The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner to participate in the Developmental Services Program offered by Respondent to benefit mentally retarded individuals should be granted.
Findings Of Fact An application filed on behalf of 20-year-old Janette Stone, Petitioner, to receive services of Respondent’s Developmental Services Program was denied by Respondent’s representative as documented in a letter dated January 16, 1997. Following submittal of Petitioner’s application, her eligibility for admission to the program was reviewed by Respondent’s staff psychologist, Filipinas Ripka. In order to determine Petitioner’s eligibility, Ripka reviewed psychological evaluations of Petitioner, three of which had been completed prior to Petitioner’s 18th birthday. One of the reviewed evaluations was made when Petitioner was 12 years of age. Another evaluation of Petitioner was completed when she was 15 years and eleven months of age. A third evaluation occurred when Petitioner was 17 years old. Petitioner received full-scale intelligence quotient (IQ) scores of 73, 72 and 73 respectively on the evaluations reviewed by Ripka. The evaluations were made on the revised Weschler Intelligence Scale For Children. The final evaluation, where Petitioner obtained a full-scale IQ score of 73, was made on the revised Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale. The IQ scores received by Petitioner were all within what is termed the borderline range of intellectual functioning, as opposed to test results indicative of significant cognitive or intellectual functioning impairment reflective of retardation. Petitioner would have had to score 69 or lower to be considered retarded and eligible for Respondent’s developmental program. Further, manifestation of such impairments must be documented prior to age 18 in order to demonstrate eligibility for participation in Respondent’s program. Accordingly, Ripka determined that Petitioner was ineligible to participate in the Developmental Services Program offered by Respondent because Petitioner exhibited only borderline intelligence prior to age 18, instead of cognitive or intellectual function impairment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin H. Conner, Esquire 1750 Highway A1A South, Suite B St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap, within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2002), and whether the same alleged discrimination violated Section 448.045, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a handicapped person. Petitioner is bipolar and has episodes of psychosis and occasional ideations of suicide and homicide. On January 14, 2003, Petitioner returned to work after an extended vacation, during which he suffered a psychotic episode and was diagnosed with his handicap. Respondent scheduled an in-office hearing, identified in the record as a "fit-for-duty hearing," because Respondent was concerned for the safety of Petitioner and other employees. Respondent denied Petitioner's request to postpone the hearing for one day to allow Petitioner to get back into "the swing of work routine." Petitioner requested 30 days of accrued personal leave. Respondent granted the request, and Petitioner was due back on the job on February 18, 2003. At the conclusion of the 30-day leave, Respondent granted Petitioner's request for medical leave. The medical leave began on February 18, 2003, and Petitioner was scheduled to return to work on July 3, 2004. Respondent's policy requires every employee that is on medical leave, including Petitioner, to be certified by a physician that the employee is fit to return to work, with or without reasonable accommodation. A physician's certification is a prerequisite for any employee on medical leave to return to his or her job after medical leave. During Petitioner's medical leave, Petitioner sought treatment from several physicians. As of the date of the administrative hearing, no doctor had certified Petitioner as fit to return to work because Petitioner consistently refused to take medication prescribed for his handicap. After going on medical leave, Petitioner received short-term disability benefits and, at the time of the administrative hearing, was receiving long-term disability benefits. The long-term benefits were scheduled to expire in August 2005. Petitioner is not contractually entitled to long- term disability benefits unless Petitioner is unable to perform all of the material and substantial duties of his regular occupation. When Petitioner's medical leave ended on July 3, 2004, Petitioner was not medically certified as fit to return to work. Petitioner refused to take medication prescribed for his condition and continued to receive long-term disability benefits. Respondent refused to accommodate Petitioner any further with additional leave. Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on July 3, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner by convening a "fit-for-duty hearing" or by subsequently terminating Petitioner's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, 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 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman K. Wright 826 Grand Cayman Court Orlando, Florida 32835 J. Lester Kaney, Esquire Cobb & Cole 150 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Duane Pierson, M.D., purchased the property known as 1131 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, Florida, from Thomas Pellerin conditional upon the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning granting a special exception to operate a Level II group health facility at this site. When the Board granted the special exception, Pierson consummated the purchase. This property is zoned RM-8. Duane Pierson is a psychiatrist and runs a nonprofit corporation that provides services to disturbed young people. The residence at 1131 Lakeview Road is a three-bedroom, two-bath house in which Pierson's group is licensed to house six youths under 18 years of age in a halfway house. These boys and young men are those no longer requiring a very restrictive environment but who are not ready for a full return to society. Many of these youths have been in foster homes where they were unable to cope with the living conditions, some have been abused by parents, and all are classified as disturbed. None of the clients in the proposed facility is considered violent or has abused others. Some will go to a public school each day while those who are out of school will go to work each day. They will have meals prepared for them at this residence, will have a house manager who supervises their activities, sociologists and mental health technicians to aid with the patients' problems, and a night warden who will see the clients remain in the home at night. None of these clients is deemed to be a danger to the community or to the grammar school adjacent to this residence. The effect on the community in the vicinity would be the same as if a large family of teenage boys moved into the residence. The neighborhood in the vicinity of this proposed facility has been designated a blighted area so as to qualify for certain tax credits to businesses. Those witnesses opposing the special exception expressed concerns for the safety of the young children in the grammar school adjacent to this facility, expressed concern that their property values would drop because of the presence of this facility, expressed concern that traffic would be increased as a result of this facility and this would create more danger to the grammar school children, and expressed concern that the youths in the facility would create a danger to the community. No evidence to support these concerns was presented, nor was any evidence presented to rebut the testimony of Dr. Pierson that the facility would create no danger to the community. One witness testified that such a facility was not permitted in an area designated as a blighted area and cited Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, as authority for this position. Section 163.3177 contains the required and optional elements of a comprehensive plan for local development. That section does not address Level II group health facilities being excluded from blighted areas.
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination should be dismissed as time barred; and Whether Petitioner, Susan Indish-Militello (formerly known as Susan Indish and referred to herein as “Petitioner”) was discriminated against in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Susan Indish-Militello, is a resident of Marion County, Florida. Respondent, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority ("PSTA"), is a transit agency located in Pinellas County, Florida and is an employer under the FCRA. Petitioner was employed by Respondent, as a bus operator, beginning in 1989 until September 8, 1994. Petitioner was involved in a work-related bus accident on May 2, 1994, and as a result, she suffered neck and back injuries. Petitioner’s injuries were evaluated by Petitioner’s treating physician Dr. Jeffrey Tedder on May 4, 1994. On May 19, 1994, Dr. Tedder issued a note releasing Petitioner to return to full work duty on May 29, 1994. Petitioner did not to return to work on May 29, 1994, and utilized vacation and sick leave for approximately the next three weeks. During this time, a second medical evaluation was performed by Dr. Joseph Sena. Dr. Sena issued a report on June 9, 1994, stating that he was unable to substantiate any objective findings which would warrant Petitioner being out from work. Respondent informed Petitioner that she had been released to work by both Dr. Tedder and Dr. Sena. Petitioner returned to work in late June 1994 and worked until July 18, 1994. Petitioner exhausted her sick leave on July 19, 1994. When Petitioner then again failed to return to work, on August 12, 1994, Respondent’s General Counsel sent Petitioner a letter by certified mail advising her that all her sick leave had been exhausted and that in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act and PSTA’s Labor Agreement with the bus operators’ union, Petitioner was required to provide medical certification establishing a qualifying reason for leave within 15 days. The letter also required Petitioner to provide an expected date of return to work. Finally, the letter stated that failure to provide medical certification would subject Petitioner to discipline up to and including termination. The Labor Agreement between the PSTA and its employees is applicable to Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledged that she received a copy of the Labor Agreement. Article 15 of the Labor Agreement, titled "Leave Without Pay" provides in pertinent part the following: Section 8. Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. * * * Section 13. Leave of Absence - Illness * * * B. All leaves of absence without pay for illness shall be supported and confirmed by a medical certificate executed by a doctor. Petitioner forwarded to Respondent a note dated August 17, 1994, from Rev. Dona Knight, a minister, which claimed that Petitioner was “in extreme distress with sucidal [sic] tendencies and sevare [sic] depression.” This document, however, did not state an opinion regarding Petitioner’s ability to work nor did it provide an expected date of return. In response to the aforementioned note, Respondent’s benefits specialist informed Petitioner that the document was inadequate and that she was required to provide proper medical certification. Notwithstanding this request, Petitioner failed to provide any medical documentation indicating a qualifying reason for her unexcused absence from work or an expected date of return. As a result of Petitioner's failing to provide the required documentation, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on September 8, 1994, in accordance with the Labor Agreement and PSTA attendance policy. After her termination, Petitioner filed a grievance disputing the termination, and a first-step hearing was held before PSTA’s deputy of operations, Ed King. Mr. King denied Petitioner’s grievance and upheld the termination. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second-step grievance, and a hearing was held before PSTA's executive director, Roger Sweeney, on October 17 and October 31, 1994. At the hearing, Petitioner did not provide any medical documentation or request any reasonable accommodation for any alleged handicap or disability. Therefore, Mr. Sweeny denied the second step grievance, and the termination was again upheld. Following the grievance hearings, Petitioner filed a request for arbitration in accordance with the PSTA's Labor Agreement. An arbitration hearing was held on October 11, 1996, at which Petitioner was represented by counsel. After the hearing, the arbitrator found that Respondent had just cause to terminate Petitioner based on her failure to provide medical documentation for her continued absence from work. After being terminated, Petitioner also filed a claim for unemployment compensation which was denied by a claims examiner on or about October 6, 1994. Petitioner then appealed this decision and a hearing on the appeal was held by an Appeals Referee, where Petitioner was again represented by counsel. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Appeals Referee found that given the length of time Petitioner was absent from work, it was not unreasonable for Respondent to expect her to provide medical certification for her continued absence. The Appeals Referee further found that the statement from Rev. Knight was not a medical document and gave no assessment of Petitioner’s ability to resume her duties as a bus driver. The Appeals Referee concluded that Petitioner’s failure to provide the requested medical documentation was an intentional violation of her duties and obligations to Respondent and amounted to misconduct connected with work and, thus, found that Petitioner was properly disqualified from receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on or about July 11, 1995, alleging that Respondent had discriminated against her based on her handicap. The Charge of Discrimination did not give any "particulars" regarding the alleged discrimination, but indicated that the most recent discrimination took place on September 8, 1994. On or about July 20, 1999, Petitioner filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination, again alleging that Respondent had discriminated against her based on her disability. In the Amended Charge, Petitioner alleged that on September 8, 1994, she was terminated as a bus driver. She further noted that the "most recent or continuing discrimination took place" on September 8, 1994. Under the section of the charging document referred to as "Discrimination Statement," Petitioner stated the following: I have been discriminated against because of my handicap. I believe my rights have been violated under the American with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as amended. 1. I was not reasonably accommodated. By August 12, 1994, and prior to her termination, Petitioner had relocated her residence to Marion County, Florida. Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that she suffered from any handicap or disability under the terms of the FCRA, that she required or requested reasonable accommodations to perform her duties, or that her termination by Respondent was based upon or influenced by any alleged disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 25th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Indish-Militello 2835 North Seneca Point Crystal River, Florida 34429 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Elita D. Cobbs, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman & Feldman, P.A. Two Prestige Place 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33759 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible for services offered by Respondent to the developmentally disabled under Chapter 393, Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact James Champion is a nineteen year old male, born January 22, 1978, who is a permanent resident of the State of Florida. Petitioner currently lives with his natural mother, Susan Champion, who provides him food, shelter and assistance. Petitioner had a normal developmental history until the onset of seizures at the age of four, coinciding with a DPT inoculation. Since then he has had several types of seizures, and has been treated with multiple anti-epileptic medications without success. Currently, Petitioner experiences seizures on an almost daily basis. Petitioner has been oppositional, defiant, and at times volatile in his moods, and can be verbally aggressive. Due to his epilepsy and behavioral difficulties, while in school, Petitioner was placed in a special needs program with small class size and a one-on-one aide. Petitioner graduated from MacArthur North High School in Hollywood, Florida in 1996, with a special diploma. As a child, Petitioner had been given IQ tests. When he was twelve years old, a psychological assessment was performed, yielding a verbal IQ of 100, performance IQ of 88, and full scale IQ of 93. At the age of fourteen, he was tested again, using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC- III). Intelligence testing yielded a verbal IQ of 71, performance IQ of 74, and a full scale IQ of 70. This testing revealed functioning in the Borderline range (second percentile rank) with a six point margin of error. This level of intellectual functioning reflected a 23 IQ point loss from previous testing. A few months past his eighteenth birthday, Petitioner was tested using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Revised (WAIS-R) and other tests. On the WAIS-R, Petitioner yielded a Verbal IQ of 74, performance IQ of 70, and a full scale IQ of 71. Petitioner was diagnosed as having [Axis I] Dysthymic Disorder (300.4); [Axis II] Borderline Intellectual Functioning (V62.89) and Personality Disorder Due to Medical Condition (310.1); and [Axis III] Epilepsy. This test confirmed that Petitioner was functioning in the Borderline range of intellectual functioning. This drop in test results is accounted for as a result of brain damage caused by Petitioner’s continuing episodes of epilepsy. Applying the margin of error to the lower spectrum, the 70 and 71 test results become 67 and 68, respectively. Taking the totality of the circumstances, it is persuasive that Petitioner has shown that he has tested at an IQ level of approximately 70 or below The accepted criteria used for determining mental retardation and used by Respondent to determine eligibility for its Developmental Services Program is significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ approximately 70 or below on an individually administered IQ test); concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning in at least two of the following areas: communication, self- care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self- direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety; and the onset is before 18 years. 12 In determining an individual’s eligibility for its Developmental Services Program, Respondent has a two-step process. First, it determines whether the individual meets the IQ requirement for mental retardation. If, and only if, the individual satisfies this first step, does Respondent proceed to the second step which is determining whether the individual meets the adaptive functioning requirements. Respondent’s evaluator determined that Petitioner failed to satisfy the IQ requirements and, therefore, it was not necessary to examine Petitioner’s adaptive functioning. Petitioner’s IQ results in his teens should be evaluated from the lower tested result, i.e., at 70, and the margin of error should be placed at the lower, not the higher, spectrum (-3). The lower tested result becomes 67, placing Petitioner in the mild mental retardation category. There was some evidence that Petitioner has deficits in adaptive functioning in communication, home living, social/interpersonal skills, self-direction, work, and safety. However, Respondent’s evaluator did not evaluate Petitioner in this area and the testimony of Petitioner’s mother is insufficient to meet the burden of proof necessary in this forum. The onset of Petitioner’s condition occurred prior to his eighteen birthday.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent issue an order determining that prior to his eighteenth birthday, Petitioner has suffered from “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning.” However, the evidence is insufficient to presently establish if it exists concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior. It is further RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to Petitioner’s evaluator to determine if Petitioner has deficits in adaptive behavior in two or more areas and would therefore, be eligible for developmental services offered by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan C. Champion, Parent 104 Lake Gem Drive Longwood, Florida 32750 Eric Dunlap, Esquire District 7 Legal Office Department of Children and Families 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harold Mayo, was employed by Respondent in March, 1987, through December 1, 1987. He has difficulty in controlling his emotions. He experiences rapid changes in mood. He has been diagnosed as suffering from a variety of mental disorders all of which have depression and rapid mood changes as part of their symptomatology. He often feels threatened by stressful situations, and sometimes responds to such situations by losing control of himself and crying as well as sometimes withdrawing from human contact. The Respondent, Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc., ("Center") is a private, non-profit organization which receives federal funds in order to provide advocacy for persons with disabilities. The Center has existed in its present, private status since October 1, 1988. Prior to October 1, 1988, the Center was a public agency within the Governor's office known as the Governor's Commission on Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities ("Commission"). The Commission was established in 1977, by executive order of the Governor. Since its creation, the Executive Director of the Commission (now the Center) has been Mr. Jon Rossman. Mr. Rossman is an attorney. Prior to becoming Executive Director of the Commission, Mr. Rossman worked as a staff attorney for the Association of Retarded Persons. The Center provides legal assistance to handicapped individuals, to ensure that they receive appropriate treatment and services by agencies designed to serve them. Specifically, the Center provides representation and advocacy under three programs: one program is designed to represent individuals with certain developmental disabilities defined by Congress. A second program is designed to represent individuals who are recipients of, or applicants for, vocational rehabilitation services from the state. A third program, the Mental Illness Protection and Advocacy ("MIP&A") program, is constituted to provide representation for mentally ill persons. The Center employs between 20 and 30 individuals. Each of the three programs administered by the Center is headed by a program director. The Center employs approximately six or seven attorneys, and several non-lawyer client "advocates." These jobs are supported by secretarial and clerical staff. Mr. Mayo had previously identified himself to Mr. Rossman as a former mental patient at a mental hospital, and therefore, as a "consumer" of mental health services. Mr. Mayo had indicated that he was interested in employment with the Center and in March 1987, Mr. Rossman offered employment in an OPS position to Mr. Mayo at the Commission. Prior to his employment Mr. Mayo had sought the Commission's assistance in dealing with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of HRS. At the time Mr. Rossman offered employment to Mr. Mayo, Mr. Rossman was aware that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation had determined that Mr. Mayo was "not employable." Nevertheless, aware of this determination and of Mr. Mayo's status as a mental health consumer, Mr. Rossman offered Mr. Mayo employment and created an OPS position for him at the Commission. Mr. Mayo began his OPS employment with the Center on March 30, 1987. Mr. Rossman employed Mr. Mayo to assist the Center on two specific projects: a. to review applications which had been received by the Center for membership on an advisory committee; and b. to assist in organizing a conference to be sponsored by the Florida Mental Health Advocates Network. He was not hired to be a client-advocate and his OPS position did not include those duties. Mr. Mayo was assigned a space in a library/conference room in which to work. Mr. Mayo was only required to work as long as he felt able and comfortable in so doing; and was allowed to leave the office any time he felt threatened, to go home if he wanted, to talk to other employees and Mr. Rossman, to go outside and walk around in the parking lot, and to take breaks as he felt necessary when he experienced stress. He would sometimes lie on the floor and cry prior to getting back to work. There were times when Mr. Mayo took days off after experiencing a particularly emotional workday. Mr. Rossman spent entire days and afternoons talking things out with Mr. Mayo, walking around the office complex, and discussing his employment with him. These sessions occurred both in Mr. Rossman's office and in Mr. Mayo's. In short Mr. Rossman and other Center employees made a genuine, wholehearted effort to work with Mr. Mayo and went out of their way to accommodate him. There was absolutely no intent to unlawfully discriminate against Respondent due to his mental illness. In fact, the opposite was shown by the evidence. Mr. Rossman had a genuine desire that Respondent succeed as an employee. On two separate occasions, Mr. Rossman called Mr. Mayo's wife, concerned due to Mr. Mayo's depression and behavior, and expressed his concern and worry about Mr. Mayo's welfare to Mr. Mayo's wife. The contact on Mr. Rossman's part was a simple gesture of human concern for not only an employee but for a person who Mr. Rossman was very interested in his well-being. Instead Mr. Mayo took great umbrage at Mr. Rossman contacting his wife. He assumed that such contact was an affront to him and was treating him as if he could not take care of himself. On more than one occasion, Mr. Mayo tendered his resignation to Mr. Rossman. Mr. Rossman refused to accept the resignations. On several occasions, Mr. Rossman asked Mr. Mayo if Mr. Mayo would mind Mr. Rossman's speaking to Mr. Mayo's psychiatrist, in an effort to get his psychiatrist's opinions and suggestions on what Mr. Rossman could do to make Mr. Mayo's employment experience successful. On these occasions, Mr. Mayo responded that he was insulted by the request, and did not wish Mr. Rossman to contact his psychiatrist. Again, Mr. Mayo's over- sensitivity to attempts to gain insight into his handicap interfered with his ability to perceive the true intent of his employer in making such a request. Mr. Rossman did not contact Respondent' s psychiatrist. 1/ During his employment, Mr. Mayo frequently overstepped his bounds and overstated his position. This included contacting and writing letters to various persons and agencies, writing letters to the editor of publications, contacting "Nightline," and commenting on news articles, either on Commission letterhead or while identifying himself as an employee of the Commission. Mr. Mayo spent Commission time engaged in advocacy of his personal views which was not within the duties of the OPS position for which he had been hired. In April 1987, Mr. Mayo advised Mr. Rossman of his desire to be the Director of the MIP&A program, and further advised Mr. Rossman of his view that it was very important that the Director's position "should be occupied by a consumer, client or survivor." Mr. Rossman began to consider another individual, Kathleen Regan, for the position of Director of the MIP&A program.2/ Mr. Rossman sought Mr. Mayo's views on the matter. Mr. Mayo expressed his opinion that he thought Ms. Regan was incompetent for the position since she was a mental health professional and a middle management employee at HRS, rather than a consumer. Mr. Mayo told Mr. Rossman of a series of concerns he had should there be "such an incompetent source" running the program. He predicted, "it would all be downhill from now on." Ms. Regan was hired as the MIP&A Program Director effective August 1, 1987. As MIP&A Program Director, Ms. Regan would be Mr. Mayo's direct supervisor. At the time, Ms. Regan began, Mr. Rossman communicated to Ms. Regan that he strongly desired to see Mr. Mayo succeed in his employment at the Commission. He asked for her assurance that she would cooperate in that effort. She gave such an assurance. As the first director of the MIP&A program, Ms. Regan was responsible for developing program priorities, and developing a structure for the MIP&A program. Ms. Regan found that she had a number of people who had input into the development of such priorities and structure, including the Commission's Board of Directors, the Executive Director, the 24 members of the advisory committee, and Mr. Mayo. Ms. Regan attempted to integrate all that input into decisions on the direction and structure of the program. Ms. Regan found it difficult to integrate Mr. Mayo's own strong personal convictions about priorities and structure, but attempted to do so. Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan had an extremely difficult time in their working relationship. As an example of the problems between Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan, after it was agreed that they would meet for one-half hour, twice each week, to discuss Mr. Mayo's work, Mr. Mayo submitted a nine-item agenda for the first meeting. Ms. Regan, feeling that one-half hour was insufficient time to discuss so many items, asked Mr. Mayo if he would select two of the items for discussion. Mr. Mayo refused. The following day, Mr. Mayo again attempted to address the entire agenda, refused to select two items for discussion, and told Ms. Regan that he would not "play by her rules." These and subsequent meetings deteriorated,3/ and communications between Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan broke down. Mr. Mayo told Ms. Regan that he did not consider her to be an advocate, but a "badvocate." Mr. Mayo would undertake work activities not assigned to him without first discussing them with Ms. Regan. On a number of occasions, Mr. Mayo would engage in some such activity, embarrassing Ms. Regan when she would get a call or communication from persons outside the Commission inquiring about Mr. Mayo's conduct, and she would be entirely unaware of his activities. Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan experienced difficulties when Mr. Mayo sent out personal correspondence advocating personal views on Advocacy Center letterhead. This included correspondence sent by Mr. Mayo to Mr. Allen Tedder, Executive Director of the Mental Health Association of Florida. At least one such letter was sent on Commission letterhead even though Ms. Regan had specifically instructed Mr. Mayo to have the letter redrafted on non-Commission letterhead. Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan had difficulties when Mr. Mayo refused to acknowledge that Ms. Regan had any right to approve or disapprove his travel requests. Part of Ms. Regan's supervisory duties was to review such travel requests. On another occasion, Mr. Mayo refused to submit his time sheets to Ms. Regan for approval. Again, part of Ms. Regan's supervisory duties was to review and approve employee time sheets. Likewise, when Ms. Regan told Mr. Mayo that he needed to route certain documents through her for signature, Mr. Mayo made an obscene gesture to Ms. Regan three times in the course of the morning. Ms. Regan told Mr. Mayo that his conduct constituted insubordination. His response was, "Fuck you." A frequent issue between Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan was the issue of "partnership." Mr. Mayo asserted that he wanted to be viewed as an equal. Whenever Ms. Regan made a decision he didn't agree with, Mr. Mayo complained that she was violating her commitment to work with him, and was excluding him from the decision-making process. Ms. Regan received complaints from members of the advisory committee about Mr. Mayo. She also received verbal complaints from Martha Larson, Administrator of the hospital program at HRS. Ms. Regan heard from at least one outsider that Mr. Mayo was advocating against her as the program director. Ms. Regan reported these problems to Mr. Rossman. They met frequently in an effort to determine how best to resolve these difficulties. During his employment, people with whom Mr. Mayo had contact, outside the Center, complained directly to Mr. Rossman about Mr. Mayo's behavior and conduct. Many of these complaints were discounted by Mr. Rossman, who frequently defended Mr. Mayo against accusations being made about him. Inside the office, Mr. Rossman also received complaints about Mr. Mayo. There were complaints from other employees about difficulties working with Mr. Mayo, about shouting matches, about Mr. Mayo going through mail, about telephone calls he was making, and about representations made by Mr. Mayo outside of the office, regarding office policy. Mr. Mayo went directly to Mr. Rossman with his own complaints about Ms. Regan. At first, Mr. Rossman told Mr. Mayo that he did not want to get involved, and that Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan should attempt to work the problems out themselves. However, the problems between Ms. Regan and Mr. Mayo worsened. Mr. Mayo repeatedly asked Mr. Rossman to take him out from under Ms. Regan's supervision. On September 9, Mr. Mayo submitted a written resignation in which he stated that he didn't feel his presence would serve any purpose "without direct involvement in policy matters." Mr. Rossman refused to accept Mr. Mayo's resignation. Instead, however, he agreed to Mr. Mayo's request that he (Mayo) not work under Ms. Regan's supervision. Once again, Mr. Mayo reported directly to Mr. Rossman. By September 9, the Governor had ordered that the Commission would become a private not-for-profit corporation effective October 1. Mr. Rossman was extremely busy making preparations for this transition and did not have the time to give Mr. Mayo as much individual attention as he had previously. The Commission's offices at that point were on two floors, Ms. Regan's office was on the first floor, and Mr. Rossman's office was on the second floor. This period was one of transition, and eventually, all the Center's offices were consolidated on the second floor. During the transition period, the office was very crowded. Mr. Rossman shared a corner of his office with his administrative assistant. Two lawyers shared the conference table at which Mr. Mayo had previously worked. Mr. Mayo was moved to a work location in an alcove outside Mr. Rossman's office on the second floor. When Mr. Mayo expressed concern about his ability to make the move, everyone in the office encouraged him, telling him that he was capable of making the move. Mr. Mayo made an attempt to change office locations. The new location did not work very well because Mr. Mayo felt exposed to other human beings. After September 9, Mr. Mayo continued to report to work each day, and was paid for a full eight hours. During this time Mr. Mayo invented work to do since Mr. Rossman did not have enough work to keep him busy. Following Mr. Mayo's being removed from Ms. Regan's supervision, Mr. Mayo continued to respond to matters that would be properly directed to Ms. Regan. He made calls about the MIP&A program around the state, criticizing the program and Ms. Regan, and again asserting his beliefs that the Center made a bad decision in employing her. As one example, Mr. Mayo, without authorization, contacted people to attend a consumer conference and invited a number of people to come on scholarship. Scholarship means that the Advocacy Center would pay that individual's expenses. No one at the Center (other than Mr. Mayo) had authorized the reimbursement for their expenses. A number of such people arrived without the registrar having any advance notice that they would attend. On another occasion, Mr. Mayo wanted certain individuals to be invited to attend a meeting between some of the staff and some of the members of the Board. Mr. Rossman advised Mr. Mayo that those individuals did not need to be involved. Nevertheless, Mr. Mayo insisted that the meeting was covered by the Sunshine Act, and that 11 members of the public were entitled to attend the meeting. On that basis, without asking permission, Mr. Mayo telephoned members of the advisory committee and invited them to this meeting. Since Mr. Mayo had been unable to work directly for the MIP&A program director, Mr. Rossman asked Mr. Mayo to prepare a job description for his position.4/ Mr. Rossman asked Mr. Mayo to advise him on how Mr. Mayo felt that he could be of use to the Advocacy Center. Mr. Mayo responded by typing out Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, asserting that he should be able "to advocate as a Consumer Consultant in whatever direction I choose (emphasis added)," and "as a Consumer Consultant to be kept up to date on all the workings of the MIP&A and to be involved as a consultant in that work." Following September 9, Mr. Rossman assigned Mr. Mayo the task of rewriting a report or contract which had been prepared by Ms. Regan. Mr. Mayo refused the assignment because of his view that it was "grossly unethical" to rework another person's work product. Although he refused to work on it, Mr. Mayo objected that Mr. Rossman "had refused to allow consumers any part in writing the contract and I could not speak for all consumers . . ." Shortly before October 8, 1987, Mr. Rossman was contacted by Allen Tedder, Executive Director of the Florida Mental Health Association, with a complaint about Mr. Mayo. Mr. Rossman replied to Mr. Tedder by letter dated October 8, 1987 stating that, as a mental health consumer, Mr. Mayo "apparently has less control over his personal feelings than might otherwise be expected," and further, that Mr. Mayo had undoubtedly "let his strong beliefs get ahead of him at times, overstating his position." Mr. Mayo was offended by Mr. Rossman's October 8th letter because of his view that while he had the right to identify himself to others as a person with difficulty controlling his emotions, Mr. Rossman, as a professional, had no such right. Mr. Mayo felt so "demeaned" by the letter that he cried uncontrollably, left the office, and spent the rest of the afternoon crying on the floor at his doctor's office. On October 21, Mr. Mayo left a copy of a memorandum from him to Dr. Schuchts, his psychiatrist, on the desks of both Mr. Rossman and Ms. Regan. In this memorandum, Mr. Mayo complained that he, as a consumer of mental health services, was being excluded from decision-making at the Center, and criticized advocates "who maintain [they] can speak for us." Outlining his opinions in his October 21 memorandum to Dr. Schuchts, Mr. Mayo listed as one of them: "To continue to disobey Jon and act upon my conscience. To attend meetings for which he refuses to "empower consumers and to openly submit reports from those meetings to him." Shortly before October 28, Mr. Gene Padgett, a close friend of Mr. Mayo's and a personal advisor to him, met Mr. Rossman for lunch. At lunch, they discussed Mr. Mayo's status, and Mr. Padgett encouraged Mr. Rossman to give Mr. Mayo a very definite set of guidelines within which to operate. On October 29, Mr. Rossman issued to Mr. Mayo a memorandum dated the previous day. The memorandum of October 28 began with a statement of the problems which had occurred and which Mr. Rossman felt required the setting forth of specific guidelines and limitations for Mr. Mayo's subsequent work activities. The memorandum then set forth specific assignments and guidelines for continued employment. The conditions were reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Mr. Rossman advised Mr. Mayo that he was expected to agree to the conditions if he was going to continue working for the Advocacy Center. Mr. Rossman's purpose in giving Mr. Mayo the memorandum of October 28 was an attempt to salvage Mr. Mayo's employment. By that time, Mr. Rossman had become convinced that excess independence and insufficient direction might be contributing to the problems with Mr. Mayo's employment. He believed that setting forth strict assignments and guidelines, as suggested by Mr. Padgett, might result in a productive work experience for Mr. Mayo. On October 29, Mr. Mayo was given the memorandum and told he must agree to its terms. Mr. Rossman had arranged for two other employees to witness the events of the meeting. Mr. Mayo asked if he could have a copy of the memorandum and if he could have until November 3 to take the document to his attorney. Mr. Rossman agreed to the request. Mr. Mayo left the office and did not return to work. Nothing in the meeting demonstrates any discriminatory purpose or intent on the part of the Center or Mr. Rossman. Mr. Mayo's claim that the presence of the two other employees was intimidating and therefore discriminatory is simply not born out by later events and Mr. Mayo's own actions. On November 10, Mr. Rossman received a letter from Mr. Richard Powers, a Tallahassee attorney, on behalf of Mr. Mayo. Mr. Power's letter indicated no willingness on Mr. Mayo's part to accept the conditions set out in the October 28 memorandum. The letter suggested a meeting to discuss the subject. On November 18, Mr. Rossman, Mr. Mayo, Mr. Parker Thompson (Board Member), and Mr. Powers met at Mr. Power's office. Mr. Mayo and his attorney insisted that Mr. Mayo be allowed to return to work without conditions. Mr. Mayo's return without conditions addressing the problems in the performance of his job was not acceptable to the center. On November 25, 1987, Mr. Rossman wrote to Mr. Powers, confirming Mr. Rossman's understanding that Mr. Mayo was insisting on a "return to work without any conditions," and reiterating Mr. Rossman's own position that Mr. Mayo could return to work "under conditions designed to address problems in his performance." Mr. Rossman agreed in the letter to hold Mr. Mayo's position open until December 1, 1987. Mr. Rossman did not hear further from Mr. Mayo or his attorney prior to, or following December 1, 1987. The only conclusion that can be drawn from Mr. Mayo's action or inaction is that he quit his employment with the Center when he determined that he was not going to be allowed to do as he pleased in his employment. In January 1988, following Mr. Mayo's departure, the Advocacy Center hired an individual, to fill the position of client advocate for the MIP&A program. The individual hired has a history of mental illness -- specifically, bipolar depression. Other than Mr. Mayo, the Commission/Center has employed a number of individuals with a variety of handicaps. The former Program Director for the Developmentally Disabled Program was a person with cerebral palsy who chose not to continue in employment with the Commission when it converted to private status. The Center's CAP Program Director is a wheelchair user, due to childhood polio. She has her desk up on blocks, high enough to accommodate her wheelchair. One of the Center's attorneys has epilepsy. A CAP client advocate for the Center is blind. Another Center employee has a hearing impairment. During his employment, Mr. Mayo was not able to accept supervision and was unable to work in the structured environment at the Center. There was no substantial evidence presented which establishes a nexus between Mr. Mayo's shortcomings and his mental illness. Without such evidence it is difficult to say what role Mr. Mayo's handicap played in his demise. A handicap does not entitle the individual to accommodation in areas unrelated to that handicap. Therefore, the evidence did not demonstrate any discrimination by the Center due to that handicap.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of December, 1989.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of handicap under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, or disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by failing to award him the physical science/chemistry teaching position at Nease High School.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for a position in 2002 and renewed the application in 2003. As a result of the 2002 application, Petitioner was offered a job, which he declined before attending orientation. On the 2002 application, Petitioner fully disclosed that he had been found guilty of DUIs in 1986 and 1988. In 2004, Petitioner became aware of a teaching position as teacher at Nease High School in the Respondent's school system. He was very interested in the position, called about the position, and was told that he must update his application on-line, which he hurriedly did. He was interviewed by Robert Corson, who was then the vice principal of Nease, who found that he was well qualified as a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with a degree in engineering who had taken three or four courses in physics. Petitioner was not certified, but there would have been no problem in getting him a temporary certificate that would permit him to teach while taking education courses to qualify him for certification in Florida. Corson observed that there were not a large number of quality applicants for hard science positions today, and Petitioner was the best qualified of the three candidates who applied. Just before orientation, Respondent's Human Relations (HR) office called and advised Corson that there was a problem with Petitioner's application because he had failed to report an arrest. It was normal for HR to tell the school the nature of the problem. HR told them that they would have to repost or re- advertise for the position, which they did. Corson reported that he failed to establish contact with Petitioner, but that the HR office was able to stop him at the orientation as he entered, and have Petitioner call the HR office. When Petitioner called, the HR office advised him that the employment offer was withdrawn. Petitioner first went to Corson. Petitioner wanted to see the principal of Nease, Mr. Schiavone, but Petitioner was so upset that Corson told him that he would not help himself unless he calmed down. Petitioner and Corson discussed the fact that Petitioner reported the arrests on the initial application, and Corson explained that it was out of his hands, and was an HR issue. Petitioner told Corson that he was going to the HR office. Petitioner went to the HR office and spoke with Mr. Springfield, the head of HR. Ms. Geiger, the head of the Instructional Employees' branch of HR sat in on the meeting. From the testimony of Mr. Springfield, it is fairly certain that he presented the problem as a matter of Petitioner lying on his application. This was the term that Springfield used in testifying at hearing. Petitioner explained that, while he may not have completed the on-line application correctly, he certainly did not intentionally misrepresent the matter of his arrest because he had reported them in his initial application. Ms. Geiger looked in the files under O'Brien's previous job offer, and found his initial application, which reported the DUIs as Petitioner had stated. Therefore, Springfield knew on the day the offer of employment was withdrawn that there had been no intent by Petitioner to misrepresent his qualifications. There was testimony presented by the Board about its procedures, and the superintendent's requirement that all job offers be withdrawn when a background check failed to agree with an applicant's application. After the matter of the "lie" had been resolved, the position of Springfield was that Petitioner would have to reapply for the position. This Petitioner did on that afternoon. There was no conflict regarding the correctness of his second application, which did report the DUIs. It is at this point that conflicts develop in the testimony, and there is a departure from normal procedures. Springfield testified that he could not remember if Petitioner was told that he must provide proof of "treatment" with regard to the DUIs. Geiger, who was present at the meeting, testified that Petitioner was told that he must provide proof of "treatment." Petitioner did not testify. Geiger testified that she did not follow the normal procedures of writing a letter to Petitioner outlining what he must do in response to the problems with his first on-line application because he was told these things at the meeting. Geiger made a memo to herself to follow up on Petitioner's application and on July 22, 2004, sent him an e- mail "reminding" him to submit proof of treatment. On July 27, 2004, Petitioner brought his Navy medical records to Geiger for her review and based thereon she and Springfield cleared him making him an "active" applicant. Unfortunately, Nease filled the position on July 26, 2004, by hiring Ms. Nall, a certified science teacher, who was presumably not handicapped. Petitioner asserts that the withdrawal of the job offer and denying him the position was discriminatory and based upon perceived disability. The Respondent asserts that it was just following standing procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its Final Order directing that the Respondent cease and desist in the practices mentioned; that the Respondent be directed to hire the Petitioner upon his submitting an application for employment. Jurisdiction is retained for factual consideration of the damages to include costs and fees upon entry of the Commission's final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 29th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen J. Gallagher Qualified Representative 124 North Cove Drive Ponte Vedre Beach, Florida 32082 Thomas J. Leek, Esquire Kelly V. Parsons, Esquire Cobb & Cole Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 Cecil Howard, 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
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice based upon her disability or based upon retaliation, in purported violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed as a Training Specialist II in the staff development department of the Sunland facility of the Department of Children and Families. (Now the Agency for Persons With Disabilities.) At times relevant hereto, in October 2003, the Petitioner, Constance Gatewood, was employed by "Sunland Marianna" (Sunland). The Respondent Department of Children and Family Services is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with implementing statutes, rules, and policies concerning persons with disabilities who are within its custody or otherwise. A meeting was conducted with Sunland's management and the Petitioner on October 8, 2003, in which the Petitioner provided documentation from a physician confirming that she suffered from a condition triggered by exposure to certain chemicals or perfumes. This condition was described as "potentially life threatening." The condition apparently primarily involved the Petitioner's respiration. Sunland sought to accommodate this condition by instructing attendees to training sessions conducted by the Petitioner to refrain from using perfumes, colognes, etc., which might aggravate the Petitioner's condition. There is no dispute that the Petitioner has a disability of this nature. Sunland also provided each new employee who came for training with the Petitioner with a separate similar notification. Sunland also posted the notification in and around the staff development building, the Petitioner's primary work place. Sunland also relocated the Petitioner's office and ordered alternative non- irritating cleaning supplies in order to accommodate the Petitioner's condition. Despite these accommodations the Petitioner's condition still sometimes became symptomatic. In an effort to minimize her exposure to perfumes or other chemicals the Petitioner on occasion would teach from her doorway, rather than standing in her accustomed place in front of the class. On occasion she would have to teach her class with all the doors opened, which sometimes created an uncomfortable draft in cold weather. On other occasions she would send students out of her class in the belief that they were wearing a perfume, cologne, or other chemical agent which was irritating her respiratory condition. On one or more occasions she had to rely on a co-worker to perform a cleaning task for which she was responsible. The Petitioner received a performance evaluation in March of 2004, which contained an overall rating of 4.33, a score which reflects that her performance exceeded expectations. On performance expectation number one, however, she received a grade of three rather than the four she had received the prior year. This was based upon a decline, in her employer's view, of her performance related to team work and respect for others. Because of this reduction from a four to a three on this category of her performance evaluation the Petitioner filed a Career Service Grievance. She contended that her performance had been based upon "confidential information," despite her supervisor's assurances that it was based on her supervisor's perception of problems the Petitioner had in the areas of cooperation with co-workers and respect for class attendees. Upon investigation, the Career Service Grievance was denied by a memorandum of April 8, 2004. Dr. Clemmons, the superintendent of the Respondent's facility, continued efforts to accommodate the Petitioner and her disability. He offered the Petitioner a job in an open position as a social worker on or about April 1, 2004. This position would have no deleterious effect on the terms, conditions, privileges, or benefits of the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner was apparently pleased to have the job transfer to the new position and, in fact, volunteered to begin the position prior to the customary two week notice period. The Respondent has continued to attempt to accommodate the Petitioner and her disability as she has raised issues regarding her disability upon assuming her new position. The Petitioner, however, did not identify in advance any accommodation-related issues to her employer prior to beginning work in her new position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Constance Gatewood Post Office Box 262 Campbellton, Florida 32426 Amy McKeever Toman, Esquire Agency for Persons With Disabilities Sunland Center 3700 Williams Drive Marianna, Florida 32446 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the intended contract award to Intervenor pursuant to Request for Proposals P2056 for a Community Based Intervention Services Program in Brevard County, Florida, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, Respondent’s policies and rules, and the request for proposals.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency for the RFP at issue in this proceeding. Eckerd is a not-for-profit corporation duly-organized under the laws of the State of Florida. White is a not-for-profit corporation duly-organized under the laws of the State of Florida. On September 4, 2009, the Department issued the RFP to select a provider to operate a 44-slot Community Based Intervention Services Program for youth ages ten through 21 in Brevard County, Florida. Eckerd did not protest the specifications of the RFP nor the methodology that the Department had historically used in scoring proposals for similar services within 72 hours of the issuance of the RFP. Eckerd and White submitted timely responses to the RFP on or before October 14, 2009. Under the RFP, one of the categories that the Department evaluates is the “Evaluation of the Past Performance for Non-Residential Programs.” One of the three components of the past performance standard is: Part I—Evaluation for Past Performance in Florida. This includes, as a subcomponent, the provider’s “Combined Success Rate” (CSR), with an assigned value of 200 points. The RFP defines CSR as “Percentage of youth who do not recidivate,” and further provides, “Points are awarded based on the combination of successful youth program completions, and the percentage of youth who do not recidivate.” Each proposer was required to complete and submit with its proposal Attachment C to the RFP entitled “Data Sheet: Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs” (Data Sheet). The Data Sheet was to provide certain information for non-residential programs that the proposer had operated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-2007, including program name, contract number, number of completions during FY 2006-2007, and FY 2006-2007 Recidivism Rates. Some of the information, such as the completions and the recidivism rates, was to be based on information found in the Department’s 2008 Florida Comprehensive Accountability Report [CAR].1 The CAR is prepared by the Department and includes program outcomes, including total releases, number of completions, completion rates, and success rates for all types of probation and community intervention programs that released youth in FY 2006-2007. The information is reported by judicial circuit. The CAR may report information on different programs in a judicial circuit, and some of the programs may be included in one contract with a provider. For example, White has one contract in the Second Judicial Circuit, contract number P2028, but the CAR reports information for two programs under contract number P2028. In the Fourth Judicial Circuit, White has one contract, contract number D7102, under which services are provided in Duval and Nassau Counties. The CAR treats the counties as being separate programs and provides separate data for the services provided in Duval County and for the services provided in Nassau County. As set forth in the Data Sheet, the number of completions is defined as “[t]he number of youth completing the program during FY 2006/2007 documented in the Department’s 2008 Florida Comprehensive Accountability Report.” In the CAR, the column titled “N4” provides the number of youth who successfully completed a specific program. The recidivism rate is the percentage of youth who later offended. The Data Sheet provides that the recidivism rate is found in the “2006-2007 Recidivism Column as reported in the Department’s 2008 Florida Comprehensive Accountability Report.” The CAR does not report recidivism rates; it reports success rates. Instead of providing the percentage of youth who completed the program and reoffended, the CAR reports the percentage of youth who did not reoffend. Thus, the recidivism rate is calculated by subtracting the success rate from 100. The Department relies on data from the CAR in determining the percentage of recidivism because the success completion percentages that are reported in the CAR have been calculated already. Therefore, it is easy to calculate the recidivism percentages using the CAR success rates. Paul Hatcher, senior management analyst for the Department, is the individual responsible for determining the CSR for providers who have submitted proposals in response to requests for proposals issued by the Department. Mr. Hatcher is the only individual who performs this function for the Department and has been in this position, performing this task, for over nine years. Mr. Hatcher processes the proposals through a standard procedure. The RFP provides that the information submitted in the Data Sheet “will be verified by the Department [and] [a]ny inaccurate or omitted information will be corrected.” After receiving the proposals, Mr. Hatcher verifies the accuracy of the information provided, including the number of completions and the recidivism rate reported on the Data Sheets submitted with each proposal, against the information provided in the corresponding CAR. If the information regarding a program is reported incorrectly, Mr. Hatcher corrects it to conform to the information in the appropriate CAR. The information submitted on the Data Sheet is submitted by contract number. The contract number is how the Department identifies quality assurance reviews, as well as fiscal and other data sources. For example, for contract number P2028, White submitted the completions for both programs in the Second Judicial Circuit. One program had 19 completions and the other program had 29 completions, for a total of 48. White intended to combine the completions for placement under Column 9 of the Data Sheet but erroneously used the combined number of releases. Pursuant to the RFP, Mr. Hatcher corrected the data to reflect the combined completions as reported in the CAR.2 The CAR reported a success rate of one program as 63% and the success rate of the other program as 69%, which equated to recidivism rates of 37% and 31%. White recorded the recidivism rates for the contract on the Data Sheet as 37%/31%. The same approach was used for reporting the information on contract number D7102 for the services provided in Duval County and Nassau County in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The services provided in Duval and Nassau Counties were considered by the Department to be one program; however, the CAR reported the information by county as if they were separate programs. The completions for both counties were intended to be combined for reporting on the Data Sheet, but White recorded the combined number of releases on the Data Sheet.3 Mr. Hatcher corrected the data to reflect the combined completions as reported in the CAR. The CAR reported the success rates for the Duval County program as 62% and the success rate of the Nassau County program as 100%. These success rates equated to recidivism rates of 38% and 0%. Because the Department is looking for the recidivism rate for each contract, and the CAR reports the success rates used to calculate recidivism rates by program as in the Second Judicial Circuit or by county as in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Mr. Hatcher averages the combined recidivism rates to come up with one recidivism rate for each contract in the Second and Fourth Judicial Circuits. Thus, the recidivism rates for contract number P2028 for the Second Judicial Circuit were averaged, resulting in one recidivism rate of 21%. The same method was applied to the recidivism rates for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, resulting in one recidivism rate of 19%. After checking the reported numbers and making all necessary changes, including making corrections to the data to match the data reported in the CAR and averaging the recidivism rates for contracts encompassing more than one program or more than one county, Mr. Hatcher inputs the number of completions and the recidivism rate for each contract into a standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Spreadsheet), which performs the actual calculations and computes the total CSR for each individual proposal. The Spreadsheet uses fixed formulas to perform the mathematical calculations necessary to determine the CSR for each proposal. The last two columns on the right hand side of the Spreadsheet relate to the CSR, and the numbers shown therein are generated by the fixed formulas. The Spreadsheet performs several calculations. It multiplies the number of completions by the recidivism rate for each contract to obtain the number of youth recidivating. Then, from each contract, the number of youth recidivating was subtracted from the number of total completions to obtain the number of successful youth for each contract. It then adds each of these successful youth figures together and divides the total by the combined total number of completions, resulting in the total CSR. The Department awarded Eckerd a score of 129 points based on a 64.5% Combined Success Rate. The Department awarded White a score of 160 points based on an 80% Combined Success Rate. On December 11, 2009, the Department posted its Notice of Agency Action, which indicated its intent to award the contract to White. The Department awarded White the highest overall score of 1554.49 points. The Department awarded Eckerd the second highest overall score of 1544.49 points. On December 28, 2009, Eckerd filed the Petition pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (2009),4 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-110.004. The same Spreadsheet had been used by the Department for several years in calculating the CSR for proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals. Additionally, the Department’s practice of averaging scores for single-contract programs with more than one set of data was not a new scoring concept for the procurement at issue. In 2007, Eckerd submitted a response to Request for Proposal P2303 (RFP P2303) issued by the Department and was awarded the contract by achieving the highest score that was calculated in the same manner as the scores for the procurement at issue.5 In the Data Sheet submitted by Eckerd for RFP P2303, under program name, it entered in one cell, a single-contract program (contract number P70444) operated by Eckerd in the Tenth and Twelfth Judicial Circuits as “Circuit 10, 12, West/EYDC.” In its Data Sheet for RFP P2303, Eckerd took the total number of completions from the 2006 CAR for the Tenth Judicial Circuit and the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for contract number P7044, 19 and 31, respectively, and added them together for a total of 50 completions, which it entered under the “Number of Completions” column. The 2006 CAR reported recidivism rates for the Tenth and Twelfth Judicial Circuits as 26% and 23%, respectively, for contract number 7044. Eckerd listed both recidivism rates in its Data Sheet for RFP P2303 under the “2004-2005 Recidivism Rate.” Mr. Hatcher averaged the recidivism rates for contract number 7044 resulting in a single recidivism rate of 25%. This figure was used in the Spreadsheet to calculate the CSR. The Data Sheet submitted by Eckerd for RFP P2303 also contains two boxes at the bottom of the page that contain statements indicating that each circuit was reported separately and that the cell contains both circuits. The boxes have arrows that point to the relevant combined data cells in the “Number of Completions” and “2004-2005 Recidivism Rate” columns. The information contained in the data cells was derived from the 2006 CAR, which listed separate data for the Tenth and Twelfth Judicial Circuits even though the services provided were through a single contract. Eckerd has also submitted responses for other requests for proposals, RFP P2028, RFP P2032, and RFP P2034, using the same data for each Data Sheet as it used for the Data Sheet submitted for RFP P2303. On February 15, 2010, the Department changed its policy on the scoring methodology to be used in procurements such as the one at issue. The change in policy was expressed in an addendum to RFP P2062. The addendum stated in part: If the 2008 CAR Report lists a program with more than one recidivism percent, list all of the percentages and the number of completions for the program on Attachment C [Data Sheet], and the Department will be treating a Provider’s program with more than one recidivism rate as separate programs for the purposes of calculating success rate and will not be averaging the programs. The Department verifies all program information from the CAR Report. This change in policy was in response to the anticipated changes to the 2009 CAR, which will report and identify multiple areas of information, including more programs with several separately reported recidivism rates. The change in policy was implemented upon evaluation of the 2009 CAR and in anticipation of the release of the 2009 CAR. Eckerd claims that the policy of averaging recidivism percentages for contracts in which the CAR lists more than one recidivism rate resulted in an inaccurate recidivism percentage for White’s contracts for the Second and Fourth Judicial Circuits. For example, in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, the recidivism rate for Duval County was 38%, and the recidivism rate for Nassau County was 0%. Eckerd contends that the multiple recidivism rates as calculated from the CAR should have been used in the Spreadsheet rather than an average of multiple recidivism rates for a single contract. When the recidivism rate that is calculated from the CAR report for Duval County is used, the number of youth reoffending is 87.4, and the number of youth reoffending in Nassau County is 0%. When the average recidivism rate of 19% is used for Duval and Nassau Counties, the number of youth reoffending drops to 44.08, which is not an accurate accounting of the actual number of youth who reoffended. When the recidivism rate is lowered, the success rate will rise. Therefore, if the method espoused by Eckerd was used, White would have received a 71.9 score for CSR, resulting in a decrease of the points awarded to White of 16 points for CSR and a corresponding decrease in the total points awarded to White. Using Eckerd’s methodology, Eckerd would have received the highest number of points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Petition filed by Eckerd. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 28th day of April, 2010.
