Findings Of Fact In April, 1987, DOA submitted recommendations to the Florida Legislature which included proposed changes in the state employees' group insurance program. Among the recommendations was a proposal that would require the Department to competitively bid HMO contracts in the state health program on the basis of cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility. The stated objective of the recommendation was to: encourage HMOs in a geographic location to structure their premiums to reflect actual cost experience and to provide the lowest possible cost for the state and state employees, while at the same time changing the current concept of the state's contributions to HMOs..." At the time of the DOA legislative recommendation, existing state law provided that persons eligible to participate in the state group health insurance program had the option to elect membership in any qualified HMO engaged in providing basic health services in the HMO service area where the employee resided in lieu of participating in the state self-insurance plan. Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, Rule 22K-1.1003(21), F.A.C. A "qualified" HMO was defined as an entity qualified under the federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300e-9, or certified under Part II of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes, which had entered into a contract with the State, and had achieved a designated level of participation by state employees. Rule 22K- 1.1003(21), F.A.C. Effective October 1, 1987, Chapter 87-156, Laws of Florida (now codified as Section 110.123(3)(d), Fla. Stat.) was amended to add the following: (3) STATE GROUP INSURANCE PROGRAM. -- * * * (d) * * * 2. Effective January 1, 1988, the Department of Administration shall, by rule, contract with health maintenance organizations to participate in the state group health insurance plan through the competitive bid process based on cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility. Effective January 1, 1988, all employees participating in the state group health insurance plan, irrespective of whether or not the member participates in a health maintenance organization, shall be subject to the same total premium, regardless of the state or employee's share. THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Dennis Nye, then the DOA Director of the Office of State Employees Insurance and administrator of the state health insurance program, was directly responsible for implementing the new legislation regarding the HMO contracts. He initially determined that procurement of HMO contractual services was governed by Section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The Request For Proposals For Health Maintenance Organization Coverage was issued on July 31, 1987, as "Bid No. 88-05." It scheduled a presubmission conference on August 12, 1987, and established the deadline for receipt of proposals of August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of contract on September 14, 1987, and an effective contract date of January 1, 1988. The Department clearly set forth the general purpose of the RFP in Section II as requiring each proposal to meet the benefit objectives and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. More specific objectives were as follows: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review and superior statistical reporting Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of State employees. DOA stated other objectives to be as follows: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. For example, an employee covered in Miami with a covered dependent living in Gainesville, should be provided similar services. Enter into a two year, non-experience rated contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Medical Care Services. This will become part of the contract. Section III of the RFP stated that to be considered as a "qualified" HMO, the proposer must be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Each proposer was required to submit the following: Form PUR 7033, properly completed and signed. The completed Questionnaires Requirements Section (Please answer questions in the same order as they appear in that Section; do not reformat). The completed Cost Proposal forms (Please use the enclosed form on page 43 and 44; do not reformat). The completed Statement of Compliance on page 47. Documentation in support of the above. Section III further provided in part as follows: Proposals are to be submitted only on the forms and formats provided in this RFP. All exhibits requested must be submitted with your proposal along with answers to all questions contained in this RFP. Section IV of the RFP provided that each contract would be for a 24 month term, beginning January 1, 1988. The Department reserved the right to renew the contracts on the same terms and conditions of the initial contract for two additional one-year periods. Section VI of the RFP, concerning "Required Benefits and Services," listed the minimum benefits that must be provided, and also required that a complete list of all other intended services for each service area be provided. Section IX specified the following criteria for evacuation of the proposals: Premium Cost Extensiveness of Service Areas by County and/or contiguous Counties. Note: The State's objective is to award no more than two contracts per services (sic) area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance features Range of providers including specialists and number of hospitals Out of service area coverage Grievance procedures Acessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The RFP did not provide information on DOA's evaluation of the legislatively required criteria concerning the importance of price and other evaluation criteria. The Department weighed cost equal to benefits plus accessibility and determined accessibility was a part of the plan benefits. Section X was a questionnaire with forty-nine questions for the proposers to answer including questions regarding the proposer's license status, corporate structure, reserving practices, reinsurance contracts, service area, employee membership and staff, hospitals and other care facilities, participating physicians, utilization review, and other information regarding the proposer's case management, control mechanisms, statistical reporting, and the like. Each proposer was directed to submit audited financial statements for the last two fiscal years, together with financial statements for the first quarter of 1987. Section XI dealt with cost proposals and provided a form for completion as to proposed premium rates. In an undated addendum to the RFP, the Department added Question 50 to the RFP to provide information for use in a brochure which would allow state employees to compare the benefits offered by the various HMOs. In the pre-submission conference held on August 12, 1987, and attended by representatives of the HMOs, the participants were informed by Mr. Nye that the two criteria of cost and benefits would be weighted on an equal basis. He also advised that the State would enter into a two year, non-experience rated contract, subject to renewal which would tie rate increases to the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care Services. Proposers were told to quote a specific rate for the first year of the contract, and a percentage increase or decrease for each of the following three years. However, he noted that the State would evaluate cost solely on the basis of the premium for the first year. He indicated that two HMOs per service area would be awarded contracts based on the highest number of points received in the bid evaluation process, and not based upon the type of HMO, such as an individual practice association (IPA) or staff model. Then asked whether some factors would be weighted higher than others, Mr. Nye responded that benefits and cost would be weighted higher. THE PROPOSERS 15. Twelve HMOs submitted proposals to the Department for the South Florida area (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties) in response to the RFP by the deadline, and several of those submitted more than one proposal. There was, however, no prohibition on submitting multiple proposals, and prospective bidders were told that they had that option. In this proceeding, proposals were received from Health Options, Heritage, and Humana to serve Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and a proposal from Gulfstream to serve Palm Beach County. Health Options is a for profit subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and is an individual practice association (IPA) model HMO. Health Options offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. It has a total membership of 23,074 members, of which 517 are state employees and dependents. Heritage is a subsidiary of Heritage Health System, Inc., for profit Delaware Corporation, and is an IPA model HMO. Heritage offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and has a total membership of 12,500 members, including 10 state employees and dependents. Humana is a for profit subsidiary of Humana, Inc., and is a combination staff/IPA model HMO. Humana offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and has a total membership of 91,217 members, including 3,273 state employees and dependents. Gulfstream, at the time its proposal was filed, was a limited partnership whose general partner was Equicor Holding Company and whose limited partner was H.C.A. Care of Florida, Inc. The limited and general partners were wholly owned subsidiaries of Equicor, Equitable H.C.A. Corporation, which is owned by Hospital Corporation of America and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. On January 1, 1988, Gulfstream converted to corporate form, and is now known as Equicor Health Plan of Florida. Gulfstream offers services in Palm Beach County and has a total membership of 12,335 members, including 933 state employees and dependents. THE EVALUATION PROCESS The evaluation of the proposals submitted by HMOs throughout the state for the seven service areas was initially accomplished by employee evaluation teams made up of employees in Dennis Nye's office. He was assisted in his selection by Marie Walker, a benefits analyst in his office. Dennis Nye and Ms. Walker decided which employees could best evaluate the proposals based on the criteria established in the law, including familiarity with benefits and the request for proposal process. The employees selected for these duties had varying degrees of knowledge concerning health plan benefits, HMOs, and bid evaluations. After the initial evaluation was completed, the Department determined that inconsistent methods had been used to score the proposals and further directed Dennis Nye to continue the evaluation process based upon an objective scoring system which limited subjectivity to the maximum extent possible. As Secretary, I was concerned with the financial soundness of each bidder and instructed Dennis Nye to keep that aspect in mind when making his final recommendation. The second or "final evaluation" of the proposals was solely based on the five criteria contained in the RFP, i.e., premium cost, extensiveness of service area, plan benefits, accessibility, and completeness of proposals. In his memorandum of October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye initially recommended that contracts be awarded in the Jacksonville, Pensacola, and Gainesville Service Areas to the two HMOs in each area that had received the top rankings. 1/ However, in the South Florida Service Area, he recommended awarding four contracts based on the need to provide one staff model and one IPA model HMO in each county in the service area. It was Mr. Nye's belief that federal law required that one HMO of each type be offered in each service area, if available. I was concerned about this issue and asked DOA's General Counsel, Augustus Aikens, to review it. He informed me that the federal requirement was not applicable because a state was not included within the definition of "employer" under the applicable federal law. On the bass of this legal advice, directed Mr. Nye to review his previous recommendations as they related to the need to retain one IPA model and one staff model HMO in each service area. In his memorandum of October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended that contracts be awarded to Health Options and to Heritage on the bases that they were "the lowest, best bids for (the) service area." In his memorandum of October 30, 1987, he again recommended that contracts be awarded to Health Options and Heritage. Throughout the entire bidding process, it was my desire to avoid awarding a contract to an HMO which was not in compliance with state law or the rules of the Department of Insurance. I had written to the Department of Insurance seeking its assistance to determine the ability of each bidder to comply with the state law and to meet the needs of the state employees. By letter of October 23, 1987, the Department of Insurance informed DOA that it had approved the rates of Health Options and Heritage. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS Premium Costs The Department specifically designed the RFP to require each proposer to list separate costs in categories of "employee only" and "family" for active employees and retired employees under sixty-five. Required rates for Medicare recipients were to be shown separately listing rates for retirees, retiree and spouse (both on Medicare), and retiree and spouse (one with Medicare, with or without other eligible dependents). A fixed premium cost was required for calendar year 1988 and a percentage of that rate was to be shown for the successive three years. Rates for those last three years were to be "established as a percentage of the first year's premiums" with the maximum increase "limited to the increase, if any, in the overall medical portion of the Consumer Price index." (RFP, Section XI) The rates bid by each HMO were as follows: 2/ A. Heritage (low bid): Employee Only Family Dade, Broward, 66.46 166.15 and Palm Beach B. Health Options (low bid) Dade and Broward: 78.00 195.00 Palm Beach: 75.00 185.00 C. Humana, Dade: 85.02 206.01 Broward: 83.01 199.22 Palm Beach: 77.44 185.86 D. Gulfstream, Palm Beach: 78.92 197.28 (The instructions provided that the total cost of the "family plan" shall not be greater than 2.5 times the total cost of the "employee only" plan.) DOA evaluators computed a "mean" premium cost by adding the premiums for all bidders, dividing by three, and comparing each premium to the "mean," which was then given five points. A premium above the mean gave a bidder less than five points while a premium below the mean gave the bidder more than five points. The same method was used for the "employee only" plan, the "family" plan and the three Medicare retiree groups. Based on the Department's estimate that active employees constituted 90 percent and retirees 10 percent of an HMO membership, the final point calculations were: A. Heritage (low bid): Combined (Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) 9.35 B. Health Options (low bid) Dade and Broward: 7.75 Palm Beach: 9.1 Combined (Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) 8.17 C. Humana Dade: 5.72 Broward: 6.26 Palm Beach: 8.65 Combined: 6.57 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach: 6.61 The Hearing Officer evaluated the above process and found that the Department's action was reasonable even though "the cost proposals were evaluated solely on the basis of premium for 1988." He based his conclusion on: First, Nye announced at the pre-bid conference that proposals would be evaluated solely on that basis. Second, premium costs in succeeding years were limited to the lower of the cost proposed or the future and presently unknown Consumer Price index for Medical Care Services. Accordingly, no meaningful evaluation could have resulted from a consideration of premium costs for succeeding years. (R.O., page 17) Extensiveness of Service Area At the pre-submission conference, proposers were told that they should designate their service areas and that bids would be awarded on the basis of the entire service area. DOA's evaluators awarded two points for each full county and one-half point for each partial county and proposers received 2, 4, or 6 base points depending on whether their proposal was being evaluated on one, two, or three county service area. Heritage submitted one proposal, and designated its service area as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Its proposal was evaluated on a composite or combined basis. Health Options submitted one proposal and designated its service area as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Its proposal contained two separate premium costs: one for Dade and Broward Counties, and one for Palm Beach County. The Department evaluated Health Options' proposal as it related to the individual counties of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County, and on a combined basis (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties). Humana submitted three separate proposals, which designated three separate service areas: Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. The Department evaluated Humana's proposal for each county and on a combined basis. Gulfstream submitted one proposal, and designated its service area as Palm Beach County. The Department evaluated Gulfstream's proposal for Palm Beach County. The Hearing Officer found that the above evaluation procedure "was reasonable and a valid exercise of the agency's discretion." (R.O., page 35) ACCESSIBILITY The Department evaluated accessibility criterion on the basis of ten points each for reciprocal agreements provided statewide and national services, ten points for each county of the service area in which a hospital was located, two points for each specialty provider in each county, and one point for each provider physician and specialist. These raw scores were then evaluated further to obtain a "mean" score for each proposer as follows A. Heritage (low bid), Combined: 5.8 B. Health Options (low bid), Dade and Broward: 8.71 Palm Beach: 1.1 Combined: 9.51 C. Humana, Dade: 4.16 Broward: 3.32 Palm Beach: 1.31 Combined: 8.79 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach: 1.18 The Hearing Officer found that the above evaluation procedure "was reasonable and a valid exercise of the agency's discretion." (R.O., page 36) COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSALS The original statutory criteria contained in Chapter 87-156, Laws of Florida, included the areas of "cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility." To these criteria, DOA added the fifth criterion of completeness of proposals." The Hearing Officer ruled that "(t)he Department's inclusion of this criterion was reasonable." (R.O., page 22) TOTAL POINTS Total points were calculated by adding the base points to a weighted score. In deriving the weighted score, the criteria were weighted as follows: premium costs at 3.5 times, plan benefits at 2.5 times, accessibility at 1 time, extensiveness of service area at 1 time, and completeness of proposal at 1 time. In evaluating the proposals, the Department first evaluated bids solely against other bids for the same service area. For example, Gulfstream's bid was first evaluated against only those other bids that proposed to provide services in that county. In this manner, Gulfstream ranked fourth out of the five bidders in Palm Beach County, and thirteenth overall. The points and ranking assigned by the Department to the top six proposers and to Gulfstream were as follows: HMO Base Points Weights Total Points Rank Heritage (low bid): 35.34 34.15 70.5 1 Health Options Combined (low bid) 38.59 30.79 59.48 2 Av Med 38.95 24.875 63.825 3 Health Options Dade & Broward (low bid) 34.03 27.73 51.76 4 Heritage (high bid) 34.17 25.925 60.095 5 Humana Combined: 35.05 23.46 58.51 6 Gulfstream Palm Beach: 22.46 22.03 44.49 13 A review of this table shows that the weights altered the relative positions of each of the top six proposers. Mr. Nye testified that the weighting utilized did not affect the ranking of the bids of the proposers and only affected the ranking of one bidder, AV-Med. As the Hearing Officer concluded, the proof was contrary to Mr. Nye's testimony. His finding on this point is supported by competent substantial evidence and is hereby adopted. Based on the results of its evaluation the Department proposed to award the contracts to Heritage (low) and to Health Options (combined-low). HUMANA'S COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS Humana introduced expert testimony to demonstrate that, benefits and cost were weighted equally, its cost-to-benefits ratio would be comparable to or better than the successful proposers. Two analyses were presented. One actuarial expert adjusted the different benefit patterns of Heritage and Health Options up to the Human a benefit level and adjusted their price according to actuarial information filed with the Department of Insurance. The testimony sought to place the proposers on the same co-payment/benefit level to compare premium costs. The result was that Humana's premium cost was the second lowest for the South Florida Service Area. The second analysis adjusted Humana's benefit pattern down to the benefit/co-payment levels of Heritage and Health Options, and adjusted Humana's premium cost down accordingly based on Humana's filed actuarials. This testimony sought to place the proposers on the same co- payment/benefit level to compare premium costs, and Humana' premium cost was comparable to or lower than the second lowest bidder. The Hearing Officer found that the analyses by the expert witness were not persuasive in demonstrating that Humana was the second lowest proposer in this case, or that its cost/benefits were the second lowest. (R.O., page 26) For example, the fitness did not evaluate the bids based on the five criteria contained in the RFP, nor did he include in the cost/benefit analysis all of the criteria utilized by the Department to evaluate benefits. The findings of the Hearing Officer on this point are supported by competent substantial evidence and are therefore adopted. Plan Benefits The criteria for the evaluation of all proposals was set out in Section IX of the RFP as follows: Covered services; Limitations and exclusions; Co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance features; Range of providers including specialists and number of hospitals Out of service area coverage Grievance procedures Three sections in the RFP requested information which was relevant to the plan benefits. Section VI listed the required minimum benefits and requested a complete list of all other services. Each provider was directed to specify co-insurance, deductible, co-payment and other features for all benefits and services for each service area, and to list all limitations and exclusions for all benefits and services for each service area. Section X was a questionnaire which required each propose to list information concerning hospital, ambulatory care facilities services, available physician specialties, programs for health status evaluation, screening and health promotion, limitations or restrictions relative to organ transplants, range of providers and number of hospitals, availability of skilled nursing benefits, a list of the proposer's physician panel, and out-of-service area coverage. Under the Department's Scoring system, each propose received the following scores: A. Heritage 398 B. Health Options Dade & Broward 308 Palm Beach 165 C. Humana Dade 210.5 Broward 161.5 Palm Beach 184.5 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach 203 Using a similar method to calculate a "mean" score as was needed in the premium cost criteria, the base points were as follows: A. Heritage (low bid), Combined: 7.19 B. Health Options (low), Dade and Broward: 5.57 Palm Beach: 2.28 Combined: 5.91 C. Humana, Dade: 3.38 Broward: 2.92 Palm Beach: 3.34 Combined: 4.59 D. Gulfstream, Palm Beach: 3.57 Limitation to Two Successful Bidders Humana and Gulfstream argued that they should not be excluded from being awarded a contract because there was no foundation which required the limitation of the contracts to two or to any number of HMOs. The Department had considered awarding contracts to more than two proposers but rejected doing so because such action best effectuated the general objectives of the RFP, including that of promoting competitive rates. The Hearing Officer agreed with the Department and correctly found that "there was no showing that the selected HMOs could not adequately satisfy the needs of the state employees." (R.O., page 35). He concluded: "While the statute did not specify a number, it did specify that the Department contract through the competitive bid process. If the contracts are not limited in number, there is no competitive bidding process. Accordingly, it is concluded the Department acted reasonably in limiting the award to two HMOs." (R.O., page 35) Employee Evaluation Teams Yet another contention of the Petitioners was that the DOA employee evaluation teams lacked the experience and knowledge in the health care services field and should have been disqualified as not meeting the requirements of Section 287.057(16), Fla. Stat., which states as follows "A selection team of at least three employees who have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual serviced are sought shall be appointed by the agency head to aid in the selection of contractors for contracts of more than the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY FOUR." After full consideration of the above provision, the Hearing Officer agreed with the Department and found that the employees met the minimum statutory criteria (R.O., page 35) and had sufficient experience and knowledge in the area to properly evaluate the proposals (R.O., pages 13, 14). Departure From RFP At the pre-submission conference, Mr. Nye announced that cost and benefits would be weighted equally. In its final evaluation, the Department weighted cost at 3.5 and benefits at 2.5. The remaining criteria, accessibility, extensiveness of service area, and completeness of proposal , were weighted at I each. The Hearing Officer found that the Department's final evaluation failed to conform to the weighting factors announced at the pre- submission conference. 45. He further stated that: 43. The Department's failure to accord equal weight to cost and benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Such failure was a material departure from the RFP, as supplemented by the pre-bid conference, and adversely impacted the bid procurement process. ... Plan benefits and accessibility under Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and the RFP were distinct criteria upon which proposers formulated their responses. They were also distinct criteria when the Department told proposers that cost and benefits would be weighted equally, were distinct criteria when evaluated by the Departmen, and had a distinct impact upon the ranking of proposers. Under the circumstances, the Department's failure to accord them equal weight was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than acknowledge the disparity that existed between cost and benefits, the Department contended at hearing that accessibility was a part of benefits, and therefore cost and benefits were weighted equally. The Department's contention, and proof, was not persuasive and is rejected as not credible. (R.O., pages 24, 25) The Department finds that the above findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence and adopts them in this final order. INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Exceptions of Heritage Heritage filed six exceptions to the Recommended Order and each exception will be considered separately. Exception Number 1: Heritage argued that the Hearing Officer erred when he found that the Department's failure to accord equal weight to cost and benefits was arbitrary and capricious. While the Department agrees with the cases cited by Heritage which hold that administrative agencies have broad discretion in evaluating contracts for personal services such as health services, the Department is aware of its statutory responsibility to adhere to the bidding requirements of Section 287.057, Fla. Stat., and does not believe that it has the discretion to enter into contracts absent the competitive process. As to the testimony of Mr. Burbank, the Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to assess his credibility and determine the weight to be accorded to his testimony. Koltay vs. Department of General Services, 374 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). The Department is unable to reject the Hearing Officer's findings in an area clearly within his responsibility. Exception Number 1 is rejected. Exception Number 2: Heritage next argues that the Hearing Officer erred in applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to the Department's actions relating to the weights given to various factors. The evidence shows that at the presubmission conference, Mr. Nye informed all proposers that the weights to be assigned to premium costs and to plan benefits would be equal. That information was clearly erroneous because, in the actual evaluations, the evaluators used a different weighting system, one that gave premium costs 40 percent greater weight than plan benefits. It is not the weights given to each category that makes the Department's actions arbitrary and capricious but its failure to adhere to and apply its announced weighting factors. On this basis, Exception Number 2 is rejected. Exception Number 3: Heritage urges that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the Department's failure to comply with the provisions of Section 287.012(11), Fla. Stat., was fundamental error. The above statute by its terms provides that "(r)equests for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria." (emphasis added). According to the common usage of the term "shall", this language is mandatory (Fla. Tallow Corporation vs. Bryan, 237 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); S.R. vs. State, 345 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1977) and requires that the weight of the criteria must be included in the RFP. Therefore, Exception Number 3 is rejected. Exception Number 4: Heritage argues that the Hearing Officer erred in granting standing to Gulfstream. In Preston Carroll vs. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), an unsuccessful bidder who was third low bidder, attempted to overturn the award of the contract to the low bidder. The district court held that while a second low bidder to the award of a contract had the necessary "substantial interest" to contest the award. However, a third low bidder was unable to demonstrate that it was "substantially affected" and therefore lacked standing to protest the award of the contract to another bidder. Under the holding in this case, the Department concludes that Gulfstream did not have standing in this case since it ranked 13th in the ranking of low bidders. According, Exception Number 4 is accepted and included in the Conclusions of Law of this Order. Exception Number 5: Heritage argues that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that Humana had standing to protest the Department's failure to state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria in the RFP because Humana did not raise this point as an issue in its formal protest. If Humana did not have standing, then it was improperly permitted to protest the award of one of the contracts to Heritage. A review of Humana's protest shows that in Item 9, it argued that: "That the rejection of Humana's response to RFP #88-05, HMO coverage for State employees in Clay, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties was not in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, procedures, precedents and bid criteria." The rules of the Division of Administrative Hearings (Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C.) provide for the minimum filing requirements in initial pleadings and state as follows: "(3) All petitions should contain: The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; The name and address of the petitioner or petitioners, and an explanation of how his/her substantial interests will be affected by the agency determinations; A statement of when and how petitioner received notice of the agency decision or intent to render a decision; A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief; A demand for relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; and Other information which the petitioner contends is material." (emphasis added) The requirements of this rule are directory only and not mandatory and are not designed to deny petitioners a hearing in which their "substantial interests" are affected. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., see Seminole County Board of County Commissioners vs. Long, 422 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The initial protest of Humana complied with the minimum filing requirements of Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C., above, and was sufficient to place Heritage on notice of deficiencies alleged to be in the RFP. Exception Number 5 is rejected. Exception Number 6: Heritage argues that "(t)he Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the Department should invoke its right to reject all proposals." Contrary to Heritage's argument, the Department did not communicate how the criteria would be weighed in accordance with Section 287.012(11), Fla. Stat. It is not possible to cure the deficiency in the RFP by recalculating the proposals. The deficiency can be corrected by re-bidding for proposals for HMO medical services. On this basis, Exception Number 6 is rejected. HEALTH OPTIONS' EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Health Options as one of the successful bidders filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's finding which stated that DOA had failed to state the relative importance of price and other criteria in the RFP. It argued that this issue was not presented by Humana or Gulfstream in the formal protests and thus could not be considered in the Recommended Order. Therefore, Health Options urged that the Department's award of the two HMO contracts was proper and should be upheld. As previously stated, Humana's protest argued that the rejection of its bid "was not in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, procedures, precedents, and bid criteria." (Item 9 of Protest). Humana's protest complied with the minimum filing requirements of the Department of Administrative Hearings (Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C.) which provide that petitions should contain: A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief; A demand for relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; While Gulfstream's formal protest did not state that its protest was founded on the Department's failure to state the relative importance of price and other evaluation criteria in the RFP, all that was necessary for the Hearing Officer to rule on this issue was for one of the petitioner's to raise the issue in its initial protest. Since the issue was raised by Humana, the Exception of Health Options is rejected. DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Department also filed timely exceptions to the Recommended Order. After reviewing those exceptions, I find that to the extent they are not adopted and accepted herein, they are inappropriate findings of fact and have not been considered further in this Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted for the South Florida service area. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was discriminated against based upon his race when he was disciplined for absenting his post contrary to Chapter 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Willie B. Smith, is an African-American male. He is now and was at the time of the incidents involved in his complaint employed by the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, at Florida State Hospital as a guard in the forensic (prison) unit. The Petitioner is part of a bargaining unit that is represented by the Florida Police Benevolent Association. On November 15, 2001, at approximately 1:05 a.m., the Petitioner contacted his Shift Supervisor, Jimmie Williams, an African-American male, and requested to leave his assigned post in Tower B and go to Unit 3 at the hospital and pick up food from a fish fry. Williams approved the Petitioner’s leaving his post to get the food and to return to his post after getting the food. At 2:35 a.m., Williams was contacted on the radio by the Control Room Officer, Johnny Smith, who indicated that the Petitioner wanted to talk to him on the telephone. Williams provided Johnny Smith a telephone number at which the Petitioner could reach him, and the Petitioner called Williams a short time later. The Petitioner informed Williams that he had spilled diesel fuel on his uniform and asked permission to take the remainder of the shift off. Williams asked the Petitioner where he was, surprised that the Petitioner was some place other than at his post. The Petitioner refused to identify where he was, and Williams denied his request for leave. Realizing that the Petitioner was not at his post, Williams proceeded to Tower B and manned that post until the Petitioner arrived there at 3:04 a.m. When he arrived at Tower B, Williams asked the Petitioner where he had been, and the Petitioner stated he had been at the Florida State Hospital gas station. Williams had checked the Florida State Hospital gas station looking for the Petitioner and was aware that the Petitioner had not been there. At this point, angry words were exchanged and the Petitioner admitted that he had not been at the gas station. Williams wrote up an incident report that initiated a formal investigation into the Petitioner's having absented himself from his post while on duty without proper authorization. The Petitioner was advised of the investigation, and he requested that the PBA represent him in the investigation pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. At the Petitioner's specific request, Steve Mears, from the Tallahassee Office of the PBA, represented the Petitioner in this matter. During the course of a break in a meeting held with regard to the investigation, the Petitioner mentioned to Mears voluntarily changing duty stations, and Mears raised this request with representatives of the Respondent, including William T. Parker, now Chief of Security. As a result, the Petitioner was re-assigned from the forensic unit to the central forensic unit because this was the only place where there was a vacancy. His shift and days off remained the same, which did not constitute a transfer under the terms of the contract. Such a re-assignment was not subject to being grieved under the terms of the bargaining agreement. See testimony of Parker and Mears. The Petitioner's days off changed from the first and third weeks of the month to the second and fourth weeks of the month, but the days of the week remained the same. Although the evidence supports a finding that this move was voluntary, it is not material because, under terms of the bargaining agreement, such a re-assignment was not subject to a grievance. The investigation established sufficient cause for the Respondent to issue an official letter of reprimand to the Petitioner for absenting his post without permission. Pursuant to internal policy, the Petitioner's new supervisor, Roger Howell, who had had nothing to do with the incident upon which the reprimand was based, issued the letter. See testimony of Howell and Bryant. The Respondent introduced the Employee's Handbook, dated Mary 29, 2001, which the Petitioner had received. The book contains the Standards for Disciplinary Action, which include absences without authorized leave. This provision provides that for the first occurrence of Absence Without Authorized Leave, the section under which the Petitioner was disciplined, the violator can be given a range of punishments from a written reprimand to dismissal. See testimony of Bryant. Evidence was received that these penalties have been imposed upon employees of the Respondent without regard to race or gender. See testimony of Williams. At the hearing, the Petitioner expressed his concern that his reprimand had been signed by someone who had no knowledge of the incident, and stated that he felt he had permission to leave his post. He also introduced a doctor's excuse (Petitioner's Exhibit 2); however, the date of the doctor's visit did not relate to the date of the incident. The supervisor who signed the letter of reprimand and the personnel specialist who prepared the letter testified that it was policy for an employee's supervisor to sign the reprimand, even if he or she personally did not have knowledge of the events. Mr. Williams testified regarding his authorization to the Petitioner to leave his post to get food. He was very credible. He expected the Petitioner, in accordance with regular procedure, to leave his post, get his food, and return to the post immediately, being absent from the Tower for approximately 30 minutes. This was the normal process for getting food during a shift. The Petitioner was gone for two hours, and gone for over an hour without Williams being aware that Tower B was not covered. There was significant evidence introduced that none of the actions complained of by the Petitioner were motivated by racial animus. The disciplinary action taken by the Petitioner was at the lower end of penalties that could have been imposed. The complainant, Williams, was also an African-American. The PBA representative, whom the Petitioner specifically requested over the regular one at the hospital, testified regarding the events leading up to the Petitioner's re-assignment. The Petitioner sought a change of assignment and voluntarily accepted the change. See the testimony of Mears and Parker. There was no evidence adduced to show pretext.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief filed by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anita L. Davis, Qualified Representative 708 Brag Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Jacqueline H. Smith, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Human Relations Commission 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, filed an Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 00-52375 against the Petitioner's license to practice dentistry on May 13, 1986. The Petitioner did not dispute the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the Board of Dentistry held an informal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on September 13, 1986. On October 2, 1986, the Board of Dentistry issued a Final Order suspending the Petitioner from the remunerative practice of dentistry for a period of ten (10) years and advised the Petitioner of his right to appeal the Board's Final Order. The Petitioner did not appeal the October 2, 1986 Final Order of the Board of Dentistry. On or about May 1, 1987, and/or May 2, 1987, the Board of Dentistry met to consider correspondence from the Petitioner seeking a determination of compliance with the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order for his proposal to do volunteer community service dental work at "St. Catherine Laboure Manor" in Jacksonville, Florida. The Board of Dentistry requested further clarification from the Petitioner and took no further action with respect to the Petitioner's request. On June 10, 1987, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's request to allow him to provide volunteer community service dental work under indirect supervision, and on June 26, 1987, the Board of Dentistry issued an Order Denying the Modification. The Petitioner did not appeal the June 26, 1987, Order of the Board of Dentistry. On or about March 9, 1988, the Petitioner submitted his second request to the Board of Dentistry for modification of its October 2, 1986 Final Order. The Petitioner identified the following reasons as why the Board of Dentistry should grant his request: My obligation to the people of the State of Florida was fully satisfied on September 28, 1987 (enc.). My civil rights were restored on February 25, 1988 (enc.). The fine imposed by the Board of Professional Regulation ($2000.00) has been paid in full. Since July 1987 I have been treating patients in St. Catherine Laboure' Manor under the direct supervision of Owen Boales D.D.S., as required by order of the Board (enc.). I am currently 64 years of age and need gainful employment. My wife and I are currently surviving primary on her earnings as an employee of the Florida Community College at Jacksonville. My mentally disabled son was admitted to The Northeast Florida State Hospital approximately one month after my arrest. His condition would be benefited by whatever personal attention and care my wife and I may be able to provide. The ten year suspension order now in effect is tantamount to lifetime punishment. This long suspension does not benefit the public but severely obstructs rehabilitative effort. It minimizes the opportunities for professional public service and prevents professional employment. It reduces the available options to demonstrate reliability and observable conformity to the profession's ethical standards. It will continue to impede all my effort to becoming a self sustaining productive and worthy member of society. On April 23, 1988, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's second request for modification of the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order. After discussion and consideration of the evidence and arguments of the Petitioner, the Board of Dentistry on July 13, 1988, issued an Order Denying Modification of Final Order. The Petitioner did not appeal the Board's July 13, 1988 Order denying his second request. On or about June 5, 1990, the Petitioner through his attorney submitted his third request to the Board of Dentistry for a modification of the October 2, 1986 Final Order. The Petitioner's third Motion for Modification of Final Order submitted to the Board on or about June 5, 1990, did not contain information or circumstances that were substantially different from those known to the Board at the time the Final Order of October 2, 1986, was entered, at the time the first order was entered denying the modification request, or that were known to the Board when it had previously heard and denied Petitioner's second request in 1988. On July 28, 1990, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's third request for modification of the October 2, 1986 Final Order. After discussion of the parties and upon the advice of legal counsel, the Board of Dentistry on August 13, 1990, issued an Order Denying Modification of Final Order. The Petitioner timely sought an appeal of the Board's August 13, 1990 Order in the First District Court of Appeal, Case Number 90-2369. On September 4, 1991, the First District Court of Appeal issued its opinion where they found the August 13, 1990 Final Order to be ambiguous, vacated the August 13th Final Order, and remanded the case back to the Board of Dentistry for further proceedings. On October 8, 1991, the First District Court of Appeal issued its Mandate to the Board of Dentistry to hold further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. On or about October 15, 1991, the Petitioner submitted an Amended Motion for Modification alleging for the first time that "there had been material changes in circumstances since his suspension was entered and/or since the previous rulings as to his suspension." On November 8, 1991, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's third request for modification of the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order, the Amended Motion for Modification of Final Order, and the Opinion and Mandate of the First District Court of Appeal. After discussion and consideration of the Petitioner's requests for modification, the Opinion and Mandate of the First District Court of Appeal, and the evidence presented, on December 12, 1991, the Board of Dentistry issued a Final Order on Remand granting the Petitioner's Amended Motion for Modification of the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order. The Petitioner is a sole proprietor of a professional practice of dentistry. His principal office and domicile are located in Jacksonville, Florida. He has fewer than twenty-five (25) full-time employees, and his net worth, at the time of filing, was less than two million ($2,000,000) dollars. The Petitioner incurred appellate attorney's fees in the amount of $8,990.00 and costs in the amount of $323.92. The Respondent did not dispute the reasonableness of the fees and costs in this case.
The Issue Whether Petitioner abandoned her position of employment with Respondent and resigned from the career service.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) at South Florida State Hospital (SFSH) as a Human Services Worker I, a career service position. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave or explanation on February 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13, 1991. Petitioner was not at work on February 11 and 12, 1991, but those were scheduled days off. On February 13, 1991, David A. Sofferin, Hospital Administrator at SFSH, notified Petitioner by letter that DHRS had no choice but "... to consider you to have abandoned your Human Services Worker I position and resigned from the State of Florida Career Service at South Florida State Hospital. ..." This letter also advised Petitioner of her right to challenge this action. Petitioner wrote DHRS a letter which was received by DHRS on February 25, 1991. In this letter Petitioner admitted that she had violated the personnel rules and asked for a second chance. Petitioner's letter stated that she had been abducted by a boyfriend on February 11, 1990 (sic), 1/ and taken to Bradenton. The letter did not attempt to explain her absences on February 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 1991. Petitioner was provided a copy of DHRS' Employee Handbook on April 20, 1990. Petitioner had been previously advised of Respondent's attendance policies and she had been previously reprimanded for failing to adhere to those policies. The following is found on page 13 of the Employee Handbook under the paragraph entitled "Absences": If you expect to be absent from work for any reason, you must request leave from your supervisor as much in advance as possible, so that suitable disposition of your work may be made to avoid undue hardship on fellow employees and clients. As soon as you know you will be late or absent from work you must notify your supervisor. Absences without approved leave is cause for disciplinary action. If you are absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization, you may be considered to have abandoned your position and thus resigned. (Emphasis added.) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: An employee who is 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 foregoing rule creates a rebuttable presumption. DHRS has established that Petitioner was absent without authorized leave so that she is rebuttably presumed to have abandoned her position of employment and to have resigned from the career service. Petitioner has failed to rebut that presumption.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Petitioner, Carol Wheeler, has abandoned her position of employment with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and which further finds that she has resigned from the career service. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of November, 1991. 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 13th day of November, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner by failing to promote the Petitioner as set forth in the claim.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee at the South Florida State Hospital (the Hospital) from October 15, 1979, until approximately October 31, 1998. On the latter date, a private company assumed full management of the hospital. From that time neither the Respondent nor its predecessor (Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services) has maintained management or administration of the facilities. Prior to October 31, 1998, the Hospital was operated by a State of Florida agency. As of October 31, 1998, the Petitioner ceased to be a State of Florida employee. The Petitioner is a black female. On or about May 6, 1997, the Petitioner applied and interviewed for a job at the Hospital. She sought the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. At that time, the Hospital advertised two open positions for Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. Three applicants were ranked for the open positions. Among the three, the Petitioner was ranked third by the selection committee. At or near the same time, the administrator of the Hospital received notice that he would have to cut positions from his budget. This slashing of employee positions was in response to budget demands created at the agency level. It had nothing to do with the job performances of employees at the Hospital. In fact, the Petitioner has always received favorable employee performance evaluations. She was a valued employee at the Hospital and was considered to be hard working by peers and supervisors alike. Nevertheless, when faced with the directive to cut positions, the administrator elected to eliminate open or unfilled positions. Pertinent to this case is the slot that the Petitioner would have filled had it not been eliminated. At least under one theory, the Petitioner would have been promoted to Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director had the position not been deleted. The promotion would have happened because one of the higher-ranked applicants for the job chose to reject the Hospital's offer of employment. Thus as the third-ranked applicant, the Petitioner would have been selected. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Petitioner maintained she should have received the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director that was filled by an individual named Driscoll. She maintains that although Driscoll was the highest-ranked applicant, she was equally or better qualified for the promotion. Driscoll is a white male. Prior to his employment at the Hospital, Driscoll had served as the director of a short-term residential facility. He had also been the director of case management for a hospital and had supervised other case managers and support staff. The Petitioner had no similar or equivalent supervisory experience. The Petitioner had never supervised employees to any level of supervision as demonstrated by Driscoll at the time of the selection process. The advertised opening sought an individual with "a bachelor's degree and four years of professional direct services experience in a social, rehabilitative or health care treatment program, two of which must have been in a supervisory capacity." The Hospital's consideration of the Petitioner's role as a "lead worker" was a generous allowance. Technically, the Petitioner did not meet the job description requirements. Additionally, the Petitioner's advanced degree did not qualify her for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. The advertisement for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director provided that a: . . . masters degree in health, special education or one of the behavioral or rehabilitative sciences can substitute for one year of the required [sic] nonsupervisory experience. A doctorate degree in health, special education or one of the behavioral or rehabilitative sciences can substitute for the required [sic] nonsupervisory experience. The Petitioner did not hold either the referenced master's degree or doctorate degree. The Petitioner was not an equally qualified or a superiorly qualified applicant for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. Nevertheless, when she was not chosen for the position the Petitioner wrote a memorandum to the Commission to complain about the selection of Driscoll. The memorandum stated: A blatant campaign of racism reigns at South Florida State Hospital. Most recently, the hospital advertised for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. Two (2) positions were to be filled as a result of that advertisement. Qualified applicants were interviewed from within the hospital. There were two (2) Afro-American and three (3) Anglo-Saxon applicants. Of the two (2) Afro-American applicants applying, I met all of the qualifications to fill one (1) of the positions. Over the dissent of others on the interviewing committee, Patricia Espinosa Thomson (acting hospital administrator) re-advertised the position(s). On September 12, 1997, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the Petitioner's Memorandum of June 27, 1997, and, in accordance with a Worksharing Agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the complaint was forwarded to the Miami District Office of the EEOC. This complaint became the subject matter of the instant case. The Commission's notice to the Petitioner provided: Within 35 days of notice of EEOC's Letter of Determination regarding the above referenced complaint, you may request the FCHR to review the final finding and orders of the EEOC by requesting a Substantial Weight [sic] Review. There is no evidence regarding whether the Miami District issued a Letter of Determination. It is undisputed, however, that the Commission did not issue its Notice of Determination until October 9, 2001. The Notice of Determination represented that the Respondent was advised of the Petitioner's claim in January of 1998. The Notice of Determination also recognized that the Respondent had asserted that the claim was "time-barred" and that it would not provide information regarding the claim. Based upon the inference found in Rule 60Y-5.003(4), Florida Administrative Code, the Commission entered a determination of cause. The Commission apparently did nothing to timely investigate the complaint, did not act within 180 days of its filing, and did not notify the Hospital that its records should be maintained in connection with the allegations of this case. When the Hospital went to private management all public records that had been maintained were stored or destroyed according to agency rules. There was no effort to conceal or destroy records related to this matter. The Hospital administrators faced the daunting tasks of trimming the Hospital FTEs, preparing for and transitioning to the private company, and organizing records for storage. There was no effort to single Petitioner out for discriminatory purposes. When eventually questioned regarding this case, the Department elected not to participate in the investigation as under the then known precedent it was not required to do so. The Department's decision predated Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2000). Both parties claim prejudice as a result of the delays in pursuing this cause. The Petitioner maintains that records that would have helped her assessment of the matter have been either lost or destroyed. The Respondent maintains that witness unavailability, loss of records, and the fact that it does not even manage the Hospital anymore compounds its inability to appropriately respond to the Petitioner's claim. What is certain is the fact that the Department cannot award the position to the Petitioner. Further, even at the time in question, the Hospital could not have awarded the position to the Petitioner since the position had been eliminated. The only way the Petitioner could have gotten the position would have been if Driscoll had been removed. And, as previously noted, the Petitioner was not equal to or superior to Driscoll in her qualifications for the position. In June 2002, the instant case was heard on a motion to dismiss. That motion was granted. The conclusions of law from the Recommended Order of Dismissal found that the Division of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding. Despite that conclusion, the Commission entered an Order Remanding Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. Accordingly, this matter was re-opened and scheduled for hearing.
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 claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Hearings 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 this 25th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy A. Fleischer, Esquire 4801 South University Drive, Suite 3070 Davie, Florida 33328 Sondra R. Schwartz, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing, under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition for Relief was not timely filed pursuant to Sections 760.11(8) and 760.11(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 57-year-old male and a former employee of the Respondent. Respondent is an executive agency of the State of Florida with more than 15 full-time employees and is, therefore, an employer under Sections 760.02(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. On May 19, 1995, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. He charged his former employer, Respondent, with gender and age discrimination for failure to promote him. The Florida Commission on Human Relations conducted an investigation of the charges. It did not issue a Notice of Determination. The staff of the Commission misled or lulled Respondent into inaction, for a period of time, as follows: Day 0000 - 19 May 1995: Charge of Discrimination submitted to Commission. Day 0061 - 19 July 1995: FCHR Notice of Receipt, Docketing and Dual Filing with EEOC. Day 0110 - 6 September 1995: Respondent submitted response to Commission request for information. Day 0255 - 29 January 1996: Petitioner drove from Orlando to FCHR in Tallahassee and met with Iliana Haddock, who advised him that she had just been assigned to investigate the Discrimination Complaint. Haddock took the opportunity to interview the Respondent relative to the complaint. Day 0312 - 26 March 1996: Telephone conversation between Haddock and Petitioner. Haddock stated that she had reviewed all the applications submitted for the Environmental Manager position and had found evidence of age discrimination. Day 0340 - 23 April 1996: Telephone conversation between Haddock and Petitioner. Haddock stated the investigation was almost complete, but they were waiting for Respondent to submit criteria used for determining who would be interviewed for the Environmental Manager position. Day 0431 - 23 July 1996: Petitioner drove from Orlando to FCHR headquarters in Tallahassee and met with Haddock and her supervisor, Harry Lamb. They told Petitioner that Haddock's investigation was completed and that her report would be submitted to Lamb in 30 to 45 days and from there Lamb would submit it to the FCHR legal staff and then it would go to the Executive Director for his approval and determination. Day 0494 - 24 September 1996: Assistant Enforcement Director Singleton sent Petitioner a letter stating that the Commission had not been able to complete the investigation in this case and stated four options of proceeding, (1) file a civil action in civil court; (2) file petition to have case heard by ALJ in DOAH; (3) request a right to sue so I could bring an action in Federal Court; or (4) allow the commission to continue with the processing, investigation and final action in this matter. Day 0509 - 9 October 1996: Petitioner responded to Singleton's letter by pointing out the contradictions between her letter and what Petitioner had been told at the meeting with Haddock and Lamb on 7/23/96. Petitioner requested more information in order to make a decision concerning the future course of this case. Petitioner submitted 11 questions to Singleton. Day 0521 - 21 October 1996: Commission Investigator Iliana Haddock submitted her report to the FCHR Office of General Counsel. Day 0573 - 12 December 1996: Petitioner sent follow-up letter to FCHR Executive Director advising him that he had not received a reply to the 10/9/96 letter to Singleton. Day 0644 - 21 February 1997: Mathis sent Petitioner a letter about the status of the original complaint of discrimination. Mathis stated that Haddock had submitted her report of investigation, with a recommendation for a cause finding to Harry Lamb; that Haddock was no longer with the Commission; that Lamb was no longer with the Commission but had not forwarded the investigation report before he left; and that the report was now in the hands of Otis Mallory. Day 0795 - 22 July 1997: Mathis sent Petitioner a letter advising that the "initial charge is still located in Mr. Mallory's office and will be reviewed." Day 0805 - 1 August 1997: Assistant Director Snell sent Petitioner a letter stating: "The investigation of your first case has been completed and is in the Employment Enforcement Manger's office for review". Day 0809 - 5 August 1997: The EEOC State and Local Coordinator advised Petitioner by letter that the cases were still being processed by the FCHR. Day 0852 - 27 September 1997: Petitioner sent letter to FCHR Executive Director advising him that Otis Mallory had Discrimination Report for almost a year; that Mallory also had received the Retaliation Report in August 1997; and since Mallory now had both reports, he ought to be able to complete his review and move this matter forward. Day 0986 - 29 January 1998: Petitioner sent letter to FCHR Executive Director attempting to get Investigators' Reports through the internal FCHR review system. Day 1076 - 29 April 1998: Commission issued Notice of Determination on Retaliation Complaint. No action on original discrimination complaint. Day 1252 - 22 October 1998: Petitioner mailed Petition for Relief and Administrative Hearing concerning Discrimination Complaint to FCHR. After filing the Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR, Petitioner actively pursued the progress and status of the Discrimination Complaint with the Commission. In response to his pursuit, the staff of the Commission told the Petitioner throughout the above time-line, that his Complaint was being investigated; the investigation was completed; the report would be submitted; the report was submitted; the report was in for review; and the report would be reviewed. Thus, the Petitioner was misled or lulled into believing by the staff of FCHR not only that the Complaint was going to result in a Determination, but also that the Determination was going to be a cause-finding. On September 24, 1996, a year and four months after filing the Complaint, the Commission advised Petitioner that he had four options relating to the charges, including having the Commission continue with the processing, investigation, and final action in this matter. When Petitioner requested further information so he could make an informed choice, the staff of the Commission failed to respond to his letter. In addition, other staff took no further action on his case. However, Petitioner waited more than two years from issuance of the letter of September 24, 1996, to the filing of his Petition for Relief, dated October 22, 1998. Although Petitioner was misled or lulled into inaction for a period of time by the staff of the FCHR, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate equitable estoppel or excusable neglect in his failure to file the Petition within a reasonable period of time after the statutorily mandated time limit.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction on the parties and the subject matter pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1) and 760.11, Florida Statutes. The Florida Commission on Human Relations has the authority to investigate a charge of discrimination with alleges that an employee has committed an unlawful employment practice by its failure to promote Petitioner based on his sex and/or age. Section 760.10(1) and 760.11, Florida Statutes. When a complaint has been filed with the Commission, it has the duty to investigate the allegations in the complaint and make a determination within 180 days of the filing of the Complaint, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. After a determination is made, the Commission is charged with the duty to notify the aggrieved person and the Respondent of the determination, the date of such determination, and the options available under the law. Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes. In this case, the Commission failed to make a reasonable cause determination; and three and one-half years after first filing his Complaint, Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore, Sections 760.11(8), (4) and (6), Florida Statutes, applied to this case. These sections read, in pertinent part: In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the aggrieved person may either: Bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; or Request an administrative hearing under ss 120.569 and 120.57. The election by the aggrieved person of filing a civil action or requesting an administrative hearing under this subsection is the exclusive procedure available to the aggrieved person pursuant to this act. * * * (6) Any administrative hearing brought pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) shall be conducted under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. . . . An administrative hearing pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) must be requested no later than 35 days after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission. . . . * * * (8) In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. Although it appears unjust that Petitioner's case should be dismissed because of the failure of a state agency to complete its statutory duty to make a reasonable cause determination, nevertheless, the court in Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1093 at 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) held that the 35-day limitation on requesting an administrative hearing begins to run at the expiration of the 180-day period in which the Commission was to make a reasonable cause determination. Therefore, the Petition for Relief is untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the presumed date of determination of cause by the Commission. See Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes (1997); Wright v. HCA Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., 18 FALR 1160 (1995); Pusey v. George Knupp, Lake County Sheriff's Office, 20 FALR 791 (1997); cf. St. Petersburg Motor Club v. Cook, 567 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This procedure has been determined to be constitutional, under Florida law. McElhath v. Burley, 707 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The record does establish some evidence of excusable neglect, which might, under certain circumstances, excuse delinquent filing. See, for example, Machules v. Department of Administration 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988). In Machules, the Florida Supreme Court described the parameters of the "equitable tolling" doctrine as follows: Generally, the tolling doctrine has been applied when the plaintiff has been misled or lulled into inaction, has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum. 523 So. 2d at 1134. Petitioner asserts that the staff of the Commission lulled him into inaction. That assertion is accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion for Summary Recommended Order. However, Petitioner is claiming he was lulled into inaction for two additional years after he was advised of his options under the statute. The District Court of Appeal has held that Petitioner may not enjoy a manipulable open-ended time extension which could render the statutory limitation meaningless. It held that a Petitioner should be required to assume some minimum responsibility himself for an orderly and expeditious resolution of his dispute. Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc., supra, at 1095. Although this result is harsh, two other district courts have followed this precedent and it is, therefore, binding on this tribunal. Joshua v. City of Gainesville, So. 2d , 1999 WL 71523 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 17, 1999) and Adams v. Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc., So. 2d , (Fla. 4th DCA, March 17, 1999).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the petition of Donald A. Garrepy in DOAH Case No. 98-5090; FCHR Case No. 95-5752. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary C. Smallridge, Senior Attorney Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Donald A. Garrepy Post Office Box 276 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted the exemption from disqualification from employment that she is seeking.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In 1975, when she was 36 years of age, Petitioner was dating a married man. When the man's wife found out about her husband's extramarital affair, she began to harass Petitioner and members of Petitioner's family. On March 4, 1975, Petitioner was sitting in her vehicle with her then 17-year old son in the driveway of her home. She was about to leave to take her son to work when her boyfriend's wife drove up and blocked the driveway. Petitioner's son got out of the car and asked the wife to move her vehicle. The wife responded by making what Petitioner perceived to be an "ugly" gesture that was directed to Petitioner's son. Petitioner reacted in anger to the wife's response. She exited her vehicle and physically attacked the wife, bloodying the wife's nose. Police officers arrived on the scene and arrested Petitioner. Petitioner was charged with, and on April 22, 1975, convicted of, aggravated assault as a result of this March 4, 1975, incident. As punishment for committing this crime, she was directed to pay a $50.00 fine and court costs. Petitioner recognizes that her physically aggressive behavior on March 4, 1975, was inappropriate. She is remorseful and repentant. Petitioner has not committed any similar unlawful acts of violence in the more than 22 years since the March 4, 1975, incident. In 1980, Petitioner was arrested and charged with two counts of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence after she had intervened in an altercation involving her son and several police officers, but the charges against her were ultimately dismissed. Petitioner is a certified nursing assistant. She began working as nursing assistant approximately 30 years ago. As a nursing assistant, Petitioner has assisted individuals (in their homes and in institutional settings) needing help in performing their activities of daily living. She has provided such assistance without incident, notwithstanding that she has had to care for some individuals who have been quite difficult, including certain residents of South Florida State Hospital, a state-operated mental health facility, where she worked from 1981 through 1991 (as an employee of two different private nursing agencies with whom the hospital had contracted to provide nursing assistant services) and from January 24, 1997, to July 23, 1997 (as an employee of the hospital).2 There were occasions during the time she worked at South Florida State Hospital that residents would become physically aggressive toward her. On these occasions, Petitioner reacted, not in kind, but rather with restraint and in a professional manner. On July 23, 1997, after a background screening investigation conducted by the Department had revealed that she was not qualified to serve in her position at South Florida State because of her 1975 conviction for aggravated assault, and following the Department's preliminary denial of her request for an exemption from such disqualification, Petitioner was terminated from her position at the hospital. Petitioner has been unemployed since July 23, 1997. Although she has been unable to find work as a nursing assistant, Petitioner still continues to perform nursing assistant services (without compensation) for her elderly aunt, for whom she has cared for the past five years. Based upon Petitioner's history since the March 4, 1975, incident that led to her arrest and conviction for aggravated assault, it appears that she has rehabilitated herself and that she will not present a danger if her exemption request is granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order granting the exemption that Petitioner has requested. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1997.
