotion of bands and live burials. Respondent's operation of and duties connected with his ownership of Top Bookkeeping Services occurred after his regular hours of employment by Petitioner. Respondent used what is commonly referred to as seasonal or casual employees on an as needed basis for the operation of Top Bookkeeping Services. According to Respondent, the bookkeeping service has been operating at a loss since its inception. Respondent utilizes a similar employment arrangement in his operation of Twin Oaks Productions. On the morning of February 13, Respondent, while at work, became visibly upset when he was advised by his supervisor, Ott Carraway, that the payroll function of the Data Processing Center would be contracted out to a private agency. Respondent disagreed with this decision and made known his disagreement, since in his opinion, the Data Processing Systems Division was capable of and had in fact been properly carrying out the payroll functions for the School Board. Before leaving for his lunch break on February 13, Respondent Reddick inquired of the production control and leave clerk, Janet Guthrie, the amount of accrued sick and annual leave he had. During his lunch break, Respondent went home, took two Valium pills (one more than his prescribed dosage), laid across his bed and went to sleep. Before doing so, Respondent summoned to his apartment for medical assistance Theresa Fountain, his secretarial assistant at Top Bookkeeping Services. Then Ms. Fountain arrived at Respondent's apartment, she noticed that he was visibly upset, was red in the face, appeared stressed and his speech was slurred. Ms. Fountain, a former hospital employee assigned to a psychiatric ward, related that Respondent exhibited symptoms of a person suffering a nervous breakdown (TR. 208-210). After a few minutes, Ms. Fountain was able to get Respondent calm and they discussed the problem relating to the letting of the payroll function to a private entity. She suggested that the Respondent get some rest. Ms. Fountain was aware of Respondent's ulcer disease and stomach problems and phoned Respondent's daughter-in-law in Bonifay. Ms. Fountain asked Respondent's sons to come to Tallahassee (from Bonifay) to get medical attention for their father. Ms. Fountain phoned Respondent's supervisor, Ott Carraway, and informed him that in view of Respondent's nervous condition, she was of the opinion that he needed medical attention and, therefore, would be unable to return to work. Respondent's sons, Douglas and Ronald Elvin Reddick, drove to Tallahassee the evening of February 13 to pick up their father. Respondent's sons drove to Tallahassee in a van which has a sofa bed in the rear that Respondent used to lie down on for the trip to Bonifay. Upon arrival at Respondent's apartment, his sons assisted him out of the bed to the van. Respondent slept most of the entire trip from Tallahassee to Bonifay. Respondent spent the following day, February 14, lounging around his house in Bonifay, where he remained until approximately 10:00 p.m. the following day. He then drove to the Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas, area accompanied by Country Bill White, the person used in the live burials. While in the Dalla-Ft. Worth area, Respondent spent the next two evenings enlisting support in the form of pledges from local tavern owners and selling magazine subscriptions and newspaper ads to finance the live burial act. During the next few days, Respondent drove to Houston, Texas, to visit his brother. He remained in Houston two days and returned to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. The live burial which was then scheduled to take place in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area was postponed due to inclement weather. In this regard, the evidence revealed, and Respondent admitted, that he had planted to request leave to attend the live burial act in Texas on the scheduled dates of February 22 and 23, 1979. Respondent credibly testified that he had no planned (active) role in the scheduling of the live burial act. (Testimony of Respondent and his sons, Douglas and Elvin Reddick. TR. 172-176.) When the live burial act took place, Respondent was not present in Texas. On Sunday, February 25, Respondent drove to New Orleans where he briefly frequented several bars. He later drove to Bonifay, where he arrived at his home at approximately 9:00 p.m. He remained in Bonifay until the following morning, when he returned to Tallahassee. On Monday, February 27, Respondent phoned his supervisor, Cecil "Ott" Carraway, to inquire if he could pick up his paycheck. A lengthy telephone conversation ensued between Respondent and Supervisor Carraway during which conversation Respondent was advised by Carraway that in view of his protracted absence, he (Carraway) would be requiring Respondent to secure a doctor's excuse to substantiate his illness before his paycheck would be released. Chapter 6 GX 37-2, Rule 2.14(7), Florida Administrative Code, Leon County Rules and Regulations. Respondent explained to supervisor Carraway that it was necessary for Respondent to receive his paycheck inasmuch as he had requested and was granted leave by Centel, through the close of business on February 27, to pay his telephone bill or his service would be interrupted. Supervisor Carraway stood fast on his insistence that a doctor's excuse be submitted before releasing Respondent's paycheck. it was not until the following day, February 28, that Respondent was able to obtain a doctor's excuse from his regular physician, Dr. Norbert J. Wegmann, of Chipley, Florida. Respondent's residence phone service was interrupted by Centel on February 27 and was not restored until March 3. During the period when Respondent's phone service was interrupted, he used his office phone at Top Bookkeeping Services. During the conversation between Respondent and Supervisor Carraway on February 28, Respondent requested an additional two days leave. There is a dispute with regard to the type of leave Respondent requested and supervisor Carraway granted February 28. Respondent's version is that he simply requested time off, whereas supervisor Carraway's version is that he explained to Respondent that he had exhausted his sick leave and, therefore, it was necessary for him to use one day of annual leave which he had recently been credited with as of March 1. On February 27, Respondent spent most of the day lounging around his apartment. The next day Respondent went to his office at Top Bookkeeping Services (located at Park Twenty West) to have access to a phone and to begin work on his personal income tax return. On March 1, Respondent, while on what he considered to be annual leave status, prepared an income tax return for Mr. and Mrs. Ward, employees of Petitioner's key punch operations. The return was completed approximately 8:00 p.m. On the afternoon of March 1, Respondent received a telephone call from Charles Johnson and Linda Jordan, employees and agents of Petitioner, who scheduled an appointment to get their tax returns prepared at Top Bookkeeping Services during the afternoon of March 2. Employees Jordan and Johnson used the fictitious name of "Susie Jones" to secure the appointment. On March 2 Linda Jordan, Director of Personnel, and Charles Johnson, the then Director of Employee Relations, for the Leon School District, visited the offices of Top Bookkeeping Services at the agreed upon time. Another employee of Respondent's at Top Bookkeeping Services had been assigned to prepare the tax returns for "Susie Jones", who later turned out to be Petitioner's employees, Jordan and Johnson. The most that can be said about Respondent's presence at Top Bookkeeping Services is that he was in fact present. There were no customers at Top Bookkeeping Services at the time, nor did attorney Johnson, who testified, indicate that the Respondent even appeared to have been preparing tax returns when he and Director Jordan visited the Top Bookkeeping Services office (TR. 117). Attorney Johnson did not see what Respondent was in fact doing other than the fact that he was simply present. Attorney Johnson explained to Respondent that he thought that his job might well be in jeopardy by his presence at Top Bookkeeping Services while he was on leave. Attorney Johnson suggested that Respondent talk to Dr. Fenn about his presence at Top Bookkeeping Services. Respondent, being concerned about his job security expressed reluctance to visit the Superintendent with attorney Johnson and the Personnel Director present without the advice and assistance of his attorney. Respondent, attorney Johnson and Personnel Director Jordan could not come to an acceptable procedure to counsel with Dr. Fenn and Respondent remained at Top Bookkeeping Services. Attorney Johnson discussed the matter with Dr. Fenn and they jointly decided that Respondent should be suspended inasmuch as there was a "breach in Respondent's obligation to the School Board since he was working on other duties during school hours." Respondent was not given a copy of the Notice of Charges prior to the March 6 School Board hearing. The Board suspended Respondent at its March 6 meeting, which suspension remains effective. Norbert Wegmann, M.D., is a General Practitioner in Chipley, Florida, and was received as an expert in medicine for this proceeding. Dr. Wegmann has been treating Respondent for anxiety, tension, fatigue and irritability since approximately 1968. During this period, Respondent has undergone family and marital stresses and Dr. Wegmann has prescribed tranquilizers and analgesics for his (Respondent's) ulcer and stomach disorders. Dr. Wegmann suggested that Respondent work at a slow pace; take time off and generally do things which permit him to put his mind at ease and to remain in a relaxed condition at the onset of anxiety and stress (TR. 149). Dr. Wegmann considered that Respondent's taking time off from work would have been consistent with his prescribed treatment for Respondent. Although Dr. Wegmann last examined Respondent physically (during times material) approximately November of 1977, he sent Petitioner a written excuse to substantiate his authorization of Respondent's absence during the period involved herein based on his knowledge of Respondent's medical condition. (Testimony of Dr. Wegmann, TR 142, 143.) Janet Guthrie, Petitioner's production control clerk, is in charge of maintaining leave records and answering incoming phone calls. Ms. Guthrie reviewed Respondent's leave record before lunch on the morning of February 13, 1979, and advised Respondent that he had approximately ten (10) days of sick leave accrued at that time. At the beginning of March, 1979, Respondent earned an additional day of vacation and sick leave. Employees are permitted to call in to request sick leave. (Testimony of Janet Guthrie and Supervisor Carraway.) Dr. Ed Fenn, Petitioner's Superintendent of Schools, is the administrator and manager of the Leon County School District. He became familiar with Respondent based on conversations with supervisor Ott Carraway, to the effect that Respondent was taking sick leave to take care of his private bookkeeping services. Dr. Fenn considered that Respondent was absent without leave based on information gathered through Ott Carraway and the visits by attorney Johnson and Personnel Director Linda Jordan's visit to Respondent's bookkeeping service. Supervisor Carraway recommended that Respondent be suspended effective Monday with pay until a recommendation could be made to the School Board for a suspension without pay. Attorney Johnson delivered the suspension letter to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Dr. Fenn acknowledged that Petitioner has no rule which prevents its employees from conducting personal business during non-working hours. Nor is there a rule which prevents employees from doing personal work during their vacation time. Dr. Fenn also made clear that the Board does not concern itself with the activities of its employees while they are on vacation leave. 2/ He also pointed out that when an employee exhausts all accrued sick leave, the leave category is switched to either vacation leave or leave without pay. In this regard, Respondent was not paid for leave taken on March 2, 1979. (Testimony of Dr. Fenn and Supervisor Ott Carraway.) Ott Carraway, Petitioner's Data Processing Director, is in charge of operating the computer center and supervising employees of the computer center. Carraway has known Respondent professionally approximately eight years and recommended that he be hired. Supervisor Carraway, in explaining Petitioner's leave procedures, related that leave requests must be approved in advance, with the exception of sick leave. On February 13 at approximately noon, Theresa Fountain phoned supervisor Carraway and explained that Respondent was suffering from a nervous condition and, therefore, needed time off. This was, of course, the date that supervisor Carraway advised Respondent that the payroll function of the computer center was being transferred to an outside agency. Supervisor Carraway considered the request by Ms. Fountain to be a request from Respondent for sick leave, and the request was granted. According to Carraway, when Respondent, much like other employees, are absent, their work loads are distributed among other employees. Supervisor Carraway received confirmation of Respondent's illness from Dr. Wegmann on March 1, at which time his check was released. Supervisor Carraway considered Respondent's leave request for two additional days on February 28 to be a request for sick leave based on Respondent's discussion of his nervous condition. Respondent, in the usual situation, would have been placed on annual leave when his sick leave was exhausted. Supervisor Carraway surmised that Respondent was abusing his sick leave when he heard that Respondent had filed tax returns for two employees who worked in the Data Processing Center during the evening of March l. At supervisor Carraway's instigation employees Charles Johnson and Linda Jordan made an appointment through a fictitious name to get their tax returns prepared at Top Bookkeeping Services during the afternoon of March 2. After the visit by employees Johnson and Jordan to Respondent's offices at Top Bookkeeping Services, supervisor Carraway was made aware of Respondent's presence at the offices at Top Bookkeeping Services and recommended that he be suspended for misuse of sick leave. This recommendation was acted upon by Superintendent Fenn, which resulted in formal action by the School Board on March 6, 1979. Prior to this incident, supervisor Carraway has never requested employees to bring in a medical excuse to document their sick leave. Supervisor Carraway knew of no rule or regulation promulgated by Petitioner which required that an employee on sick leave be confined to bed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Leon County School Board reinstate Respondent, Otha Reddick, to his former position as Systems Analyst (or a substantially equivalent position) effective March 2, 1979. That the Respondent be made whole for all losses of earnings he suffered as a result of the suspension less interim earnings, plus interest at the rate of eight (8 percent) percent per annum. 5/ That Respondent's leave records be credited with the appropriate amounts reflective of the leave and other employee benefits he would have earned but for his suspension of March 2, 1979. That Respondent's personnel folder be expunged of all records relative to the suspension. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Michael J. Rodgers abandoned his position and resigned from the career service within the contemplation of Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact V. G. "Jerry" Collins, a DOT maintenance engineer for 14 years, was Michael Rodgers' supervisor in June of 1987, when DOT employed the latter as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard. While recovering from a job-related injury, Mr. Rodgers had been assigned to pump gas there. After Mr. Rodgers began work for DOT, he was furnished a copy of DOT's employee handbook. DOT's Exhibit No. 6. On page 12, the handbook states: If, for any reason, you are going to be late or absent when prior approval has not been obtained, you must notify your immediate supervisor within one hour of your regular authorized starting time. This will allow the Department to effectively schedule your work assignments on a daily basis. When you call in, you should give the reason(s) for your absence, type of leave requested and date and time you expect to report back to work. If you are unable to report back to work on the date and time given contact your supervisor, again, to explain why and request an extension of leave as needed. If you fail to contact your supervisor or other authorized person, within the first hour of absence, you will be placed on unauthorized leave of absence without pay for the entire period of time absent from work. If there were extenuating circumstances to keep you from making such contact, this will be taken into consideration at a later time. If you do not indicate on the first day of absence that you will be absent more than one day, then call in on each successive day to report your absence. Failure to provide such notice will result in your being charged unauthorized leave without pay for all days absent where proper notification is not given. DOT's Exhibit No. 4. On page 43, the handbook discusses the abandonment rule: JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. DOT's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Rodgers signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook on December 16, 1983. DOT's Exhibit No. 5. At about four on the afternoon of Monday, June 22, 1987, Mr. Collins asked Mr. Rodgers when his next doctor's appointment was. Mr. Rodgers replied, "I need to see him tomorrow." (T. 35) He did not "state that it would be for illness" (T. 53) or specify the reason for the visit. (T. 74) Believing Mr. Rodgers had an appointment to see his doctor the following day, Mr. Collins said, "That's fine, when you come back to work bring a doctor's certificate." (T. 17) But the leave Mr. Collins authorized Mr. Rodgers to take was "not a leave of absence for illness." (T. 53) On Tuesday, June 23, 1987, A DOT employee marked Mr. Rodgers absent for the day on "authorized leave" (T. 18) without pay. Mr. Rodgers, who lives about 60 miles from Perry, travelled to Dr. Hauser's office in Old Town on Tuesday morning "to sit down and talk with him about some information [he] needed," (T. 36-37) concerning an automobile accident's forensic sequelae. He was told to return later that day, because the doctor could not see him immediately. Although he returned at noon, and on four different occasions that afternoon, the doctor gave other patients priority. Mr. Rodgers then telephoned DOT's Perry yard, and "gave the secretary . . . the message that [he] was unable to see the doctor and . . . would still need to be off . . . to attempt to see him again on Wednesday the 24th." (T. 24, 38) When Mr. Collins learned of Mr. Rodgers' conversation with the secretary, he asked William S. Clark to telephone Dr. Hauser's office, at the Tri-County Medical Center. Betty in Dr. Hauser's office told Mr. Clark that, although Mr. Rodgers had in fact visited the office, he had no appointment. On Wednesday morning, DOT's attendance records were marked to reflect that Mr. Rodgers was absent on authorized leave without pay, although Mr. Collins testified that leave never was authorized for that day. (T. 19, 80) Later Wednesday, Mr. Collins, under the impression that Mr. Rodgers "had lied about going to the doctor for a doctor's appointment," (T. 82) ordered that the attendance records for Tuesday and Wednesday be altered to show that Mr. Rodgers' leave was not authorized on those days. (T. 19, 80, 82) On the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th, Mr. Rodgers, who had inquired at the office about Dr. Hauser's availability on two occasions earlier in the day, saw Dr. Hauser, discussed effects of the automobile accident, and made an appointment for the following day to have his back examined. (T. 38) On Thursday, the 25th, he kept the appointment, and obtained a slip of paper attesting the fact. But, in Mr. Collins' view, Mr. Rodgers' employment had ended before he saw the doctor that day: "He was considered to have abandoned his position by 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning since he had not called in [after Tuesday afternoon.]" (T. 79) When Mr. Rodgers returned to work on Friday, June 26, 1987, Mr. Collins read, then returned, the note from the doctor, informed Mr. Rodgers of the changes in the attendance records, and advised him that his employment had terminated.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT reinstate Michael J. Rodgers as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard, with back pay since June 26, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aaron A. Green, Esquire P. O. Box 1265 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Basil Glinton (Glinton), was employed full time by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) as a Public Assistance Specialist II. On September 14, 1984, as a result of a transfer, Glinton was scheduled to start work at the Department's Food Stamp Office, Unit 61, in Miami, Florida. At 9:15 a.m., September 14, 1984, a Friday, Glinton reported to Unit He requested and received his paycheck, and advised the acting supervisor that he had a doctor's appointment which would require his absence from the office for about one hour. Glinton did not return to the office that day. On Monday, September 17, 1984, Glinton reported to Unit 61 and worked from 8:12 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On that date, the office supervisor, Raquel Tima, met with Glinton and spoke with him about his absence of September 14, 1984. Ms. Lima advised Glinton that she needed a doctor's statement to authorize that absence. No doctor's statement has been produced. Glinton failed to report for work the remainder of that workweek-- September 18-21, 1984. On September 21, 1984, Ms. Lima sent a warning letter, certified mail, to Glinton. The postal claim check reflects that Glinton was notified of the letter on September 24, 1984, September 29, 1984, and October 9, 1984, but failed to claim it. Glinton likewise failed to report for work the following week-- September 24-28, 1984. He did, however, appear at the office on Friday, September 28, 1984, to request his paycheck. On October 1, 1984, Glinton was personally delivered a letter dated September 28, 1984, which advised him that his absence from work since September 18, 1984 was unauthorized and that, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2), F.A.C., he was deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. The letter further advised Glinton of his right to petition the Department of administration for a review of the facts and whether they constitute abandonment. By letter dated October 4, 1984, Glinton timely petitioned the Department of Administration for review. In his letter, and at final hearing, Glinton claimed he was ill and under a doctor's care for the period of September 18-28, 1984, and that he had routinely called, or had someone else call, the office to advise them of his illness. While professing "illness" for a two-week period, Glinton failed to offer any evidence of the nature of his illness. He further failed to offer the testimony of his physician, or any other evidence supportive of his claim. While Glinton acknowledges familiarity with the Department's rule which requires that the supervisor be notified of absence due to illness, he made no attempt to contact his supervisor. The only time the office was notified of his absence was on September 19, 1984 when an unknown female telephoned and advised the switchboard operator, without explanation, that Glinton would not be coming to work on that date. Glinton's testimony that his absence from work during the period of September 18-28, 1984 was due to illness, and that he telephoned the office every day during his absence, is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order that: Petitioner, Basil Glinton, abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective October 1, 1984. Dismisses the petition of Basil Glinton with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 8th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite 1070, 410 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Robert L. McKinney, Esquire Suite 1107 Jackson Medical Tower 1500 N.W. 12th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was overpaid in the amount of $809.46; and, if so, whether she should be required to repay that amount to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Petitioner was a career service employee of Respondent until her separation in October 2018. Petitioner went into labor unexpectedly in December 2017, and as a result, she began maternity leave. Petitioner was not present at work and did not submit a timesheet for the timeframe of December 29, 2017, through July 2, 2018. Petitioner testified that she was unable to submit her timesheets electronically and for this reason, someone else submitted them on her behalf. The evidence presented at hearing did not show who submitted her timesheets. By May 23, 2018, Petitioner had exhausted all of her annual, sick, and donated leave. Once an employee of Respondent no longer has sick leave remaining, annual leave is used to cover any shortages of sick leave. An employee may use donated leave to cover any shortages. Once an employee has exhausted annual, sick, and donated leave, the employee cannot be paid for additional time taken as leave. The additional time during leave is considered “leave without pay” (“LWOP”). Petitioner was placed on LWOP from March 23, 2018, through July 2, 2018, because she had exhausted all of her leave. Although Petitioner was on LWOP during the pay period of May 4, 2018, through May 17, 2018, a pay warrant for 80 hours of work was inadvertently issued on May 25, 2018, for that pay period. Consequently, Petitioner was overpaid $809.46. Petitioner was not responsible for the overpayment. She did not submit her timesheets and, thus, did not falsify them. Petitioner testified that her supervisor verbally advised her that she had received donated leave, but she could not recall the amount. Petitioner also did not offer any written representation from her supervisor or otherwise regarding her leave. The overpayment resulted because Petitioner's timesheet for LWOP for the pay period of May 4, 2018, through May 17, 2018, was not timely approved. Upon discovery of this error, Respondent’s human resources office conducted a manual audit of Petitioner’s leave. Ms. Anderson completed the leave audit and discovered that Petitioner had been overpaid for the May 4, 2018, through May 17, 2018, pay period. On May 30, 2018, the Department sent Petitioner a certified letter requesting the overpaid amount of $809.46. Petitioner became aware of the error when she received the Department’s letter. Petitioner’s pay was transmitted to her bank account electronically via direct deposit. However, she was not monitoring her bank account closely and did not immediately realize that she had been erroneously overpaid. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner had not paid the overpayment. Petitioner stated she could only pay $40 per month to repay the overpayment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final Order requiring Shanace Isaac to repay Respondent $809.46. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 7th day of March, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Shanace Isaac Post Office Box 101 Hastings, Florida 32145 (eServed) Riley Michelle Landy, Esquire Department of Health Bin A-02 5052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Shannon Revels, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a clerical worker, a permanent career service position, at all times material hereto. Prior to October 3, 1988, Petitioner experienced back problems which prevented her attendance at work. Dr. Brian M. Mitteldorf, a chiropractic physician, treated Petitioner beginning September 25, 1988, and continuing through all times material hereto. On October 3, 1988, Theresa (Terry) Bartelmo, Petitioner's supervisor, advised Petitioner in writing that Petitioner would be out of sick leave and annual leave the following day. Mrs. Bartelmo enclosed two copies of the form used to request a leave of absence and advised Petitioner that it was necessary to fill in all blanks and to return the form to her by no later than October 10, 1988. Respondent does not authorize any type of leave for unspecified or unlimited duration. Ms. Bartelmo further advised Petitioner that "... If I do not hear from you by that date, (October 10,1988) then I will assume you wish to terminate your employment with the Department and will process the necessary documentation." On October 3, 1988, Petitioner's husband, Edmund DeSilva, met with Ms. Bartelmo. During the meeting, Ms. Bartelmo gave to Mr. DeSilva the letter she had written to Mrs. DeSilva, together with the forms for the leave of absence. The form for leave of absence was signed by Petitioner on October 3, 1988. Mr. DeSilva hand delivered the form to Ms. Bartelmo prior to the deadline of October 10 set by Ms. Bartelmo. This form was forwarded by Ms. Bartelmo to Martha (Marty) Anderson, Respondent's district personnel manager. Ms. Bartelmo recommended that the leave of absence be granted. Ms. Anderson approved the leave of absence on October 13, 1988. The leave of absence form submitted by Petitioner and approved by Respondent contained a tentative return-to-work date of November 23, 1988. On October 3, 1988, the date Petitioner signed the leave of absence form, it was uncertain when Petitioner would be able to return to work because of her medical condition. On or about October 18, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo telephoned Petitioner to check on her progress. After Petitioner told Ms. Bartelmo that she did not feel well enough to talk, Ms. Bartelmo asked Petitioner to call her when Petitioner felt better. Ms. Bartelmo did not talk with Petitioner again until after Petitioner's employment was terminated. Dr. Mitteldorf called Ms. Bartelmo on November 22, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m. Dr. Mitteldorf told Ms. Bartelmo during that telephone conversation that Petitioner was too ill to return to work. Ms. Bartelmo asked Dr. Mitteldorf for a letter stating his opinion as to when Petitioner could return to work. Dr. Mitteldorf's letter was dated December 13, 1988. During their telephone conversation on November 22, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo did not tell or indicate to Dr. Mitteldorf that their conversation was tantamount to an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Dr. Mitteldorf that she was mailing to him the forms Petitioner needed to submit to request an extension of her leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo can recommend approval of a request for leave of absence, but she does not have the authority to grant the approval. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Petitioner or anyone acting on Petitioner's behalf, that Petitioner had any form of authorized leave after November 22, 1988. Other than having Dr. Mitteldorf call Ms. Bartelmo, Petitioner made no effort to have her leave of absence extended. Petitioner's authorized leave of absence ended on November 22, 1988. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave of absence beginning November 23, 1988, and continuing for more than 3 consecutive work days. By certified mailing on December 2, 1988, Petitioner was advised that her career service position was terminated as of December 1, 1988. Petitioner had been given a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook on December 16, 1986, which provides in part: After an unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policies. Petitioner's request for a formal hearing was timely filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order concluding that Petitioner has abandoned her position with Respondent in the career service due to her unauthorized absence from employment for three consecutive workdays beginning November 23, 1988. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are unsupported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Colomba DeSilva 2019 Southwest 29th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
