The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(6), (8), and (14) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agents in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2002). On April 3, 2003, Petitioner applied for a license as a resident company employee property and casualty adjuster (resident adjuster license). Petitioner truthfully answered all questions on the application, including those questions pertaining to Petitioner's criminal history and guilty plea to a felony charge in Georgia. On September 25, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Denial of Petitioner's license application. Respondent based the denial, in relevant part, on the grounds that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(6) and (14) prohibit Respondent from granting the application while Petitioner is on probation or in a pre-trial intervention program; and that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(8) requires Petitioner to wait five years after the plea dated May 14, 2002, before applying for a license. On a date not disclosed in the record, Respondent issued a Second Amended Notice of Denial (the Amended Notice of Denial). The record does not disclose a first amended notice of denial. The Amended Notice of Denial, in relevant part, deletes grounds for the proposed denial that are not relevant to this Final Order. On May 14, 2002, Petitioner pled guilty to a single felony charge of possession of cocaine. A Georgia court sentenced Petitioner under Georgia's First Offender Act. If Petitioner successfully completes probation, Georgia will dismiss the felony charge. If Petitioner does not successfully complete probation, the Georgia court may revoke Petitioner's probation, adjudicate Petitioner guilty as charged, and sentence Petitioner to the maximum sentence authorized under Georgia law. Petitioner challenges the following provisions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042: (6) Probation. The Department shall not grant licensure to any person who at the time of application or at any time during the pendency of the application is serving a probationary term on any felony crime, or any misdemeanor crime, except for those crimes specified in Chapter 316, F.S., which are not punishable by imprisonment. The Department shall not substantively consider an application until the applicant has successfully completed his or her probationary term. * * * (8) Required Waiting Periods for a Single Felony Crime. The Department finds it necessary for an applicant whose law enforcement record includes a single felony crime to wait the time period specified below (subject to the mitigating factors set forth elsewhere in this rule) before licensure. All waiting periods run from the trigger date. (c) Class C Crime. The applicant will not be granted licensure until 5 years have passed since the trigger date. * * * (14) Pre-Trial Intervention: Specific Policy. (b) The Department will not grant licensure to any person who at time of application is participating in a pre-trial intervention program. The Department finds it necessary to the public welfare to wait until the pre- trial intervention is successfully completed before licensure will be considered. Petitioner challenges the foregoing provisions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042 on the grounds that each provision violates Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes (2002). Petitioner alleges that each challenged provision of the rule, respectively, exceeds the grant of rulemaking authority; enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented; or is arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes (2002). The challenged provisions of the rule may reasonably be construed in a manner that preserves the validity of the rule. The express terms of the rule do not mandate an interpretation that violates Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes (2002). However, Respondent interprets the challenged provisions of the rule in a manner that, if accepted, would violate Subsections 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2002). The enabling legislation for Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042 is Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002). Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002), authorizes Respondent to adopt rules establishing specific waiting periods that Respondent must apply after Respondent denies, suspends, or revokes Petitioner's license pursuant to specifically enumerated Florida statutes. In relevant part, Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that Respondent: . . . shall adopt rules establishing specific waiting periods for applicants to become eligible for licensure following denial, suspension, or revocation. . . . (emphasis supplied) Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002), prescribes a statutory prerequisite to the imposition of any waiting period pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042. The statutory prerequisite is that Respondent must first deny, suspend, or revoke an existing license based on statutory provisions enumerated in the enabling legislation; enumerated provisions that are independent of any waiting periods. Thereafter, Respondent may impose relevant waiting periods to any application that follows Respondent's denial, suspension, or revocation of a license. The express terms of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042 do not mandate the imposition of waiting periods without first satisfying the statutory prerequisite prescribed in the enabling legislation. The challenged provisions of the rule may reasonably be construed as authorizing the imposition of waiting periods following Respondent's denial, suspension, or revocation of an existing license. Respondent interprets the challenged provisions of the rule as authorizing Respondent to impose waiting periods without satisfying the statutory prerequisite in the enabling legislation. The waiting period that Respondent proposes to impose against Petitioner does not follow Respondent's denial, suspension, or revocation of a license within the meaning of Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002). When Georgia authorities arrested Petitioner for possession of cocaine on November 4, 2001, Petitioner held a Florida nonresident company all-lines adjuster license pursuant to license number A082918 (a nonresident adjuster license). Petitioner voluntarily cancelled the nonresident adjuster license on October 21, 2002. Respondent did not deny an application for renewal of the nonresident adjuster license. Nor did Respondent suspend or revoke Petitioner's nonresident adjuster license. The application for a resident adjuster license at issue in this proceeding indicates that no administrative action was ever taken against Petitioner's nonresident adjuster license. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner answered all questions on the application truthfully. The Florida licensure file that Respondent maintains shows that Respondent took no administrative action against Petitioner's nonresident adjuster license. Respondent proposes to impose a waiting period against Petitioner that that does not follow denial, suspension, or revocation of either Petitioner's previous nonresident adjuster license or the resident adjuster license that Petitioner seeks in this proceeding. The second page of the application that Petitioner submitted states that Respondent will not consider the application while Petitioner is under probation or in a pre- trial intervention program. In relevant part, the second page of the application provides: NOTE: IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY ON PROBATION OR PARTICIPATING IN A PRE-TRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAM, YOU MAY WANT TO WAIT TO FILE YOUR APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT UNTIL YOUR PROBATION OR PRE-TRIAL PROGRAM HAS TERMINATED. (For other than minor traffic violations, the rules of the Department prohibit the approval of licensure for an individual who is currently serving a probationary term or participating in a pre- trial intervention program. ) (emphasis not supplied) After receiving the application for a resident adjuster license, Respondent issued a letter dated April 7, 2003, stating Respondent's intent to deny the application. In relevant part, the letter stated: [W]e are in receipt of the certified documents, however, a review of the documents indicate[s] that you are still on probation. The rules of the Department prohibit the approval of licensure for an individual who is currently serving a probationary term. Please write and let us know if we need to close or withdraw your application. The express terms of Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002), require an interpretation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042 that limits the imposition of relevant waiting periods to periods that follow Respondent's denial, suspension, or revocation of a license. The waiting periods begin on "trigger dates" defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.041(11). The express terms of the enabling legislation do not authorize the imposition of waiting periods unless the waiting periods follow a denial, suspension, or revocation of a license by Respondent in accordance with Florida law. If Respondent were to deny Petitioner's application for a resident adjuster license on the grounds that Petitioner violated one of the statutes enumerated in the enabling legislation, Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002), would authorize Respondent to apply the challenged provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042 to prevent Petitioner from applying for a license before the expiration of the applicable waiting period. Similarly, if Respondent were to have suspended or revoked Petitioner's nonresident adjuster license, Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2002), would have authorized Respondent to apply the relevant waiting period to prevent Petitioner from applying for another nonresident adjuster license; or arguably to prevent Petitioner from applying for the resident adjuster license at issue in this proceeding.
The Issue The issues are whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this proceeding, and, if so, whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for the School District of Hendry County, Florida (the District). Petitioner employed Respondent in the District as a custodian from July 8, 1997, until April 4, 2006. A custodian is an educational support employee as defined in Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005). The alleged grounds for the termination of Respondent's employment may be fairly summarized as involving two unauthorized absences during the workdays of March 15 and 16, 2006. On March 17, 2006, the principal met with Respondent in the principal's office. The assistant principal and head custodian were also present. Respondent declined the opportunity to have a union representative present. By letter dated April 24, 2006, the District superintendent provided Respondent with written notice that Petitioner had terminated Respondent's employment on April 4, 2006 (written notice of termination). By letter dated April 28, 2006, Respondent's counsel requested an administrative hearing (the request for hearing). Respondent challenges the subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding.1 The facts relevant to Respondent's jurisdictional challenge are undisputed.2 Petitioner did not request the assignment of an ALJ within the statutorily prescribed 15-day time limit. When Petitioner did request DOAH to assign an ALJ, the 60-day time limit for commencing the hearing had already expired.3 Petitioner requested the assignment of an ALJ on August 7, 2006, approximately 101 days after receiving the request for hearing from Respondent.4 Subsection 120.569(2), Florida Statutes (2005), required Petitioner to request the assignment of an ALJ within 15 days of the date Petitioner received the request for hearing. The timeline for conducting the administrative hearing is prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement 2004-2007 between the District School Board of Hendry County and the Hendry County Support Personnel Association (the CBA). Subsection 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), provides, in relevant part: In the event a district school superintendent seeks termination of an employee, . . . [t]he appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process . . . . Section 8.074 in the CBA prescribes the procedures for conducting a hearing if one is requested by a terminated employee. The procedures prescribed in the CBA are substantially the same as those in Subsections 1012.33(3)(f)4.a. and b. and 1012.33(6)(a)1. and 2., Florida Statutes (2005). In relevant part, the CBA provides: The Employee shall be entitled to a hearing at the Board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the Board within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Employee request. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of FS. 120.57(1)(a)1. A majority vote of the membership of the Board shall be required to sustain the Superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the Board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. A hearing conducted by a hearing officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Employee's request in accordance with FS. Chapter 120. The recommendation of the hearing officer shall be made to the Board. A majority vote of the Board shall be required to sustain or change the hearing officer's recommendation. The determination of the Board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. This is the exclusive procedure for termination, except that the Employee shall have the right for Judicial Appeal under FS. 120.68. The Association shall be notified when any Association member is to be terminated. Petitioner's Exhibit 11. Petitioner elected to refer the request for hearing to DOAH in accordance with Section 8.074b. of the CBA. However, Petitioner did not refer the matter to DOAH until August 7, 2006, approximately 101 days after receiving the request for hearing. By waiting more than 60 days to refer the matter to DOAH, Petitioner prevented DOAH from conducting the hearing within the 60-day time limit prescribed in the CBA and incorporated by reference in Subsection 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005). Respondent did not raise his jurisdictional challenge until the administrative hearing was conducted on September 20, 2006. The sole issue that Respondent included in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed with DOAH on September 19, 2006, is whether Petitioner had just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent. If the requirement to conduct the hearing within the 60-day time limit were jurisdictional, judicial authority discussed in the conclusions of law would make it unnecessary for Respondent to raise the issue before the hearing. If the requirement were procedural, judicial authority discussed in the conclusions of law would require Respondent to show that the failure to comply with the 60-day time limit prejudiced Respondent by impairing the fairness of the proceeding or the correctness of the agency action. For reasons stated in the conclusions of law, both the 15-day time limit for referring the matter to DOAH and the 60-day time limit for conducting the hearing are procedural rather than jurisdictional. The untimely referral and hearing did not prejudice Respondent. Petitioner had just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent. Respondent engaged in two unauthorized absences from work on March 15 and 16, 2006. The two absences exceeded 4.5 hours. Respondent worked at LaBelle High School (LaBelle) on March 15 and 16, 2006. Respondent worked during each day from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. The workday included one unpaid meal break for 30 minutes and two 15-minute paid breaks. The breaks could be taken at any time during the workday and could be combined into a single one-hour break. Respondent was required to sign in and out on a form (sign-out sheet) when Respondent left campus during any period of his workday other than the unpaid 30-minute meal break. Respondent was absent from work on March 15, 2006, for a period in excess of three hours and was absent from work the next day for approximately one hour and fifty minutes. The absences were unauthorized because each exceeded one hour and because Respondent did not complete the sign out sheet when he left campus. Rather, Respondent made entries in the sign out sheet indicating he was present from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. On March 15, 2006, Respondent left work for a period that exceeded three hours. Respondent borrowed a carpet cleaning machine from LaBelle in accordance with school policy. Respondent took the machine home, as he was authorized to do, but remained absent from work for a period that exceeded three hours. The second unauthorized absence occurred on March 16, 2006, when Respondent was absent from work from approximately 5:30 p.m. until about 7:20 p.m. The principal of LaBelle was attending a baseball game at school that evening and was unable to locate Respondent on campus during three separate searches. The searches included Respondent's work area and bathrooms. The work cart assigned to Respondent was not moved during the three searches. At approximately 7:45 p.m., the principal observed that Respondent's truck had been returned to its parking space. Respondent had a history of leaving campus during the workday. The principal had previously established the sign-out sheet protocol so that others would be able to locate Respondent during the workday. The head custodian also required each custodian to leave a note disclosing when a custodian leaves campus and the reasons for the absence. The head custodian would be able to read the note when he arrived at work the next morning and would be able to explain the circumstances of the absence if asked by a school administrator. Respondent did not comply with the required protocol on March 15 or 16, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as an educational support employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 11th of December, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice (discrimination under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes) against Petitioner on the basis of his race (Black/African-American), handicap, or retaliation, and if so, what is the remedy? Although cases arising under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may be instructive for interpreting and applying the handicap provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's claim under ADA and any allegations of libel and slander are not within the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lawrence James, Jr., is a Black/African- American. Respondent, The Alachua County Department of Criminal Justice Service, is an "employer" within the definition in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent operates the Alachua County Jail. Respondent maintains a paramilitary command, advancement, and ranking system for its employees. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Sergeant. On March 2, 1994, an inmate escaped from the Alachua County Jail during the evening shift. As a result of the inmate's escape, several correctional officers were disciplined. Petitioner was disciplined by a reduction in rank April 26, 1994. (P-37) There were allegations that harsher discipline had been meted out to the Black/African-American officers, and the matter was arbitrated, pursuant to the union collective bargaining contract. As a result of the arbitration, in the summer of 1994, it was recommended that Petitioner be returned to his position at the Jail with restoration of rank, but without any back pay. However, at the time of that recommendation, Petitioner already had been terminated for "a non-related infraction of county policy." (P-37) The "non-related infraction of county policy" reason for Petitioner's 1994 termination was not established on this record, but neither was any discriminatory reason proven.2 After Petitioner's 1994 termination, further proceedings ensued, and Petitioner was ultimately restored to his rank and position at the Jail. As part of this restoration, it was agreed the Respondent employer would conduct training and re-orientation sessions for Petitioner, since he had not actively been performing his duties at the Jail for approximately two years. The present case only addresses the discrimination Petitioner allegedly suffered due to race, handicap, or retaliation concerning his leave requests in 1996, and his 1997 termination for unauthorized absence. After his second successful arbitration(s) and/or grievance procedure, Petitioner was eligible to return to work on February 19, 1996. He did not return on that date. Respondent ordered Petitioner back to work on March 13, 1996, at which time Petitioner requested, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It is not clear if Petitioner ever made Respondent aware that he suffered from high blood pressure, but from the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner notified Respondent in March 1996, that he was suffering from a prior on- the-job injury to his back, diabetes, and depression. Diabetes, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Clinical depression, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contended at hearing that his clinical depression in 1996 was due to his 1994 demotion and termination and the procedures to get his job back and also due to the hostile work environment he anticipated he would face if he returned to work daily in 1996 with people whom he perceived as having lied about him and who had tried to terminate him. It should be noted that Petitioner did not clearly include "hostile work environment" in either his 1998, Charge of Discrimination or his 2000, Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations only considered and referred the instant case upon allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, and retaliation. From Petitioner's description of his back ailment, it is found that condition also constituted a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. From Petitioner's description of how his back injury affected his daily life and job performance, it is very doubtful that Petitioner was able to physically fulfill the requirements of being a jailor at any time in 1996 until he was terminated in 1997. No evidence was presented with regard to the workers' compensation consequences of this situation. By an April 1, 1996, letter, Respondent's Interim Director of Criminal Justice Service, Richard Tarbox, informed Petitioner that he had exhausted his sick leave credits as of the pay period ending March 31, 1996; that based on Respondent's records, Petitioner would exhaust the balance of his accrued sick leave at the rate of forty hours per week during the pay period ending May 12, 1996; that he was expected to know his available accrued leave credits and to contact his immediate supervisor at least one week prior to the expiration of the current leave period to request leave without pay if he anticipated not returning to work; and that he had been placed on FMLA leave for an indefinite period, not to exceed twelve weeks, which would expire on June 6, 1996. (R-30) The April 1, 1996, letter specifically informed Petitioner that failure to come to work or contact Respondent could be considered abandonment of his position. (R-30) The foregoing instructions concerning "abandonment of position" parallel Alachua County's Personnel Regulations and Disciplinary Policy, hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as "personnel regulations." (P-1). Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; c. Group III Offenses No. 8, at pages 5-6, of the personnel regulations had existed prior to Petitioner's 1994 termination, and was in effect at all times material. It provided, Absence of three consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ. The personnel regulations also provided in Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; a. Group I Offenses No. 8, at pages 3-4, that the following offense would subject an employee to progressive discipline: Absence without authorization or failure to notify appropriate supervisory personnel on the first day of absence. (Emphasis supplied). This regulation also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994, and was in effect at all times material. Progressive discipline for the first such offense was written instruction, counseling and/or one-day suspension. For the second occurrence, one to five days' suspension was specified. For the third occurrence, up to five days' suspension or discharge was specified. These provisions also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994 and were in effect at all times material. Petitioner was also familiar with the long-standing progressive discipline system of Respondent's personnel regulations. Basically, this system required that discipline first be proposed in writing by a superior. The proposed discipline would go into effect and become actual discipline if the employee did not appear at a hearing to dispute the charges or the proposed discipline. If the employee prevailed at the hearing, the proposed discipline would be rescinded or altered. If the employee did not prevail, the proposed discipline would be reduced to writing in another document, and the employee then had the option of filing a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement or of appealing through the personnel system to a citizens' board. While Petitioner had been absent in 1994-1996, a new requirement had been added to the personnel regulations, under Chapter A-299, which required that employees who planned to be absent, must notify their immediate supervisor no later than 30 minutes from the time they are scheduled to report for work. (Emphasis supplied) The "immediate supervisor" or "appropriate supervisory personnel" in Petitioner's situation would have been the lieutenant on his shift. However, Petitioner and Lt. Little, who became his supervisor, concurred that the custom at the Jail always had been to require that employees contact the shift sergeant on the shift preceding an emergency absence, or if that were not possible, to contact the employee's own shift sergeant or anyone else on that shift. Jail custom also provided that the employee who was going to be absent could rely on any person on his shift to deliver his oral message to the employee's supervising lieutenant and that approval or disapproval paperwork would be handled by that lieutenant after notification. On June 6, 1996, Petitioner still had not returned to work. Instead, he requested leave without pay until June 15, 1996. Respondent granted Petitioner's request. This constituted an accommodation of Petitioner's handicap(s) in that he had no remaining earned leave or entitlement to FMLA leave, yet his employer held his position open for his return. On or about June 10, 1996, Anthony F. Greene, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Vista Pavilion, a free-standing psychiatric facility, released Petitioner to return to work. He wrote to Respondent's Risk Manager that Petitioner continued to have problems with depression, which might prove "volatile" in a work environment with superiors Petitioner believed had harassed him by terminating and blaming him for the 1994 escape. At approximately the same time, Richard Greer, M.D., medical specialty unexplained, also released Petitioner to return to work, upon the conditions that Petitioner continue to see Dr. Greene on a weekly basis and continue to take his prescriptive medications. By a July 17, 1996, letter (P-4), Interim Director Richard Tarbox notified Petitioner to report for work at the Jail on the evening shift of July 22, 1996. The letter required Petitioner to continue his sessions with Dr. Greene; to continue to take his prescriptive medications; and to take the re- training and re-orientation specified as a result of the resolution of his 1994 termination and return to work. (See Finding of Fact 7.) The July 17, 1996, letter also included the sentence, We are in the process of contacting Dr. Greene to establish a procedure to verify that you continue your sessions with him. Petitioner interpreted this sentence as the employer's promise "[T]o get all my leave slips, find out when I was going to the doctor, my mental condition, and also my medical condition." (TR-Vol.II, pages 175-176) Petitioner's interpretation of this sentence was unreasonable in light of its express language, the context of the remainder of the July 17, 1996, letter, the instructions of the April 1, 1996, letter (See Findings of Fact 16-17), and what Petitioner already knew of the County's personnel regulations and/or the Jail custom requiring him to call in and/or apply for leave to be subsequently approved or disapproved by his supervisor. Nothing in the July 17, 1996, letter altered the requirements of the personnel regulations or the April 1, 1996, letter. Petitioner bore the responsibility to ask for medical leave sufficiently in advance of his absences. On July 22, 1996, Petitioner reported for work at the Jail as instructed and was assigned to an evening shift supervised by Lt. Stover. According to Sgt. Babula, Petitioner also worked under Shift Sgt. Withey at some point in July 1996. However, by July 1996, Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. He needed to self-administer a shot of insulin each morning and night. To ensure ideal spacing of these two shots, Petitioner almost immediately requested to work the day shift. Respondent accommodated this request concerning Petitioner's handicaps and assigned him to the day shift under Lt. Little and Sgt. Babula, as shift sergeant. Petitioner claimed his handicaps were not accommodated by Respondent, but in addition to approving leave for him from February 19, 1996, to July 22, 1996, not replacing him during that period, and the change of shift made in July 1996, at Petitioner's request, Sgt. Babula testified to approving special shoes for Petitioner due to his diabetes. By September 1996, Petitioner again had used up all of his accrued leave. Accordingly, he had to ask for leave without pay to visit his various doctors, including Dr. Greene. On September 9, 1996, during a therapy session, Petitioner told Dr. Greene that he had been threatened on the job and that he was pursuing resolution of the incident through appropriate channels. The same day, Dr. Greene wrote to Lt. Little, telling him of the threat. The nature of this alleged threat or who made it was not stated in Dr. Greene's letter or at hearing. The letter cleared Petitioner to return to work September 12, 1996. This out-of-court statement to his psychotherapist at that time does not establish the truth of the statement or that Petitioner's superiors made the alleged threat. Also, the threat, if one existed, could not have related to Petitioner's written leave requests, because Petitioner's earliest dispute about leave did not occur until September 13, 1996. (See Finding of Fact 41). The September 9, 1996, date was not related by testimony to any oral or written request for leave or any disciplinary matter in evidence. Petitioner testified to having been threatened on the job sometime prior to September 9, 1996, but he never testified what the threat was, why the threat was made, or by whom the threat was made. Petitioner's witness, Alfred Dickerson, also is African-American. He testified generally that it was "pure hell" at the Jail for anyone who, like himself and Petitioner, had been disciplined due to the 1994 escape and who had prevailed in the resultant grievance activities, but he could not remember any specific incidents involving Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Dickerson was out of the Jail, on workers' compensation leave, from May 1996 to October 1997, the whole of the material time frame for this case.3 On September 16, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay to Lt. Little, his supervisor, for the previous dates of September 13 and 15, stating thereon that he had been ill those days and that the request was being made because his request to work his days off to make up for the 16 hours of leave he had used on September 13 and 15 had been denied. The request does not specifically mention "flex time." (P-6) "Flex time," as described by both Petitioner and Lt. Little, would have permitted Petitioner to work his days off, instead of taking time off without pay to make up time used to go to his doctors on days he was scheduled to work. However, if an employee asked to use flex time in this way, another employee had to trade days with him, and the exchange would be worked out by the supervising lieutenant. On October 1, 1996, Petitioner was given a "Letter of Warning" by Lt. Little. The Warning reflected that Petitioner's advising a sergeant other than his immediate supervisor, Lt. Little, on September 24, 1996, that he was not coming to work until some personal matters were taken care of, was insufficient notice and was being treated as "absence without authorization" in violation of the personnel regulations. It also stated, It has been standard practice and understood that you must notify your immediate supervisor . . . please be advised that any further violations of this nature may result in docked pay and progressive disciplinary action . . . Attached to this document was a Notice of Disciplinary Action, also prepared October 1, 1996, stating, Disciplinary action taken as a result of the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action dated blank not filled in. (Except for WARNING) WARNING (Reasons for warning): Violation of Alachua County Personnnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, a., Group I, Offense No. 8 'Absence without authorization'. (P-8) The same document notified Petitioner that he had a right to appeal the Warning pursuant to either the personnel regulations or the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt of this latter document until October 7, 1996. (P-8/R-19) Also on October 1, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay for September 23- 26 and for September 29-30, to Captain King. The reason for Petitioner's absence September 23-26 was not stated on the formal request, but Petitioner did again state thereon that his request to "flex" his days off had been denied, presumably by Lt. Little. The time for September 29-30 was requested for "personal business and emergency family leave without pay" due to his mother's seeing a doctor about her detached retinas. (P-7) Respondent is not obligated under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to accommodate Petitioner's family's handicaps.4 On October 21, 1996, a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action" was issued by Lt. Little, apparently covering the same date, September 24, 1996, as his October 1, Warning, and adding other dates. The reasons for the proposed discipline given in this October 21, 1996, Notice differ slightly from the content of the October 1, Warning. The October 21, 1996, Notice related that on September 23, Petitioner had spoken to Captain King and Lt. Little, and because his request for leave had been made in advance, Petitioner had been granted the day off; that on September 24, Petitioner had failed to report to work and failed to request an extension of leave, and he was therefore considered to be "absent without authorization" for September 24, 1996. The October 21, Notice further stated that on September 25, Petitioner had called Captain King, requesting leave without pay for September 25 and 26, and because Petitioner had requested leave in advance, Captain King had granted the request covering those two days, but that on his October 1, leave request (see Finding of Fact 44) Petitioner had included two more days, September 29 and 30, which had not been previously authorized. Finally, the October 21, Notice indicated that on September 30, Petitioner had called Lt. Stover to say that he would be reporting to work as soon as he was through testifying to the Grand Jury that afternoon, and that his failure to request leave in advance was being treated as "absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." As of this October 21, 1996, Notice, the proposed disciplinary action became suspending Petitioner without pay. Petitioner was offered an opportunity to contest the proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on November 19, 1996. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this document on October 24, 1996. (R-21) On October 22, 1996, Petitioner wrote to the Interim Director of the Jail, Richard Tarbox. In his letter, Petitioner complained that he had not yet received the agreed re- orientation and re-training. He also discussed his medical problems, including problems with recent changes in his medications and his five-year-old back injury. He requested flex time and related that his life had been threatened by employees on the job (see Findings of Fact 37-40), and that Lt. Little had been informed of the threats and flex time request, but the letter again did not indicate by whom Petitioner was threatened or why. (P-10) Despite Petitioner's after-the-fact written requests for flex time, Lt. Little had no recollection of Respondent ever asking him for flex time. There is no evidence that Lt. Little, Mr. Tarbox, or any other representative of Respondent contacted Petitioner concerning the alleged threat against him or specifically addressed the issues of re-orientation/re-training or flex time. On October 25, 1996, Dr. Greene also wrote Mr. Tarbox. He described Petitioner as cooperative and not evidencing any inappropriate behavior. He reported that Petitioner had voiced no homicidal or vengeance ideation to him. He felt that Petitioner's supervisors' requirement that Petitioner use leave to attend the mandatory therapy sessions with him constituted a paradox and a stressor for Petitioner. He felt that other stressors were the employer's failure to offer re-orientation/ re-training to Petitioner and the employer's failure to contact him, Dr. Greene, to verify treatment purposes and schedules. Dr. Greene requested that Mr. Tarbox clarify Petitioner's treatment and work status to both him and to Petitioner in a timely manner because not doing so was exacerbating Petitioner's physical condition, headaches, and diabetes. He further stated that he could release Petitioner for work without further psychological treatment and that further psychological treatment was not necessary to ensure Petitioner's fitness for work or to prevent his being a risk to others, but that Petitioner would continue in therapy for other purposes. (P-11) Neither Mr. Tarbox nor any other representative of Respondent specifically replied to Dr. Greene's October 25, 1996, letter. However, all leave disputes pending on that date were addressed in a November 22, 1996, letter to Petitioner from Captain King. (See Findings of Fact 57-59.) On October 31, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for eight hours leave without pay for leave he had taken on October 30, 1996, for "emergency dr. app't for work related injury, and lab work for diebetic [sic] condition." (P-14) At some point, a leave form for eight hours leave without pay on November 9, 1996, was prepared. It indicates that Petitoner was "unavailable to sign." This form was disapproved by Lt. Little and by Mr. Tarbox on November 12, 1996. Apparently Petitioner only signed the request on November 26, 1996. (P-21) On November 14, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 15, 1996, for "work related condition, Dr. Greene." (P-15) On November 19, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 22, 1996. The request was approved by a supervisor on November 19, 1996. (P-17) On November 22, 1996, Captain King issued a "Letter of Warning" to Petitioner. It stated that on November 19, 1996, a disciplinary hearing had been held (see Finding of Fact 47) regarding the October 21, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, addressing Petitioner's absences on September 29-30, 1996, and that because Petitioner had proven that he had attempted to contact his supervisor in advance of his absence, the September 29 violation was being withdrawn. With regard to the September 30 violation charged, it was found that Petitioner had contacted Lt. Stover and informed him that Petitioner would return to work after testifying before The Grand Jury, and since Petitioner had not returned to work on that day after testifying, he was being found guilty as charged for violation of Alachua County Personnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3. a. Group I, Offense No. 8, "Absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." The November 22, 1996, letter went on to warn Petitioner that future violations would be more carefully scrutinized for strict adherence to the policy of notification and that failures on Petitioner's part might result in progressive disciplinary action being taken. (P-20) Because prior discipline had been overturned or rescinded, the November 22, 1996, Letter of Warning was technically Petitioner's first violation/discipline. Also on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted to Lt. Little a leave request form, dated the same day, labelled "FOR INFO.," with supporting documentation, including Dr. Hunt's certificate showing Petitioner had been treated on November 4, and November 22, 1996, had office management of HTN/NIDDM hematuria, a pending IVP and urology consult, and would need to be seen again by Dr. Hunt in 4-6 weeks. The language of one attachment showed Petitioner "is under Dr. Hunt's continual care," but nothing specified any period of time Petitioner intended to take off from work for the pending consultation or any other purpose. (P-19) Petitioner testified that his November 22, 1996, leave request was not intended to request any leave at all when he submitted it, but that it should have alerted his supervisors that Petitioner had a growth between his legs that was potentially malignant and that he needed an operation sometime in the future. A reasonable person would not have concluded this from the four corners of the November 22, 1996, written request with attachments dated for past medical appointments. Petitioner also testified that by submitting the November 22, 1996, leave request "in blank" and explaining orally to Lt. Little what he intended to do was his effort to comply with the requirement that he ask for leave in advance of taking it. This testimony shows that Petitioner at this point understood the employer's prior instructions to request leave in advance. Apparently, Petitioner envisioned only having to phone in to get any member of his shift to fill in the blanks on his November 22, 1996, request form, but he admitted he had never before used a blank leave request in this way. Petitioner further testified that he had told Mr. Tarbox and other supervisors at a meeting (probably one of his disciplinary hearings) before Christmas 1996, that he "did not know how long he could work." While this representation of Petitioner is credible and it may be reasonably inferred that Mr. Tarbox understood Petitioner was debilitated to some degree by the growth and might need an operation sometime in the near future, it does not logically follow that all those hearing Petitioner at that time understood that his oral statement related to the November 22 blank leave request which had attached to it only information about past doctors' appointments and potential, undated, future consultations. Petitioner's vague statement at the meeting/hearing did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail for requesting leave. The blank November 22, 1996, leave request marked "FOR INFO" also did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail. There is no requirement that Respondent grant Petitioner an open-ended request for leave or one that specifies no time period at all. Petitioner's November 22, 1996, blank leave request was never approved. On November 26, 1996, Petitioner also acknowledged receipt of a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action," by which Lt. Little and Mr. Tarbox recommended that Petitioner be suspended without pay.5 Petitioner was again offered an opportunity to contest this proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on December 3, 1996. (P-18) The record is silent as to whether a disciplinary hearing was actually held on December 3, 1996. Petitioner submitted a leave form on December 6, 1996, for 2.5 hours "vacation" leave without pay on December 3, 1996, for a "Conference with doctor to try an [sic] stop continued disciplinary action because of illness doctor approved." (P-23) On December 3, 1996, Petitioner had telephoned Lt. Little to ask if his message had been received. He then reported to work at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's business records (P-22) show the following: Petitioner worked December 4-5, some of December 6, and all of December 7, 1996. He was not required to be at work on December 8-9. He called in sick on December 10-11. On December 12, he reported for work and attended five hours of drug policy training. Then he left for medical reasons and later called in to say he was too sick to return to work. On Friday, December 13, Petitioner called in sick, saying he was going to the doctor for a cut foot. He later called in again and was told that he needed to do his timesheet and it was agreed he would do it and have it in the following Monday. Petitioner was absent on Saturday, December 14. He was not required to be at work on December 15-16, 1996. On Monday, December 17, Petitioner did not phone or appear for work. On December 18, Petitioner phoned in, saying he had to wear bedroom slippers and had domestic problems. On December 19, Petitioner called in late and left a voice message on the Jail phone. On Friday, December 20, Petitioner called in on time but said he would not be in until Tuesday of the following week. He gave no reason. He was not required to be at work on December 22-23. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner did not come to work or call in. On Christmas Day, Petitioner called in before shift and stated he would not be in that day or the following day, December 26, 1996, until 10:00 a.m. On December 26, December 27, and December 28, Petitioner did not report for work or call in. Petitioner was not required to work December 29 or 30, 1996. On December 31, Petitioner called and said that he would not be in that day but would call back to talk to the shift lieutenant. He did not do so. Also, Petitioner did not report for work or call in for January 1 through 4, 1997. Most of this business record was substantiated by the direct testimony of Sgt. Babula and Lt. Little who observed the events and wrote most of the business record. The matters that were not confirmed in their direct testimony were supported by the type of hearsay that explains or supplements direct evidence and is admissible in this type of proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that the business record was essentially correct as to days he was absent in December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner's testimony only varies the foregoing business record to the effect that on December 10, 1996, not December 13, 1996, Petitioner called and spoke with Sgt. Withey, stating that he would not "be back [to work] until [he had] seen and heard from [his] doctors," and related to Withey that he had some problem with his foot. Petitioner assumed that his superiors would get this message and would understand that he meant he was exercising the blank November 22, 1996, leave request. (See Findings of Fact 60-66). His superiors did not infer from this message what Petitioner had hoped they would. A reasonable person would not infer all that from the information Petitioner says he provided Sgt. Withey. It is uncontested that Petitioner did have an injury to his foot at this time and that such injuries can be particularly hazardous to persons who, like Petitioner, suffer from diabetes. From December 4, 1996, onward, Petitioner did not speak directly with his lieutenant, although he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in order to request advance leave. Petitioner did not return to work after December 7, 1996. Despite the personnel rules, custom at the Jail, and prior direct orders by warning and disciplinary action letters, Petitioner submitted no leave slips directly to his superiors after December 6, 1996. Instead, he submitted them to his union shop steward and to a County Commissioner, although he had no reason to believe the Commissioner had any authority over Jail personnel matters. Respondent never authorized leave for Petitioner after December 13, 1996. Petitioner's extended absence without authorization was in violation of Respondent employer's long-standing "three day abandonment rule." There had been no word from Petitioner since December 31, 1996, so between January 17 and January 24, 1997, a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" was issued against Petitioner for [V]iolation of Alachua County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, c., Group III, Offense No. 8 'Absence of three (3) consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ.' The proposed discipline was termination, and again, Petitioner was offered the opportunity to contest the proposed final agency action at a hearing to be convened on February 18, 1997. (P-25) Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner saw a Master of Social Work, because Dr. Greene was on educational leave. Petitioner was so upset that the social worker advised him to focus on his medical problems. Apparently, Petitioner leapt to the conclusion that meant his doctors would handle all his leave-related problems. Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner had successful surgery on the growth between his legs. On January 27, 1997, Dr. Greene saw Petitioner in therapy and notified Mr. Tarbox in writing that, Mr. Lawrence James was seen for an appointment today in my office. He is apparently unable to continue working in what is perceived to be a hostile work environment at the jail. Compounded by his medical problems and what seems to be a lack of responsivity and accommodation by the administration, Mr. James' level of emotional distress has considerably increased since our last communication. It is strongly recommended that he take a leave of absence from the workplace until his condition is improved. He is scheduled to return next week for continued intervention. Thank you for your time and attention. (Emphasis supplied) (P-26) Dr. Greene testified that it was Petitioner's combined mental and physical circumstances which caused him to recommend the leave of absence. The January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action was mailed to the last address Petitioner had given Respondent. On January 30, 1997, Petitioner's mother signed the certified mail receipt for the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. Sometime thereafter, she delivered the Notice to Petitioner, who no longer lived with her. He refused to deal with it. Dr. Brient removed a suture from Petitioner's leg on February 4, 1997. This seems to have related to Petitioner's post-surgery release after removal of the growth between his legs. Petitioner did not then return to work. Because Respondent's principals had not recognized Petitioner's mother's name on the certified mail receipt, they caused the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to be served on Petitioner by a Deputy Sheriff. Petitioner received this personal service on February 5, 1997, and told the Deputy that he would not deal with the Notice of Disciplinary Action, but his doctors would. Having been released as a result of his operation, there was no physical reason Petitioner could not have appeared for the February 18, 1997, hearing to present any opposition to his proposed termination based on "the three day abandonment rule." He did not appear. On February 21, 1997, Petitioner was mailed a "Notice of Dismissal," effective that date and signed by Harry Sands, a new Interim Director, for abandoning his position, in violation of the personnel regulations. The Notice of Dismissal gave Petitioner the option of appealing his termination through the employee appeal system or the collective bargaining grievance procedure. Petitioner did not take either appeal route. However, Petitioner did suggest to another Jail officer that those who had done this to him might need to get a pine box, i.e. coffin. The threat was not deemed worthy of prosecution by the State Attorney's Office. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that he never received the promised re-orientation or re-training associated with re-instatement to his job. No witness gave any clear indication of what the re- orientation and re-training, as contemplated by the re- instatement agreement (see Finding of Fact 7) or as contemplated by Mr. Tarbox's July 17, 1996, letter (see Finding of Fact 29), was supposed to include. Lt. Stover did not remember any specific training he gave Petitioner, nor did Lt. Little, but Lt. Little testified that he was present when, before Petitioner first arrived on Lt. Stover's shift in July 1996, the Captain had ordered them both to "bring [Petitioner] up to speed." Petitioner suggested that failure to re-orient and retrain him evidenced Respondent's discrimination against him. His post-hearing proposal also asserts that due to Respondent's failure to train him in "new" personnel regulations, combined with Respondent's requirement that he adhere to those regulations which Jail custom did not normally follow, constituted disparate treatment and/or discrimination against him on the basis of his race or due to retaliation, and/or failure to accommodate his handicap. This perception is unpersuasive in light of the employer's repeated correspondence urging him to take the training, whatever that training might have been. Despite Mr. Tarbox's failure to reply to Petitioner's October 22, 1996, inquiry about training (See Finding of Fact 48), Petitioner's perception of discrimination was not established as fact. From the evidence as a whole, it is more probable that any failure to train Petitioner was the result of his request to change shifts, and thus, lieutenant-supervisors in July or his frequent absences. The record does not make clear whether the re-orientation/re-training requirement was unique to Respondent, who returned in 1996, or applied to all four of the returning African-American officers restored in 1994, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than he did. He did not establish that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than the other restored African-American officers, handicapped or otherwise. He also did not establish that any other restored African-American officer, handicapped or otherwise, received more re- orientation/re-training than he did. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Sergeant Babula testified credibly that he had at least instructed Petitioner with regard to the new payroll forms when Petitioner changed shifts in July 1996. Payroll forms include calculating hours worked and monies owed. Testimony and business records also show Petitioner had five hours of drug policy training. (See Finding of fact 72). Also, Respondent did not discipline Petitioner for his failure to request leave of specific personnel as required by the only new personnel regulation, until after Petitioner had been instructed in writing to do so. These written instructions may not have constituted complete "re-orientation" or "re- training," but they were direct orders sufficient to instruct Petitioner what was expected of him. (See Findings of Fact 16, 29, 43, 46-47, 57-59). Lastly, based on Petitioner's testimony that even if he had known he was required by a new regulation to request leave from his lieutenant-supervisor he would not have followed that regulation but instead would have considered himself bound by his union contract and by the custom of asking for leave of anyone on his shift at the Jail, it appears that any failure of Respondent to specifically "train" Petitioner concerning new personnel regulations had no effect on his subsequent failure to comply with the employer's expectations concerning its leave policy. Petitioner had admitted in evidence a certified copy of a "Second Superceding Indictment" issued by a federal Grand Jury on February 27, 2001. It was not established that this was the same Grand Jury before which Petitioner testified in 1996. (See Finding of Fact 47). The indictment (which is only a charging document, not a conviction) named Nate Caldwell, Respondent's former Director; Samuel Krider, Respondent's former Assistant Director; Garry M. Brown, a former Captain with Respondent; and Charles Scott Simmons, a former Lieutenant with Respondent, for conspiracy to obstruct justice by violating 18 USC Section 1503, by hindering the court and jury in a federal civil rights action brought by Mr. Dickerson against the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson's federal case arose out of Mr. Dickerson's demotion in rank with Petitioner in connection with the 1994 escape. It was not established that any of the indicted officials held office during the time material to Petitioner's instant case, 1996- 1997, or that any of them had anything to do with Petitioner's 1996 leave disputes or 1997 termination. Indeed, it was established that Sands or Tarbox was Interim Director at all times material. The indictment mentions Petitioner and Captain King, a superior of Petitioner at all times material, but neither Petitioner nor Captain King were indicted. Despite the lack of clarity of Petitioner's and Mr. Dickerson's testimony, the undersigned infers from their testimony and the indictment that Petitioner testified concerning the same matters before the Grand Jury in 1996 and that prior to 1996 Petitioner had been a witness in Mr. Dickerson's federal discrimination case against the County Commissioners. However, Petitioner testified that his retaliation allegation herein is not based on his 1996 testimony before the Grand Jury. Rather, Petitioner asserted at hearing that he believed he had been retaliated against by his superiors in 1996-1997 for speaking at 1993 meetings of the County Commission concerning structural and staffing problems at the Jail, and otherwise he did not know why he had been retaliated against. (TR-Vol. I pp. 229-233).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner has not proven discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees as required by Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent is a Florida Corporation engaged in the construction business. Respondent was incorporated on February 21, 2008. Jose Garcia, John Jones and Jamar Armstrong are corporate officers of Dice Construction, Inc. and have been since its’ inception. On December 16, 2008, Petitioner's investigator, Michael Robinson, conducted an investigation at 5524 Marathon Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Robinson observed one worker on the roof removing shingles and another worker on the ground cleaning up the shingles. The workers at the site identified themselves to Mr. Robinson as James Sutton and Derrick Sutton. The workers stated they were employees of Dice Construction, Inc. Mr. Robinson then spoke with Fernanda Dice, Respondent's president. Mr. Dice stated that he had an exemption from workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Robinson was able to confirm that Mr. Dice had a current valid construction exemption, specifically for carpentry and remodeling. However, Mr. Dice did not have a roofing exemption that would apply to the type of work being performed on December 17, 2008. Additionally, neither worker at the site had a workers’ compensation insurance policy nor an exemption. On December 17, 2008, Mr. Robinson issued and personally served on Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment for failure to comply with statutory requirements. Mr. Robinson also issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The specific records requested were enumerated and described on the request. In response to the request, Respondent only provided bank statements for a two-month period. Mr. Dice subsequently told Mr. Robinson, “I didn’t have any bank statements because I cash the checks to pay bills right there, and I didn’t have no circulation in my bank account.” Mr. Dice never produced documentation sufficient to calculate Respondent’s payroll. Since Respondent’s actual payroll could not be determined, Petitioner imputed the payroll as the average weekly wage rate multiplied by 1.5. pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent provided no documentation showing that the three corporate officers listed with the Florida Division of Corporations were not working for the corporation. Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment based upon the imputed payroll on January 14, 2009, in the amount of $96,094.44.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent issue a final order affirming the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $96,094.44. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 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 14th day of August, 2009 COPIES FURNISHED: Fernanda Dice Dice Construction, Inc. 12256 Cobblefield Circle, South Jacksonville, Florida 32224 Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
