Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner from December, 1982 to December, 1987 as a tariff clerk, a permanent career service position. On September 23, 1987 Respondent became ill and left work without informing her supervisor, Jill Hurd, or her co-workers. Hurd was available on September 23 and 24, 1987 if Respondent had tried to explain her absence or request leave authorization. Respondent presented Health Status Certificates to Petitioner signed by M. R. Grate, Jr., M.D., dated October 30, November 11 and 18, 1987 which certified her inability to return to work from October 27 through November 30, 1987, during which time she was under his care. On the basis of these certificates, Petitioner authorized her sick leave from October 27 to November 30, 1987. Respondent did return to work on December 2, 1987, but was again absent on consecutive work days of December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. On December 3, 1987, Respondent sent a note to Hurd, via her husband, stating she did not feel well and would not be in to work. On December 4, 1987 her husband again brought Hurd a note stating Respondent would not be in because her baby was ill. Respondent's husband called Hurd on December 7, 1987 to state that she was still ill and would not be in to work. Hurd stated that Respondent needed to get back to work. At no time did Respondent request leave for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, nor was she approved for leave. She simply informed her supervisor, Hurd, through her husband that she was not coming to work each day. Prior to these unauthorized absences in December, 1987, Respondent had received a memorandum from Hurd on January 14, 1987 setting forth specific instructions for calling in sick following a number of unauthorized absences. Respondent was specifically instructed to call her supervisor, Hurd, each morning by 8:30 a.m. when she wanted to take sick leave. Despite this instruction, Respondent never called Hurd on December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, but simply had her husband deliver notes and messages to Hurd on her behalf. This prevented Hurd from discussing with Respondent the extent of her illness and when she expected to return to work. On November 25, 1987 Respondent had an appointment with Dr. Grate, who signed another Health Status Certificate for the period November 30 to December 11, 1987 indicating she remained under his care and was still unable to return to work. However, despite the fact she did report to work on December 2, 1987 and had been given specific instructions about how to apply for sick leave, she never presented Dr. Grate's Health Status Certificate dated November 25, 1987 to Hurd, or anyone else associated with Petitioner, until the hearing in this case. Therefore, Respondent did not present proper medical certification of illness for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, and instead simply failed to report to work, or to in any way attempt to personally contact her supervisor. A letter dated December 7, 1987 notifying Respondent of her abandonment of position and of her right to a hearing was sent to Respondent from Petitioner's Executive Director by certified mail, return receipt requested. Respondent's husband signed for this letter on December 9, 1987, and Respondent acknowledges receipt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter Final Order concluding that Respondent has abandoned her position with Petitioner in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave, for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-0161) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact cannot be made since her post-hearing submission shows no indication that a copy was provided to counsel for Petitioner, despite specific instruction at hearing, and the narrative contained in her letter consists of serial unnumbered paragraphs which primarily present argument on the evidence rather than true proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Public Service Commission 212 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Harold McLean, Esquire Public Service Commission Office of General Counsel 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Norma D. Saabir P. O. Box 5802 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5802 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of her race in not promoting her to executive director, denying her a salary increase, threatening her with a demotion and/or placing her on medical leave?
Findings Of Fact At the time and place noticed for hearing, petitioner failed to appear and nobody appeared on her behalf.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that the FCHR enter an order denying the petition for relief. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Anita I. Parker 7740 Southside Blvd., #501 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Glenn R. Padgett, Esquire Kinsey Vincent & Pyle P.O. Box 3096 Daytona Beach, FL 32018-0096
The Issue Whether the suspension of the Appellant for the reasons stated in the letter of disciplinary action was for good cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing the Hearing Officer finds that the agency did not have cause to suspend the Appellant; however, the evidence tends to indicate that the Appellant took more leave totally than she could have accrued in 1975 and 1976. Therefore, prior to any action to reimburse her for the days she was suspended, the Hearing Officer would recommend an audit of her leave records and that she be compensated only if the audit reveals that she took no more leave than she had accrued. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire District General Counsel Health and Rehabilitative Services 1350 Orange Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mrs. Dorothy B. Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Division of Personnel 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ms. Gwendolyn Morss 1185 Lincoln Terrace Orlando, Florida 32787
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was overpaid in the amount of $809.46; and, if so, whether she should be required to repay that amount to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Petitioner was a career service employee of Respondent until her separation in October 2018. Petitioner went into labor unexpectedly in December 2017, and as a result, she began maternity leave. Petitioner was not present at work and did not submit a timesheet for the timeframe of December 29, 2017, through July 2, 2018. Petitioner testified that she was unable to submit her timesheets electronically and for this reason, someone else submitted them on her behalf. The evidence presented at hearing did not show who submitted her timesheets. By May 23, 2018, Petitioner had exhausted all of her annual, sick, and donated leave. Once an employee of Respondent no longer has sick leave remaining, annual leave is used to cover any shortages of sick leave. An employee may use donated leave to cover any shortages. Once an employee has exhausted annual, sick, and donated leave, the employee cannot be paid for additional time taken as leave. The additional time during leave is considered “leave without pay” (“LWOP”). Petitioner was placed on LWOP from March 23, 2018, through July 2, 2018, because she had exhausted all of her leave. Although Petitioner was on LWOP during the pay period of May 4, 2018, through May 17, 2018, a pay warrant for 80 hours of work was inadvertently issued on May 25, 2018, for that pay period. Consequently, Petitioner was overpaid $809.46. Petitioner was not responsible for the overpayment. She did not submit her timesheets and, thus, did not falsify them. Petitioner testified that her supervisor verbally advised her that she had received donated leave, but she could not recall the amount. Petitioner also did not offer any written representation from her supervisor or otherwise regarding her leave. The overpayment resulted because Petitioner's timesheet for LWOP for the pay period of May 4, 2018, through May 17, 2018, was not timely approved. Upon discovery of this error, Respondent’s human resources office conducted a manual audit of Petitioner’s leave. Ms. Anderson completed the leave audit and discovered that Petitioner had been overpaid for the May 4, 2018, through May 17, 2018, pay period. On May 30, 2018, the Department sent Petitioner a certified letter requesting the overpaid amount of $809.46. Petitioner became aware of the error when she received the Department’s letter. Petitioner’s pay was transmitted to her bank account electronically via direct deposit. However, she was not monitoring her bank account closely and did not immediately realize that she had been erroneously overpaid. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner had not paid the overpayment. Petitioner stated she could only pay $40 per month to repay the overpayment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final Order requiring Shanace Isaac to repay Respondent $809.46. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 7th day of March, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Shanace Isaac Post Office Box 101 Hastings, Florida 32145 (eServed) Riley Michelle Landy, Esquire Department of Health Bin A-02 5052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Shannon Revels, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On April 18, 1988, Respondent, Jack Schenkel, was employed as one of fifteen fire fighter/emergency medical technicians, (EMT), with the Tarpon Springs Fire Department. He was scheduled to work on C shift which was to start at 7 am and extend for 24 hours until 7 am, April 19, 1988. In accordance with normal procedure, he then would have been off for 48 hours before his next shift. At approximately 1:30 am on April 18, Lt. Dennis L. Jennings, B shift supervisor, was on duty at the main fire station, when he received a phone call from the Respondent who indicated he had had a serious quarrel with his girl friend. Respondent indicated she was drunk and had "trashed" his house and he needed to stay at home to insure his possessions were not ruined. Respondent's actual request was for a personal day off, and when Mr. Jennings indicated there was no such thing for City employees, Respondent asked for a vacation day. It is and has been, for as long as Respondent has worked with TSFD, Department policy that vacation pay can only be authorized by personnel above the grade of Lieutenant, and while the actual paper request may, at times, be signed after the fact, the authorization must be received prior to departure so that the Department has time to rearrange schedules to accommodate the absence. When Mr. Jennings advised Respondent of this, though evidence indicates he was aware of it, Respondent indicated he had had no sleep and as a result, Mr. Jennings suggested that Respondent take a day of sick leave. However, Mr. Jennings also reminded Respondent that in accordance with an order issued in writing by the Fire Chief in 1979 to the effect that requests for sick leave must be called in between 6 and 6:30 am of the day in question, prior to the start of the duty day, he would have to call in during the prescribed time to arrange for his sick leave. Though a Lieutenant can take the information, he does not have the authority to approve the leave. As a matter of fact, however, bona fide sick leave, called in in conjunction with the Chief's order, at an appropriate time, is never disapproved. Respondent did not call in between 6 and 6:30 am on April 18 to request sick leave as he had been instructed to do by Lt. Jennings. Mr. Lopes, also a fire fighter, who was scheduled to work on the same shift, arrived at approximately 6:50 that morning. When he spoke to Lt. Jennings to ask where he would be assigned, Jennings advised him that Respondent had not come in and Lopes would fill his slot. Jennings told Lopes what Respondent had told him concerning the house and like matters. At that point, Lopes advised Mr. Jennings that Respondent did not own the house where he was living nor was he the prime tenant. To verify this, Jennings telephoned Respondent at home at approximately 7:05 am. When Respondent answered the phone and Jennings asked why he had not reported for duty, Respondent indicated that he intended to take a sick day. Jennings reminded him that he had not called in properly and told him that if he took the time off, there would be repercussions. According to Jennings, Respondent did not seem concerned about that possibility, replying something like, "Oh well, whatever." Lt. Jennings logged this call in and reported the situation to his relief, Lt. Parker, the incoming shift lieutenant. He also discussed the matter the following morning with Assistant Chief Carr and at Carr's request, submitted a written statement of what had happened. According to the City regulations, sick leave, such as was requested by Respondent here, can be used for situations where the employee himself is sick or disabled; where the employee has an appointment with a physician or dentist; where the employee in under medical quarantine; and as a result of a death in the immediate family of the employee, in which case, only four days leave are authorized. Girl friends are not included within the definition of "immediate family." In the opinion of Mr. Carr, sick leave is not authorized for circumstances such as were described by Respondent in his reasons for not coming in. Under the terms of the City regulation, taking a sick day for a reason not within the above-described categories, constitutes grounds for discipline. When Respondent came to work on April 21, 1988, Chief Carr called him in and asked for an explanation of why Respondent had failed to report for duty on April 18. In response, Respondent told him the same story he had related to Lt. Jennings. In the course of their conversation, Carr advised Respondent that he, Respondent, knew from prior incidents that sick leave was not appropriate under these circumstances. Respondent replied that his girl friend was sick and he was concerned about her safety, and showed Carr a copy of the police report regarding the incident on April 18 which reflected that she was highly intoxicated. Carr advised Respondent that the circumstances did not justify or authorize sick leave, and that action would be taken to terminate him from employment. With that, Respondent left. After Respondent departed, Chief Carr reviewed his personnel records in detail and saw the number of sick days Respondent had taken since he began work with the Department, as well as his prior disciplinary record. Respondent's personnel record shows that in the years he has been an employee of the City, he has taken 44 sick days accounting for 1,056 hours of sick leave. He then prepared a memorandum outlining it which he forwarded to the City personnel director who concluded that termination was appropriate. Respondent's personnel records reflect the following actions: Memorandum 7/82 from Respondent's shift leader indicating he arrived 2 hours 9 minutes late for work. When questioned, he related his alarm did not go off due to a possible power failure. Memorandum 8/19/82 from Respondent's supervisor reflecting he was again late for work by 1 hour 45 minutes. On 2/7/83, Respondent called in for sick leave at 6:40 am, 10 minutes after the close of the call-in window. Respondent was given a written reprimand. On 3/23/83 Respondent reported for work at 7:11 am without calling in. He indicated he had a flat tire. He was ordered to take a one day suspension without pay. On 5/2/83 Respondent was found asleep on duty with earphones on his head, a violation of rule 5, Section 4, Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Tarpon Springs. For this offense, Respondent was given a warning. On October 27, 1983, Respondent was warned and counseled regarding the prior discrepancies in his job performance including the incident involving his sleeping on duty and his 17 incidents of sick leave within a relatively short period. On October 7, 1985, Respondent was again counseled on his excessive use of sick days which then amounted to 26 despite a counseling on the matter in December, 1984 and in October, 1983. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was disciplined for calling in at 6:48 am, on February 4, 1986, outside the window for sick leave call in. He was given a written warning and a one day suspension without pay. On August 7, 1987, Respondent called in sick at 6:17 am which was within the parameters of the Chief's order. As is the Department's policy, however, the Lieutenant on duty called back several minutes later to check on the employee, and found that Respondent was not sick. In fact, he had left to go to the store to pick up a part for the truck on which he was working. Since this constituted an abuse of sick leave, he was given a three shift suspension without pay. On January 28, 1988, Respondent was counseled for poor report writing and advised to take greater care in doing so. Even after two warnings to this effect, his reports were still incorrect and incomplete and he was given a written warning. Chief Carr is of the opinion that Respondent's improperly using sick days, and his failure to call in to request sick leave on time, demonstrates a disregard for the City's leave program and regulations. After the incident on April 18, Chief Carr had a report prepared analyzing Respondent's sick leave from the beginning of his employment with the Department in 1982. This report showed a pattern wherein Respondent would work one shift, do overtime and exchange days with other fire fighters so he could work two days in a row, and thereafter take several sick days in a row. It was apparent from this analysis that Respondent was manipulating the sick leave process for his own benefit and the testimony of Ms. Evans that he was moonlighting with Medic-One, an ambulance company in Pinellas County, on some of the days he had called in sick, tends to support this conclusion. Under the terms of the Personnel Rules of the City of Tarpon Springs, a fire fighter earns 15 days sick leave per year, which, if not used, can be carried over to succeeding years. Chief Carr has not had a sick leave analysis prepared on any other employee within the Department even though, to his understanding, there are others who have taken off an equivalent number of sick leave days. To the best of his understanding, however, the other employees utilized their sick leave in an appropriate manner. Respondent has been employed by the Department since May, 1982 as a paramedic. He admits the incident on April 18. He went to bed at approximately 10 pm on the evening of April 17, 1988 because he had to go to work the next morning. He was awakened around midnight by his girl friend who was hitting him, throwing things around, and screaming. She was very intoxicated. Respondent tried to avoid her and called the police who tried to quiet them both down. After the police left at about 12:30 am, Respondent went to sleep on the couch. At approximately 1:30 am she started fighting with him again and to avoid any further dispute, he took some of his things, left the apartment and made the first call to Lt. Jennings. In that conversation, according to Respondent, he advised Jennings he was tired and upset and needed the day off but to his recollection, did not request any specific type of time off. At the time in issue, Respondent admits to having both sick leave and vacation time adequate for the following day accrued. According to Respondent, Jennings did not say Respondent could not have the time off nor did he say how it would be recorded. He also did not tell him to call back or to do anything else in order to secure approval for his time off. However, in light of the fact that Respondent had obviously been aware of the requirement to call in for sick leave within a certain time window, and in light of the uncontroverted evidence that he failed to do so, whether Jennings advised him to call in or not is irrelevant. After talking to Lt. Jennings, Respondent intended to spend the night on his boat. However, he was too upset and was unable to sleep and he merely sat on the boat until just before dawn when he went back to his apartment. He did not sleep at all that night. Jennings called at about 6:30 am. During the conversation, Jennings talked to him about whose apartment it was and Respondent, tired and upset, told Jennings that since he'd already given him the time off, he could categorize it any way he wanted. Respondent had to find a place to stay and put his things in storage and he was quite tired. He did not feel he could go to work, and since Jennings did not direct him to come to work, he did not do so that day. Respondent reported to work the next shift he was scheduled for and was called in for an interview during which he was advised he was being terminated for abuse of sick leave. He attempted to tell the Chief he had not requested sick leave and explain what had happened, but Carr advised him he was nonetheless going to recommend Respondent be fired. Respondent does not dispute his prior disciplinary record but denies ever having called in on sick leave when he was not really sick in order to work someplace else. The testimony of Ms. Evans outlining several days on which Respondent worked for Medic-One when he appears to have called in on sick leave shows otherwise. Respondent would not object to a use of vacation time for the absence on April 18, 1988. It appears from the evidence that had Respondent not had so extensive a history of prior disciplinary actions, his absence here may well have been charged to vacation leave to protect him. Vacation time, when properly authorized, can be used for any purpose whatever. However, it must be properly approved in advance by someone higher than a Lieutenant. Chief Carr admits that had Respondent called and spoken to him that night, he might have been given vacation leave. However, in this case, no consideration was given to allowing Respondent to take vacation time for this absence because of his prior record. In making his decision to terminate the Respondent, Chief Carr considered not only the Respondent's disciplinary record, but also his commendations. Nonetheless, the good in Respondent's file did not justify overlooking the bad and his judgement in this case is not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Jack Schenkel, be discharged from employment with the Fire Department of the City of Tarpon Springs. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of October, 3988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. 16 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20 - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. Accepted. 23 - 36. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance but not in detail. 37. Accepted. 38 - 39. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. 40 - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: NICHOLAS J. SARGENT, ESQUIRE SARGENT, REPKA, AND COVERT, P.A. 2963 GULF-TO-BAY BLVD., SUITE 320 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34619 ROBERT F. MCKEE, ESQUIRE 1724 EAST 7TH AVENUE TAMPA, FLORIDA 33605
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner contrary to statute on the basis of Petitioner's disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was diagnosed with cancer in December of 2002, and was on sick leave off and on from the time of her diagnosis until the first part of 2004. Later, after surgery, the Petitioner was on extended leave while she recovered from surgery and later from chemotherapy. In June of 2003, Petitioner was rapidly approaching the end of her available leave, but, more significantly, the end of the leave required to be granted under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This situation resulted in correspondence between Petitioner and the Department about extension of her leave and her return to work. On June 17, 2003, Jeff Carr, Human Resources Manager for the Department, sent a letter to Petitioner in connection with her medical leave status. This letter advised Petitioner that an agreed-upon extension of leave would cover Petitioner until July 4, 2003. As the latest physician's statement submitted by Petitioner indicated that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, the letter from Mr. Carr advised Petitioner of options available to her: 1) a return to work on July 5, 2003, if she was released by her physician as able to perform the essential functions of her job; 2) resignation if she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job; 3) regular or disability retirement. If Petitioner did not choose one of the three options, she was advised she would be terminated. On June 23, 2003, Petitioner wrote to Beth Englander, District Administrator, requesting additional leave in accordance with her doctor's latest evaluation. A copy of a note from Petitioner's oncologist was attached which stated that Petitioner would need to be off at least six to eight weeks. In addition, Petitioner noted that following completion of chemotherapy she would need additional surgery and would need to make additional requests for leave. Petitioner e-mailed Ms. Englander on June 24, 2003, and Ms. Englander replied that same day. The reply again advised Petitioner of her three options to avoid termination for inability to perform her job. After having been twice advised of her options, Petitioner wrote Mr. Carr on June 27, 2003, advising that she would not finish her chemotherapy treatment until approximately September 1, 2003. However, no estimate was given for Petitioner's medical release to return to work following the additional surgery Petitioner said she would need in her letter to Ms. Englander of June 23, 2003. In her letter of June 27, 2003, Petitioner requested additional leave as what she claimed to be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Petitioner also said she wanted to work at home in lieu of leave. However, Petitioner provided no doctor's statement to contradict the one she submitted saying that she would be unable to work for six to eight weeks. On July 6, 203, Petitioner wrote Mr. Carr that she was accepting the alternative of retirement. In this letter, Petitioner again stated that she was not finished with treatment and would need additional time to complete the treatment. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she was unable to inspect daycare facilities to conduct the inspections required as an essential function of her position. In addition to the regular inspections, initial licensing and relicensing inspections, day care licensing counselors also have to make inspection in response to complaints received by the Department. Petitioner said that, as an accommodation, she wanted to be relieved from conducting inspections and be permitted to process the inspection reports prepared by other counselors and other paperwork. Although Petitioner contended at the hearing that she might have been able to work part-time, she admitted that after submitting the statement that she could not return to work for at least six to eight more weeks she had not gone back to her doctor to ask him to clear her for part-time work. Petitioner also speculated that she could have performed inspections on a part-time basis if she was provided with appropriate protective equipment and a mask. Petitioner stated her desire and request for more time off was because of fatigue. She did not request to work part-time, or protective devices as an accommodation at any time before she chose the option of retirement. Petitioner instituted an action before PERC contending that she was forced to either resign or retire in retaliation for her making of a complaint to Department's inspector general. That action resulted in a recommended order by the PERC hearing officer on April 21, 2004, that recommended that PERC dismiss Petitioner's claim. In that recommended order the hearing officer found as fact that: On June 23, 2003, Welch (Petitioner) sent a letter to District 13 Administrator Beth Englander, which included a doctor's note indicating she needed six to eight more weeks of leave. Englander responded to Welch and told her that, because her leave was exhausted and because of the operational needs of her unit, the Agency would not extend the leave. On June 27, Welch replied to Carr's June 17 letter and asked for accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The Agency did not specifically respond to this request. However, Welch was not entitled to ADA leave because she could not perform the essential functions of her job in June when she made her request. The full PERC in a final order of May 11, 2004, adopted the recommended order of the hearing officer, including this finding of fact. Petitioner had not been released by her doctor to return to work and perform her duties at the time she chose retirement in July 2003, and admitted that she was not able to come to work at that time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 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 25th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Melody Welch 34548 Oak Avenue Leesburg, Florida 34788 Carolyn Dudley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 6, Room 123 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9070 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 Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service pursuant to the personnel rules of the Career Service System?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent for more than five years. At all times relevant hereto, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. During the month of December, 1986, and the portion of January, 1987, prior to the date the Petitioner was removed from his position, the Petitioner was assigned to the Blountstown, Florida, road maintenance office. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Gustavev Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin was an HMT-3 with the Respondent and supervised a maintenance crew of three men, including the Petitioner. Mr. Goodwin was the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Blackburn, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor with the Respondent, was Mr. Goodwin's immediate supervisor. Mr. Blackburn supervises all crews operating out of the Blountstown office. The Petitioner and his crew worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week. Mr. Goodwin prepares a weekly crew report on a daily basis. Mr. Goodwin records the hours a crew member worked or, if a crew member was not present, Mr. Goodwin notes the absence and the reason for the absence. Mr. Blackburn transfers the information recorded on the weekly crew reports to timesheets which are used for payroll purposes. If approval of a request for leave is required, employees are required to report to their crew supervisor or Mr. Blackburn. The Petitioner would have been required to obtain approval of leave from Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn, if prior approval had been required. In cases of sick leave, employees were expected to call by telephone on the day of the illness or injury and inform Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was at the office each work day in the morning before the crews completed fueling their trucks and departed for the day. Mr. Blackburn was then out of the office during most of the remainder of the day. During the last week of December, 1986, Mr. Goodwin, the Petitioner and the other members of Mr. Goodwin's crew were "bull skating" (joking and talking). The Petitioner told Mr. Goodwin in response to some comment, probably pertaining to the work that would be done the first week of January, 1987, that "I won't be here next week anyway. I be in the hospital." Although Mr. Goodwin did not remember the Petitioner having made these comments, the Petitioner and one of the crew members, Mr. Arthur Jackson, both testified that the comments were made. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that he could be absent from work during the first week of January, 1987. The Petitioner was absent from work during the first week of January, 1987 -- January 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987. Neither Mr. Goodwin nor Mr. Blackburn were contacted on January 5-8, 1987, by the Petitioner or anyone on behalf of the Petitioner, about the Petitioner's absence. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that his absence on January 5-8, 1937, was approved. The Petitioner had obtained approval of annual leave prior to the period at issue in this case. The Petitioner had planned to go to the hospital on January 5, 1987, because of problems he has had with his legs, and to remain in the hospital for the remainder of the week. Because of the problems with his legs and his automobile, the Petitioner did not go to the hospital or see a doctor on January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, the Petitioner had a friend drive him to Panama City, Florida, where he remained under the care of Dr. Ernest G. Haslam, M.D., in the hospital, until January 12, 1987. Although the Petitioner does not have a telephone at his residence, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn could have been contacted by Petitioner's wife, who works at Hardees, or by a friend. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt on April 14, 1983, of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook and his responsibility to review the handbook in detail and to request clarification, if necessary. On page 43 of the handbook it is provided that "[a]fter an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from Career Service ..." On page 22 of the handbook it is provided that "[i]f a medical appointment is necessary during work hours, you should obtain `approval, in advance, to use your earned sick leave." By certified letter from Allen Potter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department, dated January 8, 1976, the Petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have abandoned his position with the Respondent and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his absence from work during the first week of January, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration rule that the Petitioner, Albert T. Smith, has not abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, and has not resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0450 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s), if any, in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RD ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has filed a letter dated April 10, 1987. The only proposed finding of fact contained in this letter concerns the question of whether the Petitioner told his supervisor, Mr. Goodwin, that he would not be at work during the period of time at issue in this case. The proposed finding of fact has been accepted in RD 10. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RD Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RD 1-4 and 8. 2 RD 5-7 and 9. 3 RD 10-11. 4 RD 11 and 13. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner had obtained prior approval for sick leave subsequent to the period of time involved in this case. The evidence only proved that the Petitioner had on other occasions received prior approval of annual leave. 5 RD 19-20. RD 16 and 18. The evidence does not prove that the Petitioner got into a car and drove to town. RD 21. The Petitioner was not, however, "absent from his position without authorized leave ..." COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kay N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Albert T. Smith Route 1, Box 135, B 69A Blountstown, Florida 32424 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Johnny L. Richardson, was a test technician in the receiving/inspection department of the Respondent, Group Technologies Corporation, when he became ill, had to be hospitalized, and went on a medical leave of absence on September 6, 1990. Before he was able to return to work, in addition to the illness that resulted in his initial hospitalization, the Petitioner suffered two pulmonary embolisms that required hospitization and had a lobectomy (removal of part of one lung). At the time of his ultimate discharge from the hospital, the Petitioner was diagnosed with a number of medical conditions. He had hypovolemic shock, viral myocarditis, with cardiomyopathy and right ventricular failure, pulmonary abscesses, congestive heart failure, leukocytosis, chest wall pain and pleurisy. In addition, he already had insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Because of the length of the Petitioner's medical leave of absence, and the Respondent's needs, the Petitioner's former position in the receiving/inspection department was filled during his absence, in accordance with standard company policy. The Respondent's treating physicans released him to return to work on or about July 2, 1991. At the time, the Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's preexisting insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, and was generally aware that the Petitioner's health problems had required hospitalization and a medical leave of absence. But the Respondent did not have detailed medical information concerning the Petitioner's other medical diagnoses. On or about July 2, 1991, the Petitioner contacted the Respondent's staff nurse to advise her that he had been released to return to work. She made arrangements for him to be seen on July 8, 1991, by the Respondent's consulting physician, in accordance with standard procedures for employees on leave of absence for over 90 days. The consulting physician was a specialist in occupational medicine and had a working knowledge of the Respondent's work place and the jobs performed by its employees. He was to use this expertise and knowledge to verify that the employee could do the job he was to perform and to determine whether any restrictions or limitations were appropriate in view of the employee's medical condition. The staff nurse also advised the Petitioner to contact the Respondent's Human Resources Representative (HR Rep) to tell her that his treating physicians had cleared him to return to work. The next day, the Petitioner telephoned the HR Rep, but she was out on vacation until July 8, 1991. On or about July 8, 1991, the Petitioner was seen by the company's consulting physician. A routine medical examination was conducted, including taking a history. The Petitioner told the doctor that he had coronary heart disease, diabetes, lung abcess and hypertension and was taking various medications, including Coumadin and Lanoxin for his heart disease, Lasix and Prednisone for his chronic lung disease and breathing disorders, and insulin for his diabetes. He also reported the lobectomy. Based on the medical examination, the doctor prepared a report stating that he needed medical records from the Petitioner's treating physicians and that the Petitioner would need a job check before reemployment to ascertain the suitability of the particular job in which he was placed. In addition, the report stated that the Petitioner would have to avoid physical stress and avoid lifting heavy weight. The report also suggested that the Petitioner's exposure to chemicals may have to be limited. The doctor also filled out and gave the Petitioner a form stating that the "disposition" of the examination was that the Petitioner was to have "no duty." The Petitioner gave this form to the staff nurse, but the evidence is not clear when. On the day of the examination, before the report was sent to the Respondent's medical office, or even typed, the doctor telephoned a report to the Respondent's staff nurse. The nurse in turn telephoned the HR Rep and told her that, per the doctor's instructions, the Petitioner was not to work with chemicals and was to limit lifting to 25 pounds. The HR Rep also was advised that it would be best for the Petitioner not to work night shifts due to the medications he was taking. As can be seen, the information on the "disposition" form was not consistent with the information in the written report or with the information in the telephonic report the staff nurse gave the HR Rep that day. The Petitioner also saw the HR Rep on July 8, 1991. (She had just returned from vacation.) It is not clear from the evidence whether, at the time of her meeting with the Petitioner, the HR Rep already had received the telephonic report from the company's staff nurse. During the Petitioner's meeting with the HR Rep, the HR Rep told the Petitioner that she would have to determine whether the company had any test technician positions, or other positions with status and pay commensurate with the Petitioner's former position, that were open. Under company policies, employees returning to work after an extended leave of absence, during which their former positions were filled, were entitled to be considered for other positions with status and pay commensurate with the employee's former position, if any were available. The HR Rep reviewed her open requisition lists and determined that there were no suitable positions open at the time. (On or about June 28, 1991, the Respondent had extended job offers, with start dates in early July, to eight applicants for test technician positions that the company had been in the process of filling in June.) She telephoned this information to the Petitioner on either July 8 or 9, 1991, and told him that she would have to lay him off with recall rights. Actually, company policy provides for laying employees off with recall rights as a result of reductions in work force. It does not specifically apply to the situation where an employee returns to work after an extended leave of absence, during which the employee's former position was filled, and there are no positions with status and pay commensurate with the employee's former position available. But, since there was no other employment status designated by personnel policies for such an employee, the company felt that it was appropriate to lay off such an employee with recall rights. Under company policy, an employee who is laid off with recall rights has a right to be considered for recall before new employees with similar skills are hired. This is not a guarantee of reemployment but only right to be considered for employment before "external candidates" are considered. Actually, even under this interpretation of company policies, the Petitioner should have been laid off with recall rights only if he was ready to return to duty with restrictions (as indicated in the consulting physician's written report, and in the telephonic report from the staff nurse to the HR Rep). If he was unable to return to duty at that time (as indicated by the "disposition" form), he should have been continued on medical leave of absence. At the conclusion of their meeting on July 8, 1991, the HR Rep told the Petitioner that he would be contacted if there were any openings for him, or words to that effect. On or about July 12, 1991, the HR Rep became aware of an employee requisition request with a position with status and pay commensurate with the Petitioner's former position. She contacted the hiring supervisor and asked if he was interested in hiring the Petitioner for the position. The hiring supervisor quickly replied that he was not interested in hiring the Petitioner. Asked why not, he answered that he knew the Petitioner's attendance and performance history from having worked with the Petitioner in past years, and from knowing the Petitioner's reputation, he was not interested in hiring him. Further specifics about the hiring supervisor's reasons for not wanting to hire the Petitioner were neither given nor asked for until approximately January, 1992, which is after the filing of the Charge of Discrimination in this case. If asked, the hiring supervisor would have said that, during a period of time in which they worked together in the early 1980s, the Petitioner was frequently absent from work, frequently wandered away from his work station, and frequently could not be found when needed. Later, in the late 1980s and early 1990, the hiring supervisor had several occasions to inquire as to the reason for delays and was told that there was a bottleneck in the receiving/inspection department because the Petitioner was absent from work again. The Petitioner's absences made it difficult for those depending on the Petitioner's work to meet production deadlines. To attempt to deal with the Petitioner's absences, the company tried to get the employee in the position in the shifts before and after the Petitioner's shift to work overtime. After talking to the hiring supervisor, the HR Rep reported to her supervisor, who helped her research the Petitioner's personnel file to determine if there was "reasonable justification" for the hiring supervisor's rejection of the Petitioner on the basis given to the HR Rep. They learned from the Petitioner's personnel records that, on or about May 17, 1990, the Petitioner's supervisor counseled him that his attendance had to improve. In June, 1990, the Petitioner's performance appraisal reflected the attendance problems. It indicated some improvement but stated that further improvement was necessary for the Petitioner's attendance record to be within company norms. The appraisal also indicated that the Petitioner's performance no longer was improving, as the prior year's appraisal indicated it had been. It is not clear from the evidence whether the HR Rep and her supervisor also reviewed the Petitioner's attendance records. If they had, they would have also seen that the Petitioner was absent from work a total of 220 hours in 1989, not including 64 hours during plant shutdowns. From January to May, 1990, the Petitioner was absent a total of 46 hours, in addition to 124 hours of vacation leave without prior notice. After Sumner declined to hire the Petitioner, the HR Rep did not ask other hiring supervisors to consider the Petitioner for openings before considering external candidates. She did not tell the Petitioner that he had been rejected for the opening on or about July 12, 1991, or that his recall rights effectively had been terminated (in that she no longer was asking hiring supervisors to consider the Petitioner for openings before considering external candidates.) Nonetheless, the Petitioner was not surprised not to be recalled because he knew that employees who are laid off with recall rights are rarely recalled. The Petitioner acknowledges that he cannot prove, by direct evidence, that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of a handicap or perceived handicap. Instead, the Petitioner argues that it should be inferred from the evidence that the Respondent, first, laid off the Petitioner instead of maintaining him on medical leave of absence and, second, did not recall him, in furtherance of plan to terminate his employment because of his handicap or perceived handicap. The inference the Petitioner seeks to have drawn was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First, as for the decision to lay the Petitioner off, there is no persuasive evidence that it would have been significantly more difficult ultimately to terminate the Petitioner's employment if the Petitioner had been maintained for the time being on medical leave of absence. Second, as to the decision not to recall the Petitioner, it was not proven that the Respondent did not recall the Petitioner for any reason other than the one articulated by the Respondent--namely, hiring supervisor Sumner rejected him for the reasons he gave. The Respondent is an equal opportunity employer and takes affirmative, proactive steps to recruit, hire and retain minorities and handicapped persons. It has completed required affirmative action plans, does adverse impact analyses on a semiannual basis, and advertises and recruits from agencies that deal with disabled persons. While the Respondent did not hire the Petitioner back after his extended medical leave of absence, it has hired others back after medical leaves of absence of 90 days or more. One employee was hired back after heart catheterization and coronary bypass surgery. Another was hired back after rupturing a disc and having back surgery. Both were returned to work with restrictions, after seeing the same consulting physician the Petitioner saw. Their medical conditions were at least as susceptible of being perceived as being handicaps as the Petitioner's. In both of those cases, the employee was able to be returned to the positions from which they had to take leave; they did not have to be laid off. Conversely, other employees who had not been on medical leave of absence but were laid off with recall rights in connection with a reduction in work force also have not been recalled. Three such employees who were laid off during the August, 1990, reduction in force were not even recommended to hiring supervisors for suitable positions that came open during the period of time in which their recall rights were effective, even though they were technically more qualified for the positions, based on their higher job grade levels, than the people ultimately hired for the jobs. The reason they were not recalled was that they had been laid off because their job performance ranked them at the bottom of the "totem pole" of employees subject to possible layoff in the reduction in force. The Petitioner survived the August, 1990, reduction in force because, based on need, no reduction was made in the receiving/inspection department. If there had been, the Petitioner would have been the first to be laid off due his rank at the bottom of the "totem pole" for the test technician positions in his department. The failure to notify the Petitioner that he had been considered by a hiring supervisor, in accordance with his recall rights, and had been rejected, or that his recall rights effectively were terminated, arguably may have been against company policy, may have been bad employee relations, or may have been simply rude and inconsiderate. But none of those possibilities would constitute, nor do they prove, discrimination on the basis of handicap or perceived handicap.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1224 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Penultimate sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Third sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. As to second sentence, not necessarily all such employees see Myint on returning. It depends on the staff nurse's judgment as to the necessity. Third sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 17. Rejected as not proven that the policy itself "entitled" the Petitioner; rather, it was the Respondent's favorable interpretation of the policy. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 18.-19. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20. As to the last sentence, Sumner gave some specifics at the time, but not many, as reflected in the Findings of Fact. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21.-23. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, as to 22, at least the last time, everyone under Gonzalez got a "merit" increase, and the Petitioner got the smallest raise because his job performance ranked him the lowest on the "totem pole.") 24. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. The rest is rejected as subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 25.-27. In part accepted, but in part rejected. Rejected as not proven that the Petitioner was not considered for the July 12, 1991, opening. Sumner did consider the Petitioner and rejected him. The consideration given to the Petitioner, and the justification for the rejection known to Sumner and Wilson, may or may not have been "reasonable." But, if not "reasonable," their actions did not prove discrimination on the basis of handicap or perceived handicap. Rejected as not proven that Wilson "considered Richardson a potential problem employee because of his long illness." Rejected as not proven that the Respondent ever considered the Petitioner "unqualified." Rejected as not proven that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of handicap or perceived handicap. Rejected in part as argument. Otherwise, generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 28.-32. Accepted but generally subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 8. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that his "performance" declined. Rather, the appraisal would indicate that the rate of improvement in his performance had declined. 9.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21.-23. Generally, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (The information imparted by the doctor was somewhat ambiguous.) 24.-31. Generally, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. The consideration given to the Petitioner, and the justification for the rejection known to Sumner and Wilson, may or may not have been "reasonable." And the Respondent's failure to notify the Petitioner that he had been considered by a hiring supervisor, in accordance with his recall rights, and had been rejected, or that his recall rights effectively were terminated, arguably may have been against company policy, may have been bad employee relations, or may have been simply rude and inconsiderate. But, as found, those actions did not prove discrimination on the basis of handicap or perceived handicap. 32.-34. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald W. Fraley, Esquire Fraley & Fraley, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1225 Tampa, Florida 33602 Grant D. Peterson, Esquire Haynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson & Harper 1408 North Westshore Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4149
Findings Of Fact At the time of his separation, Charles Cutler had been employed by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security for approximately eight years, and had achieved permanent status in the Career Service. He was hired as a disabled veteran under a disabled veteran outreach program and worked as an employment interviewer at the Miami Downtown Civic Center office of the Division of Labor, Employment and Training. (Testimony of Charles Cutler, Testimony of Jean Wilson, Petitioner's Exhibit #1). During the months of May, June, July and August 1985, Mr. Cutler's attendance at work was highly sporadic during May, he logged 8 hours of annual leave, 8.5 hours of regular sick leave, 48.5 hours of leave without pay and 16 hours of "other" leave; during June he logged 87.3 hours of leave without pay; during July he logged 19 hours of regular sick leave and 103 hours of leave without pay; during August he didn't work at all. By letter dated August 16, 1985, signed by Ronald Villella, Director of the Division of Labor, Employment and Training, Charles Cutler was notified that he had abandoned his position effective the close of business on August 9, 1985. (Respondent's Exhibit #1; Petitioner's Exhibit #2). Kay Hilton was Mr. Cutler's supervisor at the time of his separation. She knew when he was absent and present and was responsible for receiving his leave requests. She furnished information on absences to the main office. At the hearing she verified the accuracy of the Monthly Absence Reports (Respondent's Exhibit #2) described in paragraph 2, above. Mr. Cutler was hospitalized with bleeding ulcers the evening of May 31, 1985. Surgery was performed on June 4th and he was discharged under doctor's care on June 7, 1985. Several months prior to the hospitalization, Mr. Cutler and Ms. Hilton discussed his medical condition and need for surgery. She felt that it was up to him to decide when to have it done. Mr. Cutler was absent from work the first two weeks in June. About every third day someone would call in to say that he was sick, but it was not until later that someone heard he had surgery. When he returned to work on the 17th of June he was asked for documentation of his illness. He took off work on June 19th to get the documentation. (Testimony of Kay Hilton, Respondent's Exhibit #1, Medical report). On July 2nd, Mr. Cutler did not return to work after lunch. He was charged with the two hours remaining in his regular work-day (2:00-4:00 p.m.), and the monthly absence report reflects those hours as sick leave. He also did not work on July 3rd, or Monday the 8th. The 4th and 5th were holidays. he did not call in sick but said when he returned that he had suffered stomach pains. Those days were also credited to sick leave. Mr. Cutler's last day at work was July 12, 1985. On Monday, the 15th, a lady called to say that he was sick, and on July 18th another worker in the office took a Call that he was sick. Ms. Hilton never received any requests for leave after that date. (Testimony of Kay Hilton, Respondent's Exhibit #2). Mr. Cutler was back in the hospital on July 15 and 16 with an infection from the earlier surgery. He was put ". . .under strict orders for limited activities for two weeks, ending 8/6/85. [sic]" (Medical report, testimony of Charles Cutler). Donald Vetromile is the Office Manager of the Job. Service Office, Division of Labor, Employment and Training at the Miami Downtown Civic Center. He supervises the office through subordinate supervisors. Kay Hilton is a supervisor of one of his units and he is, therefore, a second level supervisor of Charles Cutler. On August 5, 1985, Charles Cutler called him around 8:30 a.m. to ask about his position and he responded, "I don't know, we haven't heard from you. Bring in the medical documents and we will go from there." Cutler told him he would bring them the next day. He didn't. Mr. Vetromile talked to the Regional Manager, Darryl Rutz on August 9th and was told to prepare the paperwork for termination. He talked with Mr. Cutler by phone on August 12th or 13th and told him the matter was turned over to Darryl Rutz. Donald Vetromile keeps a log of his phone calls. He testified both in the Respondent's case in chief and as a rebuttal witness that he did not tell Charles Cutler on August 5th that he was being terminated. (Testimony of Donald Vetromile). Charles Cutler's account of the conversation on August 5th is substantially different. He claims that Vetromile told him the termination had been processed and he would have to discuss the matter with Darryl Rutz. He claims he called Mr. Rutz' office and was told he was out of town. Mr. Cutler also claims that the medical report was delivered to Vetromile's secretary by his (Cutler's) wife on August 6th. He admits that he did not appear for work on August 7, 8 or 9th, but claims that this was based on his belief that he was already fired. (Testimony of Charles Cutler). Darryl Rutz confirmed that he had not commenced termination of Charles Cutler as of August 5th. He was in town but on jury duty on August 5th. He was in the office from August 6 through 9, and was in Tallahassee on August 12 and 13th. (Testimony of Darryl Rutz). Charles Cutler was aware of the abandonment of position provision of the Career Service rules and signed a statement to that effect on Pebruary 11, 1985. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Mr. Cutler's account of the August 5th conversation with Donald Vetromile and attempt to contact Darryl Rutz, conforms to the substantiating evidence for the following Monday's conversation (on August 12th) when he was told that he was being terminated and Darryl Rutz was out of town. His account of the events of the week of August 5 through 9 is simply not credible. He produced no witnesses to substantiate his claims, even though the person who allegedly delivered the medical report was his wife. Moreover, the date of 8/9/85, which appears in the lower left corner of the second page of his medical report, is inconsistent with his statement that the report was given to Vetromile's secretary on August 6th. Without some substantiating evidence, or at least some basis for a reasonable belief that he was already terminated on August 5th, the Petitioner's sole excuse for failing to appear for work the week of August 5 through 9, is insufficient. The medical report established that his period of limited activity ended on August 6th.
Recommendation That the Department of Administration enter a final order finding that Charles Cutler abandoned his position with the Division of Labor, Employment and Training and therefore, has resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Montgomery Bldg., Suite 131 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles Cutler 654 N. W. 10th Street Miami, Florida 33136 GiIda Lambert, Secretarv Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallaha~see, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Pact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Rejected as contrary to the substantial weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Rejected. The testimony of this witness was corroborated by other testimony and was found credible. Rejected. The testimony of this witness was found credible. As stated in the Background and Procedural Matters in the Recommended Order, the Medical Record was considered but the letter was not. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted as to Petitioner in paragraph 10. The finding as to all employees is irrelevant. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11.
