Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about January 28, 1977, at approximately 2:00 P.M., respondent Spencer, Clarence Jones, and John Aaron were all on duty as employees of the petitioner. The three men were dressed in City work clothes and were riding in a small truck with a City of Clearwater emblem on the side. John Aaron was driving the truck. As the City truck approached the intersection of Jones Street and Garden Avenue in Clearwater at a speed of about 5 miles per hour, it came upon three teenage pedestrians -- two girls and a boy -- walking on the left side of the rode. Driver Aaron said "Hey, now" or "Hey baby" to one or both of the girls. One of the girls said something offensive in reply. At that point, respondent Spencer asked Aaron to stop the truck. After two or three such requests, Aaron stopped the truck and respondent Spencer got out. By this time, the three teenagers had begun to walk away from the truck into a vacant field. Respondent Spencer walked up to the teenagers and one of the girls called him a "nigger" and continued to walk away. Spencer testified that the same girl swung at him with her fist. Neither Aaron nor Jones saw the girl make any threatening gestures toward respondent. After respondent was called a "nigger," he removed his belt and hit the girl twice with the belt as she was walking away. Respondent then returned to the City truck and the three employees drove off. By a "termination and dismissal notice," respondent was advised that he was dismissed as an employee of the City of Clearwater for his activities occurring on January 28, 1977. As causes and reasons therefor, petitioner listed three violations of Rule 14 of the Civil Service Rules of Clearwater. (Exhibit 4) Respondent timely filed his answer and explanation to the charges, petitioner did not accept the same and respondent therefore requested a hearing pursuant to City Ordinance Number 1643, S2-38. Pursuant to a contract between the City of Clearwater and the Division of Administrative Hearings, the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the hearing. By an Agreement between the parties dated June 7, 1977, the parties recognized the recent ruling of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County (Civil Case No. 77-1023-7) which held invalid the referendum election amending the City's Civil Service System. Expressing doubt as to Whether the hearing should be held before the Civil Service Board or before a Hearing Officer appointed by said Board, the parties mutually agreed to waive any and all rights to a hearing before the Board, and to abide by the judgment rendered by the Board pursuant to the findings of the Hearing Officer pursuant to Ordinance Numbers 1643 and 1649, subject to the judicial review procedures established by law. (Exhibit 1)
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the respondent's dismissal by the City of Clearwater be upheld and AFFIRMED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank X. Kowalski, Esquire Chief Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Ronald E. Smith, Esquire 308 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Studebaker's Restaurant (Respondent), owns a 50's theme bar in Clearwater which offers entertainment and dancing and serves alcoholic beverages and food. Studebaker's has a nationwide policy, also followed at the Clearwater establishment, of restricting admittance to persons aged 23 and older. In the same building housing the Clearwater Studebaker's, Respondent also owns and operates a theme bar called the Palm Beach Club which is under common management and which is operated like Studebaker's except that the theme and music is contemporary and anyone who has attained the legal drinking age is allowed admittance. Petitioner, Ronald M. McElrath, is the coordinator for the Community Relations Board established under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. He is approximately 38 years of age. In May or June 1985, McElrath witnessed an employee of the Clearwater Studebaker's refusing admission to a female on the basis that she was not at least 23 years of age. Investigating further, McElrath verified through the manager of the Clearwater Studebaker's that Respondent did have a policy restricting admission to the Clearwater Studebaker's to persons at least 23 years of age. Based on McElrath's knowledge and information, McElrath and the Community Relations Board attempted to conciliate with Respondent the alleged conflict between Respondent's age policy at the Clearwater Studebaker's and Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. By November 13, 1985, McElrath and the Community Relations Board concluded that their attempts at conciliation would not be successful, and the Community Relations Board filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent. That charge of discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-3513. On or about February 11, 1986, Case No. 85-3513 was dismissed and the file closed based upon the Community Relations Board's report that it was withdrawing its petition in the case and that an individual other than the Community Relations Board would file a separate petition as Charging Party. Actually, on or about January 9, 1986, McElrath, in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board, had filed a Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination against Respondent on the same alleged facts that formed the basis of Case No. 85-3513. McElrath's Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about February 4, 1986, resulting in this case. McElrath has never attempted to file any other complaint under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board. Because no further investigation was necessary and no further attempts to conciliate were reasonably likely to succeed, McElrath made no further investigation and made no further attempts to conciliate with Respondent after filing the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination. Before filing of the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination in this case, McElrath did not make a formal probable cause determination and did not serve notice of determination of probable cause on the Respondent. Respondent and its management has a commendable and appropriately implemented policy of being a responsible seller of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. However, contrary to Respondent's assertions in this case, the policy of allowing only persons 23 years of age and older in the Clearwater Studebaker's is not significantly motivated by a desire to reduce alcohol-related traffic accidents. The primary motivation for the age limit is to establish and maintain an economically successful theme bar. Any contribution towards reducing alcohol related traffic accidents is an after thought rationalization. This was proven by Respondent's willingness to divert patrons younger than 23 next door to its Palm Beach Club where Respondent willingly serves them alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the discipline imposed on Respondent, John Enrico (“Enrico”), by Petitioner, City of Cape Coral (the “City”), was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral testimony and other evidence presented at final hearing, the following findings of fact were made: The City has the authority to monitor and regulate its employees in accordance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida, the City Charter, and ordinances and rules promulgated thereto. Enrico is employed by the City as an instrumentation supervisor in the Water Reclamation Division of the City’s Utilities Department. He has been employed for an indeterminate number of years, but is a “director level” employee.1/ The City suspended Enrico for one week without pay pursuant to the City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances, Article III, Division 7, entitled Discipline of Regular Employees. (Pertinent sections of the Code of Ordinances are set forth in the Conclusions of Law, below.) The alleged violation was primarily based on an email Enrico sent on June 7, 2012. The June 7 email was sent to Jeff Pearson and copied to Brian Fenske. The June 7 email states in its substantive body: Jeff and Brian, As a courtesy, I am affording both of you a small glimpse into a potential future. If you decide to discipline me regarding my communications outside of this department, please find below what is just the beginning of the resistance you will meet in public forums and otherwise. As a friend, not as a contemporary [sic], I strongly advise you both not to pursue your current course of action, as it would be embarrassing and detrimental to the cities [sic] interests. Please feel free to call me and discuss the matter. Distinct Regards, There was other information attached to the June 7 email, including some narrative by Enrico concerning his rationale for sending an earlier email, excerpts from OSHA regulations and the City Code, and other legal information about quasi-judicial matters, freedom of speech, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is not clear whether the additional information was supposed to be support for Enrico’s actions, or a description of the “resistance” the email recipients could expect to meet in the future if they decided to discipline Enrico. In order to better understand the June 7 email, some discussion of the background leading up to the email is necessary. Early in calendar year 2012, the City began looking at a product called Multitrode. The product was to be used within the City’s sewage system to, inter alia, control, monitor, or report data regarding usage. The system would have an impact on the equipment and services overseen by Enrico. Enrico was directed by Fenske to install the program via email dated May 18, 2012. Enrico was apparently leaving for a two-week vacation just hours after he received the email. He attempted unsuccessfully to contact his superiors to express some concerns he had about how the Multitrode was going to be implemented. Enrico felt that the system had some potential to do harm to the water reclamation system if installed or used incorrectly. He was not able to reach his superiors. Failing to reach his superiors, Enrico sent an email dated May 23, 2012, to Jody Sorrels, a civil engineer employed by the City.2/ The email was copied to Jeff Pearson, Brian Fenske, Dennis Morgan, Oliver Clark, Michael Hines, and Margaret Krym (the City Manager). Except for Krym, all of the recipients of the email were within Enrico’s chain of command in his area of employment. Krym was intentionally copied on the email by Enrico because he wanted someone outside his chain of command to know about his concerns. The Utilities Department did not report directly to the City Manager. Enrico had been disciplined previously for violating the chain of command protocols. The May 23 email contained Enrico’s reasons for why he did not think the Multitrode should be implemented. He did not believe the program was appropriate or the best use of the City’s money. He was concerned that if implemented improperly, it might even cause significant problems for the wastewater system. The email suggests that it is in response to an earlier telephone conversation between Enrico and Sorrels. Enrico’s supervisors were concerned that Enrico had intentionally chosen to copy the City Manager on the May 23 email. Inasmuch as Krym was not within Enrico’s chain of command and had no direct connection to the utilities department, the supervisors felt like Enrico was again attempting to circumvent protocol and create dissension within the City. As a result, the supervisors began to discuss what sort of discipline should be imposed against Enrico for sending the May 23 email. After various discussions between Enrico and his supervisors, cooler heads prevailed. A meeting was held on June 19, 2012, wherein Enrico retreated from his stance and acknowledged the impropriety of sending an email to the City Manager concerning issues outside her area of concern. During his testimony at final hearing, Enrico denied that he had acknowledged it was wrong to copy Krym on the email. The most persuasive evidence is that he did acknowledge his error. At the conclusion of the June 19 meeting, the participants shook hands and it was decided that no discipline would be imposed against Enrico. Enrico’s acknowledgement of his error was a key reason for his superiors’ decision not to impose discipline. However, before the June 19 meeting, Enrico issued the June 7 email. That email followed a June 6, 2012, email, wherein Enrico notified Jeff Pearson that he needed to talk to Pearson concerning the Multitrode program. The June 6 email ended with Enrico stating, “I need a response (phone call) from you by 9AM EST today to discuss the matter, or I may be forced to escalate the issue appropriately.” The June 7 email appears to be the escalation he warned Pearson about. The June 6 email references “Mr. Sorrels [sic] unwarranted and unprofessional email response.” Sorrels had sent an email to Enrico concerning Enrico’s May 23 email. Sorrels’ email included the statement, “I have neither the time nor inclination to entertain an email chain concerning your [Enrico’s] metathesiophobia or ideophobia.” Metathesiophobia is the fear of moving or making changes. The origin of the word meta is Greek (meaning to change), thes is Latin (meaning setting) and phobia is Greek (meaning fear). Ideophobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by the irrational fear or distrust of ideas or reason. Enrico denied being afflicted with either condition. On June 5, 2012, Enrico had responded to Sorrels, copying Pearson and Fenske on an email accusing Sorrels of libel and defamation. Enrico’s email said that Sorrels’ failure to verbally apologize and write a retraction of his statements by June 8 would result in Enrico referring the matter to the city attorney and his own attorneys to seek unspecified damages. This exchange was followed by the aforementioned June 6 and June 7 emails. The June 7 email was apparently the last straw for Enrico’s supervisors and they decided to impose discipline against him. After discussions with the human resources department and city attorney, the city manager approved a one-week suspension without pay as the appropriate sanction. Enrico denies the June 7 email was intended as a threat, but that is how it was perceived by his superiors. The language in the email about the “beginning of the resistance you will meet,” and telling his superiors that “I strongly advise you not to pursue your current course of action” are both, however, certainly threatening in nature. Though, Enrico said that he did not threaten physical harm, thus there was no threat at all, his testimony is not persuasive. In defense of his actions, Enrico claims the City violated his free speech rights under the United States Constitution, his fair labor practices rights under the State Fair Labor Law, and his rights under the Florida Whistleblower’s Act, among other things. None of those defenses are germane to the issue in this proceeding, nor does DOAH have jurisdiction over those laws. It is clear Enrico knows his area of employment and may have some legitimate concerns about the Multitrode system that was implemented. He may have personal feelings about the fiscal propriety of the City’s use of the Multitrode system. Enrico may not particularly like his superiors. However, those feelings do not justify the use of threats.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Scott Rhodes, should be terminated from employment with Petitioner, City of Clearwater (City), for violating City policies as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice dated February 16, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction The City is a government employer governed by a City Council. A City Manager oversees the City’s operations. Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater (City Code), the Clearwater Civil Service Board has adopted policies and rules regulating all aspects of the civil service employee positions within the City.1/ Mr. Rhodes began his employment with the City as a Solid Waste worker on September 6, 2004. He worked in the same position until his termination effective February 20, 2018. Approximately 85 percent of the current Solid Waste staff is African-American. Mr. Rhodes describes himself as “white” and “not black.” At all times relevant, Mr. Rhodes’ supervisor was Joseph Farrar, who is Caucasian. Mr. Farrar’s ultimate supervisor is Earl Gloster, an African-American. Mr. Gloster is the department head of Solid Waste and reports directly to the City Manager. Mr. Rhodes’ Disciplinary History Prior to his termination, Mr. Rhodes had been involved in a number of incidents with co-workers requiring counseling or discipline. In late November 2011 and early 2012, Mr. Rhodes reported he was being harassed by a co-worker in Solid Waste, Feth Benbelgacem. His complaint was investigated by the City’s HR Department and a report was issued. Although the City found Mr. Benbelgacem had violated the City’s Workplace Violence Policy, the report concluded: No one was able to corroborate the specific claim that Mr. Rhodes made that Mr. Benbelgacem [threatened him]. A number of those interviewed feel that Mr. Rhodes has animosity because Mr. Benbelgacem is permitted to operate the equipment which causes Mr. Rhodes to “nitpick” Mr. Benbelgacem’s work performance, thereby instigating their interaction. This behavior on the part of Mr. Rhodes has been reported to the supervisors and although Mr. Rhodes has been directed to cease the behavior and worry about himself, the behavior allegedly continues. * * * Although Mr. Rhodes has been instructed by his supervisors to stop delegating and criticizing tasks relating to Mr. Benbelgacem, the behavior seems to continue and should it not stop, the supervisor should address it through the Performance and Behavior Process. In November 2016, Mr. Farrar issued Respondent a coaching and counseling form for “violence in the workplace” based on a verbal altercation Mr. Rhodes had with an African-American co-worker. The form signed by Mr. Rhodes states: Outcome of Meeting: Mr. Rhodes understands that verbal misconduct is as serious as physical conduct. Verbal attacks can lead to physical confrontations just as this situation did. In the future, verbal attacks on a co-worker’s family or loved ones will not be tolerated. At some point after the November 2016 counseling, when someone did something he did not like, Mr. Rhodes would either tell that person that he was going to give that person a specific number of lashes or he would direct a co-worker to distribute a specific number of lashes to that person. Mr. Rhodes also told his co-workers to “kiss the ring,” implying they were subservient to him. Mr. Rhodes would talk about certain co-workers being on his “hit list.” When asked who was on his “hit list,” Mr. Rhodes named the same African-American co-worker involved in the November 2016 incident. In early 2017, Mr. Farrar overheard Mr. Rhodes saying he would give certain co-workers lashes. Mr. Farrar believed these comments were inappropriate and could have been interpreted as racially offensive. He also overheard Mr. Rhodes talking about his “list.” As a result, Mr. Farrar met with Mr. Rhodes and instructed him to stop making such remarks. Although Mr. Farrar did not specifically tell Mr. Rhodes these comments violated any specific policy, he did tell Mr. Rhodes “that he needed to watch what he was saying around newer people because they might not know how to take it the way people that had been around him do.” At the final hearing, Mr. Rhodes admitted he told other employees he would give them lashes, they were on his hit list, and they should kiss the ring, but claimed he was joking. In April 2017, Mr. Farrar placed Mr. Rhodes on a “Development Plan” after repeatedly being warned by Mr. Farrar about failing to properly clock in and out, and accruing unauthorized overtime. The Development Plan was to remain in effect from April 28 to October 28, 2017, and required Mr. Rhodes to meet personally with Mr. Farrar on “Payday” Fridays and comply with the City’s timeclock regulations. Mr. Rhodes defied orders to meet with Mr. Farrar and otherwise failed to adhere to the Development Plan. As a result, Mr. Rhodes received a one-day suspension (referred to as a “decision-making leave day”) and was referred to the Employee Assistance Program. The Development Plan was also revised and extended to remain in effect until March 2018. Meanwhile, Mr. Rhodes continued to make the same type of inappropriate remarks referring to “lashes” and the “hit list.” In October or November 2017, Mr. Farrar had a second meeting with Mr. Rhodes and again instructed him to stop making these types of remarks. The Terminating Incident On January 17, 2018, Mr. Farrar received a complaint from Allan Craig, an African-American Solid Waste worker, that Mr. Rhodes claimed he was the “emperor of all black people.” According to Mr. Farrar, Mr. Craig reported the incident just after it was made and was visibly shocked. Mr. Farrar referred the incident to the City’s Office of Diversity and Equity Services (“ODES”), a division within the HR department tasked with handling and investigating complaints of the City’s anti-discrimination policies, as well as potential employee violations of state and federal employment laws. Mr. Craig testified that on the day in question, Mr. Rhodes did not like something an African-American co-worker said. In turn, Mr. Rhodes told Mr. Craig to give this co-worker “50 lashes,” which Mr. Craig understood to be a whipping. Mr. Craig, said, “no, we [have] to stick together.” It is unclear to whom Mr. Craig is referring when he said “we”--“Solid Waste workers” or “African-Americans.” Regardless, in response, Mr. Rhodes made the statement, “I’m the emperor of black people.” Mr. Craig did not respond, but instead immediately left the worksite to report the comment to Mr. Farrar. Although Mr. Rhodes corroborates Mr. Craig’s version of events, he disputes saying “I’m the emperor of black people.” Instead he claims he told Mr. Craig “I am the emperor of Solid Waste”; and after Mr. Craig said, “no, we [have] to stick together,” Mr. Rhodes replied, “Allan, even black people have to answer to somebody.” Mr. Rhodes saying, “I’m the emperor of black people” is more believable than him saying “Allan, even black people have to answer to somebody.” The undersigned rejects Mr. Rhodes’ version of events for a number of reasons.2/ First, Mr. Rhodes statements do not seem to flow naturally. Second, Mr. Craig’s demeanor was more credible, and his version of the facts leading up to the “emperor” statement was consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses. Moreover, Mr. Deris, the ODES investigator, testified that Mr. Rhodes admitted to making the statement, “I am the emperor of black people” when questioned during the investigation. Mr. Gloster testified that during the pre-termination meeting he had with Mr. Rhodes, “I asked him specifically as to the comment that was made . . . that he was the emperor over all black people, and he said, yes, that he said it.” Even assuming Mr. Rhodes’ version is correct, it is equally offensive; it still implies African-Americans at Solid Waste need to answer to him. Based on the competent and credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Mr. Rhodes made the statement, “I am the emperor of black people,” and this statement was reasonably offensive to Mr. Craig. Grounds for Dismissal Based on the ODES investigation and after meeting with Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Gloster made the decision to terminate Petitioner. Thereafter, the City issued the Dismissal Notice citing numerous violations of City policy and regulations: City Policy 3201.2, Equal Employment Opportunity Policies (EEO); City Policy 3704.1, Workplace Violence Prevention Policy; and Relevant portions of the City’s Performance and Behavior Management Program Manual (PBMP), which set standards for City workers in the areas of personal responsibility, excellence, and integrity. Chapter 13, section 3, of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations outlines the grounds for discipline, including terminations. That section provides in pertinent part: Reasons for Suspension, Demotion, and Dismissal--Whenever practical, employees will be given reasonable opportunity to bring their performance and/or behavior up to acceptable standards pursuant to the procedures and rules of the City’s performance and behavior management programs. However, employees may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate dismissal for the following acts, including but not limited to specifically cited examples: * * * (e) Commitment of a flagrant offense, including harassment or discrimination or abusive conduct or language toward coworkers, City officers, or the public. * * * (l) Failure to conform to the dictates of corrective action, including but not limited to failure or inability to comply with an agreed-upon “development plan,” or when the City believes that an employee is willful in refusing to adhere to establish rules, regulations, or guidelines. (emphasis added). Violation of EEO Policy The City’s EEO policy states in relevant part: It is the policy of the City of Clearwater that no person shall be unlawfully discriminated against with regard to recruitment, selection, appointment, training, promotion, retention, discipline or other aspects of employment because of any consideration of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or gender (including conditions of pregnancy and sexual harassment), or genetic or family medical history information as defined by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Mr. Rhodes’ “lashes” comments could reasonably be interpreted as a reference to slavery, and be racially offensive to African-American (and other) employees. As such, Mr. Rhodes continued references to “lashes,” even after being warned, violated the City’s EEO policy. Mr. Rhodes statement that he, a white person, was the “emperor of black people” clearly violates the City’s EEO policy. Violation of the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy The City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy states in relevant part: Policy: The City of Clearwater will not tolerate violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior in our workplace [.] All reports of incidents will be taken seriously and will be dealt with appropriately. Individuals who commit such acts may be removed from the premises and may be subject to disciplinary action, criminal penalties, or both. Definitions: Workplace violence is any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the workplace. Such behavior can include oral or written statements, gestures, or expressions that communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical harm. Although there was no evidence anyone believed Mr. Rhodes’ “lashes” or “hit-list” statements were real threats of violence, these statements could be considered a form of intimidation, disruptive behavior, and verbal abuse under the policy. These comments, however, when taken in the context of Respondent’s history of verbal altercations with co-workers, and coupled with the fact he was told that these statements may be misinterpreted, constitute violations of the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy. Violation of the City’s Employee Standards The PBMP contains the following relevant standards and instructions: INTEGRITY STANDARDS The following standards represent Integrity issues of such a serious nature that immediate formal discipline, up to and including termination, may be recommended. Violation of the City Workplace Violence Policy. Violation of the City Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy. * * * EXCELLENCE STANDARDS We will present a professional image through actions, dress, speech and behavior. We will strive for excellence and continuously learn and make improvements. We will learn from mistakes, modify behavior and recommend procedural changes to improve operations and processes. Again, Mr. Rhodes’ statements described above when considered cumulatively and in context clearly violate the standards for employee integrity. Mr. Rhodes’ continued use of these comments, even after being repeatedly counseled, violates the standards for professional image through actions and speech; continuously learning and improving; and modifying behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board make a determination that the charges in the Dismissal Notice are sustained, and that Respondent be terminated as a City employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 6th day of September, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully dismissed from his employment with the City of Clearwater.
Findings Of Fact On December 5, 1990, Truman Gooden was employed by the City of Clearwater as a truck driver and was assigned to pick up trash at Sand Key in Pinellas County. While driving the truck assigned to him on the beach below the high water line, the truck started to slide in loose sand, Gooden attempted to back and turn the truck away from the water, but was unsuccessful, and the truck slid into the water with the engine running. By the time Gooden extricated himself from the vehicle, the entire hood was under water (Exhibit X), the cab was full of water, and the engine was ruined. The total damage to the truck was approximately $22,000. Gooden reported the incident to his superior, and the vehicle was subsequently removed from the water by two tow trucks. Gooden testified that he had driven the truck in the same manner for several years performing the same tasks and had never encountered such a problem before. The tide was extremely low on December 5, 1990, and Gooden was driving the truck on the sand further seaward from the high water mark than normal. To perform the task, it was unnecessary for Gooden to drive very far seaward of the high water line, and Gooden's negligence in this regard was the proximate cause of the truck sliding into the water and becoming ruined. For this negligence, Gooden was assigned 20 disciplinary points. During the preceding two years prior to this incident, Gooden had received the following disciplinary actions for the following offenses: March 10, 1989 - counseling session: quitting work, wasting time March 23, 1989 - written warning: tardiness March 28, 1989 - 3 days suspension: unauthorized/ unexplained absenteeism April 4, 1989 - letter of reprimand: carelessness, vehicle accident June 20, 1989 - 4 days suspension: productivity not up to standards June 22, 1989 - less than satisfactory annual performance rating June 27, 1989 - letter notifying Gooden of accumulation of 60 points July 14, 1989 - letter of reprimand: vehicle accident Sept. 22, 1989 - less than satisfactory 3 month follow-up rating Nov. 13, 1989 - 6 days suspension: operating city vehicle without a license; failure to report lack of valid license April 16, 1990 - written warning: tardiness June 22, 1990 - less than satisfactory annual performance rating Aug. 10, 1990 - letter of reprimand: lack of personal hygiene Dec. 5, 1990 - current incident/recommendation for dismissal 10. At the time of the December 5, 1990 incident, Gooden had accumulated 60 disciplinary points and was given 20 disciplinary points for this incident. By letter dated January 27, 1989, Gooden was advised that he had accumulated 60 points since September 23, 1988, and any further disciplinary action within a 2-year time frame may be grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered sustaining the action of the City Manager in dismissing Truman Gooden from his position as truck driver for the City of Clearwater. ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 3rd day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: TRUMAN GOODEN 1144 ENGMAN STREET CLEARWATER, FL 33615 CYNDI GOUDEAU, CLERK CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FL 34618-4748 MILES A. LANCE, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FL 34618-4748
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of national origin and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Mr. Duverglas is a male and Black and that his national origin is Haitian. No dispute exists that he is a member of the protected class as it relates to discrimination. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the City was an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. Mr. Duverglas began his employment with the City in 1996 as a Park Ranger. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that Mr. Duverglas wore a uniform type of clothing for his position. In 2002, some employees complained, among other things, that the vehicles that Mr. Duverglas drove and in which he rode often were left reeking of urine. On December 17, 2002, a counseling session was held with Mr. Duverglas by his supervisor, Kelton Wayns, regarding, among other things, Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene and cleanliness of vehicles. In 2003, a complaint was received by Mr. Wyans regarding Mr. Duverglas urinating in a drain on the floor in a bathroom, instead of a urinal. Mr. Wyans investigated the complaint, and the investigative report was reviewed by the Park Ranger Supervisor and Foreman, Earnest Jones. Mr. Jones concluded that the allegation could not be substantiated, but he did counsel Mr. Duverglas that, as an employee of the City, he (Mr. Duverglas) must conduct himself professionally, at all times, and that any unsanitary behavior would not be tolerated. Performance evaluations of Mr. Duvergals were conducted. The categories for the rating of the evaluations were unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, above satisfactory, and outstanding. At the review ending date of April 29, 2001, he received a satisfactory rating; and at the review ending dates of October 29, 2001, October 27, 2002, and October 27, 2003, he received an above satisfactory rating. In February 2004, due to workforce reductions, Mr. Duverglas was bumped and reassigned to the Grounds Maintenance Division as an Apprentice Maintenance Worker. In that position, Mr. Duverglas was assigned to a roving-crew of three to four workers who picked-up litter in a quadrant of the City. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that he wore a uniform type of clothing for his position. Also, around November 2004, Mr. Duverglas was hired as a part-time Park Ranger. Any problems, regarding Mr. Duverglas in this position, were directly dealt with by Mr. Jones. On December 9, 2004, Mr. Duverglas, as a maintenance worker, had a problem arriving at work timely. On December 15, 2004, he was given a letter of reprimand by his supervisor, John Neal, for arriving to work late and for failing to call-in regarding his tardiness. Additionally, the reprimand indicated that future occurrences could result in more severe disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. In January 2005, Mr. Neal, advised Mr. Duverglas that he was spending too much time on his (Mr. Duverglas’) cell phone. At that time, Mr. Duverglas informed Mr. Neal that a co- worker, L. C. Orr, had made offensive comments about Haitians. Mr. Neal had no knowledge of Mr. Orr’s alleged comments before being informed of them by Mr. Duverglas. Mr. Orr was aware of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry. However, Mr. Neal was not until he was informed of Mr. Orr’s alleged comments. After that meeting and also in January 2005, Mr. Duvergals made a complaint with the City’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) against Mr. Orr. Mr. Duverglas complained that Mr. Orr had made offensive comments about Haitians and that the offensive comments had contributed to a hostile work environment. After making the complaint with OPS, Mr. Duverglas was counseled by Mr. Neal regarding his (Mr. Duverglas’) poor work performance. At that time, Mr. Duverglas informed Mr. Neal that he had made a complaint against Mr. Orr with OPS. Mr. Neal had no knowledge of the OPS complaint before being informed of it by Mr. Duvergals. Mr. Duvergals also complained to OPS that Mr. Neal had retaliated against him when Mr. Neal met with him to counsel him about his performance deficiencies after his (Mr. Duverglas’) OPS complaint. Mr. Duverglas informed Mr. Neal, during the meeting, that he (Mr. Duverglas) had made a complaint to OPS against Mr. Orr regarding Mr. Orr’s derogatory comments about Haitians. Mr. Neal was not aware of Mr. Duverglas’ complaint against Mr. Orr until Mr. Duverglas informed him (Mr. Neal) of it. OPS investigated the complaint. OPS was unable to question Mr. Orr because he had retired from the City. Following an investigation, OPS determined that the allegations were unfounded and without merit. During his work as a maintenance worker and his part- time work as a Park Ranger, complaints regarding Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene occurred in both positions. Complaints were made regarding his clothing and body having the odor of urine and his trousers being wet in the front, and regarding the odor of urine being left in vehicles and lingering in the Park’s office. Mr. Duverglas was counseled on several occasions regarding these issues and notified that, if the problems continued, stronger action, than counseling, would be taken to address the problems. When Mr. Duverglas was a part-time Park Ranger, only one Park Ranger, Alan Brown, did not complain about Mr. Duverglas smelling of urine, wetting the front of his trousers, or leaving the smell of urine in vehicles. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Jones, Mr. Duverglas’ supervisor as a Park Ranger, was aware of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry. The evidence fails to demonstrate that any of Mr. Jones’ actions were taken because of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry. In March 2005, Mr. Duverglas, as a maintenance worker, was sent by the City for a Fit-For-Duty evaluation, which was a medical evaluation to determine his fitness for duty. On March 22, 2005, a Fit-For-Duty evaluation was performed. The report by the examining physician indicates, among other things, that a prior evaluation was performed on March 11, 2005, and Mr. Duverglas was found fit for duty; that another evaluation was requested due to continued concerns regarding his “cleanliness” at work; that a concern existed as to whether he was suffering from incontinence; that he refused to allow the physician to perform an abdominal and genital exam; that his personal physician wrote a note to the examining physician that Mr. Duverglas did not suffer from incontinence and was fit to return to work with no restrictions; and that, based upon the representations by Mr. Duverglas’ personal physician, the examining physician had no choice but to find Mr. Duverglas fit for duty and clear him to return to work. Mr. Duverglas denied, and continues to deny, that he suffered or suffers from a medical condition, i.e., incontinence. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Duverglas suffered or suffers from incontinence. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Duverglas was fit- for-duty. In April 2005, Teresa “Terry” Reynard, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, who had the responsibility for park maintenance, transferred Mr. Duverglas, in his position as a maintenance worker, from one location to another location, Carter Park. Ms. Reynard’s intent was to accommodate what she perceived to be a problem with Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene by placing him in a park, Carter Park, in which several restrooms were available and accessible. However, the complaints continued at both of Mr. Duverglas’ jobs with the City. Mr. Duverglas’ supervisors counseled him on several occasions regarding his hygiene, the smell of urine, and trousers being wet in the front. At one point, Mr. Duverglas, as a maintenance worker, was notified that he should bring a change of clothing to work in an effort to eliminate the odor and smell of urine. Mr. Duverglas admits that he may have urinated on himself maybe once or twice but nothing extraordinary. Also, complaints were made regarding Mr. Duverglas’ excessive cell phone use, instead of working, inadequately performing his work, and unauthorized breaks. Mr. Duverglas admits that he was disciplined for excessive cell use. Mr. Duverglas admits that, on April 14, 2005, he was issued a reprimand for arriving at work late and that was his second violation in six months. Further, he admits that he was notified that the continuation of such conduct could be a basis for termination. On June 13, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was issued a letter of reprimand by Ms. Reynard for lack of productivity. Furthermore, the letter of reprimand notified Mr. Duverglas that his failure to be productive in his work could result in further disciplinary action including termination. On June 15, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was again issued a letter of reprimand by Ms. Reynard for lack of productivity. The letter of reprimand indicated, among other things, that Mr. Duverglas had violated the following General Employees’ Work Rules: Minor Rule 3 – Failure to observe department work schedules (starting time, quitting time, and meal periods). Minor Rule 6: - Unsatisfactory work performance, inefficiency. Minor Rule 7 – Loafing or other abuse of time during assigned working hours. Major Rule 6 – Leaving City premises during working hours without permission of supervisor. Further, the letter of reprimand notified Mr. Duverglas that, among other things, “future occurrences of the same or similar nature will result in more severe disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.” Mr. Duverglas refused to sign the letter of reprimand, but was provided a copy of it. On June 22, 2005, Ms. Reynard issued Mr. Duverglas an “Informational Letter” regarding his personal hygiene, i.e., urinating in his trousers. The Informational Letter provided, among other things, that, despite prior conversations and counseling, he (Mr. Duverglas) continued to have the personal hygiene problems; that his situation was a serious health risk; that, if he soiled his uniform in the future, he would be asked to change his uniform, and, if he failed to have a change of uniform with him at the time, he would be asked to leave work on his own time and not return until he had changed his uniform; and that, if his problem was caused by a medical condition and he wished to request an accommodation, he should do so. On June 24, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was issued a letter of counseling by Ms. Reynard regarding his (Mr. Duverglas’) personal hygiene. The letter of counseling provided, among other things, that Mr. Duverglas had been spoken to and counseled in the past months regarding his personal hygiene, but that the problem had persisted; and that Ms. Reynard had observed, the day before, that Mr. Duverglas’ trousers were wet. Further, the letter of counseling reminded Mr. Duverglas what he was directed to do if he wet his trousers. Moreover, the letter of counseling provided that future occurrences would result in disciplinary action, including dismissal. Mr. Duverglas contends that he was not protected from a threat of violence made by a co-worker Wilmar “Slim” Alexander. On June 29, 2005, Mr. Alexander threatened physical violence against Mr. Duverglas if Mr. Duverglas approached him (Mr. Alexander) in an aggressive manner. On July 5, 2005, Ms. Reynard issued a letter of reprimand against Mr. Alexander for “an inappropriate remark to a coworker.” Further, the letter of reprimand provided, among other things, that the behavior exemplified by Mr. Alexander would not be tolerated and that future occurrences would result in severe disciplinary action including dismissal. The evidence failed to demonstrate that Mr. Alexander exhibited any further violent behavior towards Mr. Duverglas. The evidence failed to demonstrate that the letter of reprimand was not the appropriate punishment for Mr. Alexander’s behavior. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Alexander exhibited any violent behavior towards Mr. Duvergals prior to Mr. Alexander’s threat. The evidence failed to demonstrate that the City failed to protect Mr. Duverglas from the threat made by Mr. Alexander. On June 30, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was placed on administrative leave with pay pending the City’s investigation that he “may have violated City rules and regulations.” On July 27, 2005, after notice, an informational meeting was held with Mr. Duverglas. Based on the informational meeting, on July 28, 2005, Ms. Reynard issued a written recommendation to Phil Thornburg, Director of the City, regarding Mr. Duverglas. The recommendation provided, among other things, that the persons in attendance at the informational meeting included Ms. Reynard, Mr. Duverglas, and a union representative; that the meeting was held to address several issues including Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene, complaints regarding the smell of urine, his performance deficiencies and general loafing, and the report of his urinating in public; and that Mr. Duverglas denied all allegations. Further, the recommendation determined that Mr. Duverglas’ denials, explanations and responses were “incredible and unworthy of belief” and that he had engaged in severe conduct. Ms. Reynard recommended the termination of Mr. Duverglas. Around May 2005, a self-employed painter, Samuel Mitchell, was performing contract work at Carter Park. Mr. Mitchell observed whom he recognized as Mr. Duverglas leaning against a concrete pole with his (Mr. Duverglas’) trousers around his (Mr. Duverglas’) knees, appearing to be urinating, but Mr. Mitchell did not observe a stream of liquid. The area in which Mr. Duverglas was observed was near a residential area, was an area that the general public frequents, and was an area used by school children. Mr. Mitchell perceived the conduct to be inappropriate. Mr. Mitchell spoke with Mr. Duverglas, and Mr. Duverglas vehemently denied that he was the person whom Mr. Mitchell observed. Mr. Mitchell did not wish to report what he observed to the City, but wanted Mr. Duverglas to change the behavior that he (Mr. Mitchell) observed; however, because of the way Mr. Duverglas reacted to his (Mr. Mitchell’s) talking with him (Mr. Duverglas), Mr. Mitchell reported the incident to the City. Mr. Mitchell testified at hearing, and his testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Duverglas denied that he was the person observed by Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Duverglas’ testimony. Also, at the time of the incident, another person, who was a non-employee of the City, reported the same observation to the City. That person did not testify at hearing. A finding is made that Mr. Duverglas was the person observed by Mr. Mitchell and was the person engaged in the conduct observed by Mr. Mitchell. Further, even though Mr. Mitchell did not observe a stream of liquid, an inference is drawn and a finding is made that, based upon the prior conduct, actions, and behavior of Mr. Duverglas, regarding his personal hygiene and the wetting of the front of his trousers, Mr. Duverglas was urinating. Moreover, a finding is made that the City was reasonable in making a determination that Mr. Duverglas was urinating. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Reynard was aware of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian descent. However, the evidence failed to demonstrate that any of her actions were motivated by Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian descent. Mr. Thornburg had the final authority in disciplinary matters regarding the Parks and Recreation Department. By letter dated August 5, 2005, Mr. Thornburg notified Mr. Duverglas that he (Mr. Duverglas) was being suspended, without pay, for 20 days, effectively immediately, and was being dismissed from the City as an Apprentice Maintenance Worker, effective September 2, 2005. The letter was hand-delivered to Mr. Duverglas. The letter provided, among other things, that the action was being taken for continued deficiencies in performance and conduct, setting forth the deficiencies, which were: Despite prior counseling, a transfer to another facility with better access to bathroom facilities and other accommodations, you continued to disregard your personal hygiene and appearance as a representative of the City by urinating in your trousers in public and disregard of proper safety practices and precautions. Your failure to conform your behavior to civilized standards has been the subject of complaints by your co-workers over having to work in offensive, unsanitary and unhealthy conditions and cannot be tolerated. You continued to demonstrate deficiencies in performance of assigned duties by taking unauthorized breaks, excessive use of your personal cell phone in the field during working hours and general loafing. Employees of two City contractors have witnessed you urinating in a public place although restroom facilities were available. City Ordinance 16-75(a)(5) – Public Indecency. Additionally, the letter set forth General Employees’ Work Rules that Mr. Duverglas violated, which were: Major Rule 1 – Any act which might endanger the safety or lives of other [sic]. Major Rule 2 – Refusal to perform work properly assigned by a supervisor. Major Rule 3 – Willful, deliberate or repeated violation of City safety rules, including instances where there is evidence of willful disregard of proper safety practices and precautions while operating City equipment. Major Rule 7 – Deliberately abusing [sic] destroying, damaging or defacing City property, tools, equipment or the property of others on City premises. Major Rule 21 – Neglect of duty. Major Rule 24 – Conduct, either while on or off duty, which tends to reflect discredit upon the City. Major Rule 25 – Employee harassment, abusive conduct towards an employee or a member of the general public. Major Rule 26 – Violation of City Charter, ordinances, or administrative rules and regulations, specifically City Ordinance 16- 75(a)(5) – Public Indecency. Furthermore, the letter provided that Mr. Duverglas had the opportunity to request a hearing, setting forth the procedure for such a request, and indicated the consequences for his failure to request a hearing. City Ordinance 16-75(a)(5) – Public Indecency provides in pertinent part: Offense. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit public indecency. A person commits public indecency when he performs any of the following acts in a public place: * * * (5) Urinates . . . in other than a toilet or washroom . . . . Definitions. “Public place,” for purposes of this section, means any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others. Penalties. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be deemed guilty of the offense of public decency and upon conviction shall be punished as provided in section 1-6 of this Code. Section 1-6, titled “Penalty for violations,” provides in pertinent part: In this section “violation of this Code” means: Doing an act that is prohibited or made or declared unlawful or an offense by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance . . . . * * * Except as otherwise provided herein, a person convicted of a violation of this Code, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed sixty (60) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. . . . The imposition of a penalty does not prevent revocation or suspension of a license, permit or franchise or the imposition of civil fines, civil penalties or administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions could be imposed for a violation of City Ordinance Section 16-75(5). Mr. Duverglas admits that a violation of City Ordinance Section 16-75(5) is just cause for suspension and dismissal. The ground of public indecency was sufficient, in and of itself, to dismiss Mr. Duverglas from employment. The evidence demonstrated that he committed the act of public indecency as defined in City Ordinance Section 16-75(5). The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Thornburg had any knowledge of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry prior to the disciplinary action. Mr. Duverglas requested a hearing from the City. The hearing was held on September 6, 2005. By letter dated September 7, 2005, the City Manager, George Gretsas, notified Mr. Duverglas that, after a review of all the available and relevant information, including that presented at the hearing, the suspension and dismissal was upheld. A grievance under the union contract was filed. On November 21, 2005, the City’s Employee Relations Director issued a “Fourth Step Response Teamster Grievance,” providing, among other things, that a hearing was held on November 9, 2005, in accordance with the grievance, that no evidence was presented to cause the City to modify its decision, and that, therefore, the grievance was denied. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that an arbitration hearing was held on or about May 18, 2006, regarding Mr. Duverglas’ suspension and dismissal. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, but an inference is drawn and a finding is made that the arbitration decision was not favorable to Mr. Duverglas. On July 24, 2006, Mr. Duverglas filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Broward County Civil Rights Division and the EEOC against the City alleging that the City discriminated against him on the basis of national origin (Haitian) and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. The Broward County Civil Rights Division waived investigation of the charge. The matter was investigated by the FCHR. On January 19, 2007, the FCHR issued a Determination of No Cause and a Notice of Determination of No Cause. Mr. Duverglas timely filed a Petition for Relief with the FCHR against the City.
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 discrimination complaint of Donald Duverglas against the City of Fort Lauderdale. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 November, 2008.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondents have implemented agency statements that meet the definition of a rule, but which have not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Wood, P.E., is a Florida-licensed professional engineer, holding license No. PE 31542. A large part of Petitioner?s work involves the design of aluminum-framed structures. Respondents, DBPR and FBPE, are charged with regulating the practice of professional engineering in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G15. The FEMC is a public-private partnership established by the legislature to provide administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the FBPE. By statute, the FEMC operates under a written contract (Contract) with the DBPR, which Contract is approved by the FBPE. Term of the Contract From the creation of FEMC in 1997 until 2000, the legislature provided that the required written contract was to be “renewed annually.” In 2000, the legislature amended section 471.38 to require that the written contract be an “annual contract.” In 2003, the legislature again amended section 471.38 to repeal the requirement that the contract be an annual contract. There is currently no specified term or time for renewal for the required written contract. The DBPR and the FEMC have elected to continue to enter written contracts with a term of one year. Determination of Legal Sufficiency Since its creation in 1997, section 471.038 has provided that “[t]he corporation may not exercise any authority specifically assigned to the board under chapter 455 or this chapter, including determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, taking final action on license applications or in disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under chapter 120.” The only change to that restriction was made in 2000, when the term “corporation” was changed to “management corporation.” In 2000, the legislature also enacted the Management Privatization Act, section 455.32, Florida Statutes. That Act was intended to establish a model for the creation of non-profit corporations with which the DBPR could contract for “administrative, examination, licensing, investigative and prosecutorial services to any board created within the department.” The similarities between section 471.38 and section 455.32 make it obvious that the latter was largely patterned after the former. Among the duties to be performed by a “corporation” under section 455.32(10) is to: . . . make a determination of legal sufficiency to begin the investigative process as provided in s. 455.225. However, the department or the board may not delegate to the corporation, by contract or otherwise, the authority for determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, taking final action on license actions or on disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under chapter 120. In previous years, at least through 2001, the written contract between the DBPR and the FEMC provided that “FEMC shall not exercise the police powers inherent in the Department and the FBPE including a determination of legal sufficiency or insufficiency of a disciplinary complaint.” At some time after the passage of the Management Privatization Act, the contractual “police powers” restriction was changed, and now reads, as reflected in the current Contract, as follows: Except when providing those prosecutorial and investigative services set forth in this Agreement, FEMC shall not exercise the police powers inherent in the Department and the FBPE under Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes, including determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, other than failure to comply with final orders of the Board as set forth in Rule 61015-18.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, taking final action on license applications or in disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prosecutorial servicing shall only be executed in the name of FBPE. That contractual restriction is consistent with the statutory limitation on the powers of the FEMC set forth in section 471.38. In its current form, the Contract establishes the services that are to be provided by FEMC to the DBPR and the FBPE. The list of prosecutorial services to be provided by FEMC include coordinating with investigators, reviewing and taking “appropriate action” on complaints, and preparing cases for presentation to the FBPE probable cause panel. The list of investigative services to be provided by FEMC include receiving complaints, interviewing complainants, witnesses, and subjects of complaints, issuing subpoenas, preparing investigative reports, and taking other actions leading to the prosecution of a case. The Contract does not specifically address the issue of determining legal sufficiency. The typical procedures of the FEMC in performing its investigatory functions are initiated when the FEMC receives a complaint by various means, including telephone, e-mail, or submission of a written complaint. Written complaints are normally directed to the FEMC chief prosecutor, who assigns them to an investigator for initial review. If the complaint is verbal, the investigator fielding the call will ask the complainant to file a written complaint. If a complaint is unaccompanied by information to substantiate the claims, the investigator typically requests supporting documentation, which may be a set of engineering plans, a report, or similar evidence of the facts underlying the complaint. In a procedure implemented by the FEMC in 2012, after receipt of the complaint and supporting documentation, the investigator forwards the complaint to an engineering expert retained by FEMC for a pre-review. The expert prepares a preliminary report which is then considered in the determination of legal sufficiency. Prior to implementation of the 2012 pre- review procedure, the determination of legal sufficiency was made without the benefit of a pre-review report in the manner otherwise described below. After receipt of the complaint, the supporting documentation, and, since 2012, the pre-review report, the investigator presents the complaint to the FEMC chief prosecutor. If the chief prosecutor determines that the complaint is not legally sufficient, the investigator is instructed to draft a memorandum for the chief prosecutor to review, which is in turn submitted to the FBPE Executive Director for signature. If the chief prosecutor determines that the complaint is legally sufficient, he or she verbally authorizes the investigator to place the engineer on notice of the investigation. At that point, the complaint is investigated using the investigative tools available to FEMC as set forth in the Contract. If sufficient evidence that a violation has occurred is found, the investigation culminates in a recommendation to the FBPE probable cause panel for a decision as to whether the panel believes there to be probable cause to proceed with disciplinary action. The decision to proceed with a disciplinary proceeding requiring a point of entry to challenge the action is entirely that of the FBPE probable cause panel. Probationary Project Review On November 4, 2009, FBPE entered a disciplinary final order regarding Petitioner that incorporated a stipulated settlement agreement, and imposed sanctions on Petitioner, including probation. By his entry of the settlement stipulation, Petitioner agreed to a “project review” at six and eighteen-month intervals. The project review consisted of the submission by Petitioner of a list of all completed projects. That list was provided to an engineering expert, who then selected two of the projects for a more comprehensive review. The steps to be performed by Petitioner and the FBPE are generally described in Project Review Process Guidelines that were provided to Petitioner by FBPE as an attachment to the notice of the two projects selected for comprehensive review. As a result of the project review, the two projects were determined to violate engineering standards, which resulted in the FEMC making a recommendation of probable cause to the FBPE probable cause panel. The probable cause panel found probable cause, leading to the issuance of an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner introduced evidence of one other case in which a project review was required as a condition of probation. In that case, an administrative law judge, after having determined that the professional engineer committed violations of section 471.033 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001, recommended imposition of “probation for two years with appropriate conditions for this case.” The Final Order, entered on March 12, 2008, imposed the recommended probation “with a plans review at 6 months and 18 months from the date of this Order.” The basis for the imposition of that sanction was not explained. There was no evidence introduced at the final hearing as to any other specific case in which a project review was required, other than the case involving Petitioner. The 2012 FEMC Annual Report, which is a business record of the FEMC, indicated that between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, the FEMC was involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of 32 cases in which Administrative Complaints were filed against engineers. Disciplinary sanctions imposed against engineers during that one-year period included, among others, twenty-five reprimands, six license suspensions, eight probations, seven license restrictions, two voluntary license relinquishments, and four license revocations. Also included among the sanctions imposed during that period were three project reviews. The sanction of project review is one that is, statistically, used sparingly by the FBPE. There was no evidence introduced to establish the criteria, if any, for the imposition of a project review as a condition of probation, or to demonstrate that it was generally applied in any specific circumstances.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent from his employment as a deputy sheriff for allegedly engaging in prohibited conduct pursuant to Chapter 89-404, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act), and Petitioner's General Order Section 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.2--relating to loyalty, Rule and Regulation 5.4--relating to duties and responsibilities, and Rule and Regulation 5.6-- relating to truthfulness; General Order Section 3-1.3, Rule and Regulation 3.20--relating to reporting procedures for the use of force; and General Order 3-2--relating to ethical requirements.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Sheriff of Pinellas County and a constitutional officer described in Article VIII, Section 1, Florida Constitution. From sometime in 1989 until the termination of Respondent’s employment on March 14, 2008, Petitioner employed Respondent as a deputy sheriff in the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (the PCSO). Respondent was last assigned to the courthouse security division of the PCSO. On Saturday, November 3, 2007, Respondent was off-duty and volunteering as one of a number of parents who were supervising several high school bands that were practicing at Clearwater High School (CHS). Three juvenile males on bicycles approached the band practice area. Respondent yelled at them to stop, but did not identify himself as a deputy sheriff. One juvenile stopped. The other two juveniles ignored the commands and proceeded toward the Tarpon Springs Band. One of the riders wore a back pack with a baseball bat attached to the pack. Respondent reasonably believed that the juveniles, who were approximately 16 and 17 years old,1 presented an imminent danger of running into and potentially injuring members of the nearby Tarpon Springs Band. Respondent ran after the juvenile with a bat attached to his pack, grabbed the bat, and separated the juvenile from the moving bicycle. The second juvenile stopped at the point of separation. The juvenile with the baseball bat struck Respondent with his fist, and Respondent delivered a knee-spike2 to the mid- section of the juvenile. The knee-spike disabled the juvenile. The second juvenile was preparing to strike Respondent, when another parent pulled that juvenile away. Petitioner notified Respondent of the charges against him in a memorandum dated March 14, 2008 (the charging document). In relevant part, the charging document alleges in a paragraph entitled “Synopsis” that, during the altercation, Respondent failed to act within the scope of his responsibilities as a deputy sheriff. If that allegation were properly construed to allege that Respondent used excessive force, the fact-finder finds that a preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Respondent is guilty of that charge of misconduct. Respondent acted reasonably during the altercation. Respondent used reasonable force to protect band members from harm, and Respondent used reasonable force to defend himself from a juvenile. The exigencies of the moment did not afford time for Respondent to disclose his employment with the PCSO before taking action he reasonably believed to be necessary to protect members of the Tarpon Springs Band. Respondent cooperated with the police investigation at CHS. CHS is located within the jurisdiction of both the PCSO and the Clearwater Police Department. The Clearwater Police Department responded to the scene and conducted an investigation. The investigation was documented in Clearwater Police Report No. CW07-33468 (the police report). Another allegation in the synopsis of the charging document is that Respondent was untruthful by deliberately or intentionally omitting or misrepresenting material facts outlining his involvement in the altercation, including a memorandum Petitioner authored on November 5, 2007. The fact- finder finds that a preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Respondent is guilty of this charge of misconduct. It is undisputed that Respondent telephoned Corporal Victor Griffin, Respondent’s immediate supervisor on the evening of November 3, 2007, and reported the altercation in detail, including the attack by the juvenile and Respondent’s use of a knee-spike. Corporal Griffin instructed Respondent to inform Sergeant Edward Marshall, the next in command. Respondent telephoned Sergeant Marshall that night and informed him of the use of force and the details of the incident. At the hearing, Sergeant Marshall had little or no recall of the details of the conversation with Respondent on November 3, 2007. The only credible and persuasive testimony concerning that conversation is the testimony of Respondent. On the evening of November 3, 2007, Sergeant Marshall instructed Respondent to write a memorandum describing the incident and Respondent’s use of force when Respondent returned to work on Monday, November 5, 2007. Sergeant Marshall instructed Respondent to either reference the police report in the memorandum or attach a copy of the police report to the memorandum. Respondent drafted a memorandum on November 5, 2007. The memorandum referred to the police report, and Respondent submitted the memorandum to his supervisor. The police report included a handwritten, detailed description by Respondent of the use of force in the altercation. Petitioner had reasonable access to the police report. The Clearwater Police Department and the PCSO, by agreement, utilize a computerized joint records management system identified in the record as ACISS. Another allegation in the synopsis of the charging document is that Respondent failed to document the use of force, as required by agency policy. The fact-finder finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Respondent is guilty of this charge of misconduct. A complete description of the altercation and use of force was attached to the police report. That information fully documented the use of force and was available to Petitioner through ACISS.3 Another allegation in the synopsis of the charging document is that Respondent compromised the criminal investigation of the altercation by “accessing unauthorized information” and by “interfering with an ongoing investigation.” This allegation is based in substantial part on two undisputed facts that occurred on or about November 5, 2007. First, Respondent obtained a copy of the police report and discovered that the police report listed Respondent as a “victim/suspect.” Suspects are not entitled to a copy of a police report, but law enforcement officers may access the report. Second, Respondent persuaded the property department to change the status of brass knuckles found in a back pack at the scene of the altercation from being held for destruction to being held as evidence, so that the brass knuckles would not be destroyed. The fact-finder finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the undisputed actions of Respondent compromised the criminal investigation by accessing unauthorized information and intervening into an investigation in which Respondent was listed in the police report as a suspect. The undisputed actions of Respondent were consistent with the actions of the Clearwater Police Department, and neither action by Respondent compromised the investigation. The investigating officer for the Clearwater Police Department was off-duty on Monday and Tuesday, and she did not return to work until Wednesday, November 7, 2007. When the investigating officer returned to work, her sergeant instructed her to change the police report to list Respondent as a law enforcement officer, to delete his address from the report, and to change the designation of Respondent from a “victim/suspect”4 to a “victim” before finalizing the report. The investigating officer made those changes to the police report by computer entries on November 7, 2007, and those changes were available to the PCSO through ACISS. The sergeant also instructed the investigating officer to change the status of the brass knuckles from being held for destruction to being held as evidence, so that they would not be destroyed. The investigating officer contacted the property department of the PCSO to change the status of the brass knuckles to that of evidence and discovered the property department had already made that change at Respondent’s request. Respondent was entitled to a copy of the report because he was a law enforcement officer and was incorrectly listed on the report as a suspect. The actions of Respondent in changing the status of the brass knuckles so that they were listed as evidence was consistent with the actions of the Clearwater Police Department. Respondent did nothing on November 5, 2007, that the Clearwater Police Department did not do on November 7, 2007. If the investigating officer were to have returned to work on Monday, November 5, 2007, it is reasonable to conclude that the Clearwater Police Department would have provided a copy of the police report to Respondent, because Respondent would not have been listed as a suspect, and the Department would have changed the status of the brass knuckles so that they were being held as evidence. The investigating officer and her sergeant concluded the altercation was a matter of mutual combat and did not refer the case for prosecution by the state attorney. The nascence of the charges against Respondent emerged from two events. First, the mother of the two juveniles filed a complaint of excessive force against the PCSO. Second, when the investigating officer discovered that Respondent had already persuaded the property department to change the status of the brass knuckles, so that they would not be destroyed, the Clearwater Police Department complained to the PCSO about a deputy sheriff allegedly interfering with evidence. As a result, Petitioner initiated an administrative investigation that led to this proceeding. The penultimate allegation in the synopsis of the charging document is that Respondent provided confidential information regarding an open criminal case to another suspect. It is undisputed that when Respondent discovered on November 5, 2007, that he was listed as a suspect in the police report, Respondent told the parent that had prevented the second juvenile from attacking Respondent that the parent was also listed in the report as a suspect. The disclosure by Respondent was immaterial and had no impact on a pending criminal investigation. The Clearwater Police Department classified the altercation as mutual combat and did not refer the case for prosecution. The final allegation in the synopsis of the charging document is that Respondent failed to advise his supervisors of material facts regarding his “involvement in the ongoing . . . criminal investigation” and “subsequent actions” that Respondent took. The distinction, if any, between “involvement in the ongoing investigation” and “subsequent actions” is unclear to the fact-finder because the charges deal with Respondent’s actions during a pending investigation. The charges of misconduct do not address Respondent’s “subsequent actions” after the investigation was completed and case was closed. The investigating officer did not inform Respondent when she responded to the scene on November 3, 2007, that she was listing Respondent as a suspect. She did not decide to list Respondent as a suspect until she prepared her report that evening, long after Respondent had completed his written report that was included with the police report and had left the scene. Respondent did not learn that he was a suspect until Respondent obtained a copy of the police report on November 5, 2007. After obtaining a copy of the police report, Respondent talked to Lieutenant Rachel Hughes of the Courthouse Security Division at the PCSO and another of Respondent’s supervisors. Significant variation exists in the separate accounts of the conversation between Respondent and Lieutenant Hughes. The testimony of Lieutenant Hughes is inconsistent, self- contradictory, and less than credible and persuasive. The only credible and persuasive testimony concerning the conversation is the testimony of Respondent. During the conversation between Respondent and Lieutenant Hughes, Respondent expressed his displeasure at being listed in the police report as a suspect, stated that he would like to complain to someone at the Clearwater Police Department, and asked if Lieutenant Hughes knew anyone there. Lieutenant Hughes suggested that Lieutenant James Steffens at the Clearwater Police Department is a “good guy.” Before contacting Lieutenant Steffens, Respondent called the property department and identified himself as “Milewsky from over at the courthouse.” Respondent did not disclose that he was a suspect in the case involving the brass knuckles. Respondent knew or should have known that the property department employee reasonably believed that the call and request was related to official business. Lieutenant Larry Smith was in charge of the property department at the time and testified at the hearing. The property department would not have enhanced the status of the brass knuckles at the request of someone who was listed as a suspect in the police report. The failure to disclose to the property department that Respondent was a suspect in the case is not alleged in the charging document, and the ALJ cannot find Respondent guilty of a charge not alleged in the charging document. The relevant language in the charging document is confined to an allegation that Respondent failed to advise his “supervisors” of his “involvement in the ongoing . . . investigation” and his “subsequent actions.” Those assigned to the property department are not “supervisors” of Respondent. Respondent next telephoned Lieutenant Steffens of the Clearwater Police Department to discuss the fact that Respondent was listed as a suspect in the police report. Respondent and Lieutenant Steffens disagree over material details of the conversation, including the issue of whether Respondent requested Lieutenant Steffens to change the police report to delete Respondent’s name as a suspect. The fact-finder resolves the disparity in testimony between Respondent and Lieutenant Steffens against Respondent. The testimony of Lieutenant Steffens is the only credible and persuasive testimony concerning the conversation between the two men. Respondent did not want to remain listed as a suspect, but denied that the purpose of his call to Lieutenant Steffens was to have the report changed to delete his status as a suspect. Respondent insisted that his telephone call to Lieutenant Steffens was “unrelated” to changing his designation as a suspect. The testimony of Lieutenant Steffens was plausible, credible, and persuasive. Lieutenant Steffens recalled that Respondent advised Lieutenant Steffens that a Clearwater Police Department investigation contained erroneous information, and Respondent sought to get the error corrected “as soon as possible.” After emphasizing Respondent’s seniority and the lack of experience of the investigating officer, who was a rookie, Respondent stated that he did not want to make a complaint against the investigating officer, but just wanted the report changed so that Respondent was listed solely as a victim in the report. Respondent asked Lieutenant Steffens if they could get that done as quickly as possible. Lieutenant Steffens sent a message by email in this regard to Sergeant Wilton Lee, the supervisor for the investigating officer, asking Sergeant Lee to telephone Respondent. Sergeant Lee did not return to work until Wednesday, November 7, 2007. Before Lieutenant Steffens heard from Sergeant Lee, Lieutenant Steffens received a voice mail from Respondent inquiring as to why nothing had been done yet on the case. Lieutenant Steffens also received a telephone call from another suspect. Lieutenant Steffens telephoned Sergeant Lee directly about the inquiries. When Sergeant Lee reported to work on November 7, 2007, the police report was waiting for his approval. Sergeant Lee telephoned Respondent, whom Sergeant Lee knew to be a deputy sheriff, and agreed that Respondent should not be listed in the police report as a suspect. Respondent failed to advise his supervisors of two forms of involvement in the investigation. First, Respondent failed to advise his supervisors of his involvement in the enhancement of the brass knuckles from that of waiting for destruction to that of evidence. Second, Respondent failed to advise his supervisors of his efforts to change the police report to delete his name as a suspect. A preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the failures described in the preceding paragraph violate requirements for loyalty and truthfulness. Those requirements are described in General Order 3-1.1 and Rules and Regulations 5.2 and 5.6. The Progressive Discipline Worksheet assigns 75 Progressive Discipline Points for violations of all of the charges in the charging document. However, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent is guilty of violating only two of the six charges of misconduct described in the synopsis in the charging document. The Worksheet does not delineate the points assigned to each charge, and Petitioner has not promulgated intelligible standards that enable the fact- finder to determine the points that should be allocated to the two violations committed by Respondent. No aggravating factors are evidenced in this proceeding. Respondent has no prior discipline during his 19 years of experience with the PCSO. The culpable actions of Respondent did not result in physical or financial harm to a member of the public or members of either the PCSO or the Clearwater Police Department. The culpable actions of Respondent did not compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that termination of employment is a reasonable penalty. Untruthfulness and disloyalty are serious offenses but, absent any aggravating circumstances, a reasonable penalty is suspension without pay beginning on March 14, 2008, and reinstatement to the former position of employment immediately upon the entry of a final order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the findings of this Recommended Order; suspending Respondent’s employment without pay from March 14, 2008, to the date of the final order; and returning Respondent to his former position of employment as of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of Clearwater properly dismissed Respondent, Diane C. Hashil, from her employment as a Toll Booth Attendant for inefficiency in the performance of duties, in violation of Rule 14, Section 1, paragraph (c), of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Diane C. Hashil, was employed as a Toll Booth Attendant at the Sand Key Tollbooth by Petitioner, City of Clearwater, (the City), from July of 1992 until May 24, 1995. During the course of Respondent's employment with the City, Respondent has been the subject of numerous disciplinary actions, resulting in counseling, written reprimands, and suspensions. Beginning on December 6, 1993, and continuing through May 24, 1995, twelve disciplinary actions were taken against Respondent for charges including repeated discourtesy to customers, insubordination, failure to comply with verbal instructions, failure to follow policies regarding nonpayment of tolls, and entering the cash drawer of another employee without permission. Respondent's disciplinary action history includes the following actions: 1) On December 7, 1993, Respondent received a written warning for a Level 4, #2 offense (insubordination); 2) On December 21, 1993, Respondent was suspended for two days for a Level 2, #2 offense (discourtesy); 3) On January 26, 1994, Respondent was suspended for three days for a Level 2, #2 offense (discourtesy); 4) On August 10, 1994, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for a Level 1, #1 offense; 5) On January 12, 1995, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for a Level 4, #2 offense (insubordination); 6) On January 17, 1995, Respondent was given a letter of reprimand for a Level 2, #1 offense; 7) On March 9, 1995, Respondent was suspended for two days for a Level 3 offense (productivity); and, 8) On March 15, 1995, Respondent was suspended for five days for a Level 4, #2 offense (insubordination). In April of 1994, Respondent's employment with the City was terminated; however, the City reversed this decision, and Respondent subsequently remained in her position. On November 1, 1994, Respondent received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. The primary basis for this evaluation was Respondent's continued discourtesy to patrons which had resulted in disciplinary actions against Respondent during the evaluation period. The City's employee performance ratings policy requires that an employee receiving an unsatisfactory rating be reevaluated in three months. On February 13, 1995, at her three-month follow-up reevaluation, Respondent again received an unsatisfactory performance rating. The basis for this evaluation was that Respondent had received repeated reprimands for insubordination, failure to follow rules, and entering the cash drawer of another employee without permission. On March 9, 1995, as a result of her unsatisfactory reevaluation, Respondent received a two-day suspension, and twenty disciplinary points. On March 15, 1995, Respondent was suspended for five days for insubordination. Respondent's appeal of these suspensions was upheld through the City Manager stage. Respondent did not seek further review of these suspensions. On May 5, 1995, at her second follow-up reevaluation, Respondent again received an unsatisfactory performance rating. Under the City's policy this unsatisfactory rating was automatic because Respondent had been suspended for five or more days during the rating period. In addition the second follow-up performance evaluation stated that Respondent filed a false police report alleging a customer had defrauded her, that Respondent entered the cash drawer of another employee without permission, and that Respondent was responsible for low morale of the other employees at the Sand Key Tollbooth. Respondent admits that she entered the cash drawer of another employee without permission, and that she kept a daily log of the activities of other employees which contributed to the low morale at the Sand Key Tollbooth; however, Respondent believed other employees were allowed to violate rules, and that she was being unfairly disciplined because she was female and not a member of the union. The evidence does not support a finding that other employees were allowed to violate rules, nor that Respondent was treated differently than other employees. The evidence does not reflect that Respondent was subjected to disciplinary actions because of her gender or her failure to join a union. During her employment at the Sand Key Tollbooth, Respondent received more complaints from customers and other employees than any other tollbooth attendant. Because Respondent had received two consecutive three-month reevaluations with an unsatisfactory rating, she was subject to termination under the City's policy. In addition, because Respondent had accumulated excessive disciplinary points she was subject to termination under the City's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action. The performance evaluations and the disciplinary actions taken with regard to Respondent were appropriate and consistent with those given other employees. Following her five-day suspension, Respondent filed a report alleging various rule violations of other employees. The City investigated Respondent's allegations and required three employees to attend counseling with regard to cash drawer procedures. The evidence does not support a finding that the City singled out Respondent for disciplinary actions. The City allowed Respondent to serve her five-day suspension over two pay periods to lessen the financial impact of her suspension. The City Harbormaster has employed other females within the department without incident. As of October 1995, the City has eliminated the position of tollbooth attendant because of the construction of a new Sand Key bridge which will, upon completion, be toll free. The City has assisted former tollbooth attendants in attempting to secure other positions of employment with the City. Subsequent to her termination, Respondent applied for a meter reading position with the City, but was not hired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The City of Clearwater Civil Service Board enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from her position of employment with the City of Clearwater. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of November, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1 - 12. Accepted and Incorporated. As to Respondent's Proposed Statement of Facts: Accepted, except that unauthorized entry into another employee's cash drawer violated City rules and regulations. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire Paul Richard Hull, Esquire City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Diane C. Hashil 1527 South Prospect Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Ms. Cynthia Goudeau City Clerk City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), was the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Respondent, Kenneth E. Beck, was a police officer, certified by the Petitioner, and employed by the City of Clearwater Police Department. In September, 1988, Joyce Ann Cooper Horten, currently of Easley, S.C., was residing in Clearwater, Florida. At that time, she was approximately 16 years old. On the evening in question, two of her friends, a boy and girl, had "egged" a neighbor's apartment and the neighbor called the police. In response to this call, the Respondent came to the scene and was talking to Ms. Horten's friends in back of the house. When he had completed his conversation with them, he told Ms. Horten he had to search her for a knife, and took her into a hallway where he put his hands up under her shirt and around her shoulders and sides. In addition, he touched her legs by putting his hands on both sides of each leg, running them all the way up to the crotch. After this search, Respondent took Ms. Horten into her apartment where he searched for the knife in the kitchen. Finding nothing, he took her into the bedroom, went into her closet, and looked through her clothes as well as through her chest of drawers. Finding nothing, Respondent then had Ms. Horten roll up her skirt from both the back and the front and when she did so, pulled her panties out from the front. When he did this, he could observe her pubic area though he did not touch her there. He then had her roll up her shirt, both in the front and the back. Since she was not wearing a bra, when she rolled up her shirt front, her breasts were exposed to his view. After finishing his search, he gave Ms. Horten his card, with his name on it, and went back outside to talk to the other young people. Ms. Horten did not think that what Respondent was doing to her was appropriate, but claims that since she was not familiar with the law, she did not know she could resist. Nonetheless, she later told her mother and the neighbor who had initially called the police. This neighbor apparently filed a report with the police and Ms. Horten thereafter taped a statement as to the matters previously discussed, a typed copy of which she subsequently signed under oath. At approximately 3:50 AM on April 16, 1989, Tara D. Grey, then a 17 year old college student, was driving her car eastward on Drew Street in Clearwater, Florida when she was pulled over by the Respondent who was in a police cruiser and in uniform. Initially he did not tell her why he had stopped her, but asked for her driver's license and registration, which he took back to his cruiser. After approximately 5 minutes, he came back and told her that her license did not check out and asked for additional identification which, he claimed, did not check out either. Finally, she gave him her social security card which seemed to satisfy him. After an extended series of questions regarding her drinking, her use of illegal drugs, or her prior arrest record, all of which she denied, he required her to get out of her car, after which he administered a sobriety test to her. He then asked if he could search her car, to which she consented. While he conducted the initial search, he asked her to stand behind the car, but then requested her to take the numerous items which were on the car floor out so he could see what he was doing. At time she was wearing a miniskirt and boots, along with a sweater, and when she did what he asked of her, she had to bend over and her skirt came up in the back, giving him a broad view of her posterior. When she finished cleaning out her car to his satisfaction, Respondent asked her with whom she lived and why she had other clothing in the car. After several other questions, he finally told her, after about 45 total minutes of interview, that she had been stopped because she was speeding. He then indicated he would have to follow her to her friend's home, (the place to which she was in progress when stopped), and kept her license while he followed her there. Before he allowed her to go into the house, he indicated he would have to frisk her, and in doing so, had her put her hands up on the top of his car. He then ran his hands across her shoulders and across her hips and bottom, but did not touch either her pubic area or her breasts. He also checked her socks and in doing that, felt her legs down in that area but did not run his hands up over her bare legs. After finishing the frisk, he drove off and Ms. Grey went into her friends's home. In April, 1990 Louise Ann Frattaruolo, Respondent's former mother-in- law, received a letter through the mail which, when opened, indicated that her husband had broken his word and must pay the penalty. The letter then went on to indicate that all the Frattaruolos must die. This letter was unsigned, but Mrs. Frattaruolo turned it over to her daughter, a police officer, who released it to the Clearwater Police Department. A latent fingerprint was developed on the envelope in which the letter was sent, which was subsequently analyzed and determined to be that of the Respondent. From the date of the postmark on the letter, the day it was mailed, to the day the fingerprint identification was made, there was absolutely no opportunity for Respondent to have handled either the letter or the envelope. Therefore, it is concluded that the envelope containing the letter was at least touched by the Respondent prior to mailing, and was most likely mailed by him. On October 30, 1990, Patrick J. Lombardi was working as a security officer at the Clearwater Mall and was approached by a man and lady who pointed out an individual allegedly exposing himself on a bench within the mall. Mr. Lombardi got his supervisor, Mr. O'Dell, and both officers observed an individual, subsequently identified as the Respondent, sitting on a bench, wearing bright yellow jogging shorts that were split up the sides. They observed him sitting in such a manner whereby whenever a woman or a group of women walked by, he would open his legs and then slap them together, and both officers observed that when he did this, his genitalia, which had been released from the inner lining of his shorts, would fall out onto the bench. To insure they were not making a mistake, the two officers went to one of the jewelry stores in the mall and contacted Janine M. Edwards, a clerk who they asked to walk by the individual and tell them what she observed. When she did so, she observed the Respondent open his legs and expose himself to her. She noted that the liner of his shorts had been pulled to one side allowing his penis and testicles to be fully exposed. She also observed Respondent do this in front of a couple, and she is convinced it was not accidental. Respondent appeared nervous and when she first saw him, he was hunched over. When he saw her, however, he turned toward her and opened his legs to show her his private parts. It is concluded, therefore, that his actions were intentional. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was observed by a mall employee leaving the mall and getting into a blue Ford automobile. The employee got the license number of the vehicle which was subsequently traced to the Respondent. Thereafter, Sgt. Joseph Tenbieg, of the Clearwater Police Department, put together a package of 5 or 6 photographs of individuals, including Beck, all of whom resembled the Respondent, which he showed, independently, to Officers O'Dell and Lombardi, as well as to Ms. Edwards. All three identified the photograph of the Respondent, which was taken from his police personnel records, as the individual who was exposing himself in the mall.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered revoking the Respondent, Kenneth E. Beck's certification as a law enforcement officer. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez-Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kenneth E. Beck 28 Valencia Circle Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel FDLE P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
