Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner, a black female, began working for Respondent at the Thagard Student Health Center in May of 1990. Respondent hired Petitioner as a Word Processing Systems Operator and gave her duties and responsibilities commensurate with that position. At that time, Respondent gave Petitioner a copy of Respondent's disciplinary action policy. On May 27, 1992, the Petitioner became ill at work. Her husband picked her up from work and took her to the doctor. The Petitioner did not return to work due to a severe stress disorder which required treatment with mood stabilizers. Based on documentation from her doctors, Respondent granted Petitioner intermittent leave which allowed her to use her accumulated sick and annual leave. Petitioner's intermittent leave expired on July 16, 1992. On or about July 24, 1992, Petitioner requested leave without pay effective from July 17, 1992 to September 25, 1992. With her doctor's approval, Petitioner returned to work on September 28, 1992. Her supervisor eased her back into a work routine. He gave her minimal duties and allowed her time for re-orientation. Petitioner's supervisor soon became aware that Petitioner was not as productive and efficient as she had been prior to her leave of absence. Most notable was Petitioner's inability to satisfactorily complete typing/word processing assignments. At least 80 percent of her duties involved typing or word processing. Concerned about the Petitioner and her work performance, Respondent decided that further medical evaluation would be appropriate to determine if her mental or physical problems warranted a compulsory disability leave. At its own expense, Respondent referred Petitioner to Dr. Munasifi, a psychiatrist, in October of 1992. In November of 1992, Respondent referred Petitioner to Dr. Dana Dennard, a psychologist. These examinations revealed that Petitioner had not recovered from her prior psychotic episode. She was vulnerable to another episode if she remained at work. Dr. Dennard recommended that Petitioner take at least six months off from work with follow-up therapy. Respondent continued to have problems performing at work. She came to work late and left early. She did not call the office when she was absent. Her supervisor tried to counsel Petitioner but she continued to have unauthorized absences and to take excessive time for lunch without permission. As a result, Petitioner's pay was reduced on November 20, 1992 and December 7, 1992. Respondent gave her an oral reprimand on December 4, 1992 and a written reprimand on December 17, 1992. As a result of the reports submitted by Dr. Munasifi and Dr. Dennard, Respondent placed Petitioner on compulsory disability leave on January 19, 1993. Respondent initially intended for this leave of absence to expire on February 17, 1993. Petitioner filed her first complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on February 1, 1993. By letter dated February 17, 1993, Respondent advised Petitioner that she would be dismissed as of February 18, 1993 due to her physical inability to perform assigned duties. Respondent rescinded its decision to dismiss Petitioner by letter dated February 26, 1993. Instead, Respondent extended Petitioner's compulsory leave without pay for an additional thirty days. Respondent referred Petitioner to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation on or about March 18, 1993. The purpose of this referral was to provide Petitioner with vocational counseling while she was on compulsory leave. Respondent extended Petitioner's compulsory disability leave in 30-day increments through July 16, 1993. Petitioner was able to return to work on July 23, 1993 after her attending physician certified that she was able to perform the essential functions of a Word Processing Operator without any need for reasonable accommodations. Her counselor at the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation also recommended that Petitioner return to work. Upon her return to the office, Respondent gave Petitioner a written set of performance standards. Respondent reviewed these standards with Petitioner to specify exactly what was expected of her. Petitioner's routine job responsibilities included word processing, filing, and mail distribution. Her word processing duties required her to type and format policy and procedure manuals which were being developed and/or updated. It became immediately apparent to Respondent that Petitioner's job performance was not satisfactory. Her supervisor repeatedly had to edit her work and return it to Petitioner for corrections. Petitioner's supervisor counseled her regarding her unsatisfactory performance and began documenting his discussions. Petitioner's substandard work performance continued, resulting in a below performance standard evaluation on September 21, 1993. In October, Respondent recommended that Petitioner take refresher courses in word processing. Petitioner attended two of these sessions. Despite Respondent's efforts to assist Petitioner in improving her job performance, she received a below performance standard evaluation on November 19, 1993 and January 11, 1994. After the third consecutive below performance evaluation, Petitioner's supervisor requested that Respondent terminate Petitioner's employment due to her failure to correct her unsatisfactory job performance over a six-month period. On February 3, 1994, Respondent removed Petitioner from the class of Word Processing Systems Operator and terminated her employment. On October 4, 1994, Petitioner filed her second charge with FCHR. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever discriminated against Petitioner because of her race, gender, or disability. Likewise, there is no evidence that Respondent ever took any retaliatory action against Petitioner for filing charges alleging discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the petitions for relief from unlawful employment practices in DOAH Case Nos. 95-2852 and 96-0578. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 20th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 95-2852 and 96-0578 The following constitutes the undersigned rulings on the parties proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2 Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Accept that Petitioner is a black female within a protected class of citizens. Reject that she is disabled. There is no persuasive record evidence that Petitioner applied for reassignment despite the availability of alternative positions. Rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. Record evidence indicates that Petitioner had full access to Respondent's files in these cases and did not request additional supporting documents. Rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. Reject that Petitioner satisfactorily performed her work assignments and was terminated due to her race, gender or disability. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Rejected. See paragraph 6 above. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's proposed findings of fact, numbers 1-25, are accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact, numbers 1-26, of thie Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Helen B. Burgess, Business Agent AFSCME Council 79 Florida AFL-CIO Suite A-13 345 South Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick Martin, Esquire Janice Jennings, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Gerald Jaski, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Florida State University 424 Wescott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1612
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jerry O. Bryan began working for the State Road Department in 1968. In 1983, he started his most recent assignment with the agency, now called the Florida Department of Transportation, as an engineering technician III, in a career service position. An employee handbook respondent was furnished in 1983 had this to say about "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. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, at page 43. Perhaps with this in mind, respondent requested leave without pay when he learned he faced six months' incarceration, as a result of his criminal conviction for cultivating marijuana on federal property. Respondent's supervisor, Robert Edward Minchin, Jr. denied his request for leave without pay, in accordance with a DOT policy against granting leave to DOT employees who are incarcerated. Mr. Bryan did not request annual leave, although some 220 hours' entitlement had accumulated. Asked whether he would have granted Mr. Bryan's leave request absent "a policy of not authorizing leave while someone was incarcerated," Mr. Minchin answered in the negative, saying Mr. Bryan "was going to be needed during ... [the time] he would be out. T.22. At no time did petitioner ever take disciplinary action against respondent, who received satisfactory or higher job performance ratings, the whole time he worked for petitioner. Aware that Mr. Bryan did not desire or intend to resign, relinquish or abandon his career service position, Mr. Minchin took steps to remove him from the payroll solely on grounds that he was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reinstate respondent and award back pay, but without prejudice to instituting any appropriate proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry O. Bryan Federal Prison Camp Post Office Box 600 Eglin AFB, Florida 32542-7606 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Robert Scanlon, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner’s reclassification and transfer from career service to the selected exempt service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), was valid and lawful. All citations are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 1, 2001, Petitioner was a career service employee of Respondent, for whom she had worked since 1988. On that date, Petitioner was involuntarily reclassified as a selected exempt employee of Respondent. Both before and after her reclassification, Petitioner’s job required her to act as a liaison and contract administrator for technical consulting contracts relating to Respondent’s information technology systems. Respondent contends that it reclassified Ms. Georgalis to selected exempt service in July 2001 as a result of amendments to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statues. Consequently, the Section then read, in pertinent part, as follows: (2) EXEMPT POSITIONS.--The exempt positions that are not covered by this part include the following: * * * (x) Effective July 1, 2001, managerial employees, as defined in s. 447.203(4), confidential employees, as defined in s. 447.203(5), and supervisory employees who spend the majority of their time communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees' work, and who have the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees or effectively recommend such action, including all employees serving as supervisors, administrators, and directors. Respondent reclassified all persons who were "Level VI managers and Level 5 supervisors" to select exempt service as a result of the content of Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes. Respondent did not confirm that the responsibilities and duties of the position occupied by Petitioner necessitated reclassification to select exempt employee status. Petitioner’s job duties were substantively different from other persons within the DP Level VI occupational group.1 Petitioner did not primarily oversee the work of Respondent's employees as required by the career service exemption. Moreover, she did not even oversee the work of non-governmental supplemental or augment persons who were providing services that could otherwise be provided by departmental employees, assuming such oversight is relevant to the statutory exemption. Petitioner's role was primarily that of liaison and coordinator between Respondent's management and end users of Respondent’s planned technology services, including Respondent's employees who would use the technology that was being developed, as well as construction companies and engineers outside Respondent's department who would ultimately use such technology in working on department's construction projects in the future. Another part of her duties was the administration of contracts between the Department and outside contractors, and in doing so she dealt with independent subcontractor technical consultants who had subcontracts with those outside contractors. These technical subcontractor consultants were not augment employees, and Petitioner was not knowledgeable enough to supervise them on a technical basis. In Petitioner's words, "They spoke an entirely different language." She presented them with broad goals formulated by higher management and served as the conduit to inform them as to whether their work product was acceptable to Respondent and other end users. Petitioner’s job description, both before and after her transfer, confirmed that her position was a “senior level career service data processing position.” She was not required to spend the majority of her time “communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees’ work.” Petitioner was only expected to spend approximately 10 percent of her time overseeing the work of the two state employees working in her area. As established by her testimony, Petitioner never spent more than 3 percent of her time supervising those state employees. Furthermore, the two state employees assigned to specialized technologies were supervised by another employee after the Summer of 2001. At hearing, Respondent's only witness, suggested that Petitioner spent 60 percent of her time supervising “employees,” but he did not know what percentage of that time was spent overseeing the work of career service employees. Testimony of Respondent's witness, Nelson Hill, in this regard is not credited in view of his admission that he was not housed in the Rhynne Building in 2001, where Petitioner was located, and thus had no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day activities of Petitioner or the other persons working at that building. In any event, a majority of the persons which Hill contends were “supervised” by Petitioner (six out of eight) were not employees of Respondent, but were rather independent subcontractors whose services Respondent retained through contracts with outside third parties. These technical consultants were subcontractors under state approved contracts. They were not “hired” by Respondent. Further, they were not paid by the State, but were rather compensated pursuant to their agreement with the third party state contractor. They were not provided with any insurance, pension, unemployment or worker’s compensation benefits, but were instead treated as true independent contractors; and, most importantly, they were not protected by career service protections, as would have been required if they were indeed state employees. In sum, Respondent's position, as expounded by Hill at the final hearing, is that the application of the exemption provided in Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes, may be justifiably applied to Petitioner due to Petitioner's alleged oversight of the independent subcontractors even though they were not “employees” of Respondent.2 The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner spent a majority of her time “supervising” anyone. Petitioner’s position description confirms that her contract administration activities consumed no more than 35 percent of her time. By that description, Petitioner was required to provide “daily direction of consultant activities” and “manage, direct, and supervise technical and administrative staff." In actuality, Petitioner spent less than 25 percent of her time in such activities. Petitioner spent the vast majority of her time gathering and transmitting information regarding technological and budgetary needs and facilitating the flow of information from the end users (i.e., Respondent's employees or outside construction contractors and engineers who would use the proposed technology) to Respondent management and back again. Any oversight provided by Petitioner to the technical consultants was exactly the same as that provided to other third-party companies with which Respondent had contracts. These outside companies and technical consultants were engaged by Respondent because they had the skill to achieve the goals that were presented to them within the budget that was established by Respondent. Petitioner's interaction with these persons was not “supervision” of a state employee, but rather “contract administration.” Petitioner’s position descriptions specifically confirm that she was not a “managerial” or “confidential” employee as that term is defined in Section 447.203(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, based on the duties and responsibilities contained in Petitioner’s position description and the actual duties she performed, there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner was subject to exemption from career service as concluded by Respondent in July 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Transportation should enter a final order finding that the position held by Petitioner Mavis R. Georgalis on July 1, 2001, was not properly classified into the selected exempt service. Petitioner was, and should continue to be, classified as a career service employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District on January 15, 1990, as a Secretary III, Classified. She was assigned as secretary to Margaret Lewis, Director of Vocational Education. Classified employees are distinguished from certified employees who are teachers or administrators who hold teaching certificates. Respondent's duties included typing, handling and filing documents and correspondence, keeping budget and payroll records, copying and receiving incoming phone calls to the Department of Vocational Education. For approximately six months, Respondent and her supervisor had a good working relationship. Both were new to the Brevard County School District, and Margaret Lewis felt that together they could make positive changes in the unit. Respondent's personnel evaluation dated March 15, 1990, rates her in the "exceptional high" range in every category, with the highest possible rating being given in the categories, "work attitude," "cooperativeness," "personal appearance" and "tardiness." Something happened in the summer of 1990 around the time that the unit was moving from its office in Rockledge to the new district building in the Brevard County Governmental Center at Viera. The relationship between the two women rapidly deteriorated, a phenomenon observed by co-workers and the assistant superintendents, including Margaret Lewis' supervisor, Daniel Scheuerer. The circumstances were confusing, even to Jerry Copeland, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services. None could pinpoint the cause of the rift, although both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Lewis offered their own theories. Ms. Cooper described her supervisor arriving at work one morning crying and upset over some domestic situation. She went into Ms. Lewis' office with her and urged her to go home. Ms. Lewis eventually did leave and was gone for several days. Upon her return, Ms. Cooper felt that Ms. Lewis was very cool toward her and began communicating with her through notes or through messages to other staff. Ms. Lewis believes Ms. Cooper's work attitude changed radically after she was passed over for a secretarial position in the School Board attorney's office. On two occasions, Ms. Cooper approached Abraham Collinsworth, the Superintendent, with concerns she had about Margaret Lewis. Mr. Collinsworth referred the matter back to Dr. Scheuerer, Ms. Lewis' supervisor and the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services. Dr. Scheuerer told the superintendent that he had a very disruptive situation with loud conversations and people not feeling good about each other. During the several months period, July through September 1990, Dr. Scheuerer met with the women individually and together. Ms. Cooper complained that Ms. Lewis required her to make too many copies of things, that she communicated with her through yellow stickers, "post-it" notes, and that she, Ms. Lewis, would not tell her where she was going. Dr. Scheuerer counselled Ms. Cooper to adapt to her supervisor's way of doing things and also made suggestions to Ms. Lewis of ways to improve communications, for example, allowing her secretary to keep the calendar. The meeting he had with both women together was very unpleasant. It was obvious that there was a lot of hostility and animosity, tension and stress between the two. Generally, however, Ms. Lewis conducted herself in a professional manner. Ms. Cooper kept a tape recorder that she used to play subliminal tapes. Ms. Lewis felt that she was using the tape recorder to tape their conversations. Ms. Lewis felt that Ms. Cooper spent an inordinate amount of time away from her desk and abused break periods. Ms. Cooper said that she was making deliveries or copying. Ms. Lewis begin writing notes of their confrontations in order to avoid getting emotionally involved. This seemed to inflame Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper's reaction to direction was often either a sullen shrug or a verbal retort. Ms. Cooper felt Ms. Lewis gave her conflicting or serial requests. She also kept notes of their interactions. Early on the morning of October 8, 1990, several employees in the area of Ms. Cooper's and Ms. Lewis' office overheard a verbal confrontation between the two. Ms. Cooper had her voice raised and when Ms. Lewis asked her not to talk so loud, she replied she wanted everyone to hear. It was obvious to Daniel Scheuerer, who also overheard part of the confrontation, that Ms. Cooper was the one doing the yelling. On October 9, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Ms. Cooper the following written reprimand: This is a formal letter of reprimand as a result of your unacceptable behavior on the morning of October 8, 1990. It is being issued as a result of your intentional (you stated that you wanted to be heard by everyone when I asked you to lower your voice) vociferous and disruptive shouting at me in your work area and the disrespect which you displayed toward me as your supervisor after I had made reasonable requests. This type of behavior is unacceptable, disturbing and disruptive to the work effort of the department and the entire area. This is to inform you that any similar outburst of this matter will result in your immediate termination. CC: Personnel File (Petitioner's exhibit No. 5) Sometime around the end of September, or early October, Karen Denbo, the district Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, had a secretarial position open that would have been a lateral transfer (same level, same pay) for Janice Cooper. She applied, and Dr. Scheuerer asked Ms. Denbo to interview Ms. Cooper. Ms. Denbo asked if he was telling her to hire Ms. Cooper. Dr. Scheuerer was given the impression by both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Denbo that they had misgivings about Ms. Cooper performing in a position requiring a lot of technical filings for which there would be no training. Ms. Cooper was not offered the transfer and no other efforts were made to find Ms. Cooper alternative employment. On October 26, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Janice Cooper a memorandum titled "Job Expectations." It informed her that her supervisor had concerns regarding job performance, relationships with other employees, work attitude and failure to follow administrative directives. It directed her to take specified times for break and it stated she must be accurate, careful, effective and courteous. It stated that her performance was not satisfactory and warned that "failure to make necessary adjustments will result in additional disciplinary action." (Petitioner's exhibit No. 6) On November 1, 1990, near the end of the work week, Ms. Lewis needed some coping done and could not find Janice Cooper. She filled out a copy request form and put Ms. Cooper's name as the contact person. Ms. Cooper returned and Ms. Lewis asked if the form was completed properly. Ms. Cooper looked at it and then replied, "It if says what you want it to say, then its alright." After Ms. Lewis returned to her office, Ms. Cooper followed her in and said if she was going to use her name she needed to get her permission first. As Ms. Lewis began writing down Ms. Cooper's comments, Ms. Cooper reached across the desk, knocking off pencils and paper, and tore the paper out of her hand. Ms. Lewis reached for the phone and asked Dr. Scheuerer to come immediately. Ms. Cooper left and did not return until November 5th, after the weekend. In the meantime, Ms. Lewis met with Dr. Scheuerer; the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Jerry Copeland; and the Labor Relations Director, Bob Barrett. Upon Ms. Cooper's return to work, Ms. Lewis called her in to her office. Bob Barrett was also present. She was given this letter: November 5, 1990 Ms. Janice Cooper, Secretary Vocational Education Department Dear Ms. Cooper: This is to inform you that your employment with the School Board of Brevard County is terminated effective immediately, November 5, 1990. The reason for this termination is your unsatisfactory performance. You have been counseled and warned on several occasions regarding the need to improve your performance. On October 26, 1990, you were provided a memorandum which outlined your responsibilities and gave you direction for improving your performance. You were notified that your performance was unsatisfactory and that your failure to make the necessary adjustments would bring additional disciplinary action. Since October 26, 1990, your performance has continued to deteriorate to the point that your unwillingness to make the effort required to function as a Secretary III necessitates this action. Prior to your departure from the work site today, you should turn in any keys or other such School Board material which was issued to you to uses in your job. Sincerely, Margaret Lewis Director, Vocational Education (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) (emphasis in original) When asked if she had anything to say, Ms. Cooper made no response and refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter. She was directed to collect her personal items and to leave the office. With guidance from the State Department of Education, the Brevard County School District has a policy of discipline of all employees which it calls, "NEAT." The acronym stands for the right to "Notice," followed by "Explanation," followed by "Assistance," within a reasonable "Time." If the deficiencies are not corrected at the end of this process, the employee may be terminated. The School Board's adopted rule 6Gx5-7.05, provides in pertinent part: Suspension/Dismissal. A certificated employee may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the work year pursuant to provisions set forth in Florida Statute 230.33(7)(h), 231.36(4)(6) and the Rules of the Educational Practices Commission. A classified employee may be dismissed for cause. The immediate supervisor shall suspend the employee and notify him/her in writing of the recommendation for dismissal, stating the cause. Termination Date. The effective date of any termination of employment or suspension shall be the last day on which the employee works. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) In addition to the above, the School Board's administrative staff acknowledge an employee's right to a pre-termination process that gives her an opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. The record in this proceeding establishes that Janice Cooper was insubordinate on several occasions. She yelled at her supervisor, disrupting the workplace; she refused to follow instructions or was insolent; and finally, she virtually assaulted her supervisor when she grabbed the paper and tore it up. There is little specific evidence, however, of her poor job performance. Her only evaluation during the ten months of her employment was exceptionally positive. The "Job Expectations" memorandum was provided four days before the incident leading to Ms. Cooper's separation, which incident was plainly insubordination or misconduct, but not "poor job performance." The administrative staff make no apparent distinction between "termination" and "suspension" as both are separations from employment; and they do not view Ms. Lewis' letter, therefore, as a violation of the policy described in paragraph 18 above. Practically, there is no distinction, as no separation is final until the Board takes its action. In the meantime, the employee is no longer on the payroll. In Ms. Cooper's case, the time off of the payroll has been two years, most of which time has been the result of circumstances beyond the control of the School Board. Neither before, nor immediately after her termination by Margaret Lewis, was Janice Cooper offered reasonable opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. She was given the letter and asked if she had a response. The letter states that termination is a fait accompli. She did not respond, and was told to leave. No evidence was presented as to the need to take immediate action. Both the district and Ms. Cooper could have benefited from a brief cooling off period; the district, by taking the time to draft a letter reflecting the proper cause for its action; and Ms. Cooper, by having an opportunity to reflect on her employment jeopardy and to prepare a response. The district presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of cause to terminate Ms. Cooper. It did not, however, prove that the cause was "poor performance." For that reason, and because the employee was not offered a reasonable opportunity to respond, the termination procedure was fatally flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Brevard County enter its final order reinstating Janice Cooper to full back pay and benefits from November 9, 1990, until and including October 7, 1992, and approving her termination effective October 7, 1992. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January 1993. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of January 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 11. With the exception of the October 26, 1990 memo, the facts proposed here are rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Poor performance was not proven, nor was it proven that Respondent was taping conversations, rather than playing her own "subliminal tapes." Adopted in substance in Paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Moreover, there was some mention of a grievance, but no evidence of what this process was or whether it was actually filed and withdrawn. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to unsatisfactory job performance, which is distinguished, according to the School Board's witness, from "insubordination" or misconduct. (Transcript, p. 70-71) Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Adopted in Paragraph 18. 4-8. Rejected as argument or conclusions, or summary of testimony rather than discrete findings of fact. Some of those arguments and conclusions have been adopted in the conclusions of law herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building E 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 F. Michael Driscoll, Esquire Suite 58 3815 North Highway One Cocoa, Florida 32926 Abraham L. Collinsworth, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940-6699 Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent abandoned his position in the career service employment system of the State of Florida in the manner envisioned by Rule 22A-7.010, Florida Administrative Code, and therefore, whether that employment position is any longer available to him.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Thomas J. Atwell, was employed by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in its regional office in Tampa, Florida. Most of his employment duties were located in the Clearwater, Florida, area. His duties involved inspection of mobile homes at sites where those homes were manufactured. His immediate supervisor was Melvin Hinson, Sr., the Assistant Regional Administrator of the Division of Motor Vehicles Regional Office in Tampa, Florida. On October 19, 1988, the Petitioner injured his back while on duty in the process of jumping to the ground from the door of a mobile home he was inspecting. He was placed on disability leave and received worker's compensation benefits as a result of the injury which occurred within the course and scope of his employment. Sometime after being placed on disability leave, he began a course of treatment at Shands Hospital in Gainesville, Florida. At about the same time, he encountered marital discord with his wife, became separated from her, and moved to Tallahassee, Florida, to live with relatives. Upon arriving in Tallahassee, he began to be treated by Dr. Charles Wingo, who became his treating physician for worker's compensation purposes. Dr. Wingo ultimately notified his employer that he could return to light-duty work in a sedentary capacity, sitting and standing, without doing any carrying, if such work were available to him. This notification was by letter dated October 2, 1989. The Respondent, as a result of this communication, issued a letter to the Petitioner on November 3, 1989 advising him that he should report to the Tampa Regional Office of the Division of Motor Vehicles on November 13, 1989 to begin light-duty employment. The letter stated that the Petitioner would be "assisting in answering the telephone, filing, making xerox copies, and performing other light duties that may be assigned by your supervisor." According to the testimony of Buck Jones, the Respondent had a genuine need for someone to perform these duties and it was a true open position in the Tampa Regional Office. The Respondent did not have a need for someone to perform such light duties in the Tallahassee area, however. Indeed, there is no regional office in Tallahassee, with the closest regional office being in Ocala, Florida. In any event, a few days after the November 3, 1989 letter, the Petitioner telephoned Buck Jones, the Chief of the Bureau for Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Construction. The Petitioner told Mr. Jones that he could not get the required medical treatment in Tampa. Mr. Jones told the Petitioner that he would investigate the matter of the availability of medical treatment in Tampa. The Respondent later confirmed that medical treatment was indeed available in the Tampa area, which was suitable for the Petitioner's condition. On November 16, 1989, Mr. Jones wrote the Petitioner another letter stating that medical treatment was available in Tampa and requiring him to report for duty at the Tampa office on November 20, 1989. The letter also expressly stated that should the Petitioner fail to report for duty within three (3) days of that date, November 20, 1989, he would deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Department. The letter invited the Petitioner to contact Mr. Jones should he have any questions about the matter. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Jones before his employment reporting date of November 20, 1989. He did not report for work on November 20, 1989, as ordered, or at anytime thereafter. Around November 3, 1989, the Petitioner had called Mr. Hinson to discuss his worker's compensation case and his job and was told by Mr. Hinson that he should be contacting the Tallahassee office because he had already been told to call "headquarters." On November 27, 1989, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that he had been absent without authorized leave for three (3) consecutive workdays and was, therefore, deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the career service.
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 Department of Administration declaring that the Petitioner, Thomas J. Atwell, has abandoned his employment position and resigned from the career service. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-7058 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted. Accepted, but not material to resolution of disputed issues. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Leonard R. Mellon Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esq. General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Thomas J. Atwell, pro se 2320-J Apalachee Parkway Box 455 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Michael J. Alderman, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0504
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Elizabeth B. Clark was employed as a Librarian II with the Information Services Division of the Career Education Center in May of 1976. The Center contains several divisions, has approximately ninety employees and provides support services to the Vocational Division of the State Department of Education. It is funded with federal dollars obtained via grants and contracts with the Department of Education, pursuant to a contract between the state and federal government. The individual coordinators of the Center's various divisions submit a recommended budget to the Center's director, the director prepares an overall budget for the Center and that budget is then submitted to the Department of Education. The Center's budget year runs from July 1st through June 30th. In the 1976-77 budget year and prior thereto, the Center's director had wide discretion as to where and in which categories or divisions within the Center monies would be allocated. The budget for the Information Services Division for the 1976-77 year was approximately $250,000.00, of which approximately $185,000.00 went for salaries for the Division's twenty-seven employees. It was anticipated by supervisory personnel at the Center that there would be a growth in the services provided by the Information Services Division in the 1977-78 budget year. As a consequence, the initial budget proposal recommended by the coordinator of the Division, Ms. Winkler, was approximately $350,000.00. In the early months of 1977, a reorganization of the Information Services Division was contemplated due to the anticipated expansion of services to be provided. Petitioner felt that her new responsibilities in the area of technical services were lesser in scope and that the anticipated reorganization plan was, in effect, a demotion. She complained to her superiors and filed several grievance procedures against the reorganization attempts. In fact, the reorganization was never implemented because of a cutback in funds allocable to the Division. In the latter part of May, 1977, Director Lathrop was advised that funds previously available for the Center's activities had been severely curtailed due to amendments to the federal law. Unlike prior allocations, the federal amendments designated the categories to which the funds must be applied, and funds for informational services were cut the most. As a result of the cutback, the Information Services Division coordinator submitted a second budget proposal recommendation of $124,000.00, with approximately $91,000.00 of that going for salaries. This almost one-half reduction in budget necessitated a reduction in the services to be supplied and a corresponding reduction in staff. Coordinator Winkler thus recommended the elimination of twelve or thirteen positions, nine of which were filled by career service employees. These nine positions included three clerk-typists, one clerk, one library technical assistant, three Librarian I's and one Librarian II, the latter of which was occupied by petitioner. At that time, there existed five librarian positions - four Librarian I's and one Librarian II. In making the determination as to which positions were to be eliminated, Ms. Winkler considered the reduced emphasis in the technical services area thus allowing a reduction in the clerical staff. Having a master's degree in library science, Ms. Winkler assumed that she could pick up some of the library work. After determining to eliminate four of the five librarian positions, she could not justify keeping the Librarian II position, since there would then be no other librarians to supervise. Director Lathrop reviewed and concurred with Ms. Winkler's recommendation concerning the elimination of the twelve or thirteen positions. In making this decision, Dr. Lathrop considered the Vocational Division's priorities among the services to be offered and the reduced need for supervisory personnel in light of the reduction in staff. At that time, the basic duties of the Librarian II, Ms. Clark's position, were technical services and the supervision of other librarians and clerical personnel. Having made the decision to eliminate these positions, the Center properly notified the Personnel Relations Department of Florida State. This Department, after receiving the required approval from the Board of Regents for elimination of the positions, conducted a review of retention points held by the incumbents to determine which employees would be laid off. Thereafter, Ms. Clark was timely notified that she would be laid off effective July 15, 1977, from her position of Librarian II wit the Career Education Center. The official notice stated, in part: "This action in no way reflects upon your performance or ability, but is solely related to budgetary limitations in the grant for which you worked." The Personnel Department notified the State Division of Personnel of the layoff so that her name could be placed on the official layoff register. This Department also sought to find Ms. Clark another position within the competitive area. At the time of the layoff decision, the budget for the Information Services Division was $124,000.00. In addition to this amount, the Division had a grant in the amount of $11,500.00 and they were working on a grant in the amount of $14,750.00. Another grant of $32,000.00 occurred later in the budget year. These additional monies were to be applied to specific projects and services. Since the layoff, the Division has added seven or eight positions, including a faculty position equivalent to a career service Librarian II. The existence of this latter position was not predicted at the time of the layoff. The additional positions have been funded out of the additional grants for specific services and by not filling positions left vacant under the $124,000.00 budget. Ms. Clark did not find other employment until mid-October, 1977. She was not notified of the faculty position opening until three days after she had obtained her new employment. She presently has no desire to return to employment with the Information Services Division, but feels entitled to back pay for the three months in which she was without employment.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the appeal of petitioner be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Betty Steffens, Esquire 212 Westcott Hall Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Luther C. Smith, Esquire 121 1/2 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on her disability and by retaliating against her, and if so, what, if any, relief is Petitioner entitled to receive.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Respondent's former employee who began working for Respondent in 1993. Petitioner was most recently assigned to the warehouse in eastern Jacksonville, Florida, where she worked from October 2000 until September 2007. When she first transferred to the warehouse, Petitioner worked as the Return-to-Vendor (“RTV”) Clerk. As the RTV Clerk, Petitioner was responsible for shipping out returned merchandise to vendors and shipping salvaged items to the salvage companies. In 2004, Petitioner transferred to the Receiving Clerk position. Petitioner remained in the Receiving Clerk position until September 19, 2007, when she began a medical leave of absence. Jason Zook became the manager of the warehouse in May 2005. As the Warehouse Manager, Mr. Zook is responsible for overseeing the entire warehouse, including the Receiving Department. Mr. Zook is familiar with the requirements of the Receiving Clerk position because he previously worked in that position at another warehouse. Michael Sinanian is one of the Assistant Warehouse Managers. Mr. Sinanian transferred to the warehouse as an Assistant Warehouse Manager in 2002. Prior to becoming an Assistant Warehouse Manager, Mr. Sinanian worked in the Receiving Department at other warehouses for a little over two and a half years. During that time, Mr. Sinanian worked as a Receiving Manager, a Receiving Supervisor, an RTV Clerk, and a Receiving Clerk. The Receiving Department is located at the back of the warehouse. The warehouse is approximately the length of a football field from front to back. At all times material here, the Receiving Department at the warehouse had four positions: Receiving Manager, Receiving Clerk, Receiving Secretary, and Forklift Driver. In 2007, Deborah Lenox was the Receiving Manager, an employee named Sonya was the Receiving Secretary, Petitioner was the Receiving Clerk, and an employee named Valdean was the Forklift Driver. The Receiving Secretary and the Receiving Clerk have different job responsibilities. The Receiving Secretary is responsible for answering the phone, making vendor appointments, logging the appointments, dealing with paperwork, creating and printing out receiving tags, and logging shipment information into Respondent's computer system. The Receiving Clerk is responsible for counting and checking merchandise against freight bills, opening boxes and cartons with a box knife to verify and count the product, stacking bed-loaded merchandise or merchandise from damaged or unacceptable pallets onto approved pallets, separating mixed items from pallets for checking, wrapping pallets with plastic wrap in preparation for movement onto the warehouse floor, loading merchandise and emptying pallets onto trucks using a manual pallet jack or hand cart, and cleaning and clearing the receiving dock of any debris and trip hazards. Each of these essential job functions requires standing, which is consistent with the job analysis for this position. Respondent has written job analyses, which identify the essential functions of each job and are used to assist the Company, the employee, and the employee’s doctor in determining if the employee can perform the essential functions of his/her job with or without reasonable accommodations. Respondent does not remove or eliminate essential job functions, but will sometimes modify the manner in which the function is to be completed. Respondent will not displace another employee from his position in order to accommodate a disabled employee. A pallet of merchandise can be as much as 60 inches high. A typical pallet coming in the warehouse is a 60-inch cube. An electric pallet jack is a double pallet jack and is approximately 18 feet long. In order to operate an electric pallet jack, an employee has to stand and lean in the direction that she wants the machine to go and turn the handle. There is no seat on an electric pallet jack. Petitioner’s original foot condition was due to osteomyelitis, an infection of the bone. Between 1998 and 1999, Petitioner had four surgeries to address her foot condition. A surgeon placed an artificial plastic bone in Petitioner's foot in July 1999. In September 1999, Petitioner returned to work with medical restrictions that prevented her from standing for long periods of time and from lifting more than 25 or 35 pounds. At some point thereafter, while Petitioner was working at one of Respondent’s warehouses in Memphis, Tennessee, her podiatrist changed her restrictions to add limitations against cashiering, stocking, and inventory. Petitioner understood that the reason for these additional restrictions was that she was not able to do these tasks to the extent they required her to stand for a prolonged period of time. Petitioner’s medical notes stated that she was able to use her discretion as to her limitations, which Petitioner understood to mean that she could sit and rest her foot as needed. Each of these restrictions was permanent. Mr. Zook, Ms. Lenox, and Mr. Sinanian were all aware that Petitioner had medical restrictions relating to her foot condition that prevented her from standing for prolonged periods of time. They were aware that Respondent had agreed to allow Petitioner to sit down when she felt it was necessary, without first having to ask for permission. Despite her restrictions, Petitioner is able to ride her bike, go the grocery store, and work out at the gym. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked out at the gym approximately four days a week. Her work-out routine included warming up on an elliptical machine for approximately 15-to-20 minutes or walking approximately one mile on the treadmill and using a leg press machine. Respondent performs inventory twice a year. It takes an inventory at all warehouses in February and August. The inventory process begins on Friday night and continues until the following Wednesday. The back-stock is counted on Friday night after closing and the stock on the sales floor is counted on Saturday night after closing. The post- audit process begins on Sunday morning before the warehouse opens to its members and continues on Monday morning. The Saturday night inventory count is more labor- intensive and is considered “all hands on deck.” The Saturday night inventory requires the staff to count approximately $9 million worth of inventory during roughly a five-hour period. On Saturday, Respondent assigns two employees to count the items in each aisle at the same time. The employees double- check each other’s counts. If there is a discrepancy between the employees’ counts, both will recount the items until their counts agree. If there are discrepancies after the Saturday counts between the physical counts and the computer records, the items are recounted during the Sunday post-audit. If variances still remain after the three counts, then the variances are researched during the Monday post-audit. For the Monday post-audit, Respondent only focuses on the larger-quantity, higher-dollar discrepancies. When researching the discrepancies from the variance reports, employees have to perform the following tasks: (a) count items on the floor or up in the steel racks; (b) verify bin tags; (c) research billing, shipment, and return-to-vendor records on Respondent’s computer system; and (d) check the receiving paperwork in an effort to locate and correct the source of the discrepancy. Some items will have been sold between the Saturday night count and the Monday post-audit process. Therefore, the Monday post-audit team also may have to research the sales history on a computer and back out the Sunday sales from the total count. The variance reports reflect the aisle where the item is located, the item count from the inventory count, the computer system count, and the amount of the variance. Employees are typically assigned to work in one department of the warehouse, which may require them to walk from aisle to aisle within that department. In order to assist the Monday post-audit team, the team is permitted to use computers throughout the warehouse. Employees can sit down at the computers when they are researching the variances in item counts. It can take anywhere from 15-to-30 minutes to research one item. The duties involved in the inventory post-audit process are similar to the job duties of the Receiving Clerk position. However, the post-audit does not require as much standing and is less physically demanding because the focus during post-audit is on researching the sources of the variances, rather than simply receiving, counting, and checking- in shipments. In selecting employees to work on the Monday post- audit team, Respondent prefers to schedule people who are familiar with Respondent’s return-to-vendor and receiving processes. Respondent also selects employees who are knowledgeable about Respondent’s AS-400 computer system. In February 2007, Petitioner worked the Saturday night inventory. During that time, she counted the bread then worked at the control desk. Petitioner's job at the control desk was to key-in inventory count sheets into Respondent’s computer system. Petitioner did not view this assignment as inconsistent with her restrictions against working inventory because she was seated for most of the time. In August 2007, Mr. Sinanian was responsible for the post-audit processes, including the scheduling of employees to work post-audit. Due to the requirements of post-audit, Mr. Sinanian selected people who, like Petitioner, were familiar with Respondent’s AS-400 computer system. Approximately 20 employees worked during the Monday post-audit. Mr. Sinanian and Ms. Lenox knew that Petitioner could use her discretion to sit down whenever she felt it was necessary. They had no reason to believe that the post-audit process was inconsistent with Petitioner’s medical restrictions. Therefore, she was selected to work the Monday post-audit. On Saturday, August 25, 2007, Petitioner was again assigned to count bread and then assist with keying inventory count sheets into the system. Petitioner was able to sit down while she was working at the control desk keying the inventory count sheets. Petitioner did not consider her Saturday assignments inconsistent with her restrictions. Petitioner did not work or perform any inventory or post-audit, inventory-related duties on Sunday, August 26, 2007. On Monday, August 27, 2007, the post-audit process lasted from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Petitioner’s shift began at 5:00 a.m. After Petitioner clocked in, she reported to the control desk, where Mr. Sinanian assigned her to check variances for approximately 6 items in Department 14, the sundries department. The sundries department runs along the back right side of the building near the Receiving Department. The sundries department includes items like paper towels, cleaning chemicals, laundry detergent, water, juice, and soda. Petitioner was assigned to research variances between the physical counts and the computer system’s counts for Swiffers, dog bones, dog beds, water, soda, and paper towels. During the August 2007 post-audit process there were at least 18 computers for the employees to use. The computers were located in the Receiving Department, the front office, at the membership desk, and at the podium on the front-end. Employees were free to use any available computer and were able to sit down at most of the computers while researching items. Petitioner never had to wait to use a computer. Petitioner went to whichever computer was closest to her at the time to verify items. After she finished researching all of the items on her variance sheet, Petitioner, like all of the other employees who worked post-audit, met with Mr. Sinanian at the control desk at the front of the store to explain her findings. There was a chair at the control desk for Petitioner to sit in while meeting with Sinanian. The process of meeting with Mr. Sinanian took anywhere from 10-to-30 minutes. Other than discussing her assignment for the day and the post-audit research results, Mr. Sinanian did not have any other discussions with Petitioner on August 27, 2007. Petitioner was able to use her discretion to sit down during post-audit. She was never told that she could not sit down nor was she reprimanded for sitting down. Petitioner admits that she used her discretion to sit down at least twice during post-audit and to kneel down a couple of times. Petitioner also took a 15-minute break during the post-audit process, during which she sat down. After Petitioner finished working post-audit at approximately 10:00 a.m. on August 27, 2007, she returned to the Receiving Department, but left shortly thereafter to take her lunch break. Petitioner’s lunch break lasted for approximately a half-hour. Petitioner walked from the back of the warehouse, where the Receiving Department is located, to the front of the warehouse, where the break room is located, to take her lunch and walked all the way back after the end of her break to return to work. After returning from lunch, Petitioner began working on the UPS shipment. It was a busy day in the Receiving Department, as the UPS shipment had arrived with approximately 72 packages stacked on one pallet that was taller than Petitioner. Because Petitioner felt unable to stand, she could not check in the entire UPS shipment. As a result, Petitioner took it upon herself to take the UPS invoices and input the invoices into Respondent’s computer system, which is one of the Receiving Secretary’s job responsibilities. At some point thereafter, Ms. Lenox asked Petitioner why she was logging in items into Respondent’s computer system, rather than receiving the UPS shipment. Petitioner told Ms. Lenox that her foot was hurting and that she could not stand. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner to take her break and, when she returned from break, they would see how Petitioner’s foot was feeling. Petitioner walked to the front of the warehouse, where she took her second 15-minute break in the break room. Petitioner was able to sit with her foot up during her break. After returning from her break, Petitioner reported to the Receiving Department and told Ms. Lenox that she did not feel she could not stand any longer that day. Petitioner asked if there was something she could do other than her receiving duties. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner that if she could not stand, then Ms. Lenox did not have any more work for her and told her that she should go home. Accordingly, Petitioner went home approximately one hour before her shift ended. Petitioner reported to work the following day, Tuesday, August 28, 2007, at 5:00 a.m. and worked her entire shift. At some point after her shift started that day, Petitioner told Mr. Sinanian that Ms. Lenox would not allow her to take a break during post-audit. Petitioner also told Mr. Sinanian that her foot was swollen and hurting. She took off her shoe to show him her foot. Mr. Sinanian did not see anything unusual about Petitioner’s foot. He did not see any swelling, graying, or a red bump. From the conversation with Petitioner, Mr. Sinanian did not understand that her foot was hurting due to a new injury. Therefore, Mr. Sinanian did not fill out an incident report. Petitioner’s and Mr. Sinanian’s conversation lasted approximately two minutes. At some point after speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Sinanian asked Ms. Lenox if, at any point during post-audit, she told Petitioner that Petitioner could not take a break. Ms. Lenox denied Petitioner’s allegation. Mr. Sinanian had no reason to doubt Ms. Lenox. Petitioner continued to work her job as Receiving Clerk after August 28, 2007. She continued to use her discretion to rest her foot on an as-needed basis. When possible she would sit in a chair to work. She used the electric pallet, letting her foot hang off the platform. Petitioner waited three weeks to seek medical treatment from her podiatrist in West Palm Beach, Florida. She finally saw her doctor on Monday, September 17, 2007. At her appointment, Petitioner’s podiatrist gave her a note that stated, “DUE TO ARTHRITIC CONDITION, CYNTHIA IS UNABLE TO STAND FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AND IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY FOR HER TO BE OFF HER FOOT FOR 3 WEEKS. DUE TO THE FLARE UP.” Petitioner understood that her podiatrist wanted her to stay off her foot for a few weeks and to be in a sedentary position during that time. Petitioner also understood that these temporary restrictions were more limiting than her prior permanent restrictions. Petitioner reported to work on September 18, 2007, and told Ms. Lenox that her doctor did not want her standing. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner that they would need to speak with Mr. Zook about her restrictions when he arrived at work that day. In the meantime, Ms. Lenox permitted Petitioner to sit down and work on summary sheets. After returning from lunch, Petitioner met with Mr. Zook about her new temporary restrictions. The meeting lasted about an hour or more. Based on Mr. Zook’s prior experience working as a Receiving Clerk, his understanding of the essential job functions of that position, and Petitioner’s podiatrist’s statement that she needed to be off her foot for three weeks, he did not believe that Petitioner could perform the essential functions of that position without violating her doctor’s restrictions. Mr. Zook, nevertheless, asked Petitioner how she thought she could do her job from a seated position. Petitioner did not have any suggestions. There were no available sedentary positions in the warehouse at that time that could have accommodated Petitioner’s no-standing restrictions. As a result, Mr. Zook explained to Petitioner that based on her doctor’s restrictions, which required her to be in a sedentary position, he did not have any work for her at that time. Mr. Zook did not believe that Petitioner’s temporary no-standing restrictions prevented her from working in any capacity. Mr. Zook explained to Petitioner that she could take a leave of absence and return to work after her temporary restrictions expired. Because Petitioner’s restrictions were temporary, Mr. Zook did not contact Respondent’s Human Resources Department to schedule a job accommodation meeting. Despite Mr. Zook’s statement, Petitioner returned to work the following day and performed some work for a period of time. After Mr. Zook arrived at the warehouse, he went back to the Receiving Department and asked Petitioner why she was at work. Mr. Zook reminded Petitioner that he did not have any work for her to do at that time and that he could not allow her to work in violation of her doctor’s restrictions. After speaking with Mr. Zook, Petitioner clocked out, signed some paperwork, and left the building. Petitioner did not return to work after September 19, 2007. On October 15, 2007, Petitioner saw her podiatrist again. Petitioner’s podiatrist extended her temporary no- standing restriction for another six weeks. Petitioner understood, however, that her no-standing restrictions remained temporary at that time. Petitioner applied for and received short-term disability (“STD”) benefits beginning around the end of September 2007. Petitioner used paid time off until the STD period benefits began.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Hnin N. Khaing, Esquire Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC 1648 Osceola Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Kathleen Mones, Esquire Seyfarth Shaw LLP 1545 Peachtree Street Northeast, Suite 700 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, petitioner, Mary L. Kinlaw, was employed by respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Claims, as a Word Processing System Operator, and held permanent status in the Career Service System. As a Word Processing System Operator, her duties included typing, filing, and general secretarial work. Petitioner worked a total of seven (7) hours in January 1991, and last reported for work on January 18, 1991. She has not thereafter reported for work, requested a leave of absence, or contacted the respondent. By letter of May 10, 1991, the respondent notified petitioner that: . . . you have been dismissed from your Work Processing System Operator position, effective 5:00 p.m., May 20, 1991. This action is being taken in accordance with Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and is for the offense of abandonment of position. The predicate for such action was petitioner's failure to report for work since at least February 21, 1991, a period of more than 3 consecutive work days. By letter of June 12, 1991, filed with the Department of Administration on June 17, 1991, petitioner protested the respondent's action. Petitioner did not, however, appear at hearing, and no competent proof was offered for or on her behalf to demonstrate that her failure to report for work was other than a voluntary abandonment of her position. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining respondent's determination that petitioner abandoned her Word Processing System Operator position with respondent, and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of September 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 12th day of September 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's statements as set forth in a letter dated April 30, 2001, are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida. At all times relevant here, the Florida Capitol Police was a division within Respondent's Facilities Program. The Florida Capitol Police is an accredited law enforcement agency. Its purpose is to provide building security and other law enforcement services. The State of Florida employs individuals in one of four distinct, statutorily defined services: Senior Management Service, Selected Exempt Service, Career Service, or Other Personal Services. At all times relevant here, the Director of Florida Capitol Police was an employment position that was classified within the Senior Management Service. Petitioner is a sworn law enforcement officer. On February 24, 1998, Respondent offered Petitioner an appointment to the position of Director of Florida Capitol Police. At that time, Petitioner understood that the appointment was to a position classified within the Senior Management Service. To the extent possible, Petitioner negotiated the terms of his employment. However, he understood that his position as Director of Florida Capitol Police included all of the benefits and all of the terms of employment of a position established within the Senior Management Service. He knew that he would serve at the pleasure of Respondent's Secretary, as the agency head, if he accepted the job. On February 25, 1998, Petitioner accepted the appointment to Director of Florida Capitol Police. He executed a document acknowledging that he was relinquishing his career service rights. From that time forward, Petitioner was compensated and evaluated as a Senior Management Service employee. He enjoyed all the benefits of his new position. Petitioner was the highest-ranking sworn law enforcement officer in the Florida Capitol Police, holding the "rank" of colonel. He did not report to any higher sworn law enforcement officer. As Director of Florida Capitol Police, Petitioner was responsible for leading and directing the operation of a statewide law enforcement organization, including the administration and oversight of a $6.2 million-dollar budget. Part of Petitioner's duties required him to maintain appropriate relationships with the Sheriff of Leon County and the Chief of the Tallahassee Police Department for support in joint operations when necessary. Petitioner was a member of the Florida Police Chiefs' Association, the State Law Enforcement Chiefs' Association, and the National Police Chiefs' Association. In 1999, a former employee of the Florida Capitol Police commenced a legal action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Respondent. The former employee alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment by the Florida Capitol Police, specifically by Petitioner. A trial was conducted in the lawsuit, Goldwich v. Department of Management Services, USDC ND Fla., Case No. 99-CV-512 (1999) in early February 2001. Petitioner testified as a defense witness at the trial. Several other Florida Capitol Police officers were interviewed as potential witnesses or called to testify at the trial. Respondent prevailed in the district court action. On February 2, 2001, Respondent's Secretary transferred the internal affairs investigation function of the Florida Capitol Police from the Florida Capitol Police to Respondent's Office of Inspector General. Thereafter, the Chief Investigator, Captain Joe Wallace, worked out of the Inspector General's office. On February 15, 2001, Petitioner and Respondent's Inspector General entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the "credentialing" of Chief Investigator Wallace. The purpose of the memorandum was to formulate and establish a commitment between the Office of the Inspector General and the Florida Capitol Police to support the training and educational requirements for sworn law enforcement personnel assigned to each entity. On March 2, 2001, Respondent's Office of the Inspector General received an internal complaint from Sergeant Edwin Maxwell, a subordinate officer of the Florida Capitol Police. Said complaint alleged that Petitioner had retaliated against Sergeant Maxwell for testifying at the Goldwich trial. Sergeant Maxwell's allegations also implicated Petitioner's subordinate, Major Robert G. Tippett, as having participated in the alleged retaliation. On or about March 7, 2001, Respondent's Inspector General instructed Petitioner to report to the Florida Capitol Building, specifically to the offices of the Governor's Chief Inspector General. Respondent's Inspector General, Chief Investigator Wallace, and an Assistant Florida Inspector General from the Governor's Office of Inspector General were present when Petitioner arrived at the Capitol. At that time, Petitioner was presented with a memorandum advising that he was the subject of a formal investigation. The March 7, 2001, memorandum stated that Respondent's Inspector General initiated the investigation pursuant to a complaint. According to the memorandum, the principal allegation that formed the basis of the investigation was that Petitioner had engaged in one or more of the following: retaliation, conduct unbecoming, and/or violation of law. Sergeant Maxwell's complaint and a copy of Section 112.532, Florida Statutes, was attached to the memorandum. During the March 7, 2001, meeting at the Capitol, Respondent's Inspector General advised Petitioner that he had a right to representation by counsel. After a brief discussion, Petitioner elected to seek private counsel. Later on March 7, 2001, Petitioner and his attorney returned to the Governor's suite at the Capitol. Upon their arrival, Petitioner was advised again of his rights under the law enforcement officers' and correctional officers' rights, which are codified at Section 112.532, Florida Statutes. Respondent's Inspector General and Chief Investigator Wallace then proceeded to interview Petitioner. Respondent's Inspector General inquired into the complaint against Major Tippett, performed an investigation, and issued an Executive Summary of the investigation dated March 22, 2001. This report concluded that Major Tippett's alleged violations related to conduct unbecoming, retaliation, and violation of law were unfounded. Respondent's Inspector General inquired into the complaint against Petitioner, performed an investigation, and prepared a draft report of the investigation. After consulting with the Chief Inspector General in the Office of the Governor, Respondent's Inspector General issued an Executive Summary of the investigation dated March 26, 2001. This report concluded that Petitioner had engaged in conduct unbecoming. The report also concluded that other alleged violations by Petitioner, including retaliation and violation of law, were unfounded. According to the March 26, 2001, Executive Summary, Respondent's Inspector General recommended that Petitioner be removed from his position as Director of Florida Capitol Police. The report states as follows in relevant part: This recommendation is made after carefully considering the following factors and informed by the fact that the Director serves entirely at the discretion of the secretary: The previous OIG report related to Capitol Police and the issues raised therein. (See attached) The finding of the jury in the US District Court case, filed by Officer Lisa Goldwich, that her working conditions were made so intolerable, by the defendant, that she was forced to resign. (See attached) The finding of "conduct unbecoming an employee/officer" contained in the report above. The likelihood that future retaliation will be attempted against those individuals who participated in the Goldwich trial and against those who testified in the OIG investigation reported above. The ongoing morale problem within the Florida Capitol Police. Subsequently, Respondent's Inspector General prepared a Memorandum of Investigation dated April 2, 2001. This memorandum states again that allegations against Petitioner relative to retaliation and violation of law were unfounded but that allegations relative to conduct unbecoming were founded. The April 2, 2001, memorandum cites Respondent's Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 3.27, Discipline of Career Service Employees, as it relates to conduct unbecoming a public employee. It also cites to Section 110.403(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for the proposition that Respondent's Secretary had discretion to discipline Senior Management Service employees. On or about April 3, 2001, Petitioner and Major Tippett filed a civil suit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Case No. 01-821. This suit included an Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. It alleged violations of Sections 112.532, 112.533, and 112.534, Florida Statutes. Petitioner subsequently voluntarily dismissed this civil action. On or about April 3, 2001, the General Counsel in the Office of the Governor, requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to review and complete Respondent's internal investigation. Thereafter, FDLE's Inspector General performed an investigation into the complaint against Petitioner and Major Tippett. FDLE's Inspector General eventually prepared an undated report of its review and investigation. The FDLE report states as follows in relevant part: As mentioned previously, the OIG report concludes that the alleged violations against Major Tippett were all unfounded. The alleged violations against Colonel Meek for (1) Retaliation and (2) Violation of Law were unfounded. The violation against Colonel Meek for Conduct Unbecoming was founded. Conduct Unbecoming a public employee is a violation of DMS Policy, Section 3.27(C)(2)(e). There is no definition of "Conduct Unbecoming" in DMS' policies or administrative rules. Based upon the interview of the subordinate supervisors regarding the statements made by Colonel Meek, the conclusions rendered by OIG are reasonable. Near the completion of the OIG investigation, IG Varnado prepared a draft report and discussed it with the Chief Inspector General, Marcia Cooke. The draft report did not contain any recommendation regarding a recommended action for the founded violation of Conduct Unbecoming. CIG Cooke instructed IG Varnado to include such a recommendation. IG Varnado recommended that Colonel Meek be removed from his position and discussed the recommendation with Secretary Cynthia Henderson. This RECOMMENDATION was included in the INVESTIGATIVE REPORT dated April 2, 2001. The RECOMMENDATION contained five cited reasons to support Colonel Meek's removal. The OIG investigative report does not specifically support reasons (1), (4), and (5). However, based upon the below recommendation, further discussion of these items is rendered moot. Generally, an investigation regarding possible administrative misconduct is handled independently from the determination to impose action following a sustained finding of a violation. IG Varnado acknowledged that he does not routinely recommend action following an administrative violation. However, according to IG Varnado, the rank of the person involved led him to seek assistance from the Chief Inspector General's Office. It is recommended that the RECOMMENDATION regarding the proposed administrative action be removed from the investigative report. The determination of any action resulting from the OIG investigation should be left solely to the discretion of the Secretary for the Department of Management Services. The FDLE report also addresses Respondent's violations of Sections 112.532(1)(b), 112.532(1)(g), and 112.533, Florida Statutes, which were the subject of the civil suit filed by Petitioner and Major Tippett. The report concludes that these statutory provisions were applicable to Major Tippet but that the question whether they were applicable to Petitioner, as the head of the Florida Capitol Police, was also the subject of the civil suit. By letter dated April 30, 2001, Respondent's Secretary advised Petitioner that the investigation of Sergeant Maxwell's complaint was complete. The letter states as follows in relevant part: [B]ased on the investigation conducted by the DMS Inspector General, as reviewed and completed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Inspector General, it has been determined that allegations against you relating to retaliation and violation of law are unfounded, and that allegations against you relating to conduct unbecoming a public employee are founded. Attached hereto for your reference is a copy of the pertinent report of the FDLE Inspector General's Office. As set forth in the attached report (page three), the basis for the conclusions that you are guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee is that you made statements in the days or weeks following the trial of the civil suit filed by former officer Lisa Goldwich to subordinate officers regarding the removal of duties involving Sgt. Maxwell--who testified for the plaintiff at the trial--and possible adverse action for him and others who testified. Because of this conduct unbecoming a public employee, you are hereby suspended without pay for a period of fourteen (14) days, after which you will return to your post. You are also hereby required to participate in supervisor training with (sic) ninety (90) days. Respondent's agency head, in the exercise of her discretion, made the ultimate decision to suspend Petitioner. In taking the disciplinary action, the agency head did not reference or assert any reliance on career service rules to support Petitioner's discipline. The April 30, 2001, letter was not disseminated to other agencies or to other Senior Management Service employees. The agency head's April 30, 2001, letter was an action taken exclusively regarding Petitioner. It did not affect or impact any other agency, employee, or class of employee. The administration of personnel matters regarding Respondent's Senior Management Service employees did not change following Petitioner's April 30, 2001, discipline. Respondent has not promulgated rules regarding the discipline, suspension, or termination of Senior Management Service employees because such rules are not required. Petitioner resigned his appointment as Director of Florida Capitol Police on July 31, 2001. He is no longer employed by the State of Florida.
