The Issue The issue in this case involves a consideration of whether the Petitioner has abandoned his job position with the Respondent as described in Rule 22A- 7.010, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact In the relevant time period which is associated with this case, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Revenue as an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville, Florida, office of the Northeast Region, Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax. He worked with the Respondent agency beginning April 1980 until his dismissal from the agency on December 17, 1986, based upon the theory that he had allegedly abandoned his job within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. During his employment Petitioner operated out of his home, which was in Palm Coast, Florida. Douglas Drozd, an employee of the Respondent agency, was sent to the Jacksonville office of the Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax to serve as a temporary Appraiser Supervisor for that office. This assignment occurred on October 6, 1986. On October 21, 1986, Albert Johnson, the former Appraiser Supervisor with the Jacksonville office, left that position. Following the departure of Johnson, Drozd became the permanent Appraiser Supervisor for the Jacksonville office. From October 6, 1986, through November 18, 1986, Drozd acted in the capacity as the immediate supervisor of the Petitioner. Beyond that date, Robert Worley, an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville office, took over the position of Appraiser Supervisor in the subject regional office. Worley served in the capacity of supervisor from November 19, 1986, until December 22, 1986, when he returned to his duties as Appraiser II. While Worley was serving as Appraiser Supervisor, Drozd took over the function of Property Appraiser, Duval County, Florida. On December 22, 1986, Drozd returned to his duties as Appraiser Supervisor for Respondent's Jacksonville office. On November 17, 1986, Petitioner asked the permission of his supervisor, Drozd, to take annual leave for days in December 1986. This request was not made in writing and was not responded to in writing. Although Rule 22A- 8.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, contemplates that leave shall be requested in writing, it gas the custom and practice of the Respondent agency for oral requests for annual leave to be made and approved orally. At the time of the conversation on November 17, 1986, between the Petitioner and Drozd concerning the request for annual leave, Drozd initially granted that request without any reservations or contingencies being applied to the permission given. Subsequently, on that same day, Drozd told Richards that he expected that all "field work" assigned to the Petitioner should be completed before leave was taken. This arrangement included work being done on vacant parcels of property as well as improved parcels. More particularly, "field work" includes: Completion of neighborhood analysis form Dr-549 Completion of structural elements form Dr-551 Measurements of all improvements Notes pertaining to subject property (condition of property, any unusual circumstances) Sketching and traversing (perimeter measurements for calculating square footage) Pictures Completion of factual change of physical characteristics forms. Worley was unaware on November 17, 1986, of the arrangement between Drozd and the Petitioner concerning conditions placed upon the permission for the Petitioner to take leave as set forth by Drozd. Petitioner's work assignment involved 180 parcels. Effective December 12, 1986, 27 parcels had "field work" which was incomplete, according to his flow chart of that date. Effective that date, Petitioner had turned in field folders for 88 of the 180 parcels. He kept 92 field folders for the remaining parcels. Thus, his supervisor was unable to verify whether Petitioner had completed his "field work" as summarized in his flow chart submitted on December 12, 1986. According to Petitioner's account set forth in his flow chart of December 12, 1986, which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit R submitted by the Respondent and admitted into evidence, the 27 parcels pertained to vacant land. Petitioner further conceded that other minor problems existed concerning the completeness of the "field work" pertaining to the improved parcels reported in his flow chart. Prior to Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office on December 12, 1986, Worley, who was then serving as the Appraiser Supervisor, did not have a detailed knowledge of the flow chart submitted by the Petitioner on that date. Worley had reviewed some of the Petitioner's files and noted shortcomings in the work; however, on balance, Worley took no issue with Petitioner's work progress. Worley acquiesced in the Petitioner's departure on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, as a prelude to the commencement of Petitioner's annual leave on December 15, 1986 This acquiescence was by a verbal expression to the effect that the Petitioner should have a nice holiday. By contrast, on December 12, 1986, Drozd became aware, upon examination of Petitioner's flow chart, that certain parcels had not been completed in terms of "field work." Drozd's observations about Petitioner's flow chart became significant when Worley and Drozd spoke to supervisors in Tallahassee, Florida, on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, in the person of Ben Faulk, Chief of the Bureau of Field Operations in the Respondent agency, and Eugene White, who was the Deputy Director of the Division of Ad Valorem Tax for that organization. In actuality, there were two conversations, and in the latter conversation Drozd participated in a discussion in which Faulk, White and Drozd determined that Petitioner should not be allowed to proceed with annual leave based upon his failure to comply with the contingency which Drozd had established on November 17, 1986, pertaining to Petitioner's wish to take annual leave, the contingency being completion of "field work." The latter conversation between Worley, Drozd, White and Faulk took place following Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office. At the time this conversation was held, Drozd was not a member of the Respondent agency. On the other hand, Faulk and White were appropriate officials within the Respondent agency with power to make determinations concerning the annual leave of a subordinate employee, in this instance, the Petitioner. Worley was also a proper source of policy in she management chain. It was decided that Worley should try to telephone the Petitioner and forestall the use of the annual leave by Petitioner. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that Faulk and White felt that this denial of Petitioner's annual leave based upon Petitioner's failure to meet a contingency concerning his "field work" was an appropriate disposition of the case. Around 6:00 p.m., Worley was able to reach Petitioner by telephone while Petitioner was at his daughter's home, preparing to leave for a trip to Washington, D.C. In placing the telephone call to Petitioner, Worley did not favor the revocation of leave opportunity. Nonetheless, he did revoke the leave while acting as supervisor for the Northeast Region, at the behest of Drozd and upon authority of Faulk and White. In the conversation with Petitioner on December 12, 1986, by telephone, Worley told Petitioner that his leave had been revoked and that Petitioner should report to his job assignment at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 15, 1986, or be considered on unauthorized leave. Further, it was explained to Petitioner that he would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he had not returned to work by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1986. These remarks by Worley were not equivocal, and Petitioner understood the significance of those instructions and the implications of his failure to attend his duties on the dates described. This understanding of the explanation of unauthorized leave and potential abandonment of his job position was held by the Petitioner at the point of the conversation at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 12, 1986. Instead of reporting to work on December 15, 1986, at 8:00 a.m., Respondent absented himself from his job assignment on that date and on December 16 and 17, 1986. For those three consecutive days in which Respondent did not attend his job, his nonattendance was without authorization to take any form of leave and in the face of having been advised that he was in the posture of unauthorized leave. The days that Petitioner was missing from his job were work days. Petitioner's choice to go forward with his vacation plans and ignore the instruction of his supervisor concerning returning to his job position was made knowingly, with volition, with intent and showed willful disregard of a legitimate order of a superior. Petitioner had decided that since he had longstanding plans for taking annual leave in Washington, D.C., and given the fact that his wife was already there awaiting the arrival of the Petitioner and his daughter, he would go forward with his plan on the expectation that someone in his employment system would not allow a conclusion to be drawn that he had abandoned his job position. In furtherance of the assertion that the Petitioner would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he didn't return before the conclusion of the work day on December 17, 1986, a memorandum was sent to the Petitioner at his residence on December 15, 1986. A copy of that memorandum may be found as Respondent's Exhibit Q admitted into evidence. Petitioner did not become aware of this memorandum until returning from his vacation. When he returned, he signed for service of correspondence of December 18, 1986, which constituted the Respondent agency's notice of claimed abandonment and notice of rights to administrative hearing to contest that claim. A copy of that notification may be found as part of the Respondent's Exhibit M admitted into evidence, together with the return receipt signed by the Petitioner on December 29, 1986. A timely petition requesting consideration of the agency's claims of abandonment was filed by the Petitioner on January 5, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Janet Truett was a former vocational rehabilitation client due to a hearing problem. After successfully completing the program, she was employed as a secretary by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation in Tampa, a position which she retained for approximately five years. In 1983, petitioner often took annual leave, sick leave and leave without pay, usually calling in at the last minute. On October 13, 1985, her immediate supervisor advised her that "in the future, all leave must be approved in advance except for emergency sick leave." (HRS Exhibit 1). Due to an automobile accident and gall bladder surgery, Mrs. Truett was absent from work approximately one-fourth of the time from mid-November of 1984 through mid-April of 1985. On April 22, 1985, petitioner and her supervising counselor had a conference and discussed her continued use of leave without pay. Petitioner was advised that her absence put undue stress on the rest of the unit and that her physician was being consulted to determine if she was able to return to work on a full-time basis. Another conference was to be scheduled after receiving her doctor's response. By letter dated April 30, 1985, Dr. Michael J. Wiley advised petitioner's supervisor that petitioner had been discharged from care after recovering from her surgery on March 18, 1985, but had come back to his office on April 3, 1985, complaining of abdominal pain. She was instructed to stay home and return for a follow-up visit the following week. She did not return to Dr. Wiley's office after April 3, 1985. Petitioner received her annual performance evaluation on May 2, 1985, with an overall rating of "conditional". The areas of deficiency included dependability, quality of work and quantity of work. Petitioner was advised that her attendance at work would be monitored over the next sixty days and that she would "not be given any approved leave whether sick leave, annual leave or leave without pay without a written explanation. If she falls ill during the 60 days she must provide me with a doctor's report indicating her problem. If she is to take any other type of leave she must provide me with a written explanation. I will then make a determination as to whether or not I will approve this leave." (HRS Exhibit 3). On May 17, 1985, petitioner called her supervisor and indicated she had car problems. She did not come in to work for the entire day. A counseling session was held on May 20, 1985, and petitioner was advised by her supervisor that she was expected to take the city bus or arrange for other transportation should she experience further car trouble. On May 24, 1985, petitioner called her supervisor at 9:45 A.M. and requested leave because of an alleged family problem. She was told that her story would be verified and was reminded that she had been instructed to call in to request leave before 8:30 A.M. The stated reason for her absence on May 24, 1985 was not truthful. On May 28, 1985, petitioner called in at 8:20 A.M. and requested leave, stating that her car had broken down and that she had numerous family problems. She was told that the leave for May 24 and May 28, 1985, would not be approved. On May 29, 1985, she arrived to work late at 8:15 A.M. Also on that date, she received a written reprimand from her supervisor for taking unauthorized leave on May 24 and May 28, 1985. She was instructed to be honest and to call in by 8:30 A.M. if she was going to be out for any reason. On May 31, 1985, petitioner was granted approval for three hours leave in order to get her electricity turned on. On June 3, 1985, she called in requesting leave stating that she still had no electricity, that she had been up late the night before due to family problems and that she had no way to get to work anyway. Her daughter picked up some checks for her around 1:10 P.M. On June 4, she came to work but requested leave. This request was not approved and she received a second written reprimand for taking unauthorized leave on June 3, 1985. In this second reprimand dated June 4 but signed June 11, 1985, petitioner was advised that "further occurrences of unauthorized leave could result in a suspension or dismissal." (HRS Exhibit 5) A counseling session was held with petitioner on June 4, 1985, to review her job performance since the time of her conditional performance rating. She was advised that her attendance problem had not improved. She was referred to the Employee Assistance Program and was advised that the only way she could obtain future approved sick leave was to provide her supervisor with a doctor's statement. On June 14, 1985, a Friday, petitioner called in and requested sick leave. Her supervisor told her that in order for him to approve her sick leave, she must provide him with a doctor's report. On June 17 and 18, 1985, petitioner failed to report to work and failed to request additional leave. On June 19, 1985, she called in and said she was "too upset" to come to work. When asked if she had seen a doctor, she replied that she had not. Petitioner was then advised by her supervisor that he would not approve her leave for June 14, 17 or 18, 1985. When petitioner was absent from work, other secretaries in the office were required to perform her duties, as well as their own. This created a hardship on the other secretaries, and petitioner's frequent absences impaired both the quantity and the quality of her own work. By letter dated June 21, 1985, petitioner was advised that the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation was processing her resignation from her position as a secretary effective June 13, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. Citing Rule 22A-7.10, F1orida Administrative Code, it was assumed that petitioner had abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service since she had been on unapproved leave for three consecutive work days.
Conclusions Rule 22A-7.10(2t(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "An employee who is absent without authorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall be deemed to have abandoned the position and to have resigned from the Career Service." The evidence clearly demonstrates that petitioner's absence on June 14, 17 and 18, 1985, was not authorized. Petitioner does not even contend that it was authorized, but merely urges that it was not "reasonable" for her supervisor not to grant her retroactive approval for these absences. Given the numerous amount of leave time utilized by the petitioner and the repeated warnings, both oral and written, concerning future absences, HRS's action can hardly be termed "unreasonable." Petitioner's supervisors and co-workers were aware that petitioner had medical and personal problems and attempted to work around those problems and provide help and counseling to her. Her absences were both disruptive to the operation of the office as a whole and affected the quality and quantity of her own performance. Petitioner was repeatedly advised and counseled concerning the problems her absences were causing and was instructed and warned of the proper procedure to follow should future absences be necessary. It is difficult to envision any further steps HRS could have taken to solve petitioner's problems with continued absences. She was fully aware of the consequences which would ensue should she fail to report to work without authorized leave. Nevertheless, she chose to do so in the face of two written reprimands within a one-week period, and the passage of less than ten days between the second written reprimand and June 14, the first of her three days of absence without authorized leave. Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code; is clear and mandates the action to be taken when an employee is absent without authorized leave for three consecutive work days. A review of the facts of this case clearly supports the conclusion that petitioner abandoned her position with HRS and must be deemed to have resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner Janet E. Truett be deemed to have abandoned her position with HRS and to have resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 19th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Truett 1605 East Kirby Apartment B Tampa, Florida 33610 Robert Cox Regional Director, ASCME 4404 Westmoreland Court New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Claudia Isom-Rickert District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard L. Kopel Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue Whether the petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact 2. On April 14, 1983, petitioner received a copy of the "Employee Handbook" published by the Department of Transportation. Job abandonment is explained in the Employee Handbook as follows: 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 policy. The petitioner was absent without authorized leave on April 13, 14 and 15, 1987. Petitioner did not appear for work on those days and did not call the office to explain or report his absence. On April 16, 1987, petitioner called the office at approximately 8:00 a.m. to say that no one had come to pick him up. A fellow employee sometimes furnishes petitioner's transportation. By the time petitioner called in to work, he had been absent three consecutive days without authorization. Petitioner had previously been warned about his absenteeism. On March 17, 1987, petitioner was placed on unauthorized leave without pay due to his failure to report to work or notify his supervisor. On March 18, petitioner was sent a letter notifying him that he had to report by March 24, 1987, or he would be dismissed. Thus, petitioner was well aware that he had to notify his supervisor of any absences.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining the action of the Department of Transportation and finding that Fred P. Noble abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 28th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Fred P. Noble 2516 Queen Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Pamela Miles, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis M. Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice (discrimination under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes) against Petitioner on the basis of his race (Black/African-American), handicap, or retaliation, and if so, what is the remedy? Although cases arising under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may be instructive for interpreting and applying the handicap provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's claim under ADA and any allegations of libel and slander are not within the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lawrence James, Jr., is a Black/African- American. Respondent, The Alachua County Department of Criminal Justice Service, is an "employer" within the definition in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent operates the Alachua County Jail. Respondent maintains a paramilitary command, advancement, and ranking system for its employees. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Sergeant. On March 2, 1994, an inmate escaped from the Alachua County Jail during the evening shift. As a result of the inmate's escape, several correctional officers were disciplined. Petitioner was disciplined by a reduction in rank April 26, 1994. (P-37) There were allegations that harsher discipline had been meted out to the Black/African-American officers, and the matter was arbitrated, pursuant to the union collective bargaining contract. As a result of the arbitration, in the summer of 1994, it was recommended that Petitioner be returned to his position at the Jail with restoration of rank, but without any back pay. However, at the time of that recommendation, Petitioner already had been terminated for "a non-related infraction of county policy." (P-37) The "non-related infraction of county policy" reason for Petitioner's 1994 termination was not established on this record, but neither was any discriminatory reason proven.2 After Petitioner's 1994 termination, further proceedings ensued, and Petitioner was ultimately restored to his rank and position at the Jail. As part of this restoration, it was agreed the Respondent employer would conduct training and re-orientation sessions for Petitioner, since he had not actively been performing his duties at the Jail for approximately two years. The present case only addresses the discrimination Petitioner allegedly suffered due to race, handicap, or retaliation concerning his leave requests in 1996, and his 1997 termination for unauthorized absence. After his second successful arbitration(s) and/or grievance procedure, Petitioner was eligible to return to work on February 19, 1996. He did not return on that date. Respondent ordered Petitioner back to work on March 13, 1996, at which time Petitioner requested, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It is not clear if Petitioner ever made Respondent aware that he suffered from high blood pressure, but from the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner notified Respondent in March 1996, that he was suffering from a prior on- the-job injury to his back, diabetes, and depression. Diabetes, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Clinical depression, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contended at hearing that his clinical depression in 1996 was due to his 1994 demotion and termination and the procedures to get his job back and also due to the hostile work environment he anticipated he would face if he returned to work daily in 1996 with people whom he perceived as having lied about him and who had tried to terminate him. It should be noted that Petitioner did not clearly include "hostile work environment" in either his 1998, Charge of Discrimination or his 2000, Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations only considered and referred the instant case upon allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, and retaliation. From Petitioner's description of his back ailment, it is found that condition also constituted a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. From Petitioner's description of how his back injury affected his daily life and job performance, it is very doubtful that Petitioner was able to physically fulfill the requirements of being a jailor at any time in 1996 until he was terminated in 1997. No evidence was presented with regard to the workers' compensation consequences of this situation. By an April 1, 1996, letter, Respondent's Interim Director of Criminal Justice Service, Richard Tarbox, informed Petitioner that he had exhausted his sick leave credits as of the pay period ending March 31, 1996; that based on Respondent's records, Petitioner would exhaust the balance of his accrued sick leave at the rate of forty hours per week during the pay period ending May 12, 1996; that he was expected to know his available accrued leave credits and to contact his immediate supervisor at least one week prior to the expiration of the current leave period to request leave without pay if he anticipated not returning to work; and that he had been placed on FMLA leave for an indefinite period, not to exceed twelve weeks, which would expire on June 6, 1996. (R-30) The April 1, 1996, letter specifically informed Petitioner that failure to come to work or contact Respondent could be considered abandonment of his position. (R-30) The foregoing instructions concerning "abandonment of position" parallel Alachua County's Personnel Regulations and Disciplinary Policy, hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as "personnel regulations." (P-1). Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; c. Group III Offenses No. 8, at pages 5-6, of the personnel regulations had existed prior to Petitioner's 1994 termination, and was in effect at all times material. It provided, Absence of three consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ. The personnel regulations also provided in Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; a. Group I Offenses No. 8, at pages 3-4, that the following offense would subject an employee to progressive discipline: Absence without authorization or failure to notify appropriate supervisory personnel on the first day of absence. (Emphasis supplied). This regulation also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994, and was in effect at all times material. Progressive discipline for the first such offense was written instruction, counseling and/or one-day suspension. For the second occurrence, one to five days' suspension was specified. For the third occurrence, up to five days' suspension or discharge was specified. These provisions also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994 and were in effect at all times material. Petitioner was also familiar with the long-standing progressive discipline system of Respondent's personnel regulations. Basically, this system required that discipline first be proposed in writing by a superior. The proposed discipline would go into effect and become actual discipline if the employee did not appear at a hearing to dispute the charges or the proposed discipline. If the employee prevailed at the hearing, the proposed discipline would be rescinded or altered. If the employee did not prevail, the proposed discipline would be reduced to writing in another document, and the employee then had the option of filing a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement or of appealing through the personnel system to a citizens' board. While Petitioner had been absent in 1994-1996, a new requirement had been added to the personnel regulations, under Chapter A-299, which required that employees who planned to be absent, must notify their immediate supervisor no later than 30 minutes from the time they are scheduled to report for work. (Emphasis supplied) The "immediate supervisor" or "appropriate supervisory personnel" in Petitioner's situation would have been the lieutenant on his shift. However, Petitioner and Lt. Little, who became his supervisor, concurred that the custom at the Jail always had been to require that employees contact the shift sergeant on the shift preceding an emergency absence, or if that were not possible, to contact the employee's own shift sergeant or anyone else on that shift. Jail custom also provided that the employee who was going to be absent could rely on any person on his shift to deliver his oral message to the employee's supervising lieutenant and that approval or disapproval paperwork would be handled by that lieutenant after notification. On June 6, 1996, Petitioner still had not returned to work. Instead, he requested leave without pay until June 15, 1996. Respondent granted Petitioner's request. This constituted an accommodation of Petitioner's handicap(s) in that he had no remaining earned leave or entitlement to FMLA leave, yet his employer held his position open for his return. On or about June 10, 1996, Anthony F. Greene, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Vista Pavilion, a free-standing psychiatric facility, released Petitioner to return to work. He wrote to Respondent's Risk Manager that Petitioner continued to have problems with depression, which might prove "volatile" in a work environment with superiors Petitioner believed had harassed him by terminating and blaming him for the 1994 escape. At approximately the same time, Richard Greer, M.D., medical specialty unexplained, also released Petitioner to return to work, upon the conditions that Petitioner continue to see Dr. Greene on a weekly basis and continue to take his prescriptive medications. By a July 17, 1996, letter (P-4), Interim Director Richard Tarbox notified Petitioner to report for work at the Jail on the evening shift of July 22, 1996. The letter required Petitioner to continue his sessions with Dr. Greene; to continue to take his prescriptive medications; and to take the re- training and re-orientation specified as a result of the resolution of his 1994 termination and return to work. (See Finding of Fact 7.) The July 17, 1996, letter also included the sentence, We are in the process of contacting Dr. Greene to establish a procedure to verify that you continue your sessions with him. Petitioner interpreted this sentence as the employer's promise "[T]o get all my leave slips, find out when I was going to the doctor, my mental condition, and also my medical condition." (TR-Vol.II, pages 175-176) Petitioner's interpretation of this sentence was unreasonable in light of its express language, the context of the remainder of the July 17, 1996, letter, the instructions of the April 1, 1996, letter (See Findings of Fact 16-17), and what Petitioner already knew of the County's personnel regulations and/or the Jail custom requiring him to call in and/or apply for leave to be subsequently approved or disapproved by his supervisor. Nothing in the July 17, 1996, letter altered the requirements of the personnel regulations or the April 1, 1996, letter. Petitioner bore the responsibility to ask for medical leave sufficiently in advance of his absences. On July 22, 1996, Petitioner reported for work at the Jail as instructed and was assigned to an evening shift supervised by Lt. Stover. According to Sgt. Babula, Petitioner also worked under Shift Sgt. Withey at some point in July 1996. However, by July 1996, Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. He needed to self-administer a shot of insulin each morning and night. To ensure ideal spacing of these two shots, Petitioner almost immediately requested to work the day shift. Respondent accommodated this request concerning Petitioner's handicaps and assigned him to the day shift under Lt. Little and Sgt. Babula, as shift sergeant. Petitioner claimed his handicaps were not accommodated by Respondent, but in addition to approving leave for him from February 19, 1996, to July 22, 1996, not replacing him during that period, and the change of shift made in July 1996, at Petitioner's request, Sgt. Babula testified to approving special shoes for Petitioner due to his diabetes. By September 1996, Petitioner again had used up all of his accrued leave. Accordingly, he had to ask for leave without pay to visit his various doctors, including Dr. Greene. On September 9, 1996, during a therapy session, Petitioner told Dr. Greene that he had been threatened on the job and that he was pursuing resolution of the incident through appropriate channels. The same day, Dr. Greene wrote to Lt. Little, telling him of the threat. The nature of this alleged threat or who made it was not stated in Dr. Greene's letter or at hearing. The letter cleared Petitioner to return to work September 12, 1996. This out-of-court statement to his psychotherapist at that time does not establish the truth of the statement or that Petitioner's superiors made the alleged threat. Also, the threat, if one existed, could not have related to Petitioner's written leave requests, because Petitioner's earliest dispute about leave did not occur until September 13, 1996. (See Finding of Fact 41). The September 9, 1996, date was not related by testimony to any oral or written request for leave or any disciplinary matter in evidence. Petitioner testified to having been threatened on the job sometime prior to September 9, 1996, but he never testified what the threat was, why the threat was made, or by whom the threat was made. Petitioner's witness, Alfred Dickerson, also is African-American. He testified generally that it was "pure hell" at the Jail for anyone who, like himself and Petitioner, had been disciplined due to the 1994 escape and who had prevailed in the resultant grievance activities, but he could not remember any specific incidents involving Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Dickerson was out of the Jail, on workers' compensation leave, from May 1996 to October 1997, the whole of the material time frame for this case.3 On September 16, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay to Lt. Little, his supervisor, for the previous dates of September 13 and 15, stating thereon that he had been ill those days and that the request was being made because his request to work his days off to make up for the 16 hours of leave he had used on September 13 and 15 had been denied. The request does not specifically mention "flex time." (P-6) "Flex time," as described by both Petitioner and Lt. Little, would have permitted Petitioner to work his days off, instead of taking time off without pay to make up time used to go to his doctors on days he was scheduled to work. However, if an employee asked to use flex time in this way, another employee had to trade days with him, and the exchange would be worked out by the supervising lieutenant. On October 1, 1996, Petitioner was given a "Letter of Warning" by Lt. Little. The Warning reflected that Petitioner's advising a sergeant other than his immediate supervisor, Lt. Little, on September 24, 1996, that he was not coming to work until some personal matters were taken care of, was insufficient notice and was being treated as "absence without authorization" in violation of the personnel regulations. It also stated, It has been standard practice and understood that you must notify your immediate supervisor . . . please be advised that any further violations of this nature may result in docked pay and progressive disciplinary action . . . Attached to this document was a Notice of Disciplinary Action, also prepared October 1, 1996, stating, Disciplinary action taken as a result of the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action dated blank not filled in. (Except for WARNING) WARNING (Reasons for warning): Violation of Alachua County Personnnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, a., Group I, Offense No. 8 'Absence without authorization'. (P-8) The same document notified Petitioner that he had a right to appeal the Warning pursuant to either the personnel regulations or the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt of this latter document until October 7, 1996. (P-8/R-19) Also on October 1, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay for September 23- 26 and for September 29-30, to Captain King. The reason for Petitioner's absence September 23-26 was not stated on the formal request, but Petitioner did again state thereon that his request to "flex" his days off had been denied, presumably by Lt. Little. The time for September 29-30 was requested for "personal business and emergency family leave without pay" due to his mother's seeing a doctor about her detached retinas. (P-7) Respondent is not obligated under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to accommodate Petitioner's family's handicaps.4 On October 21, 1996, a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action" was issued by Lt. Little, apparently covering the same date, September 24, 1996, as his October 1, Warning, and adding other dates. The reasons for the proposed discipline given in this October 21, 1996, Notice differ slightly from the content of the October 1, Warning. The October 21, 1996, Notice related that on September 23, Petitioner had spoken to Captain King and Lt. Little, and because his request for leave had been made in advance, Petitioner had been granted the day off; that on September 24, Petitioner had failed to report to work and failed to request an extension of leave, and he was therefore considered to be "absent without authorization" for September 24, 1996. The October 21, Notice further stated that on September 25, Petitioner had called Captain King, requesting leave without pay for September 25 and 26, and because Petitioner had requested leave in advance, Captain King had granted the request covering those two days, but that on his October 1, leave request (see Finding of Fact 44) Petitioner had included two more days, September 29 and 30, which had not been previously authorized. Finally, the October 21, Notice indicated that on September 30, Petitioner had called Lt. Stover to say that he would be reporting to work as soon as he was through testifying to the Grand Jury that afternoon, and that his failure to request leave in advance was being treated as "absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." As of this October 21, 1996, Notice, the proposed disciplinary action became suspending Petitioner without pay. Petitioner was offered an opportunity to contest the proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on November 19, 1996. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this document on October 24, 1996. (R-21) On October 22, 1996, Petitioner wrote to the Interim Director of the Jail, Richard Tarbox. In his letter, Petitioner complained that he had not yet received the agreed re- orientation and re-training. He also discussed his medical problems, including problems with recent changes in his medications and his five-year-old back injury. He requested flex time and related that his life had been threatened by employees on the job (see Findings of Fact 37-40), and that Lt. Little had been informed of the threats and flex time request, but the letter again did not indicate by whom Petitioner was threatened or why. (P-10) Despite Petitioner's after-the-fact written requests for flex time, Lt. Little had no recollection of Respondent ever asking him for flex time. There is no evidence that Lt. Little, Mr. Tarbox, or any other representative of Respondent contacted Petitioner concerning the alleged threat against him or specifically addressed the issues of re-orientation/re-training or flex time. On October 25, 1996, Dr. Greene also wrote Mr. Tarbox. He described Petitioner as cooperative and not evidencing any inappropriate behavior. He reported that Petitioner had voiced no homicidal or vengeance ideation to him. He felt that Petitioner's supervisors' requirement that Petitioner use leave to attend the mandatory therapy sessions with him constituted a paradox and a stressor for Petitioner. He felt that other stressors were the employer's failure to offer re-orientation/ re-training to Petitioner and the employer's failure to contact him, Dr. Greene, to verify treatment purposes and schedules. Dr. Greene requested that Mr. Tarbox clarify Petitioner's treatment and work status to both him and to Petitioner in a timely manner because not doing so was exacerbating Petitioner's physical condition, headaches, and diabetes. He further stated that he could release Petitioner for work without further psychological treatment and that further psychological treatment was not necessary to ensure Petitioner's fitness for work or to prevent his being a risk to others, but that Petitioner would continue in therapy for other purposes. (P-11) Neither Mr. Tarbox nor any other representative of Respondent specifically replied to Dr. Greene's October 25, 1996, letter. However, all leave disputes pending on that date were addressed in a November 22, 1996, letter to Petitioner from Captain King. (See Findings of Fact 57-59.) On October 31, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for eight hours leave without pay for leave he had taken on October 30, 1996, for "emergency dr. app't for work related injury, and lab work for diebetic [sic] condition." (P-14) At some point, a leave form for eight hours leave without pay on November 9, 1996, was prepared. It indicates that Petitoner was "unavailable to sign." This form was disapproved by Lt. Little and by Mr. Tarbox on November 12, 1996. Apparently Petitioner only signed the request on November 26, 1996. (P-21) On November 14, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 15, 1996, for "work related condition, Dr. Greene." (P-15) On November 19, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 22, 1996. The request was approved by a supervisor on November 19, 1996. (P-17) On November 22, 1996, Captain King issued a "Letter of Warning" to Petitioner. It stated that on November 19, 1996, a disciplinary hearing had been held (see Finding of Fact 47) regarding the October 21, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, addressing Petitioner's absences on September 29-30, 1996, and that because Petitioner had proven that he had attempted to contact his supervisor in advance of his absence, the September 29 violation was being withdrawn. With regard to the September 30 violation charged, it was found that Petitioner had contacted Lt. Stover and informed him that Petitioner would return to work after testifying before The Grand Jury, and since Petitioner had not returned to work on that day after testifying, he was being found guilty as charged for violation of Alachua County Personnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3. a. Group I, Offense No. 8, "Absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." The November 22, 1996, letter went on to warn Petitioner that future violations would be more carefully scrutinized for strict adherence to the policy of notification and that failures on Petitioner's part might result in progressive disciplinary action being taken. (P-20) Because prior discipline had been overturned or rescinded, the November 22, 1996, Letter of Warning was technically Petitioner's first violation/discipline. Also on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted to Lt. Little a leave request form, dated the same day, labelled "FOR INFO.," with supporting documentation, including Dr. Hunt's certificate showing Petitioner had been treated on November 4, and November 22, 1996, had office management of HTN/NIDDM hematuria, a pending IVP and urology consult, and would need to be seen again by Dr. Hunt in 4-6 weeks. The language of one attachment showed Petitioner "is under Dr. Hunt's continual care," but nothing specified any period of time Petitioner intended to take off from work for the pending consultation or any other purpose. (P-19) Petitioner testified that his November 22, 1996, leave request was not intended to request any leave at all when he submitted it, but that it should have alerted his supervisors that Petitioner had a growth between his legs that was potentially malignant and that he needed an operation sometime in the future. A reasonable person would not have concluded this from the four corners of the November 22, 1996, written request with attachments dated for past medical appointments. Petitioner also testified that by submitting the November 22, 1996, leave request "in blank" and explaining orally to Lt. Little what he intended to do was his effort to comply with the requirement that he ask for leave in advance of taking it. This testimony shows that Petitioner at this point understood the employer's prior instructions to request leave in advance. Apparently, Petitioner envisioned only having to phone in to get any member of his shift to fill in the blanks on his November 22, 1996, request form, but he admitted he had never before used a blank leave request in this way. Petitioner further testified that he had told Mr. Tarbox and other supervisors at a meeting (probably one of his disciplinary hearings) before Christmas 1996, that he "did not know how long he could work." While this representation of Petitioner is credible and it may be reasonably inferred that Mr. Tarbox understood Petitioner was debilitated to some degree by the growth and might need an operation sometime in the near future, it does not logically follow that all those hearing Petitioner at that time understood that his oral statement related to the November 22 blank leave request which had attached to it only information about past doctors' appointments and potential, undated, future consultations. Petitioner's vague statement at the meeting/hearing did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail for requesting leave. The blank November 22, 1996, leave request marked "FOR INFO" also did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail. There is no requirement that Respondent grant Petitioner an open-ended request for leave or one that specifies no time period at all. Petitioner's November 22, 1996, blank leave request was never approved. On November 26, 1996, Petitioner also acknowledged receipt of a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action," by which Lt. Little and Mr. Tarbox recommended that Petitioner be suspended without pay.5 Petitioner was again offered an opportunity to contest this proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on December 3, 1996. (P-18) The record is silent as to whether a disciplinary hearing was actually held on December 3, 1996. Petitioner submitted a leave form on December 6, 1996, for 2.5 hours "vacation" leave without pay on December 3, 1996, for a "Conference with doctor to try an [sic] stop continued disciplinary action because of illness doctor approved." (P-23) On December 3, 1996, Petitioner had telephoned Lt. Little to ask if his message had been received. He then reported to work at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's business records (P-22) show the following: Petitioner worked December 4-5, some of December 6, and all of December 7, 1996. He was not required to be at work on December 8-9. He called in sick on December 10-11. On December 12, he reported for work and attended five hours of drug policy training. Then he left for medical reasons and later called in to say he was too sick to return to work. On Friday, December 13, Petitioner called in sick, saying he was going to the doctor for a cut foot. He later called in again and was told that he needed to do his timesheet and it was agreed he would do it and have it in the following Monday. Petitioner was absent on Saturday, December 14. He was not required to be at work on December 15-16, 1996. On Monday, December 17, Petitioner did not phone or appear for work. On December 18, Petitioner phoned in, saying he had to wear bedroom slippers and had domestic problems. On December 19, Petitioner called in late and left a voice message on the Jail phone. On Friday, December 20, Petitioner called in on time but said he would not be in until Tuesday of the following week. He gave no reason. He was not required to be at work on December 22-23. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner did not come to work or call in. On Christmas Day, Petitioner called in before shift and stated he would not be in that day or the following day, December 26, 1996, until 10:00 a.m. On December 26, December 27, and December 28, Petitioner did not report for work or call in. Petitioner was not required to work December 29 or 30, 1996. On December 31, Petitioner called and said that he would not be in that day but would call back to talk to the shift lieutenant. He did not do so. Also, Petitioner did not report for work or call in for January 1 through 4, 1997. Most of this business record was substantiated by the direct testimony of Sgt. Babula and Lt. Little who observed the events and wrote most of the business record. The matters that were not confirmed in their direct testimony were supported by the type of hearsay that explains or supplements direct evidence and is admissible in this type of proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that the business record was essentially correct as to days he was absent in December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner's testimony only varies the foregoing business record to the effect that on December 10, 1996, not December 13, 1996, Petitioner called and spoke with Sgt. Withey, stating that he would not "be back [to work] until [he had] seen and heard from [his] doctors," and related to Withey that he had some problem with his foot. Petitioner assumed that his superiors would get this message and would understand that he meant he was exercising the blank November 22, 1996, leave request. (See Findings of Fact 60-66). His superiors did not infer from this message what Petitioner had hoped they would. A reasonable person would not infer all that from the information Petitioner says he provided Sgt. Withey. It is uncontested that Petitioner did have an injury to his foot at this time and that such injuries can be particularly hazardous to persons who, like Petitioner, suffer from diabetes. From December 4, 1996, onward, Petitioner did not speak directly with his lieutenant, although he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in order to request advance leave. Petitioner did not return to work after December 7, 1996. Despite the personnel rules, custom at the Jail, and prior direct orders by warning and disciplinary action letters, Petitioner submitted no leave slips directly to his superiors after December 6, 1996. Instead, he submitted them to his union shop steward and to a County Commissioner, although he had no reason to believe the Commissioner had any authority over Jail personnel matters. Respondent never authorized leave for Petitioner after December 13, 1996. Petitioner's extended absence without authorization was in violation of Respondent employer's long-standing "three day abandonment rule." There had been no word from Petitioner since December 31, 1996, so between January 17 and January 24, 1997, a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" was issued against Petitioner for [V]iolation of Alachua County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, c., Group III, Offense No. 8 'Absence of three (3) consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ.' The proposed discipline was termination, and again, Petitioner was offered the opportunity to contest the proposed final agency action at a hearing to be convened on February 18, 1997. (P-25) Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner saw a Master of Social Work, because Dr. Greene was on educational leave. Petitioner was so upset that the social worker advised him to focus on his medical problems. Apparently, Petitioner leapt to the conclusion that meant his doctors would handle all his leave-related problems. Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner had successful surgery on the growth between his legs. On January 27, 1997, Dr. Greene saw Petitioner in therapy and notified Mr. Tarbox in writing that, Mr. Lawrence James was seen for an appointment today in my office. He is apparently unable to continue working in what is perceived to be a hostile work environment at the jail. Compounded by his medical problems and what seems to be a lack of responsivity and accommodation by the administration, Mr. James' level of emotional distress has considerably increased since our last communication. It is strongly recommended that he take a leave of absence from the workplace until his condition is improved. He is scheduled to return next week for continued intervention. Thank you for your time and attention. (Emphasis supplied) (P-26) Dr. Greene testified that it was Petitioner's combined mental and physical circumstances which caused him to recommend the leave of absence. The January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action was mailed to the last address Petitioner had given Respondent. On January 30, 1997, Petitioner's mother signed the certified mail receipt for the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. Sometime thereafter, she delivered the Notice to Petitioner, who no longer lived with her. He refused to deal with it. Dr. Brient removed a suture from Petitioner's leg on February 4, 1997. This seems to have related to Petitioner's post-surgery release after removal of the growth between his legs. Petitioner did not then return to work. Because Respondent's principals had not recognized Petitioner's mother's name on the certified mail receipt, they caused the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to be served on Petitioner by a Deputy Sheriff. Petitioner received this personal service on February 5, 1997, and told the Deputy that he would not deal with the Notice of Disciplinary Action, but his doctors would. Having been released as a result of his operation, there was no physical reason Petitioner could not have appeared for the February 18, 1997, hearing to present any opposition to his proposed termination based on "the three day abandonment rule." He did not appear. On February 21, 1997, Petitioner was mailed a "Notice of Dismissal," effective that date and signed by Harry Sands, a new Interim Director, for abandoning his position, in violation of the personnel regulations. The Notice of Dismissal gave Petitioner the option of appealing his termination through the employee appeal system or the collective bargaining grievance procedure. Petitioner did not take either appeal route. However, Petitioner did suggest to another Jail officer that those who had done this to him might need to get a pine box, i.e. coffin. The threat was not deemed worthy of prosecution by the State Attorney's Office. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that he never received the promised re-orientation or re-training associated with re-instatement to his job. No witness gave any clear indication of what the re- orientation and re-training, as contemplated by the re- instatement agreement (see Finding of Fact 7) or as contemplated by Mr. Tarbox's July 17, 1996, letter (see Finding of Fact 29), was supposed to include. Lt. Stover did not remember any specific training he gave Petitioner, nor did Lt. Little, but Lt. Little testified that he was present when, before Petitioner first arrived on Lt. Stover's shift in July 1996, the Captain had ordered them both to "bring [Petitioner] up to speed." Petitioner suggested that failure to re-orient and retrain him evidenced Respondent's discrimination against him. His post-hearing proposal also asserts that due to Respondent's failure to train him in "new" personnel regulations, combined with Respondent's requirement that he adhere to those regulations which Jail custom did not normally follow, constituted disparate treatment and/or discrimination against him on the basis of his race or due to retaliation, and/or failure to accommodate his handicap. This perception is unpersuasive in light of the employer's repeated correspondence urging him to take the training, whatever that training might have been. Despite Mr. Tarbox's failure to reply to Petitioner's October 22, 1996, inquiry about training (See Finding of Fact 48), Petitioner's perception of discrimination was not established as fact. From the evidence as a whole, it is more probable that any failure to train Petitioner was the result of his request to change shifts, and thus, lieutenant-supervisors in July or his frequent absences. The record does not make clear whether the re-orientation/re-training requirement was unique to Respondent, who returned in 1996, or applied to all four of the returning African-American officers restored in 1994, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than he did. He did not establish that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than the other restored African-American officers, handicapped or otherwise. He also did not establish that any other restored African-American officer, handicapped or otherwise, received more re- orientation/re-training than he did. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Sergeant Babula testified credibly that he had at least instructed Petitioner with regard to the new payroll forms when Petitioner changed shifts in July 1996. Payroll forms include calculating hours worked and monies owed. Testimony and business records also show Petitioner had five hours of drug policy training. (See Finding of fact 72). Also, Respondent did not discipline Petitioner for his failure to request leave of specific personnel as required by the only new personnel regulation, until after Petitioner had been instructed in writing to do so. These written instructions may not have constituted complete "re-orientation" or "re- training," but they were direct orders sufficient to instruct Petitioner what was expected of him. (See Findings of Fact 16, 29, 43, 46-47, 57-59). Lastly, based on Petitioner's testimony that even if he had known he was required by a new regulation to request leave from his lieutenant-supervisor he would not have followed that regulation but instead would have considered himself bound by his union contract and by the custom of asking for leave of anyone on his shift at the Jail, it appears that any failure of Respondent to specifically "train" Petitioner concerning new personnel regulations had no effect on his subsequent failure to comply with the employer's expectations concerning its leave policy. Petitioner had admitted in evidence a certified copy of a "Second Superceding Indictment" issued by a federal Grand Jury on February 27, 2001. It was not established that this was the same Grand Jury before which Petitioner testified in 1996. (See Finding of Fact 47). The indictment (which is only a charging document, not a conviction) named Nate Caldwell, Respondent's former Director; Samuel Krider, Respondent's former Assistant Director; Garry M. Brown, a former Captain with Respondent; and Charles Scott Simmons, a former Lieutenant with Respondent, for conspiracy to obstruct justice by violating 18 USC Section 1503, by hindering the court and jury in a federal civil rights action brought by Mr. Dickerson against the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson's federal case arose out of Mr. Dickerson's demotion in rank with Petitioner in connection with the 1994 escape. It was not established that any of the indicted officials held office during the time material to Petitioner's instant case, 1996- 1997, or that any of them had anything to do with Petitioner's 1996 leave disputes or 1997 termination. Indeed, it was established that Sands or Tarbox was Interim Director at all times material. The indictment mentions Petitioner and Captain King, a superior of Petitioner at all times material, but neither Petitioner nor Captain King were indicted. Despite the lack of clarity of Petitioner's and Mr. Dickerson's testimony, the undersigned infers from their testimony and the indictment that Petitioner testified concerning the same matters before the Grand Jury in 1996 and that prior to 1996 Petitioner had been a witness in Mr. Dickerson's federal discrimination case against the County Commissioners. However, Petitioner testified that his retaliation allegation herein is not based on his 1996 testimony before the Grand Jury. Rather, Petitioner asserted at hearing that he believed he had been retaliated against by his superiors in 1996-1997 for speaking at 1993 meetings of the County Commission concerning structural and staffing problems at the Jail, and otherwise he did not know why he had been retaliated against. (TR-Vol. I pp. 229-233).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner has not proven discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001.
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 Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was formerly employed by Respondent as a Human Services Worker assigned to the Landmark Learning Center, a residential facility located in Dade County. She began her employment on May 10, 1985. On January 13, 1989, Petitioner received the following memorandum from the Residential Services Director of Facility I at Landmark: In reviewing your time and attendance record from August, 1988, I have observed that you are exhibiting excessive absences and/or tardiness. These frequent absences place an unfair burden on your coworkers and interfere with the operations of this center. Therefore they will no longer be tolerated. Effective on the date you receive this communication, the following restrictions will be in effect: As always, you are expected to have all leave time approved in advance by your immediate supervisor. You are expected to submit a doctor's statement justifying your absence prior to the approval of any sick leave, annual-sick leave, or family-sick leave. You will not be allowed to substitute any other type of leave for these absences. Failure to comply with the above restrictions will result in disapproved leave without pay for the dates in question, and a recommendation for disciplinary action based on absence without authorized leave. In addition a continued pattern of excessive absence could result in disciplinary action for excessive absence/tardiness. All disciplinary [action] will be in accordance with HRS-P-60-1, Employee's handbook. I am confident that you will correct this situation in a satisfactory manner. At no time prior to the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent were the "restrictions" imposed by this memorandum lifted. In early 1990, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. As a result of the injury, Petitioner was on authorized leave from February 25, 1990, until April 4, 1990. When she returned to work on April 5, 1990, Petitioner was assigned to "light duty" in the field office of which Sylvia Davis, a Senior Residential Unit Supervisor, was in charge. Petitioner's working hours were 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Petitioner was advised that Roberta Barnes would be her immediate supervisor during her "light duty" assignment. On April 5, 1990, Petitioner worked six and a half hours. She was on authorized leave the remainder of her shift. On April 6 and 7, 1990, she worked her full shift. On April 8 and 9, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work. She telephoned the field office before the beginning of her shift on each of these days and left word that she would not be at work because she was experiencing pain in her lower back and right leg; however, she never received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on these days. April 10 and 11, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 11, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office and gave notice that, inasmuch as her physical condition remained unchanged, she would not be at work the following day. Petitioner did not report to work on April 12, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office the night before to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on April 12, 1990. On April 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work because she was still not feeling well. She neither telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absences, nor obtained supervisory authorization to be absent on these days. April 17 and 18, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. Prior to the scheduled commencement of her shift on April 19, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office to indicate that she would not be at work that day because she had a doctor's appointment, but that she hoped to return to work on April 20, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work on April 19, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on that day. On April 19, 1990, Petitioner was sent the following letter by the Superintendent of Landmark: You have not called in or reported to work since April 12, 1990 and therefore you have abandoned your position as a Human Services Worker II and are deemed to have resigned from the Career Service according to Chapter 22A-7.010(2)(a) of Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Your resignation will be effective on the date that you receive this letter or on the date we receive the undelivered letter advising you of your abandonment. You have the right to petition the State Personnel Director, 530 Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 for review of the facts. Such petition must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days after receipt of this letter. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on Friday, April 20, 1990, unaware that she had been deemed to have resigned her position, Petitioner telephoned the field office to give notice that she would be out of work until after her doctor's appointment on Monday, April 23, 1990. On April 23, 1990, Petitioner again telephoned the field office to advise that she had to undergo further medical testing and therefore would remain out of work until the required tests were performed. Petitioner's call was transferred to Elaine Olsen, a Personnel Technician II at Landmark, who told Petitioner about the letter the Superintendent had sent to Petitioner the previous Thursday. Petitioner received the letter on April 30, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work during the period referenced in the Superintendent's letter because she was not feeling well. She did not intend, by not reporting to work on these days, to resign or abandon her position. It was her intention to return to work when she felt well enough to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order (1) finding that Petitioner did not abandon her career service position, and (2) directing Respondent to reinstate Petitioner with back pay. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent should have been suspended from her position with Petitioner as a school bus aide, and whether Respondent should be dismissed from her position.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, The School Board of Dade County (Board), was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida,1 pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Jamella R. King (King), was employed by the Board as a school bus aide from November 1989 until her suspension in July 1997. The position of school bus aide is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Board. Since 1993, King's employment history has been characterized by excessive unauthorized absences, tardiness, and a continued disregard for administrative directives. In December 1993, King participated in a conference-for- the-record (CFR) because of her excessive unauthorized absences. Respondent was referred to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a confidential, collectively bargained for benefit which assists employees who may be having problems that, while not associated with employment, may be interfering with their performance. King refused to attend the scheduled counseling sessions. In February 1994, King participated in another CFR to discuss her attendance problem. The seriousness of the situation was brought to King's attention, and she was directed to improve her attendance. King was again referred to EAP, but failed to avail herself of these services. On or about January 22, 1996, a Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder (Reminder) was given to King. The Reminder set forth the Board's attendance policies and advised King that she currently had four and a half days of unauthorized leave. On April 30, 1996, another Reminder was given to King, addressing her attendance deficiencies. At that time, King had accumulated the equivalent of at least ten days of unauthorized absences in the 1995/1996 school year. From August 28, 1995, to May 28, 1996, King accumulated the equivalent of 21 days of unauthorized absences. On or about June 10, 1996, a CFR was held with King to review her continued disregard of proper attendance practices. King was again referred to EAP and was advised that she must improve her attendance. King was warned that her failure to improve could result in termination of her employment. King refused to follow this directive and continued to accumulate unauthorized absences. In July 1996, King signed in for work, but failed to go to her assigned route. King was issued a letter of warning for failure to complete her assigned route. King's supervisor directed her to improve her attendance. King failed to improve her attendance. As of October 10, 1996, King had accumulated 36 days of unauthorized absences for the preceding 12 month period. On October 29, 1996, a CFR was held with King concerning her attendance problem. At the CFR King received a reasonable directive from her supervisor to improve her attendance. King failed to follow this directive. In January 1997, King was removed from her assigned placement and placed on sub-status by her supervisor because King had become unreliable at her work site due to her continued unauthorized absences. Sub-status refers to a pool of aides who substitute as needed. From January 4, 1996, to February 10, 1997, King accumulated the equivalent of 47.5 days of unauthorized absences. On February 10, 1997, a CFR was held with King regarding her attendance problems. King was again directed to improve her attendance. From March 4, 1996, to April 15, 1997, King had accumulated the equivalent of 44 days of unauthorized absences. On May 27, 1997, a CFR was held with King regarding her continued attendance problem. King's continual unauthorized absences adversely impacted her work site because her coworkers were compelled to perform King's job duties. King's unauthorized absences also adversely affected the quality of transportation being provided to the students who ride the buses to which bus aides are assigned. These students have special needs that require the presence of an aide who can properly attend to those needs. Without a bus aide, there is the potential that the bus driver will be interrupted and distracted by those students. Additionally, when different bus aides appear on the bus, these students may feel uncertain and nervous, which may also unnecessarily distract the bus driver. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between AFSCME and the Board provides: ARTICLE II -- RECOGNITION * * * Section 3. . . .It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for the operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; . . . * * * ARTICLE V --DEFINITIONS * * * Section 27. Unauthorized Absence -- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accumulated sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. * * * ARTICLE XI -- DISCIPLINARY ACTION Section 4. Types of Separation Dissolution of the employment relation between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur in any of four distinct types of separation. * * * Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position -- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. . . . Disciplinary -- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. On July 23, 1997, the Board suspended King and initiated action to dismiss her from employment with the Dade County Public Schools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining King's suspension without pay and dismissing her from her position with Petitioner as a school bus aide. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at tee hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about December 5, 1969, the Petitioner, Hugh G. Purkey became employed by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. In 1984, Petitioner held the position of Engineer II, Area Engineer and was assigned to the North Dade Maintenance Yard (NDMY). In 1983, Petitioner executed a form which acknowledged he had received a complete copy of the DOT employee handbook. The acknowledgement specified that enployees are responsible to review the handbook in detail and to request any clarification needed from a supervisor. The handbook provided the following regarding job abandonnent: 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. On or about October 23, 1984, Petitioner filed a request for a medical leave of absence. This request was based upon Petitioner's pulmonary disorder which prevented him from performing his duties with the NDMY. Petitioner was to receive pay based upon his accrued annual and/or sick leave through Novenber 6, 1984, thereafter, he was to be on leave without pay for a period of four months. This leave request was approved by the Petitioner's supervisor, Clive Taylor. Mr. Taylor was the only supervisor or employee at the NDMY who was authorized to grant a leave of absence for Petitioner. On January 28, 1985, an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence was granted by Mr. Taylor. This extension authorized two additional months of leave and specified that Petitioner would return to work no later than May 6, 1985. Prior to the leave of absence described above, Petitioner had performed his duties with the NDMY in an above satisfactory manner. Prior to May 6, 1985, Petitioner had complied with the rules and regulations regarding requests for leave. Petitioner did not return to work on May 6, 1985. Petitioner did not file a request for a leave extension. Mr. Taylor did not approve an extension of the leave beyond May 6, 1985. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on May 6, 7, and 8, 1985. On May 10, 1985, Mr. Taylor executed a form entitled "Resignation and Exit Interview Form." This form provided, in part: "Mr. Purkey is not available for signature" and "Mr. Purkey is pursuing regular disability retirement." Petitioner did not execute the form but was advised of its content by telephone. Sometime prior to April 30, 1985, Petitioner had applied for disability retirement benefits. That request was filed with the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement and was denied based upon a determination that Petitioner was not totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service. When that determination was made, Petitioner elected to file for regular retirement since he had accrued over ten years with the State. Thereafter, Petitioner received retirement benefits which were granted and paid retroactively from February 1, 1985. On July 9, 1986, Petitioner received a physician's statement which provided: It is my professional opinion that this patient may return to work requiring no strenuous physical activity providing that the patient continue on his medication and return for regular checkups in any office. Upon receipt of the physician's statement, Petitioner contacted the NDMY to request that he be allowed to return to work. Petitioner was advised that he had been terminated from employment in May, 1985, based upon his failure to return to work following his leave of absence. On July 29, 1986, Petitioner wrote to John C. Gocdnight, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, and requested Mr. Goodnight's assistance to allow Petitioner to return to DOT. That letter admitted that Petitioner knew his position had been filled but claimed he had been on leave. Petitioner maintained that he was "much too young to retire." The letter failed to mention that Petitioner had already been receiving retirement benefits. Petitioner listed his address subsequent to November, 1984, as Dunnellon, Florida. There is no record in Petitioner's personnel file which confirms DOT sent, and Petitioner received, a notice of his termination from employment in May, 1985. Petitioner did not request a hearing to review that termination until January, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order finding that the Petitioner, Hugh G. Purkey, abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 7th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first portion of paragraph 2 is accepted; the designation of his last actual day of employment is in error and is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The date indicated, January 20, 1984, was not his last day of actual employment. According to DOT exhibit 8 (the referenced citation) that date was the last date worked. Petitioner's last date of employment would have been calculated from May 5, 1985 (the last date of his authorized leave). With regard to paragraphs 3 and 4, it is accepted that Petitioner used his accrued sick and annual leave until they were exhausted. After the paid leave was used, Petitioner applied for and received, by filing the appropriate form, an authorized leave without pay. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as comment, argument, or recitation of testimony which does not constitute a finding of specific fact. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as vague and ambiguous. It is accepted that Petitioner filed his original leave request and that Ms. Sellers assisted him. Paragraph 15 is rejected as incomplete and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 16 is accepted to the extent that it provides that clerks would assist persons who requested such assistance. The first three sentences of paragraph 17 are accepted; the balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 18 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or unknown. DOT did not establish that the form was sent and received by Petitioner. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as a provision of law. The parties have not disputed that the notice is required. Paragraph 21 is accepted to the extent that DOT cannot prove that such notice was provided to Petitioner. Paragraph 22 is rejected as incomplete or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant since Petitioner did not request that his medical leave be continued as required by the rule. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Further, the authorization to return was not without limitation. Paragraph 25 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to the letter to Goodnight, Petitioner admitted in that letter that he knew his position had been filled. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as irrelevant or not covered by the record. With regard to paragraph 32, it is accepted that Petitioner's request for disability retirement was denied and that he ultimately elected to seek early retirement; otherwise, it is rejected as hearsay uncorroborated by direct evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the credible evidence. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 37 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 38 is rejected as comment, argument, or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's section described as "Analysis" has not been considered findings of fact. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY DOT: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as Irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraph 23 is rejected as unsupported by the record. DOT's section described as "Analysis" has not been considered findings of fact COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Field WICKER, SMITH, BLOMQVIST, TUTAN, O'HARA, McCOY, GRAHAM & LANE Grove Plaza Building, 5th Floor 2900 Middle Street Miami, Florida 33133 Charles Gardner Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Acting Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 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
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against, by being separated from her employment with Respondent, because she sustained a back injury which Respondent perceived as a potential problem and whether she was the subject of disparate treatment as relates to the treatment Respondent afforded its other employees.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Joyce A. Dykes, was employed by Respondent, Quincy Telephone Company, for a period of approximately thirteen (13) years where she served as a service representative/cashier and an operator. Petitioner was laid off on May 27, 1983 based upon a company-wide employment reduction mandated by economic factors. Prior to her employment with Respondent, Petitioner was formerly employed as a bookkeeper with Higdon Furniture Company for approximately 17 years. Petitioner's first date of employment with Respondent was September 28, 1970. Approximately 7 years later, i.e., on November 21, 1977, Petitioner, during the course of her duties as an operator, left her work area and, upon return, sat down in a chair which she described as "wobbly." Petitioner fell backwards from the chair and "landed on her buttocks." Ann Kirkland, a fellow employee, was summoned to the scene of the incident and took Petitioner to the hospital for an examination. Petitioner stayed in the hospital approximately 3 days and returned to work. Since she returned to work, Petitioner has not requested any special treatment such as a convenient parking space, less strenuous duties or other more favorable treatment based on her "back problem." Petitioner expressed that she was leery of complaining to Respondent, and/or its agents, based on her back problem and therefore refused to make noises about that problem. During the summer of 1981, Petitioner experienced a traumatic incident involving the drowning of her son at the pool of a local motel. Petitioner's fellow employees, including Bladis Crow, an employee of Respondent during December, 1980 to October, 1981, and who was in overall charge of Petitioner, attempted to console her during her period of mourning by suggesting that she return to work where she would be in the company of fellow employees who could console her during this low period in her life. During the period of 1980-81 when Petitioner was under the supervision of supervisor Crow, she was "cross-trained" such that she could fill in for other employees during periods of other employee absences including vacations and other leaves. Petitioner, like other employees who were "cross-trained" did not like the idea of learning new tasks and being assigned to perform other duties temporarily. Supervisor Crow perceived Petitioner to be a valuable employee and considered that she got along well with other employees. One other employee, Eunice Hancock, a cashier and service representative, recalled Petitioner bringing in a heating pad and, on occasion, voicing complaints about a backache. During her period of employment with Respondent, Petitioner was perceived as a divisive employee in the minds of Respondent's managerial employees. (Testimony of supervisor Geary 1/; Lila D. Corbin, president and general manager; and Ann Kirkland, a former supervisor and business representative). Petitioner was viewed as an employee with a morale problem and often appeared unhappy and was a source of constant bickering between other employees. Petitioner was reprimanded by Bill Geary, who served as Respondent's supervisor for approximately one year from mid-1982 to the time of her layoff on May 26, 1983. Supervisor Geary interviewed Petitioner respecting a written reprimand he issued her on January 21, 1983. All of the items listed on that reprimand were discussed with Petitioner. Among the items discussed were Petitioner's fellow employees' complaints about her activities including moodiness, low morale and other problems dealing with the quantity and quality of Petitioner's work. Throughout the discussions with supervisor Geary, Petitioner repeatedly attempted to digress from the purpose of her interview and attempted to compare her work with that of other employees. From the time that Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Respondent has undergone three changes of ownership and is presently owned by Teledata Systems (TDS). With the change in ownership by TDS, a number of changes were instituted, some of which stem from the deregulation of the telephone industry. Upon becoming the owner, TDS immediately commissioned an overall forecast study of the operations in Quincy. Following that study, TDS determined that cutbacks in operating costs were necessary to insure profitability. The decision was therefore made to reduce employees and, in some instances, to reclassify positions or redefine the duties of its employees. In keeping with that goal, TDS, through its management, issued a directive to implement a work force reduction during May of 1983. Ms. Corbin, then the president and general manager, first learned of TDS' plans to institute the work force reduction during March of 1983. The plan was divulged to other supervisory and management employees during the week of approximately May 22, 1983. Pursuant to the company-wide reduction plan, TDS determined that of its complement of 83 employees when it took over during January of 1983, the work force needed to be reduced by approximately 11 employees. When the policy directive was issued to managers and supervisors, they were told to rid themselves of employees who did not meet certain criteria deemed critical by management such as the skills of each employee; the difficulty in replacing certain skilled employees and in training replacements; customer relationship; productivity level; ability to learn new skills; ability for overtime work, if and when needed; attendance; salary level; ability to work as a member of a new organizational structure and to be a team player; and the overall attitude toward company, customer and fellow employees. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Those employees considered as fitting within the category of employees needing to be laid off were employees who came in late and left early; were repeatedly absent; performed sloppy work; wasted time and material; engaged in personal telephoning; stretched breaks and lunch hours; spent too much time in the washrooms and talked to other employees about personal activities; rudeness that causes customer irritation and costly work errors. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) During the time when the work force reduction was implemented, Petitioner was on vacation. Prior to that time, she had been afforded training as a keypunch operator. Of the 3 employees who were given keypunch training with Petitioner, Petitioner was tested as having the least leadership skills of the three. When the work force reduction was implemented, 11 employees were laid off. Presently that number has increased from 11 to 19. The only area where there has been one (1) employee hired is an employee trained to operate the Respondent's "complex" PBX and PABX systems. It is true that there were employees with less seniority than Petitioner who were retained, however seniority (length of service) was considered to be only a factor if it is also indicative of the experience gained and versatility (of the employee). Respondent considered that there were other factors more paramount which would influence the retention decision. (Respondent's Exhibit 1, paragraph 2) Respecting Respondent's claim that the Respondent perceived her back injury as a handicap or a potential problem, the evidence fails to sustain her claim in that regard. What the facts show is that while Petitioner did sustain an on-the-job injury during 1977, evidence fails to support Petitioner's claim that the injury was perceived the Respondent as a problem it needed to rid itself of or that it was a physical handicap which could or would be the source of a problem for Respondent. Noteworthy is the fact that Petitioner never requested any preferential treatment in her job assignments based on this claimed handicap other than one isolated incident wherein she spoke to her then- supervisor Geary at the time that she was asked if she desired training as a keypunch operator. For all of these reasons and the wide range of layoffs implemented by this Respondent during May of 1983, Petitioner's claim does not appear meritorious but was rather necessitated by changes in the telephone industry which continues today to have an economic impact on the Respondent. Respondent developed nondiscriminatory criteria which were given to all management types to use in determining what employees should be retained. The criteria was not designed to weed out or eliminate troublesome employees but, rather, to determine those employees to be retained and the criteria which guided that retention decision. That decision appeared to have been based solely on economic and business decisions of the Respondent company as a whole. 2/ Petitioner failed to establish that she was the subject of unlawful disparate treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1985.
