The Issue Whether the Respondent, Kenneth M. Watson, abandoned his career service position with the Department pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by being absent from work without authorization on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Watson was employed by the Department from June l2, 1985, until November 6, 1987. When Mr. Watson was first employed by the Department he was given a copy of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook. Mr. Watson was, therefore, informed of the following, which appears on page 43 of the Handbook (DOT exhibit 5-B): JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. The leave policy of the Department requires that employees "[g]et your supervisor's approval before taking leave." Page 21 of the Handbook (see DOT exhibit 5-A). In November, 1987, Mr. Watson was employed by the Department as a Highway Maintenance Technician II. He was a Career Service employee. In November, 1987, Mr. Watson worked under the direct supervision of Tommy Gay. Mr. Gay was a welder and had no authority over Mr. Watson other than to supervise work they performed together. Mr. Gay had no authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson's next immediate supervisor was Elzie Mercer, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor IV. Mr. Mercer had authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson's next immediate supervisor was Joseph Heath, the District Bridge Inspection Engineer. Mr. Heath also had the authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. On November 3, 1987, Mr. Watson was absent from work. This absence had been approved by the Department. Mr. Watson was supposed to return to work on November 4, 1987. He was supposed to be at work on November 5 and 6, 1987, also. Mr. Watson did not report to work with the Department on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Neither Mr. Mercer or Mr. Heath approved Mr. Watson's absence for November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Mr. Watson did not directly contact Messrs. Gay, Mercer and Heath, or anyone else at the Department about his absence on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Mr. Watson did not request approval for his absence on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. A woman who identified herself as Mrs. Green called the Department on November 4, 1987, and spoke with the receptionist, Carol Ellis. Mrs. Green informed Ms. Ellis that "if Mr. Watson does not show up at his job in a couple of days he is probably in jail." Ms. Ellis informed Messrs. Gay and Mercer about this conversation. Mrs. Green called again on November 6, 1987, and spoke with Barbara Taylor, a secretary with the Department. Ms. Taylor informed Mr. Heath of this phone call. Mr. Heath had Mr. Gay call the Duval County Jail. Mr. Gay verified that Mr. Watson was in jail. Mr. Watson first spoke with Mr. Heath on November 10, 1987. Mr. Watson informed Mr. Heath that he was in jail. Mr. Watson requested approval of annual and sick leave for the period of his absence. Mr. Watson was told that he could not use sick leave for the absence. Mr. Heath also informed Mr. Watson that he was denying the request for annual leave and that Mr. Watson would be treated as having abandoned his position with the Department because of his unauthorized absence. Mr. Watson spoke with Mr. Heath by telephone again on November 13, 1987. Mr. Heath again denied Mr. Watson's request for leave. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Watson appeared at work for the first time since before his authorized absence on November 3, 1987. He was informed that he could not work and he left. Messrs. Mercer and Heath were not contacted by Mr. Watson and requested to approve his absence from work on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987, until November 10, 1987, or later. At no time did Mr. Watson obtain approval of his absence. Mr. Watson was informed by letter dated November 24, 1987, that he had abandoned his position with the Department. The Department received a letter on November 25, 1987, requesting a formal administrative hearing. Mr. Watson had sufficient annual leave to cover his absence from the Department on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987. He did not have sufficient annual leave to cover his absence through November 17, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Administration concluding that Kenneth M. Watson abandoned his career service position with the Department. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Case Number 88-0798 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2-3 4. 4-5 5. 6 7. 7 11. 8 13. 9 11-15. 10 16. Hereby accepted. See 17. 13 13. 9. But see 16. Mr. Watson attempted to return to work on November 17, 1989. Hereby accepted. 16 18. 17-18 2. 19-20 Although generally true, the Department failed to present evidence sufficient to support these policies. See Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 3-6. 2 7. 3 9. 4 11. 5 12. Except for the last three sentences, these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last three sentences are accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant in this de novo proceeding. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. See 20. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS #58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and supervised by Frank J. Alogna, Park Manager at Ravine State Gardens at Palatka, Florida. Petitioner signed an acknowledgment receipt indicating that: (a) he had received an Employee Handbook; (b) it was his responsibility to review the Handbook; and (c) he was to request clarification, if needed, from his supervisor. Petitioner knew, or should have known, since the Handbook explained job abandonment, that unauthorized leave of absence could result in the loss of his job through abandonment. Petitioner was absent without leave on January 14, 15, and 16, 1987. Respondent's regular days off were January 17 and 18, 1987. January 19, 1987 was a paid holiday. Respondent was absent without leave again on January 20 and 21, 1987. Petitioner's last day of work was January 11, 1987 since January 12 and 13, 1987 were Petitioner's regular days off. Respondent tried on several occasions to reach Petitioner, but was unable to do so. At 7:00 p.m. on January 21, 1987 Petitioner telephoned Alogna but had no satisfactory explanation for his unauthorized leave. During this telephonic conversation on January 21, 1987, Petitioner was informed by Alogna that he was considered to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service. Respondent formally advised Petitioner of this decision by letter dated January 23, 1987 which was hand delivered to the Petitioner on February 12, 1987 after Petitioner failed to claim the letter sent by certified mail through the post office. At no time relevant to this proceeding was any type of leave requested by Petitioner, or granted by Respondent. Although Petitioner was notified by regular U.S Mail of the date, place, and time of the formal hearing, Petitioner failed to appear. Petitioner lived approximately one (1) block from the entrance of Ravine State Gardens where he worked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered deeming the Petitioner to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1236 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Ed Pantaleon, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel Dept. of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Raymond W. Johnston Route 3., Box 4655 Palatka, Florida 32034 Pamela Miles, Esquire Dept. of Admin. 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Dept. of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Gen. Counsel Dept. of Admin. 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Tom Gardner, Executive Dir. Dept. of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Seamless, at its Ocala, Florida plant from January 9, 1985 to June 21, 1985. At the time she was employed, she was furnished an employee handbook which outlines, among other things, the procedures for applying for and receiving leaves of absences. Mrs. Lanham had also been employed by Becton-Dickinson, a company owned by Dart & Kraft, Inc., the company which owns Seamless as well. Becton-Dickinson was the forerunner to the Seamless operation at the same plant site. During this previous period of employment, Mrs. Lanham applied for a four day leave of absence extending from March 7, 1984 through March 10, 1984 for medical reasons. The form application for a leave of absence prepared by the Petitioner and bearing her signature as well as those of the additional individuals in her chain of supervision reflects that the form was submitted subsequent to Mrs. Lanham's return from leave. Mrs. Lanham contends that she was discriminated against because of a physical handicap (rheumatoid arthritis) yet the employment application she executed on November 1, 1984, some two months before she was hired and approximately 7 months prior to the leave of absence which resulted in her termination, reflected that she did not have any physical condition which would limit her ability to perform the job applied for. Mrs. Lanham took an administrative leave on June 10, 1985 and remained absent until June 21, 1985. On June 10, Mrs. Lanham's husband delivered a disability certificate signed that date by Mrs. Lanham's physician, Dr. Panzer, to Mrs. Lanham's supervisor, Mrs. Kibler. This disability certificate was in turn transmitted to Mrs. Reese, the personnel specialist, by Mrs. Kibler. On June 12, Mrs. Reese talked by telephone with Mr. Lanham, advising him that Mrs. Lanham had to come in to fill out a form for a leave of absence. Later in the day, Mr. Lanham called back to say that Petitioner would be in the next morning. Mrs. Lanham did, in fact, come in on June 13. In a meeting in Mrs. Reese's office, Mrs. Reese gave Mrs. Lanham a form for a leave of absence request. At the time, Mrs. Lanham objected to coming in to fill out the form indicating she did not think it was necessary because she had a doctor's statement which she understood would make a leave of absence request unnecessary. In response, Mrs. Reese explained that the leave of absence request was necessary because the doctor's statement, previously submitted on June 10, showed no diagnosis and was, therefore, inadequate. In response Mrs. Lanham indicated she would not fill out or sign any form without first taking it to her attorney. The completed leave of absence form was received by Mrs. Reese that same day, after lunch, when Petitioner's husband brought it in and dropped it off at the reception desk. This leave of absence form is dated by Mrs. Lanham on June 12, 1985, and indicates in the explanation portion thereof that the reason for the requested leave of absence is "job related injury." When Mrs. Reese saw this entry, she immediately called Mrs. Lanham's home leaving word for Mrs. Lanham to return the call. This call was not returned, and, later in the day, Mrs. Reese again called Mrs. Lanham, this time leaving word for her to report to the Oakbrook Clinic for an examination of the job related injury the first thing the next day. Mrs. Lanham at no time reported to the clinic for the examination as directed either that day or any time thereafter. Repeated phone calls to the Lanham residence failed to result in Mrs. Lanham being reached. In addition, repeated requests by mail, telegram, and phone for her to come into the office and explain her absence were met with no response. In fact, Mrs. Lanham was on vacation during a substantial portion of the time of her absence a vacation which, she contends, her doctor advised her to take. There was no independent evidence in any form of the nature of Mrs. Lanham's condition or her doctor's prescribed course of treatment for it. Since, therefore, her leave of absence had not been approved, it was thereafter determined that she had abandoned her job and on June 21, 1985, she was notified by certified mail that a determination was made that she had voluntarily resigned her position with the company. Mrs. Lanham contends that she felt it was perfectly all right for her to wait until she returned from her leave of absence to submit the leave of absence request basing this conclusion on the fact that when she worked for Becton-Dickinson, some two years previously, that was the procedure followed. Though that might have been the procedure at the earlier time with the other company, it is clear that that was not the procedure followed by Seamless at the time in question and Mrs. Lanham's reliance on the earlier procedure, especially in light of the repeated contacts with her and the additional attempted contacts, result in the clear conclusion that she declined to comply with the company rules at her own peril. Mrs. Lanham indicates that the reason the diagnosis was not in the initial disability certificate submitted by her was that the lab work had not been completed at the time it was submitted and she failed to go to Oakbrook Clinic notwithstanding the repeated requests by Mrs. Reese because she understood that it was up to her to go at her convenience. She intended to go to Oakbrook when she got back from her vacation. 9. Subsequent to all the above, Mrs. Lanham settled a Workmen's Compensation claim in her case for some financial award. The terms of the settlement are not relevant to the issues herein. It is evident, however, that the award was based on compromise rather than liability and no firm determination of compensability was made. Mrs. Lanham was absent for three days prior to submitting the absence request form for this June 1985 absence. When the form was submitted, it contained information relating to a job related injury, which entry was placed there by Mrs. Lanham's attorney. This raised legitimate questions in the Respondent's personnel officials' minds to require further contact with Petitioner since there had been no previous notification of injury. By this time, however, Petitioner had either gone on vacation or for some other reason, refused to respond to the requests of the personnel people to either come into the plant or go to the clinic for evaluation. Mrs. Lanham may have had a valid disability, but it was not the disability for which she was terminated. It was the extended unexcused or unapproved absence from June 13 through June 21, a period of more than three days, which, under the guidelines set out in the employee manual, resulted in a legitimate conclusion by management that Petitioner had abandoned her position and it is clear that her termination was based on that rather than any reference to her handicap. All other information relating to Mrs. Lanham's complaints about job working conditions and her request to be reassigned have little if any bearing on the issue of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Gladys L. Lanham be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gladys L. Lanham. 4631 SW 87th Terrace Ocala, FL 32674 John L. Johnson, Esq. Labor Counsel Dart & Kraft, Inc. 211 Sanders Rd. Northbrook, IL 60062 Susan K. McKenna, Esq. 57 W. Pine Street Suite 202 Orlando, FL 32801 Betsy Howard Clerk of the Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 - Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303 Aurelio Durana General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 - Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 - Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent in this case. 1. Incorporated in finding of fact 1. 2. Incorporated in finding of fact 1 and 2. 3-4. Incorporated in finding of fact 4. 5. Incorporated in finding of fact 2 and 4. 6. Incorporated in finding of fact 5. 7. Incorporated in finding of fact 1. 8. Treated in finding of fact 9. 9-11. Incorporated in finding of fact 6. 12. Incorporated in finding of fact 6 and 7. 13. Incorporated in finding of fact 6. 14. Incorporated in finding of fact 10 and 11. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS GLADYS L. LANHAM, EEOC Case No. n/a Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 85-3099 DOAH Case No. 85-4345 SEAMLESS HOSPITAL PRODUCTS, FCHR Order No. 86-032 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a clerical worker, a permanent career service position, at all times material hereto. Prior to October 3, 1988, Petitioner experienced back problems which prevented her attendance at work. Dr. Brian M. Mitteldorf, a chiropractic physician, treated Petitioner beginning September 25, 1988, and continuing through all times material hereto. On October 3, 1988, Theresa (Terry) Bartelmo, Petitioner's supervisor, advised Petitioner in writing that Petitioner would be out of sick leave and annual leave the following day. Mrs. Bartelmo enclosed two copies of the form used to request a leave of absence and advised Petitioner that it was necessary to fill in all blanks and to return the form to her by no later than October 10, 1988. Respondent does not authorize any type of leave for unspecified or unlimited duration. Ms. Bartelmo further advised Petitioner that "... If I do not hear from you by that date, (October 10,1988) then I will assume you wish to terminate your employment with the Department and will process the necessary documentation." On October 3, 1988, Petitioner's husband, Edmund DeSilva, met with Ms. Bartelmo. During the meeting, Ms. Bartelmo gave to Mr. DeSilva the letter she had written to Mrs. DeSilva, together with the forms for the leave of absence. The form for leave of absence was signed by Petitioner on October 3, 1988. Mr. DeSilva hand delivered the form to Ms. Bartelmo prior to the deadline of October 10 set by Ms. Bartelmo. This form was forwarded by Ms. Bartelmo to Martha (Marty) Anderson, Respondent's district personnel manager. Ms. Bartelmo recommended that the leave of absence be granted. Ms. Anderson approved the leave of absence on October 13, 1988. The leave of absence form submitted by Petitioner and approved by Respondent contained a tentative return-to-work date of November 23, 1988. On October 3, 1988, the date Petitioner signed the leave of absence form, it was uncertain when Petitioner would be able to return to work because of her medical condition. On or about October 18, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo telephoned Petitioner to check on her progress. After Petitioner told Ms. Bartelmo that she did not feel well enough to talk, Ms. Bartelmo asked Petitioner to call her when Petitioner felt better. Ms. Bartelmo did not talk with Petitioner again until after Petitioner's employment was terminated. Dr. Mitteldorf called Ms. Bartelmo on November 22, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m. Dr. Mitteldorf told Ms. Bartelmo during that telephone conversation that Petitioner was too ill to return to work. Ms. Bartelmo asked Dr. Mitteldorf for a letter stating his opinion as to when Petitioner could return to work. Dr. Mitteldorf's letter was dated December 13, 1988. During their telephone conversation on November 22, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo did not tell or indicate to Dr. Mitteldorf that their conversation was tantamount to an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Dr. Mitteldorf that she was mailing to him the forms Petitioner needed to submit to request an extension of her leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo can recommend approval of a request for leave of absence, but she does not have the authority to grant the approval. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Petitioner or anyone acting on Petitioner's behalf, that Petitioner had any form of authorized leave after November 22, 1988. Other than having Dr. Mitteldorf call Ms. Bartelmo, Petitioner made no effort to have her leave of absence extended. Petitioner's authorized leave of absence ended on November 22, 1988. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave of absence beginning November 23, 1988, and continuing for more than 3 consecutive work days. By certified mailing on December 2, 1988, Petitioner was advised that her career service position was terminated as of December 1, 1988. Petitioner had been given a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook on December 16, 1986, which provides in part: After an unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policies. Petitioner's request for a formal hearing was timely filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order concluding that Petitioner has abandoned her position with Respondent in the career service due to her unauthorized absence from employment for three consecutive workdays beginning November 23, 1988. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are unsupported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Colomba DeSilva 2019 Southwest 29th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Respondent resigned his position of employment with Petitioner and, if not, whether Respondent's position of employment with Petitioner should be terminated for cause, specifically, the Respondent's alleged absence without leave, his alleged abuse of sick leave, and his alleged theft of school property.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a painter pursuant to an annual contract from January 17, 1983, until January 29, 1993. Respondent was not a member of the instructional staff, a principal, or a supervisor. Respondent did not submit to the Petitioner a formal resignation of his employment, nor did he ever intend to do so. A School Board employee with an annual contract may be dismissed during the term of his contract for cause. Respondent had frequently taken leave during his term of employment with the Petitioner and he was aware of the School Board's policies pertaining to leave. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 1277, AFL-CIO (IBFO). The collective bargaining agreement between the IBFO and the School Board contains terms and conditions of employment pertinent to this proceeding. Article IV, Section F pertains to "Return from Leave" and provides as follows: Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered as absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. This section should be subject to extenuating circumstances preventing timely return, as determined by the Superintendent. Article IV, Section A of the collective bargaining agreement pertains to sick leave and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. Sick Leave Charged -- Sick leave shall be charged in no less than half-day segments. Each school or Department shall record absences on an hourly basis. When the appropriate half-day increment is reached, based upon the assigned employee workday, the employee shall have 1/2 day of accumulated sick leave deducted. . . . * * * 10. False Claim -- False claim for sick leave shall be grounds for dismissal by the School Board. Petitioner's Administrative Directive D-3.47(3) is a rule of the School Board and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3) District employees shall not convert School Board property, including any equipment and supplies, for personal business or activity. CONVERSION OF SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY In November 1992, Warren Haan, the paint supervisor for the Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Operations, was told by Jacques Brisson, Respondent's foreman, that it appeared to him that Respondent was taking school property for his own use. Mr. Haan investigated the allegations and went to the area in the maintenance department where the employees parked their vehicles. Mr. Haan looked into Respondent's personal vehicle and discovered that Respondent had placed inside of his vehicle property of the School Board. The evidence established that Respondent intended to convert this property to his own use. The property, which was taken from the Respondent before he could remove it from school grounds, consisted of an empty paint bucket, painter's rags, a small quantity of caulk, and a caulking gun. Mr. Haan referred this matter to the school security department on January 4, 1993. Respondent had not been disciplined at the time of his alleged resignation because the matter was still under investigation at that time. Respondent testified that other painters regularly took items such as empty paint buckets and paint rags. This self-serving testimony does not establish that Petitioner routinely permitted painters to violate the clear school policies pertaining to unauthorized use of school property. To the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Brisson established that theft had been a problem that he had tried to stop. ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE The Respondent occasionally was employed as a painter by individuals and entities other than the Petitioner. Such employment was permissible, but an employee was not permitted to perform services for private individuals while out on sick leave. The Respondent reported to work on December 3, 1992, and left his employment in the late morning using sick leave for the remainder of the day. That same day, Mr. Haan received information that led him to believe that Respondent had taken sick leave, but that he was working as a painter at a house under construction in an area referred to as Boca Grove in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Haan went with Dave Traill, another school board employee, to this private residence at approximately 2:30 p.m. on December 3, 1992, where he observed Respondent's automobile. He went to the residence under construction and asked to see the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter came out of the house and talked with Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill. Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill did not see what Respondent had been doing inside the residence. Respondent testified that he had seen his doctor for a brief appointment earlier that day and had gone from his doctor's office to the residence at Boca Grove. Respondent admitted at the formal hearing that he had agreed to paint the house for the owner, but asserted that he had gone to the house to tell the owner that he would not be working that day. Respondent testified that he had taken vacation leave when he actually worked on the private residence. Respondent admitted that he had spent approximately two hours on December 3, 1992, while on sick leave going over with the owner items of work that he was to perform. This meeting was a necessary part of the painting job he was to do for the owner. From the evidence presented, it is found that on December 3, 1992, the Respondent performed services unrelated to his duties as a school board employee for his personal gain at this house in Boca Grove while absent from his employment with the Petitioner pursuant to sick leave. Respondent abused Petitioner's sick leave policy. ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE In January 1993, Petitioner took time off from his work to attend to his wife, who continued to experience physical problems resulting from a heel fracture on August 28, 1992. Respondent contacted his foreman, Jacques Brisson, at approximately 7:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993, to request that he be allowed to take that week off as vacation time. Mr. Brisson approved that leave, but he informed Respondent that he would have to contact Warren Haan, the painting supervisor, if he wanted to take any additional time off. Respondent was absent from his employment without approved leave on Monday, February 1, 1993; Tuesday, February 2, 1993; Wednesday, February 3, 1993; and Thursday, February 4, 1993. Friday, February 5, 1993, was not a scheduled work day since the paint department was on a four day work week. Respondent testified that he contacted Mr. Haan during the last week of January 1993 and told him he may need to be off work for a week or longer. Respondent also testified that Mr. Haan authorized his leave during the last week of January 1993. Mr. Haan testified at the formal hearing, but he was not questioned about this conversation or whether he authorized leave for the Respondent during any part of February 1993. Mr. Haan testifed that Respondent's employment was terminated because he was absent without authorization for the days in February and that Respondent would have contacted Mr. Brisson to obtain authorization for leave. Respondent later testified that he did not know why he had not contacted anyone prior to being absent on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. The apparent conflicts in Respondent's testimony are resolved by finding that while Respondent may have told Mr. Haan at some time during January 1993 that he needed to take some time off, he did not seek and he was not given authorization to be absent from his employment on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. On February 5, 1993, Warren Page, Coordinator of Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Plant Operations, sent to Respondent by certified mailing a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: This is to confirm that you have not reported to work since January 29, 1993. You have not contacted this office as required to report your intended absences. You have not requested or received approval for a short term leave of absence. Therefore, you are currently absent without approved leave. In the absence of any correspondence from you, I can only assume that you have decided not to continue working as a Painter for the Palm Beach County School Board. Please be advised that your name will be submitted to the Palm Beach County School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for acceptance of your resignation from employment. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact this office. Respondent received the certified mailing on Saturday, February 6, 1993. On Monday, February 8, 1993, Respondent contacted Lawrence G. Zabik, the Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, and asked him what he should do about the certified mailing that he had received. Mr. Zabik told Respondent that he should meet with Mr. Page to see if he could work things out. Respondent did not contact Mr. Page, and he did not report to work. During a regularly scheduled meeting in February, 1993, the School Board voted to accept his resignation with an effective date of January 29, 1993. January 29, 1993, was the effective date of the acceptance of Respondent's "resignation" and the date his employment with the School Board was terminated because it was the last day Respondent was out on authorized leave. This action was taken pursuant to Petitioner's Administrative Directive D- 3.27(2)(c), which provides as follows: (c) When employees do not report for duty for three (3) consecutive days without notifying their supervisor, the principal/department head will initiate a certified letter to the employees stating that their resignations will be recommended to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. By notice dated March 2, 1993, Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted his resignation as a painter with an effective date of January 29, 1993. The notice dated March 2, 1993, contained an old address for the Respondent. Consequently, he did not receive a copy of the notice until May 24, 1993, when he was officially informed that his employment had been terminated effective January 29, 1993, the last day on which Respondent had been on approved leave. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest his termination, and this proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order which terminates the employment of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of May 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4233 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence established that the incident involving conversion of school board property occurred in November 1992, but that it was reported to Mr. Sapyta on January 4, 1993. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, and 10 are rejected as being unnecessary as findings of fact, but the proposed findings are adopted either as preliminary matters or as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since there is no contention that Respondent had exhausted his sick leave. The proposed findings in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected. Specifically, Mr. Haan's credibility was not eroded as asserted by Respondent. The other findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since this is a de novo proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Hazel Lucas, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 381 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1504 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire 3501 South Congress Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding, under the relevant provisions of Chapter 760 Florida Statutes, concern whether the Petitioner was discriminatorily discharged because of her race and purported disability.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Escambia County Area Transit, Inc., operates a passenger bus service in the area of Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner was employed as a bus operator since August of 1999. On September 7, 2006, the Petitioner took FMLA leave for a condition involving migraine headaches. That leave extended through October 9, 2006. The Petitioner returned to work from that FMLA leave on January 9, 2007, however. A notice was sent to the Petitioner from Dawn Groders, an administrator with the Respondent, on April 19, 2007, informing the Petitioner that she had exhausted her FMLA leave for the twelve month "rolling calendar year" and that she would not begin accumulating additional FMLA leave until October 9, 2007. The Respondent's policy regarding FMLA leave is as follows: "If a family leave of absence exceeds 12 weeks on a rolling twelve month period, the employment status may be in jeopardy, which could result in termination of employment." There is a labor contract between the Respondent and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1395, the Petitioner's union. That contract contains no provision regarding warning or noticing an employee about obtaining exhaustion of FMLA leave. On October 19, 2007, the Petitioner commenced additional FMLA leave for an injury to her finger. The collective bargaining agreement contains a provision regarding a discretionary leave of thirty days which may be discretionarily granted by the employer. Because the Petitioner had previously exhausted her FMLA leave, based on the rolling twelve month calendar, and had yet to re-acquire any leave, the Petitioner was granted discretionary leave by the Respondent because of having exhausted her FMLA leave. The Petitioner contends that she should have been given alternative light-duty work by the Respondent. On December 3, 2007, however, the Petitioner received a letter from Richard Deibler, the Respondent's Director of Safety Training and Planning, which stated that there was no temporary alternative- duty work available at that time. (Respondent's Exhibit 4, in evidence). The witness for the Respondent established that there was no available part-time or light-duty work at the time the Petitioner was on FMLA leave or attempted to be on FMLA leave. The union contract does not require that part-time, light-duty work be available, with the exception of one individual who was so authorized and who was "grandfathered-in" in that status from a previous union contract. The Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence which would establish that light-duty, part-time work was available at the time in question, in late 2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner remained on re-activated FMLA leave due to her previous injury during the month of December 2007. On December 11, 2007, she received a notice from the Respondent to the effect that she must report for duty by December 27, 2007, because of exhaustion of her FMLA leave and was advised that her employment might be terminated if she were not at work by that date. On December 27, 2007, the Petitioner failed to return to work and her employment was terminated because of exhaustion of her FMLA leave, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. As of the date of her termination, the Petitioner had used a total of 64 days of FMLA leave during the course of the rolling calendar year, dating back to December 27, 2006. The Respondent was aware that the Petitioner had exhausted her FMLA leave based on a rolling calendar year in October 2007, and yet still extended her leave, not just for the referenced thirty days discretionary leave, but for nearly ninety additional days. The Petitioner has asserted no dispute with the number of days the Respondent contends (and the evidence supports) that she was not present at work due to using FMLA leave or other forms of leave, such as discretionary leave. The Petitioner offered no persuasive evidence to show that she was terminated from her employment due to her race or any other reason aside from exhaustion of her FMLA leave and the company's policy with regard thereto. The Respondent's representative and witness established, with her testimony, that the Petitioner was not terminated because of any perceived or actual disability. Although the Respondent knew of the medical reasons the Petitioner stated necessitated her absence, the Respondent was not aware that any physical impairment had resulted in an impairment of any major life activity of the Petitioner. The testimony of Ms. Chizek, is accepted as persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner was not terminated because of any perceived or actual disability or for reasons of her race, but rather was terminated solely because she had exhausted her FMLA leave and in fact the substantial amount of discretionary leave voluntarily granted to her by the Respondent. The Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that employees or former employees, outside her protected class (African-American) had been treated dissimilarly and more favorably, for the same or similar violations of company policy, to wit, the exhaustion of FMLA leave and subsequent continued failure to return to work. In fact, the persuasive, preponderant evidence shows that the Respondent uniformly applied its policy regarding FMLA exhaustion and subsequent termination of employment. Patty Chizek conducted an audit of all employee files in the fall of 2007 concerning the question of FMLA exhaustion. That audit was not an attempt to single out the Petitioner in any way due to her race or any disability, if one existed. Her investigation revealed that, in fact, a number of employees had exhausted their FMLA leave. They were all terminated during the month of December 2007, similarly to the Petitioner. Thus, Mary Nelson, Nadine Harris, Eurethia Davies, and Linda Donaldson, all of whom are Caucasian women, were terminated during December 2007 because of exhaustion of their FMLA leave. Derrick Roberts, an African-American male, was terminated during that month, for the same reason. All of these employees were terminated for that reason after not being able to return to work for a reasonable period of time after exhaustion of FMLA leave. Moreover, the Petitioner testified that she was first absent from work due to a migraine headache-related medical problem and, on the later occasion, due to injury of her finger, apparently caused by wrestling with the steering wheel of her bus, after it ran on the curb of a street she was traversing. Although it might be recognized, and indeed is undisputed, that these injuries or medical conditions were experienced by the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not establish that they truly impaired her in a major life activity. Even if they were significant, physical reasons for being absent from work for some of the time during which the Petitioner was absent, she did not establish, with persuasive evidence, that they impaired a major life activity and constituted any permanent, or relatively permanent, impairment of her ability to perform the duties of her job. Even if the Petitioner had established that there was a permanent impairment which might constitute a disability, she did not establish that the Respondent had refused a reasonable request for an accommodation therefor. Although the Petitioner requested light-duty employment, the Respondent established with persuasive evidence that, at the time it was requested by the Petitioner, there was no such employment available. Therefore, it was not an accommodation the Respondent could reasonably offer the Petitioner at that time, even if the Petitioner had a known, perceived or recognized disability at that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Marino, Esquire McMahon & Berger 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 James N. Foster McMahon & Berger 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 Tricia Dubose 1349 43rd Ensley Street Birmingham, Alabama 35208 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner from December, 1982 to December, 1987 as a tariff clerk, a permanent career service position. On September 23, 1987 Respondent became ill and left work without informing her supervisor, Jill Hurd, or her co-workers. Hurd was available on September 23 and 24, 1987 if Respondent had tried to explain her absence or request leave authorization. Respondent presented Health Status Certificates to Petitioner signed by M. R. Grate, Jr., M.D., dated October 30, November 11 and 18, 1987 which certified her inability to return to work from October 27 through November 30, 1987, during which time she was under his care. On the basis of these certificates, Petitioner authorized her sick leave from October 27 to November 30, 1987. Respondent did return to work on December 2, 1987, but was again absent on consecutive work days of December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. On December 3, 1987, Respondent sent a note to Hurd, via her husband, stating she did not feel well and would not be in to work. On December 4, 1987 her husband again brought Hurd a note stating Respondent would not be in because her baby was ill. Respondent's husband called Hurd on December 7, 1987 to state that she was still ill and would not be in to work. Hurd stated that Respondent needed to get back to work. At no time did Respondent request leave for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, nor was she approved for leave. She simply informed her supervisor, Hurd, through her husband that she was not coming to work each day. Prior to these unauthorized absences in December, 1987, Respondent had received a memorandum from Hurd on January 14, 1987 setting forth specific instructions for calling in sick following a number of unauthorized absences. Respondent was specifically instructed to call her supervisor, Hurd, each morning by 8:30 a.m. when she wanted to take sick leave. Despite this instruction, Respondent never called Hurd on December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, but simply had her husband deliver notes and messages to Hurd on her behalf. This prevented Hurd from discussing with Respondent the extent of her illness and when she expected to return to work. On November 25, 1987 Respondent had an appointment with Dr. Grate, who signed another Health Status Certificate for the period November 30 to December 11, 1987 indicating she remained under his care and was still unable to return to work. However, despite the fact she did report to work on December 2, 1987 and had been given specific instructions about how to apply for sick leave, she never presented Dr. Grate's Health Status Certificate dated November 25, 1987 to Hurd, or anyone else associated with Petitioner, until the hearing in this case. Therefore, Respondent did not present proper medical certification of illness for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, and instead simply failed to report to work, or to in any way attempt to personally contact her supervisor. A letter dated December 7, 1987 notifying Respondent of her abandonment of position and of her right to a hearing was sent to Respondent from Petitioner's Executive Director by certified mail, return receipt requested. Respondent's husband signed for this letter on December 9, 1987, and Respondent acknowledges receipt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter Final Order concluding that Respondent has abandoned her position with Petitioner in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave, for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 March, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-0161) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact cannot be made since her post-hearing submission shows no indication that a copy was provided to counsel for Petitioner, despite specific instruction at hearing, and the narrative contained in her letter consists of serial unnumbered paragraphs which primarily present argument on the evidence rather than true proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Public Service Commission 212 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Harold McLean, Esquire Public Service Commission Office of General Counsel 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Norma D. Saabir P. O. Box 5802 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and supervised by Wilson Yawn, Maintenance Engineer, Chipley, Florida. On April 15, 1985, Petitioner signed an acknowledgment receipt indicating that: (a) he had received an Employee Handbook; (b) it was his responsibility to review the Handbook; and (c) he was to request clarification, if needed, from his supervisor. Petitioner knew, or should have known, since the Handbook explained job abandonment, that unauthorized leave of absence could result in the loss of his job through abandonment. Petitioner was absent from work without authorized leave on August 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1987. At no time relevant to this proceeding was any type of leave requested by Petitioner, or granted by Respondent. Petitioner was formally advised by certified letter dated August 21, 1987 that Respondent considered him to have abandoned his job and to have resigned from the Career Service.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Vera Evans (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Life Care Center of Altamonte Springs (Respondent) on the basis of disability, in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since 1977, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner has been employed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN). In 2003, the Petitioner began her employment as an LPN with the Respondent in their skilled nursing unit, where she remained employed until her termination from employment on March 26, 2015. According to the formal job description adopted by the Respondent for its LPNs, persons employed as LPNs by the Respondent must “practice dependable, regular attendance” because the essential function of the LPN position is to provide patient care. The Respondent must insure that adequate staffing is available and present to provide such care. The failure of an LPN to be present for work and to be prepared to carry out the functions of the position increases the workload of other staff and can negatively affect patient care. The Respondent has adopted formal policies related to various forms of leave, including routine sick leave as well as extended requests for leave related to medical issues, such as Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. Additionally the Respondent’s formal policies encourage an employee to request an accommodation when medical impairments present challenges to the performance of the essential functions of an employee’s position. At the hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged that she was aware of the Respondent’s attendance and leave policies. The Petitioner previously requested and received a work accommodation in February 2014, when she was unable to work a full schedule due to a medical issue. In November 2014, the Petitioner took FMLA leave to address another medical issue. According to the documentation submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent as part of her FLMA leave request, the period of the Petitioner’s incapacity was November 17, 2014, through February 28, 2015. The Petitioner requested and was granted 12 weeks of FMLA leave, which commenced on November 17, 2014. The end of the Petitioner’s 12-week FMLA leave period was February 9, 2015. The Respondent’s FMLA leave policy specifically provides that an employee must return to work on the next scheduled workday after the expiration of the leave period, unless the employee provides a doctor’s note and receives approval from the Respondent. The Respondent’s FMLA leave policy also requires an employee to periodically contact the Respondent during the leave period and report her status, including her intention to return to work. During the time that the Petitioner was on approved FMLA leave, the Petitioner failed to contact the Respondent to indicate when she would be available to return to work. Several times during the Petitioner’s absence, Jermaine Morris, the Respondent’s staffing coordinator, contacted the Respondent and attempted to determine when she would be able to return to work. Mr. Morris did so at the direction of Astrid Lopez, the Respondent’s Director of Human Resources. Mr. Morris’ attempts were unsuccessful because the Petitioner was unable to identify an anticipated return date during their conversations. The Petitioner’s approved FMLA leave expired on February 9, 2015, by which time the Petitioner had failed to communicate to the Respondent her intention to return to work. The Respondent’s adopted leave policy specifically requires that non-FMLA leave requests must be submitted in writing to the requesting employee’s immediate supervisor, and must state the purpose of the request and the proposed dates of absence. Although the Petitioner had not filed a written request for additional leave or submitted the required documentation prior to the expiration of her FMLA leave, the Respondent granted non-FMLA leave to the Petitioner when the Petitioner did not return to work. At the same time, Ms. Lopez also placed the Petitioner on an “as needed” work status (also known as “PRN” status). The PRN classification allowed the Petitioner to remain on the Respondent’s employment roster and required only that she work a single shift during a 60-day period. The Respondent’s leave policy provides that non-FMLA leave is limited to no more than six weeks. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s non-FMLA leave period continued through March 26, 2015. Ms. Lopez testified that, despite the Petitioner’s failure to submit a written request for non-FMLA leave policy, she decided to grant non-FMLA leave because the Petitioner was a valued employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner never submitted a written request for non-FMLA leave, but apparently after Ms. Lopez had already approved the non-FMLA leave, the Petitioner had a doctor’s note delivered to the Respondent. After the Petitioner filed her complaint of discrimination with the FCHR, the Respondent, in preparing to respond to the Petitioner’s complaint, located a note in the Petitioner’s personnel file, purportedly written by a physician on a prescription pad and signed February 19, 2015. The note indicated that the Petitioner would require an additional three months of leave. The Petitioner’s approved FMLA leave had expired prior to the date of the note. For reasons that are unclear, the note was never delivered to Ms. Lopez for her review. Ms. Lopez had approved the non-FMLA leave for the Petitioner prior to the date of the note. The Petitioner never contacted anyone in the Human Resources office to follow-up on the note, and apparently assumed that an additional three months of leave had been approved. The Respondent’s failure to respond to the note was inadvertent. Had the Petitioner actually submitted a written request for non-FMLA leave as required by the Respondent’s policy, the Respondent would have been made aware of the note. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the note was purposeful or discriminatory against the Petitioner. The Respondent’s leave policy also sets forth the procedure and timelines by which the benefits of an employee on non-FMLA leave are suspended and a COBRA insurance notice issued. The Petitioner’s benefits were suspended and she received a timely COBRA insurance notice as provided by the policy. On March 26, 2015, at the conclusion of the approved non-FMLA leave period, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner’s employment. Prior to the termination, the Petitioner had failed to work a single shift as required by her PRN classification. Moreover, the Petitioner had failed to comply with state- mandatory LPN training requirements that had been imposed prior to the termination date. The Petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing that the Respondent’s decision to terminate her employment was at all related to disability. To the contrary, the Respondent approved the leave requested by the Petitioner, and in fact, granted additional leave to the Petitioner, without her request, so that she remained on the Respondent’s roster of employees. There is no evidence that the Respondent failed to provide any disability-related accommodation requested by the Petitioner. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that she was not interested in returning to work for the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2016.
