The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by terminating his employment in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Olaciregui was employed as a road patrol trooper with FHP. His work schedule typically consisted of a 40-hour shift. Petitioner worked an average of 16-to-24 additional hours per week because he needed the income to survive, which made him tired. Petitioner never told his employer he was tired. On or about January 26, 2004, Petitioner decided to seek medical attention for his fatigue and lack of sex drive. He went to PowerMedica, a clinic. At PowerMedica, Olaciregui filled out a Confidential Medical History Form regarding his medical history. Petitioner did not answer the questions on the form accurately. He did not disclose his medical problems, and he put on the form that he had no problems. On question number 32, he checked "no" for decreased sexual potency. After meeting with the doctor, Petitioner was provided a prescription to obtain a blood test. The prescription contained the address of a physician located in New York. Petitioner had his blood drawn at LabCorp of America, a separate and unaffiliated business from PowerMedica. Petitioner had his blood work done at LabCorp and returned to PowerMedica to get the results. Petitioner met with Dr. Almarashi and went over the blood-work results. He was informed that his testosterone levels were below average. Petitioner's results were 129 above the bottom end of the range at a level of 370. The top of the normal range is 827, and the low end of the normal range is 241. No additional evidence was provided to support Petitioner's allegation of low testosterone. Petitioner decided to follow the treatment plan the doctor provided him after he was told he had low testosterone and take prescription medication. The PowerMedica doctor gave Petitioner a prescription that he could not fill at Walgreens or CVS but that could only be filled in the PowerMedica pharmacy. Petitioner did not question the prescriptions or ask anything about them. PowerMedica visits and the prescription medications were not covered under Petitioner's health insurance. His initial bill totaled approximately $1,529.95, but he purchased and used all the medications, including three controlled substances that were anabolic steroids. Petitioner did not report his medical treatment to FHP. On or about June 8, 2004, Petitioner was hit by a car and FHP placed him on workers' compensation. Petitioner was under a doctor's care while receiving workers' compensation but never advised the doctor about the medications he was taking from PowerMedica. He also failed to disclose to the workers' compensation doctor that he was being treated for any other medical conditions. In June 2004, Petitioner went back to the clinic for a follow-up visit. He obtained additional medication, which he took. When Petitioner stopped his treatment at PowerMedica, it was because he could no longer afford it. During treatment and after leaving PowerMedica, Petitioner never voluntarily informed FHP that he lacked a sex drive, that he was tired, or what his testorene level was because he was embarrassed and felt the issue was private. Approximately four years after Petitioner stopped going to PowerMedica, a FHP lieutenant provided Petitioner a document explaining that he was under investigation. The investigation stemmed from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (USFDA) closing down PowerMedica for unlawfully selling steroids and Human Growth Hormones. USFDA provided Petitioner's medical records seized by search warrant from PowerMedica to Lieutenant Paul Sharp and Sergeant Mark Shoaff, the two internal affairs officers assigned to investigate the matter. On or about July 2, 2008, Petitioner provided statements to Lieutenant Sharp and Sergeant Shoaff regarding the investigation. During his interview, Petitioner was questioned about PowerMedica, Dr. Almarashi, and the treatment he received at the clinic. Petitioner admitted to the investigators filling his PowerMedica medical prescriptions for steroids and taking nandrolone decanoate, oxymetholone, and stanozole, which were controlled substances. Petitioner also finally disclosed his medical condition to FHP during the interview and told the investigators that he "had severe aches and pains, low testosterone and [he was] lacking a sex drive." After the investigation was complete, FHP by letter dated September 4, 2008, informed the Petitioner that the Department was proposing to dismiss him from his position as a Law Enforcement Officer with FHP. The FHP Investigation Report states: Trooper Michael Olaciregui admitted that he purchased and used controlled substances from PowerMedica in 2004. Olaciregui further admits and PowerMeidca's records confirm, that he made his first purchase of controlled substances, syringes and needles on January 26, 2004 for $1529.95 (Exhibit #3). The purchase is confirmed by a credit card receipt signed by Olaciregui on January 26, 2004 and the prescriptions were filled and dated on January 26, 2004. The records also indicated that this purchase and the receipt of these controlled substances by Olaciregui on January 26, 2004 was done four (4) days prior to him going to LabCorp (Exhibit #4) and submitting his blood for analysis on January 30, 2004. Records further indicate that he made other purchases from PowerMedica for controlled substances on April 16, 2004, June 14, 2004, June 28, 2004 and on July 6, 2004. Petitioner requested a predetermination conference that was held on October 27, 2008. FHP determined that no additional facts were presented to change the disciplinary action and that the termination as a disciplinary action was warranted. On January 14, 2009, FHP provided Olaciregui a termination letter that provided factual allegations of the investigation and the following violations as grounds for termination: * * * Section 893.13(6) (a) Florida Statutes, Possession of a controlled substance without a valid prescription, 3rd Degree Felony; Florida Highway Patrol Policy Manual, Chapter 3.03.06(A) 7. Code of Conduct states: "Members will maintain a level of moral conduct in their personal and business affairs which is in keeping with the highest standards of the law enforcement profession;" Florida Highway Patrol Policy Manual, Chapter 3.03.06(a) 51. Code of conduct states: "Members will not possess or use cannabis or any controlled substances except when prescribed by law and Division directives"; Florida Highway Patrol Policy chapter 5.11.05, Substance Abuse. These violations constitute the following disciplinary offenses: Possession, Sale, Transfer or Use of Drugs Off the Job, first offense; Violation of Statutory Authority, rules, Regulations or Policies, Fourth Offense; Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee, first offense. After approximately 12 years of employment, FHP terminated Petitioner's employment on January 14, 2009, for using controlled substances that he received from PowerMedica in 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 23rd day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Vernon St. Charles is a radio teletype operator I with the Florida Highway Patrol and is a career service employee with appeal rights with the Career Service Commission. On or about November 1, 1977, St. Charles was the radio teletype operator on duty at the Florida Highway Patrol Tampa District Office. While he was on duty, an accident occurred involving a young child. St. Charles dispatched a Florida Highway Patrol trooper to the scene of the accident who reported that the child was very seriously injured. The trooper requested a homicide investigator be dispatched which St. Charles did. G. Ronald Stroud is a sergeant with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department assigned the duty of investigating accidents involving school-age children as a part of the Department's safety program. Sergeant Stroud received notification from the radio dispatcher of the sheriff's department that an accident had occurred near a school involving a child which Florida Highway Patrol Units were investigating. Sergeant Stroud called the Florida Highway Patrol District Office and spoke with St. Charles. Sergeant Stroud identified himself and asked about the accident and how old the child was to determine whether he should follow up the accident for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. St. Charles had received calls from the medical examiner's office, the U.S. Post Office, whose vehicle was involved in the accident, and Sergeant Stroud from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. At the hearing, St. Charles was uncertain which call had been Stroud's; however, St. Charles explained that he had tried to contact troopers at the scene to get additional information and that they were away from their vehicles. St. Charles did not have the information requested by Sergeant Stroud and therefore referred him to the hospital where they had taken the child. Sergeant Stroud identified Exhibit 2, a complaint letter he had written to Lieutenant Lowman of the Florida Highway Patrol. Stroud stated in the letter that an unknown male dispatcher, later determined to be St. Charles, had told Stroud that "He wasn't really concerned how old the child was and that if I (Stroud) wanted to know I could call the Brandon Hospital." At the hearing, Sergeant Stroud reconfirmed his recollection of St. Charles' comments to him. Without regard to the exact language used by St. Charles, it is clear that St. Charles did not provide Sergeant Stroud with the information which he sought and did not explain the existing situation which prevented him from giving Stroud the information. The position of radio teletype operator is an important one because the operator is responsible to transmit calls to and from the troopers by radio, perform certain law enforcement checks for the troopers by telephone or teletype, and respond to telephone calls from the public and other law enforcement agencies. The radio teletype operator's duties contribute to the overall enforcement effort of the Florida Highway Patrol and to the relationship of the Florida Highway Patrol with the public and other law enforcement agencies. This requires that the radio teletype operator perform his duty in a professional manner, using good personal judgment and diplomacy. St. Charles had been counseled previously about the manner in which he conducted his duties which at times bordered upon rudeness. St. Charles explained that he spoke loudly and in short sentences because his mother had been deaf and that in the pressure situations which sometimes developed, his manner of speech and abruptness might appear to be discourteous and rude to those with whom he was speaking.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds that the agency took the disciplinary action for good cause and therefore should be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. St. Charles 1401 North Forbes Road Plant City, Florida 33566 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator, CSC 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Edwin Strickland, Esquire John Whitney, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Maurice Helms Personnel Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact At or about 5:30 a.m., July 25, 1977, Trooper Vayda, while on radar patrol on the I-95 just north of the Dade County line, observed a car proceeding south at a speed of 85 m.p.h. and gave chase with his identification lights flashing. When the suspect was overtaken by Trooper Vayda suspect swerved towards Vayda causing the latter to move two wheels off the paved surface to avoid collision. The suspect subsequently left the I-95 at the 135th Street exit and while on the ramp with no other vehicles in view Vayda fired one shot which struck suspect's vehicle on the left side just above the bumper. Suspect ran through the stop light at 135th Street and rejoined the I-95 pursued by Vayda. Suspect again exited the I-95 at 125th Street and after turning east on 125th Street Vayda fired a second shot hitting suspect's right tail light. Suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck another car. Vayda stopped his vehicle, got out and told the suspect to get out of his car. Suspect then restarted his car and started eastward with Vayda in pursuit. In the interim Vayda had, via radio, alerted the Highway Patrol office of the chase and requested assistance. With the assistance of other law enforcement officers the suspect was subsequently apprehended on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida and found to be driving a stolen car. During the chase Vayda had no information to lead him to believe suspect was other than a speeder. As a result of firing the shots Vayda was suspended from duty for a period of eight hours by the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Exhibit 5, the disciplinary record of Vayda, shows that Vayda was suspended for eight hours without pay on September 7, 1977 for speeding on the Florida Turnpike on July 22, 1977. Vayda was aware of the contents of General Orders 17, 20 and 43 of the Florida Highway Patrol.
Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the Dade County School Board (School Board) was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. By Memorandum dated August 27, 1976, the attorney for the School Board recommended that it approve a list of individuals to serve as "hearing examiners" in certain hearings pertaining to personnel matters as required by different collective bargaining contracts and as to student expulsion cases. The Memorandum thereafter listed the individuals who were recommended by the School Board attorney to serve as hearing examiners. On September 8, 1976, the School Board adopted the recommendation of its attorney. The minutes of the September 8, 1976, meeting of the School Board, reflect, in pertinent part, the following pertaining to this action: A memorandum was received from the Legal Department, advising that the collective bargaining agreements between the School Board and the unions provide that in various circumstances, including suspension, dismissal and reduction in grade, the employee has the right to a review of the action. Also, the Florida Administrative Procedure Act was amended to provide for informal hearings con- ducted by impartial hearing examiners in student expulsion cases. With a view toward obtaining unbiased hearing examiners who can expedite cases at a minimal cost to the Board, the Office of the School Board Attorney and the Division of Employee Relations have solicited the services of various members of the Florida Bar and persons with experience in labor arbitration. It is believed that the following list of examiners will meet the needs of the Board in this area. These individuals have agreed to serve at the rate of $40.00 per hour. The minutes of the September 8, 1976, meeting of the School Board reflect the names of seventeen individuals who were recommended to serve as impartial hearing examiners. The minutes of the September 8, 1976, meeting of the School Board reflect that the following motion was adopted: That the school Board approve the list of persons named above to act as impartial hearing examiners in appropriate proceedings involving personnel and pupils, the hearing examiners to be reimbursed at the rate of $40.00 per hour for their time and to be designated as needed by the Superintendent or his designee. That the Superintendent or his designee be authorized to strike from the list the name of any hearing examiner who does not submit his or her recommended order within the time prescribed. The list of individuals to serve as impartial hearing examiners (who were sometimes referred to as hearing officers) was revised by the School Board on June 27, 1990, and on September 20, 1995. Petitioner's daughter is a student at one of the schools under the authority of the School Board who receives services as a gifted student under the School Board's Exceptional Education Program. Local hearing officers do not conduct proceedings pertaining to students in the Exceptional Education Program. Petitioner has never requested a hearing before a hearing examiner (or hearing officer) appointed by the School Board pursuant to the School Board's action of September 8, 1976, or as subsequently revised, and he is not involved in any pending or threatened administrative proceeding that would require the appointment of a local hearing officer by the School Board. Petitioner's daughter has never requested a hearing before a hearing examiner (or hearing officer) appointed by the School Board pursuant to the School Board's action of September 8, 1976, or as subsequently revised, and she is not involved in any pending or threatened administrative proceeding that would require the appointment of a local hearing officer by the School Board. Petitioner has never applied for appointment as a local hearing officer. He is not a member of the Florida Bar and there was no evidence that he is experienced in labor arbitration. Petitioner is not employed by the School Board. Petitioner is not affected by who has or has not been approved by the School Board to serve as a local hearing officer.
Findings Of Fact As stipulated by the parties, the Findings of Fact are as follows: Petitioner was employed as a teacher by the following employers during the specified periods of time. Dixie County School System 1929-30 9 months 1930-31 9 months 1931-32 9 months Hardee County School System 1932-33 6 months 1933-34 8 months 1934-35 10 months 1936-37 9 months Petitioner was employed by the State Road Department from August 1, 1937, to October 31, 1939. Petitioner began serving as a Highway Patrolman on November 1, 1939, and continued until January 31, 1972. This service included a military leave of absence from March 1, 1943, through December, 1945. Petitioner retired from the Florida Highway Patrol on January 31, 1972. His service credit for retirement included the service with the State Road Department and the military service. On February 1, 1972, Petitioner began employment with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. He became a member of the Florida Retirement System on this date pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was a member of the Highway Patrol Pension System from November 1, 1939, through January 31, 1972. He has been a member of the Florida Retirement System from February 1, 1972, through the present. He has never been a member of the Teachers' Retirement System. The Teachers' Retirement System was created effective July 1, 1939. The terms of Chapter 321, Florida Statutes, governing the Highway Patrol Pension System, did not permit the Petitioner to receive service credit for his employement (sic) as a teacher from 1929 through 1937. If Petitioner is to receive service credit for his employment as a teacher, it can only happen pursuant to Section 121.021(19)(b), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the decision of the Agency Head denying the Petitioner, J. Wallace Smith, the prior service credit requested be made final. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C, Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. J. Wallace Smith 1473 Marion Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303
