The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner was formerly employed as an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Adjudicator in Respondent's Miami UC office. In this capacity, he interviewed claimants seeking unemployment compensation and made initial determinations regarding the validity of their claims. Petitioner was often absent because of illness. When he was at work, however, he performed his duties competently. Petitioner and his fellow employees at the Miami UC Office were required to notify supervisory personnel no later than the beginning of the workday if they were going to be absent that day. Petitioner was made aware of this requirement on various occasions prior to the absences that led to the termination of his employment with Respondent. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, Petitioner telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be absent that day because of an ankle injury he had sustained. He did not indicate during the conversation whether he would be at work the following day. On Wednesday, September 6, 1989, and Thursday, September 7, 1989, Petitioner neither reported to work nor contacted his supervisor at any time during the day to give notification of his absence. On Friday, September 8, 1989, Petitioner again failed to report to work. He did, however, telephone his supervisor concerning his absence, but he did not do so until 4:50 p.m., 20 minutes after the shift to which he was assigned had ended. By letter dated September 11, 1989, Respondent notified Petitioner that it had determined that Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective the close of business September 8, 1989, in view of his unauthorized absence from work on September 6, 7, and 8, 1989. It is this determination that is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his UC Adjudicator position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1990. STUART H. LERNER 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 16th day of February 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his letter that he contacted his supervisor on September 5, 1989, and again on September 8, 1989, his proposed findings of fact have been accepted and incorporated in substance in this Recommended Order. To the extent that he claims that he "did not have 3 consecutive days of unauthorized absences," his proposed factual findings have been rejected because they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact First Sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second Sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First and second sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Cooper 1601 Northwest 17th Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33125 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs from Respondent, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as a result of the appeal being withdrawn in regard to DOAH Case No. 06-1169.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is in the business of constructing new and replacement roofs on residential and commercial structures, within the construction industry, as defined by Subsection 440.02(8), Florida Statutes, and is a Florida employer over whom Respondent has jurisdiction to enforce the payment of workers’ compensation premiums for the benefit of Petitioner’s employees. Petitioner appealed Respondent’s February 15, 2007, Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, where the matter was assigned Case No. 5D07-891. After more than a year of appellate litigation, on April 27, 2009, Respondent issued an Order Releasing SWO, and refunded the portion of the assessed penalty that Petitioner had already paid pursuant to a payment agreement schedule. At Respondent’s request, Petitioner’s appeal was subsequently dismissed. In its Motion, filed with the Appellate Court, Respondent stated in pertinent part: On or about December 21, 2004, Appellee issued and served a stop-work order to Appellant for failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the employees of D&L Trucking, a company it had hired to remove unused shingles from a roof. A penalty was subsequently calculated and assessed for this failure to secure. Appellant challenged the stop-work order and the penalty, and the matter was heard before a duly appointed Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from the Division of Administrative Hearings. Neither Appellant nor Appellee raised the issue that D&L Trucking’s employees were materialmen and thus exempt from the definition of “statutory employee.” The ALJ found that the employees of D&L Trucking were the statutory employees of Appellant and issued a Recommended Order recommending Appellee to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. On or about February 15, 2007, Appellee filed a Final Order in the underlying case addressing Appellant’s exceptions to the ALJ’s Recommended Order, and adopting the Recommended Order in its entirety. Appellant subsequently filed a timely Notice of Appeal, appealing Appellee’s Final Order. On or about April 3, 2009, this Court issued an opinion in Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc. v. Cranfill, [7 So. 3d 611] (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) stating that materialmen were essentially vendees of a contractor and are excluded from the definition of “statutory employee,” as outlined in Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes. The ALJ in his Recommended Order for the underlying case stated, and Appellee adopted in its Final Order, that workers for whom Appellee calculated a penalty were being paid by Appellant to remove unused shingles from the roof of a worksite. In essence, these individuals were materialmen and would qualify as vendees of Appellant. Appellee designated these individuals as “statutory employees” and thus assigned a penalty to Appellant. In light of this Court’s ruling in Adam Homes, Appellee does not believe it can ethically or professionally maintain its defense to this appeal and has withdrawn the stop-work order issued to Appellant and rescinded the assessed penalty. All money paid by Appellant to Appellee up to this point will thus be refunded to Appellant. This appeal would thus be rendered moot as there would no longer be a case or controversy. On June 19, 2009, Petitioner filed its Petition and Application for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes with DOAH. The petition was timely filed. The parties filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation in which they agreed that the underlying dispute had been resolved in favor of Petitioner; that Petitioner’s Petition and Application for Attorney’s Fees had been timely filed, and that the amount of attorney’s fees sought by Petitioner was reasonable. At the November 16, 2009, evidentiary hearing, Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the definition of a small business party, as set forth in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. From the record, it appears that on December 20, 2004, Hector Vega, a Compliance Investigator with Respondent’s Division of Workers’ Compensation, received a referral that Petitioner was re-roofing the Apopka Assembly of God, a church, located in Apopka, Florida, while in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On December 21, 2004, Investigator Vega traveled to the Apopka Assembly of God, where he reported that he found five workers on the roof. His notes indicated that at least some of those workers appeared to be installing flashing and shingles on the roof. One of the workers present on the roof, Noel Maldonado, informed Investigator Vega that he was employed by Petitioner; that he was being paid by a David Lorenzo for installing shingles; and that William R. Sims and David Lorenzo were inspecting the ongoing work. Maldonado also provided Investigator Vega with the cell phone number for William R. Sims, Petitioner’s president. After interviewing Maldonado, Investigator Vega met with Sims at the work site. Sims advised Investigator Vega that although he personally had an exemption, Petitioner did not have workers’ compensation coverage for any of the workers found on the roof. When asked if he had subcontracted the job of re-roofing the Apopka Assembly of God, Sims at first advised that he subcontracted it to “David.” When asked if David was a licensed roofing contractor, Sims then advised Investigator Vega that David was an employee, not a subcontractor. Investigator Vega subsequently obtained information which confirmed Sims’ statement that Petitioner had not secured the payment of workers’ compensation for the men found on the roof of the church, and issued a SWO directed to Petitioner. On December 27, 2004, Sims sent accountant Nick Petrone to speak with Investigator Vega on behalf of Petitioner. Vega’s report indicates that Petrone advised Investigator Vega that Sims had hired three workers, one being Noel Maldanado, and presented photocopied licenses and alien registrations for those three individuals. Petrone also advised that a fourth individual was present on the roof for the delivery of roofing materials. Petitioner did not raise the issue that all of the men on the roof were materialmen who were working for David Lorenzo; and did not claim that the workers were exempt from the requirement that an employer provide workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Sims never spoke with Petrone about what Petrone had discussed with Investigator Vega at their December 27, 2004, meeting. Sims assumed that the SWO issued on December 21, 2004, was lifted. On November 1, 2005, Compliance Investigator Robert Cerrone received a referral that Petitioner was conducting roofing work at 1905 Curryford Road in Orlando with workers who were not protected by workers’ compensation insurance as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Investigator Cerrone went to the work site at 1905 Curryford Road, where he found six workers repairing the roof of the home located at that address. Those workers identified themselves as Jose Lupe Rivas, Cesar Sandoval, Marcos Hernandez, Cesareo Maravilla, Oscar Mendez, and Gilbran Maravilla, and advised Investigator Cerrone that they were working for Petitioner. Investigator Cerrone contacted Sims, who acknowledged that all six men working on the roof of 1905 Curryford Road were his employees. Sims also advised Investigator Cerrone that he was providing workers’ compensation coverage for those employees through Emerald Staffing Services. Investigator Cerrone subsequently spoke with Robert Szika of Emerald Staffing Services. Szika advised that of the six employees working on the roof at 1905 Curryford Road, only Jose Rivas and Marcos Hernandez were laborers provided by Emerald Staffing Services, and therefore were the only workers covered by Emerald’s workers’ compensation coverage. The other four workers had not been supplied by Emerald Staffing Services, and therefore were not covered by Emerald’s workers’ compensation coverage. Because four of the six workers being utilized by Petitioner on November 1, 2005, were not covered for workers’ compensation through Emerald Staffing Services’ policy, it appeared that Petitioner was not in compliance with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Investigator Cerrone was prepared to issue a SWO to Petitioner for these violations. However, Cerrone checked Respondent’s records and determined that the SWO issued on December 21, 2004, was still in effect and that Respondent’s rules prevented Investigator Cerrone from issuing a second SWO so long as the December 21, 2004, SWO remained open. Therefore, for the purpose of continuing his investigation, Inspector Cerrone could rely on Respondent’s records, including Vega’s narrative, and continue his investigation. Sims wrote and delivered a letter, dated November 10, 2005, to Inspector Cerrone in which he acknowledged that four workers found on the roof of the Apopka Assembly of God by Inspector Vega on December 21, 2004, were Petitioner’s employees, and that Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of the workers’ compensation law at that time. Sims alleges that he was coerced or tricked into signing the November 10, 2005, letter. Sims’ testimony in this regard is not credible. Investigator Cerrone issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment directed to Petitioner on November 16, 2005, requesting records for the period of December 22, 2001, through December 21, 2004. Petitioner subsequently produced records to Investigator Cerrone. Based upon those records, Respondent assessed a penalty against Petitioner in the amount of $39,413.18, for failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees. In addition, Respondent determined that Petitioner had worked ten days in violation of the December 21, 2004, SWO. Respondent therefore added an additional $10,000.00 to the penalty, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, bringing the total penalty to $49,413.18. Petitioner timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing to review the penalty assessed by Respondent. Petitioner’s hearing request was forwarded to DOAH, and an evidentiary hearing was held on August 8, 2006. On November 30, 2009, a Recommended Order was issued by Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge, finding that Respondent had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner had failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, and had correctly calculated and assessed a penalty in the amount of $49,413.18. Respondent rendered a Final Order on February 15, 2007, which adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order. Petitioner timely appealed the February 15, 2007, Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. On April 27, 2009, Respondent issued an Order Releasing SWO, and refunded the portion of the assessed penalty that Petitioner had already paid pursuant to a payment agreement schedule. At Respondent’s request, Petitioner’s appeal was subsequently dismissed. On June 19, 2009, Petitioner filed its Petition and Application for Attorney’s Fees, with DOAH, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and this proceeding followed.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as envisioned in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005), on the basis of the Petitioner's disability or handicap, and his age. It must also be determined whether the Respondent committed retaliation against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's alleged exercise of statutorily protected rights in complaining about health, or safety concerns, regarding his operation of a machine or device while an employee of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Jimmy D. Forehand was hired by the Department of Management Services or its predecessor on January 21, 1977. He was employed at that Agency for approximately 27 and one-half years through June 30, 2004. For the last 19 years of his tenure he was classed as an electrician. This is the entry level electrician trade position and has fewer complex duties and skills required for its performance, as opposed to the more complex position of master electrician, in terms of working with complex wiring, wiring problems, electrical devices, and so forth associated with that latter position. It has been stipulated that through his termination date of June 30, 2004, Mr. Forehand, was qualified to perform the duties and functions of his job. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing all state government agency resources, services, properties, benefits, and procurement. It manages state-owned facilities, handles state human resources or personnel matters, employee benefit matters, as well as procurement of such things as office space and office supplies. It maintains the physical integrity of all state-owned properties. The Petitioner was employed for the Respondent by the Division of Facilities Management and Building Construction (Division of Facilities) which is responsible for managing and maintaining office complexes and other properties owned by the state. The Petitioner specifically worked for the electrician unit of that Division. The Disability Claim The Petitioner experienced several purported medical conditions which resulted in workers' compensation claims during his tenure as an employee. The ones relevant to this case commenced in approximately 1992. In 1992 the Petitioner was engaged in a repair work assignment at a DMS-administered office building in downtown Tallahassee. He allegedly became exposed to asbestos during that job. The Petitioner and the employer, DMS, initiated a First Report of Injury and a workers' compensation claim ensued regarding the asbestos incident. The progress of that workers' compensation claim and its disposition are not relevant to this case, aside from the diagnosis concerning that claim as a part of the predicate for showing a disability for purposes of the case at bar. In any event, in 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by a physician with asbestosis. Because of that diagnosis, through the workers' compensation process, the employer and carrier have authorized the Petitioner, in all the years since, to have an annual medical examination and chest X-ray under the auspices of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Financial Services. This is for the purpose of monitoring the status of the asbestosis. The Respondent has stipulated that it was aware of the diagnosis of asbestosis. It does not agree that the asbestosis constitutes a disability for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (i.e. handicap). The Petitioner was released from the physician with regard to the asbestosis situation without work limitations or restrictions due to that diagnosis. Sometime in 1999 the Petitioner injured his left knee on the job, apparently a severe sprain. A workers' compensation notice of injury was filed and a workers' compensation claim process ensued whereby he received treatment for his knee problem. When he reached maximum medical improvement he returned to work with a light duty recommendation from his treating physician, on a temporary basis. In fact, the Respondent accorded him a temporary light duty assignment after he returned to work from the knee injury. The Respondent, through the Petitioner's supervisors, particularly Joe Jacobson, generally made an effort to try to find the Petitioner a light duty assignment when he returned from illness or injury, based upon a doctor's recommendation and/or the Petitioner's own request for light duty. His supervisor, Mr. Jacobson, would customarily call other building managers, the "OP/CON Center" and other agencies in an effort to find a light duty post Mr. Forehand could perform in until he was ready for the full duties of his regular position. Thus, on several occasions Mr. Forehand was placed in light duty as a janitor or answering phones. It was not always possible to find temporary light duty for Mr. Forehand when he requested it or when a doctor recommended it. Apparently Mr. Forehand was on leave without pay for a number of months on at least one occasion when no light duty was available for him. In this connection, however, the Respondent, throughout Mr. Forehand's tenure as an employee or at least since his 1992 asbestosis diagnosis, has shown a penchant for allowing Mr. Forehand to occupy and perform his duties in his regular position of electrician by working at his own pace, without regard to any time limit for performing his duties, without prohibition on his taking frequent rest breaks, and with tolerance for his late arrival at work, if tardiness was related to his physical condition. Thus, in a defacto fashion, the Respondent accommodated what it knew of Mr. Forehand's impairments, as he related them to the Respondent, or as they learned of them from reports from his physicians and from the workers' compensation process (i.e., breathing difficulties and to some extent left knee impairment after 1999). In any event, the preponderant evidence establishes that when the Petitioner requested light duty and/or his physician recommended it, the Respondent would provide him with light duty if it was available, although it was not always available. It accommodated what it knew of his impairments when he worked in his regular position, performing his regular duties, by the means described above; even though the Petitioner did not for the most part request rest periods, frequent breaks from his duties, additional time to complete his assignments, or for permission to trade assignments with another worker who might have a less physically taxing job. In fact, when the matter of his physical difficulties came up, or was raised by the Petitioner in a conversation with his supervisor on at least one occasion, his supervisor told him in effect to "do the best you can." The implication thus clearly was that if the Petitioner needed rest breaks, needed additional time to do assignments, that the Respondent would accommodate him by not holding him to a strict standard as to when his job duties got performed. Since approximately the year 2000 or the fiscal year 2000-2001 the Respondent, like other state agencies, have been under a mandate from the Legislature and the Office of the Governor to save on costs and to become more efficient in its operations. One of the primary means of accomplishing this has been to require a reduction in the Agency's workforce. The Respondent has thus experienced a loss of employment positions since that fiscal year in each budget year and session of the Legislature. It has thus lost approximately 635 full-time positions over a four-year period ending with the 2005 Legislature and Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Petitioner's position was identified by the year 2000 Florida Legislature to be eliminated, by making it "non-recurring," such that his position would be cut or eliminated effective July 1, 2001. The Respondent's supervisors did not want him to be laid off. Therefore, they avoided his lay-off in that fiscal year by re- classifying him or his position into a vacant position within the Division of Facilities. They made the decision to retain him even with knowledge of his past workers' compensation claims, his asbestosis diagnosis and his knee injury of 1999 with related occasional light duty and time off from work. When the 2000 Legislature identified his position as being one which would be non-recurring or deleted after July 1, 2001, the Respondent held a meeting with the Petitioner and all other employees whose positions had been deemed non-critical and subject to deletion in the job force reduction. What had occurred was explained and their options and procedures to remain employed or become re-employed were explained. Because his supervisors wanted to save him from lay-off, and re- classified a different position to place him in, he was protected when the 2001 Legislature carried through with its previous year alteration of his position to non-recurring funding by withdrawing all funding and rate supporting his original position. In continuation of its mandate to reduce the work force, the 2003 Legislature made 20 positions non-recurring, including the Petitioner's. This meant that the funding was determined to be non-recurring, meaning that the positions would be funded one more year, but at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, 2004, these positions would no longer be funded and would be abolished. In the Governor's and agency's budget preparation process thereafter, in 2003 and early 2004, the Legislatively- mandated reduction of 20 positions was incorporated. The Agency, however, in late 2003 or early 2004, arrived at the conclusion that it needed 15 of those 20 positions to be re- classified as critical positions necessary to its mission. Therefore, in the Legislative budget-making process, beginning in February and early March 2004, it sought to convince the Legislature's Appropriations staff and members that 15 of the positions were critical. It was successful in doing that during the Legislative session. The Petitioner's position was not re-established as a recurring, critical position. This was because his position had previously been determined to be non-critical in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and, since his job duties and responsibilities had not changed since that time, his position was again deemed to be no longer critical to continued division operation. It was determined by the Respondent that the functions of his position could be performed by including them in the duties of other positions, to be performed by persons who qualified for and occupied those positions (such as master electricians). Although Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, wanted to find a vacant position to place the Petitioner in as he had done in the 2000-2001 fiscal year job force reduction, there were no vacant positions available in which to place the Petitioner. Mr. Jacobson's testimony establishes this, as does that of Clint Sibille and Cherri Linn (Mr. Jacobson's supervisors). The fact that Mr. Jacobson had a desire to try to find a way to retain the Petitioner is somewhat corroborated by the statement or message from Ms. Linn to Mr. Jacobson to the effect that "you can't save him this time." This meant that, unlike the situation in 2000-2001, there were no vacant positions which could be converted to a position in which to place the Petitioner. Moreover, the testimony of the supervisory lead worker, Bill Kerr, corroborated that of Joe Jacobson and Clint Sibille that there were no vacant positions to place the Petitioner in or to convert to a position suitable for his qualifications. Their testimony shows that the Petitioner's position was not a critical one in the division, especially because it did not involve duties concerned with intricate electrical wiring, wiring repairs, working on complex electrical devices and other complex electrical work. This testimony established that it made no sense to convert a master electrician position into one which met Mr. Forehand's lesser qualifications because a qualified person in a master electrician position, can perform the Petitioner's duties and many more duties in terms of complexity and critical importance than can a person with the Petitioner's lesser qualifications in an entry-level electrician position. Mr. Forehand is not a licensed electrician. The Respondent thus determined that there were no positions which were vacant and sufficiently less critical to its operation as to justify it in converting such to one which met the Petitioner's qualifications (in a managerial context). The Petitioner was not told of his lay-off until June 14, 2004. In fact, Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, did not know that it was certain to occur until immediately before Mr. Forehand was told, several days before at the most. Clint Sibille had told Mr. Jacobson before the Legislative session convened that Mr. Forehand's position might be eliminated but he was not certain at that time (approximately in December 2003 or January 2004). It is not clear which supervisor or manager made the initial decision that the Petitioner's position was not critical. It apparently was the recommendation of Clint Sibille, in concert with Cherri Linn, and with the final approval of the Division Director, then LeeAnn Korst. Mr. Jacobson, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, did not request that his position be deleted. During most of 2003, the Petitioner's job duties included operation of a florescent bulb or lamp crushing system. This was a device known as a VRS Bulb Crusher also known as the "bulb eater." It had apparently been purchased by the Agency sometime in 2002. The device consists of a large drum with a vertical tube through which burned-out florescent light bulbs are inserted so that they fall into the large drum where a mechanical device is operated which crushes the bulbs for disposal. The Petitioner performed a large portion of the bulb crusher's operation. This was particularly true during early 2004, when the Petitioner used the machine at a more intense level. Sometime in February 2004, the exhaust or filtration system of the machine sustained damage, or a break, so that dust and particulate matter and any gaseous or chemical contents of the broken bulbs had the opportunity to leak out of the area of the break into the ambient air. A temporary repair was made and a permanent replacement part was ordered from the manufacturer. The machine continued to malfunction, however, and the repair did not hold. The Petitioner complained to Bill Kerr, his lead worker, concerning the dust and particulate matter the machine apparently sprayed into the air. He also complained to his supervisor, Joe Jacobson. The Petitioner stated that he believed that the dust and particulate matter and other unknown contents of the broken florescent bulbs might aggravate the breathing problems he professed to have, which he related to his original asbestosis diagnosis. These complaints began in early March 2004. The Petitioner also complained to Dave Wiggins, the Respondent's Environmental Supervisor in March of 2004. When the complaints were made and the temporary repair was not successful, the Respondent stopped all use of the bulb machine in early March 2004. This was contemporaneous with the time or occasion when the Petitioner refused to use the machine any longer. The complaints about the bulb crushing machine were reported up the "chain of command" so that on March 16, 2004, Glen Abbott, the Employee Relations Specialist of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services, made a written "medical report" (according to the Petitioner's testimony) concerning the Petitioner's reported exposure to "poisonous chemicals" in the fluorescent bulbs being crushed through operation of the machine. This report was apparently required for workers' compensation purposes. The Petitioner also told Clint Sibille, Mr. Jacobson's supervisor, of the machine's purported malfunction. Mr. Sibille asked Dave Wiggins, the Environmental Specialist, to investigate the machine to determine if the machine was malfunctioning or if the problem reported by the Petitioner was caused by operator error. Mr. Wiggins and Joe Jacobson, after investigating the matter, believed it to be caused by operator error in the manner in which the bulbs were inserted into the vertical tube of the machine. The Petitioner maintains that he asked Clint Sibille to send him to a doctor concerning his fears of heath problems related to the machine and states that Clint Sibille told him to "see his own doctor." Mr. Sibille did confer with Cherri Linn about the Petitioner's request and Cherri Linn informed him that the Petitioner would have to engage in the workers' compensation report and claim process in order to see a doctor concerning his health-related fears about the bulb crushing machine. Mr. Sibille then told the Petitioner's supervisor Joe Jacobson to tell the Petitioner of this. Thereafter, at some point during the period of March through June 2004, after the Petitioner reported his complaints concerning the use of the bulb crusher, Glenn Abbott told all the electricians and carpenters who had worked with the machine to obtain medical examinations under the normal workers' compensation procedure, to try to ascertain if there are any deleterious effects caused by these persons' operation of the machine. Sometime in early May of 2004, the Petitioner called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and spoke to someone there and made a verbal report of his belief concerning unsafe conditions regarding operation of the bulb crushing machine. After the Petitioner left employment with the Respondent Agency in July of 2004, the machine and the warehouse space where it was located was examined by a representative of the DEP and samples were taken, in an effort to ascertain if any hazardous materials had been produced by the machine or were present in that working area. On May 18, 2004, the Petitioner re-injured the same knee which he had injured in 1999. A Notice of Injury concerning this knee injury was filed to trigger the workers' compensation process and the Petitioner saw a doctor through the workers' compensation procedure who examined and treated his knee problem (severe sprain). He was off work for a few days and then was sent back to work by the physician with a prescription of "light duty." He thus became available for work with light duty, at the doctor's recommendation, on or about June 1, 2004. At about this time he told his lead worker Bill Kerr, of his blood clot and showed him the doctor's report concerning leg swelling. He also informed Joe Jacobson of this. He sought light duty and indeed Joe Jacobson made substantial efforts to find light duty available for him by calling the various building managers and the "opcon" center to see if any light duty was available. Mr. Jacobson went so far as to try to ascertain if there were any office filing duties that the Petitioner could perform. He was unable to locate any light duty work for the Petitioner at this time. Joe Jacobson took annual leave in early June and while he was on annual leave, he received a call from his employer, (apparently Cherri Linn) around June 10th or 11, 2004, requiring him to come back to work because the job force reduction lay-off was going to be imposed on the Petitioner and his presence as his supervisor was apparently needed. On June 11, 2004, the Petitioner was called and told to report to work on Monday morning, June 14, 2004. On Monday the Petitioner was called in to a meeting with Joe Jacobson and Tim Carlisle and told of his lay-off. He was immediately required by the Department's Inspector General, Tim Carlisle, to take boxes and pack up his belongings and to leave the premises. Carlisle helped him pack his belongings and ushered him off the Respondent's premises. The Petitioner maintains that he did not know of his lay-off until that same day, which happened to be his fifty-fifth birthday. He was placed on leave with pay until June 30, 2004, his actual termination date. In July of 2004, apparently on or about July 2, 2004, he filed a formal written complaint to the Chief Inspector General regarding his concerns and feared health consequences of the operation of the bulb crushing machine. On or about July 20, 2004, Mr. Forehand visited a walk-in medical facility because he contends he was experiencing shortness of breath, chest pains, and tightness in his chest. He attributed these symptoms to use of the bulb crusher back in March and earlier. He testified that he was diagnosed with silicosis and that he physician determined that he could not tolerate walking 30 to 60 minutes at a time or lifting more than 15 or 20 pounds. Neither this physician nor any other testified, nor was non-hearing medical information admitted into evidence in this regard. Interestingly, Mr. Forehand's testimony indicates he was diagnosed with a heart condition, apparently based on these symptoms, and in late 2004 underwent insertion of an arterial stint. The Petitioner thus complained to his supervisors beginning in about early March 2004, concerning the fears he had about the results of the machine operations. He complained verbally to DEP in early May of 2004, but made no written formal complaint, to any agency or person, until after his termination in July 2004. The Petitioner was not asked to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry concerning the operation of the bulb crushing machine and made no written complaint to any supervisory officials of the Respondent, who could then themselves submit a complaint to the Inspector General or to the Human Relations Commission. In fact, in his own testimony the Petitioner admits that he made a written complaint in July of 2004. In an apparent effort to show that the Respondent's proffered non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual, the Petitioner advanced testimony from a number of witnesses, including himself, which he maintains shows a pattern and practice by the Respondent of retaliating against, and, if necessary, effectively firing older, disabled employees or employees who complain of safety hazards. In this regard, of the five positions selected to be eliminated in the job force reduction of 2004, four had incumbents when the decision was made. All four of those incumbents were over 40 years of age. Two of those four positions, however, became vacant before they were eliminated by the job force reduction. Ms. Ashraf Achtchi was fired by the Respondent before her position became officially eliminated in the job force reduction and Preston Booth voluntarily resigned from his position for unknown reasons. Ms. Achtchi testified to the general effect that she felt she had been discriminated against because of being ill and under medical treatment, yet she was still singled out (in her view) for being absent or tardy. Although the record may establish that she is over 40 years of age, there is no persuasive evidence that she suffered from a legally cognizable disability as that condition or term is defined below, even if she was under a doctor's care, was ill, and had frequent tardiness or absentness due to illness or a doctor's visit during her employment tenure. In any event, other than her own subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's speculations based upon hearsay, there is no persuasive, competent evidence to show that she was terminated for any reasons based upon an unproven disability, her age or due to any retaliation regarding any protected status within the purview of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner maintains that both he and Mr. Feizi were over 40 and disabled. Whether or not the Petitioner established proof of disability will be dealt with in the conclusions of law below. Mr. Feizi apparently suffered from a disease of the nervous system (AMS) and was confined to a wheel chair much of the time. It may thus be inferred that, for purposes of the legal elements of disability referenced below, that Mr. Feizi was disabled. Other than his subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's subjective testimonial speculation, based upon hearsay, however, there is no competent, persuasive evidence concerning the reasons Mr. Feizi was terminated, other than that his position was simply eliminated through a job force reduction in the manner described in the above findings of fact. There is no persuasive, credible evidence to show that he was dismissed from employment based upon his age or due to his disability or as retaliation, nor was that proven with regard to Ms Achtchi. Other employees testified concerning alleged retaliatory conduct on the part of the Respondent. Sid Palladino and John Corbin opined that they had been retaliated against for making safety complaints of various kinds, as well as for testifying on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Ralph Cleaver testified that he left the Department to work for the Department of Agriculture because he had filed a "whistle blower" claim and that the Respondent, in his view, would use retaliation for his taking such an action. Barry McDaniel was 60 years old when hired and, abruptly soon thereafter, was asked to resign, according to his testimony, without any given reason. He testified that Mr. Sibille had him read a book purportedly advocating hard work and the hiring of young workers. The book was entitled "The Go Getter." According to Mr. McDaniel's testimony, the book was required to be read by all employees under Mr. Sibille's supervision. There was no evidence, however, that although Mr. McDaniel was asked to resign, that any other employee was so treated. The book was not in evidence and the undersigned has only Mr. McDaniel's subjective testimony concerning his thoughts regarding the theme and content of the book, in relation to his subjective belief that his age was the reason he was asked to resign. He testified that his immediate superior, who was also 60 years of age, was "gone" shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of any circumstances or facts concerning why Mr. McDaniel or his supervisor were actually asked to resign or in the case of his supervisor, may have voluntarily resigned. There are insufficient facts and circumstances established by the evidence to show any discriminatory motive related to age or otherwise with regard to the terminations of either of these men. Sid Palladino testified that he was reprimanded for not wearing his uniform and that other employees were not reprimanded when they had not worn uniforms either. He also testified that he felt he was retaliated against for making safety complaints as well as for testifying in support of the Petitioner in this proceeding. In fact, his reprimand was rescinded shortly after it was given him when it was learned that he had not worn his uniform or worn it properly because the uniform supplied him did not fit. Additionally, other than their anecdotal comments in their testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Palladino or Mr. Corbin were retaliated against for complaining of safety issues and the same is true of Ralph Cleaver opining that he was about to be retaliated against for being a whistle blower, and Barry McDaniel as well. There is simply no definitive, credible proof, other than these employees' own subjective opinions, upon which to base a finding that there was any pattern and practice of retaliation against employees for complaining about safety hazards, for supporting other employees' discrimination claims, for making whistle blower claims, for being disabled or on account of their age, which could be persuasively probative of the discrimination and retaliation claims of the Petitioner.1/ In this connection, it is also found that there are a number of remaining employees in the Petitioner's division, who were his age or older. Indeed, Mr. Robert Smith had retired and then was later re-hired by the Department and the Division after suffering at least one episode of injury and medically prescribed light duty. Likewise, there are an unknown number of disabled or physically impaired persons remaining employed by the Department, after the dates and circumstances occurred with regard to the Petitioner's discriminatory claims. At least two of them testified in this proceeding. These facts belie the existence of a systematic policy or practice of eliminating employees over age 40 or of Mr. Forehand's age or older, or those who might be disabled or suffering from physical or medical impairments.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County (Petitioner) should have treated John Bucci as a mandatory member of the Florida Retirement System from April 1984, through July 1988, and therefore, should be required to submit retroactive adjustments for retirement and social security based upon his earnings during this period.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an independent taxing district created by Special Act in 1945 to provide funding in Pinellas County for services to children. It timely filed a request for hearing on the Respondent's decision to consider John Bucci a mandatory member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from April 1984, through July 1988. The position of the Petitioner is that John Bucci was an independent contractor, and therefore, should not be considered a mandatory member of the FRS. Bucci worked as a janitor for the Petitioner between April 1984, and July 1988. He opened the building in the morning, deactivated the building alarm, made coffee, cleaned the employee restrooms, emptied waste baskets, vacuumed and dusted. From time to time, he also painted and made minor repairs in the building, and took mail to the post office when directed to do so. While Bucci did not receive daily assignments, his duties were routine and had been worked out with representatives of Petitioner when he was initially employed. If there were problems with his cleaning, he would be told to reclean an area, and he was expected to take care of the problem as soon as possible. The Petitioner provided Bucci with all supplies and equipment necessary to do his job. While he worked with the Petitioner, Bucci did not have a written contract, but rather, he had an annually renewable verbal contract. He was paid on an hourly basis, and submitted a monthly record of hours worked each day, which was reviewed and approved for payment by Petitioner. Bucci received annual increases from the Petitioner, but did not negotiate these increases. The Petitioner simply gave him what it considered to be a cost of living increase each year. According to Petitioner, Bucci was not in an established position, and therefore, did not receive fringe benefits. At the time, Bucci was the only person working with the Petitioner which it considered to be an independent contractor. Subsequent to his leaving, Petitioner bid, and now has a written contract for janitorial services with an agency in Pinellas County that offers employment opportunities to retarded citizens. That agency provides all equipment and supplies necessary for janitorial duties. After several counseling sessions with Carole Gunnels, Petitioner's operations manager at the time, Bucci was terminated because of continued problems with his work. Thereafter, it was determined by the Division of Unemployment Compensation, Department of Labor and Employment Security, that he qualified for unemployment benefits. The Comptroller's Office of the State of Florida has issued Memorandum No. 7 (1988-89) regarding determinations of a person's status as an independent contractor or employee. In pertinent part, that Memorandum sets forth twenty factors to be considered in determining if sufficient control is present to establish an employee-employer relationship, and states: The Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance in making this determination in Revenue Ruling 87-41. It provides generally, that the relationship of employer and employee exists when the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. That is, an employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done but as to how it shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary that the employer actually direct and control the manner in which the services are performed; it is sufficient if the employer has the right to do so. The Respondent has adopted Rule 22B-6.001(15), Florida Administrative Code, which defines the term "independent contractor" as an individual who: agrees to provide certain services; works according to his own methods; is not subject to the control of his employer, except as to the results of his work; and does not receive the fringe benefits offered by the employer. A consultant or independent contractor usually: is compensated from another salaries and wages account; does not earn annual or sick leave; and may frequently do a majority of his work in his own office rather than on the employer's premises. In order to determine if Bucci should have been considered to be an employee of the Petitioner, rather than an independent contractor, the Respondent provided Petitioner with a copy of its Employment Relationship Questionnaire, which Petitioner completed on or about April 10, 1989. The information provided by Petitioner on this Questionnaire indicates that Bucci was required to follow regular routines or schedules, the Petitioner could change the methods by which he performed his work or otherwise direct him in the performance of his duties, the work was to be performed by Bucci personally, the Petitioner could discharge him at any time, and he could quit at any time. It was also indicated that Bucci was not filling a regularly established position, but was retained under an oral contract to perform personal services. Bucci did not work full-time with the Petitioner. Rather, he worked an average of between 4 to 5 hours a day with the Petitioner. On rare occasion during the time he was employed with the Petitioner, he did take other part-time cleaning jobs with other employers. However, he did not have any occupational license as a janitorial service, did not advertise as such, had no yellow page listing for janitorial services, and did not have any equipment or supplies necessary to carry out his duties, other than what Petitioner provided him. The characteristics, terms and conditions of Bucci's employment with the Petitioner from April 1984, through July 1988, support the Respondent's determination that he was an employee, rather than an independent contractor, and that he was, therefore, a mandatory member of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order concluding that John Bucci was a mandatory member of the FRS, and as such denying Petitioner's request for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-4067) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as purely procedural matters and not a relevant proposed finding of fact. 3-4. Rejected in Findings of Fact 2-5, 8-10. The Respondent did not timely file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry A. Smiljanich, Esquire P. O. Box 1578 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire General Counsel's Office 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
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 finding CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is of good moral character, which must be affirmatively determined by Respondent before Petitioner can be issued a license to operate as a community association manager.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") has jurisdiction to regulate the practice of community association management. In June 2008, Petitioner Teddy Nadel ("Nadel") submitted to the Department an application for licensure as a community association manager. In August 2008, the Department notified Nadel that it intended to deny his application on the ground that he had failed to demonstrate good moral character. Nadel's Relevant Personal History For decades, from the mid-1960s through 2005, Nadel was a certified general contractor in the state of Florida. During most of this period, Nadel apparently engaged in the business of contracting without incident. In recent years, however, Nadel on several occasions was disciplined administratively for alleged misconduct in connection with his contracting business. The first disciplinary proceeding arose from Nadel's alleged failure timely to pay a civil judgment. In August 2001, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint accusing Nadel of having failed "to satisfy[,] within a reasonable time, the terms of a civil judgment obtained against the licensee . . . relating to the practice of the licensee's profession," which is an offense under Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Nadel agreed to entry of a Final Order, in August 2002, whereby he was directed to satisfy the judgment, pay a fine of $500, and reimburse the Department $333.37 in costs. In March 2003, the Department again issued an Administrative Complaint against Nadel. The multiple charges included failure timely to satisfy a civil judgment, mismanagement,1 incompetence,2 and helping an unlicensed person engage in the business of contracting.3 In December 2003, pursuant to a stipulation under which Nadel elected not to dispute (or admit) the charges, the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") entered a Final Order requiring Nadel to pay a fine and costs totaling approximately $4,000, satisfy the final judgment against him, and serve two years' probation. On March 7, 2005, the Board entered a Final Order Approving Voluntary Relinquishment of Licensure, which permanently stripped Nadel of his general contractor license. This action brought to an end certain disciplinary proceedings which were then pending against Nadel, who had been charged with helping four separate unlicensed individuals engage unlawfully in the business of contracting. Nadel neither admitted nor denied the allegations. At the final hearing, Nadel was afforded a full opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the multiple disciplinary actions that had been brought against him. To the rather limited extent Nadel testified about the facts underlying the numerous administrative charges described above, he failed persuasively and credibly to rebut the reasonable inference that naturally arises from the undisputed facts concerning his willingness repeatedly to accept punishment (including, ultimately, the loss of his license) without a contest in the respective disciplinary cases: namely that he had committed the unlawful acts as alleged. The undersigned therefore infers that, in the relatively recent past, Nadel exhibited a troubling pattern of behavior demonstrating a disregard of the laws regulating the business of contracting. On January 4, 2007, Nadel was convicted in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit on charges of engaging in the unlicensed practice of contracting during a state of emergency, which is a third degree felony4; and grand theft in the third degree, which is also a felony of the third degree.5 (Nadel had pleaded no contest to these charges, and the court had withheld adjudication.) Following this conviction, the court sentenced Nadel to 18 months' probation, imposed some small fines, and assessed costs. In his application for licensure as a community association manager, Nadel disclosed his criminal conviction and the fact that he had voluntarily relinquished his general contractor license. He denied, however, having been "involved in any civil lawsuits or administrative actions in this or any other state . . . ." This denial was false, as Nadel must have known. After all, in the previous six years at least two administrative actions had been brought against Nadel in whole or in part because of his failure to pay two separate civil judgments. Ultimate Factual Determination Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence in support of which is clear and convincing, it is determined that Nadel does not possess the good moral character required for issuance of a community association manager license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Nadel's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Other Eligibility Criteria The Petitioner is a corporation formed in 1984, whose sole stockholder, only Director, and President is Kathleen Weber, a minority person. Respondent, Department of General Services (DGS) concedes that Petitioner corporation meets all eligibility criteria for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) except for the number of permanent, full-time employees, which statutory component is the sole focus of the dispute in this cause. Eligibility in this regard hinges on the employment of "25 or fewer permanent full-time employees." Petitioner engages in the provision and installation of plumbing, HVAC ventilation, fire protection, process piping, and potable and waste water systems in the commercial construction field. Permanent, Full-time Employees Ms. Weber claims no part-time employees and considers all employees to be full-time. That is, all employees work, when they work, for a full forty hours per week. However, Ms. Weber classifies her employees, as of date of formal hearing, into two categories of full-time employees: office employees and field employees. Petitioner asserts that the office employees are permanent, while the field employees are not permanent. At the time of the hearing, petitioner had twelve permanent office employees whose positions included Ms. Weber, six project managers, accounting and estimating personnel, and clerical help. Office employees are paid for holidays, sick leave and vacation, and insurance. They are paid a salary on a monthly basis. They are covered by written corporate employment policies. The number of field employees fluctuates between sixty and ninety. Their number and makeup are determined on an "as needed" basis, depending upon the securing by petitioner of a construction contract upon which they can be employed, the size of the "job" and the stage of completion of each job undertaken by Petitioner at any given time. As individuals, these employees do not work on a guaranteed, regular, or predictable basis. The corporation does not have or display any written employment policies concerning them. Sometimes, field employees are hired through a labor company. Usually, as with most non- union construction companies, they are hired upon word of mouth, reputation, and as they present themselves at the job. Field employees are paid only for the hours that they actually work. They may be moved from job to job to accommodate the schedule on each job and to avoid Petitioner laying off personnel that may be needed again soon. Their pay scale ranges from $6.00 to $14.00 an hour with $8.00 being an average. Field employees' wages are set by Bob Pacitti, the head project manager. When a man in the field feels that he is entitled to a raise and asks for it, then a form is filled out by a superintendent who gives it to Bob Pacitti who approves or disapproves the raise. Final approval of a wage increase is made by Ms. Weber. There is no set beginning wage for field employees. Their hourly rate depends on the experience of the worker, the type of work, how badly an employee is needed, add if there is a labor crunch or not. There is no set review period for deciding whether a field employee is entitled to a raise. Field employees are not paid for sick time, holidays, or vacation time. The company designates a field worker, who is called a "foreman" for each job in progress. The "foreman" telephones on a daily basis to the office personnel to inform them of the time worked for all field workers on his particular job/site. After working for the company for one month, field employees are eligible to join the major medical group health insurance plan. The employee is automatically put on the insurance and the company pays the premium for an individual employee. Once an employee has stopped working for two weeks, he is taken off the insurance, retroactive to the last day he worked, and sent a letter indicating that he can assume the insurance premium payment himself through petitioner. Although there is no direct-testimony to that effect, it can be inferred from Ms. Weber's testimony that the health insurance premium for the company is somehow calculated on a regular basis to anticipate at least some number of continuously, employed field employee positions. Two separate payroll ledgers are generated by petitioner: one for field employees and one for office employees. Superintendents Frank Llama and Don De Silva are included in the field employees' weekly computerized payroll but are nonetheless considered by Ms. Weber as permanent employees. The monthly office employee payroll is done by hand. There were about ninety field employees on the last field employee payroll before the date of formal hearing. As of the date of formal hearing, Petitioner was working on twelve projects. The twelve projects have a contract amount ranging from $123,000 to $6,200,000, which may last from a few months to almost two years. The total contract amount for the twelve contracts is in excess of $14,000,000. Each project is assigned one of the six project managers who oversee the job. Frank Llama is a superintendent who is in charge of field operations. He travels from job to job making sure that things are done the way they are supposed to be done Don De Silva performs the same supervisory function, but his work is generally limited to supervision of the air conditioning aspects of the projects. There were thirty-three individual field employees (not counting superintendents Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the applicant's payroll as of 6/19/86 who were also listed on the last payroll for 1986. These employees were continuously employed throughout that time frame. There were twenty-two individual field employees (not counting Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the Petitioner's first payroll for the year 1987 and who were also listed on the last payroll for 1987. Most of these field employees were continuously employed by Petitioner for all or a significant part of that year. There were forty-seven field employees (not counting Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the first payroll for 1988 and who were also listed on the 9/08/88 payroll. Some non-supervisory field employees were employed continuously from one year to the next, and a few were continuously employed for all or the better part of the two or three years. Each had federal income and FICA taxes deducted from his salary while employed by Petitioner. During 1986, 1987, and the first two quarters of 1988, the Petitioner reported the following number of office and field employees on the initial Florida Employer's Quarterly Wage and Tax Report, for Florida Unemployment Compensation purposes: 1986 1987 1988 Jan. 77 74 97 Feb. 1st 91 79 105 March 93 81 107 April 116 96 96 May 2nd 117 98 96 June 108 105 96 July 127 122 August 3rd 100 122 Sept. 106 112 Oct 91 108 Nov. 4th 74 110 Dec. 68 110 Petitioner's gross receipts in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, were $5,702,138. Its gross receipts for 1987, $3,466,926. Its gross receipts for 1988, were $3,917,190. Non-Rule Policy Petitioner's initial application for MBE certification was deemed incomplete by DGS. The application did not respond to the question that says, "state-the number of current, full-time, permanent employees ", on page 3 of the Certification Application Form 1704. It did not give the name, home address, home telephone number and length of service for each current, full-time, permanent employee on an attached sheet of paper, also as required by the application form. It did not attach a copy of one or more of the following items: W-4 Social Security form for each current full-time employee. The most current Florida Quarterly Unemployment Report. The most current Federal Annual Unemployment Report. (R-13) Ms. Weber filled out only the questions relating to minority status. By letter dated December 15, 1988, Ms. Weber was requested to provide this information by Lloyd Ringgold, Minority Business Assistance Labor Employment and Training Field Representative of the Minority Business Enterprise Office. By letter dated December 23, 1986, Ms. Weber replied, "Falcon Mechanical, Inc., has 22 full-time, permanent employees. Ms. Weber also included an employee roster showing a list of twenty- two employees. When that employee roster was submitted to the MBE office, twelve of the employees on that roster were paid on a monthly basis and ten were paid on a weekly basis. At the time of the hearing, the applicant no longer employed eight warehouse employees from that roster, who had been paid on a weekly basis. (See Finding of Fact 11). Without needless elaboration, it is found that Mr. Ringgold and Ms. Weber did not have a meeting of the minds when, during an on-site interview, he requested her to define "full-time employee" and "permanent employee." Her responses then are not inconsistent with her testimony at formal hearing nor with the facts as found supra. Petitioner's President clearly always viewed the field employees as a transient, very flexible, changing labor force who were not office personnel and who did not individually work on both a regular and a predictable basis, whether they worked 40 hours a week in stretches or not. DOS personnel, however, did not understand her responses at the interview this way and applied what Mr. Ringgold thought Ms. Weber meant to both of the Petitioner's payroll ledgers to reach the conclusion that Petitioner employed more than twenty-five permanent full-time employees. DOS does not have a duly promulgated rule defining the term "permanent employee" which is a crucial component of the element, "permanent full-time employee," within the statutory MBE criterion "small business' which is here at issue. DOS also has no written statement of its policy with regard to such a definition but it asserts it has an unpublished, not publicly declared definition or method for determining the number of permanent full-time employees. DOS admittedly did not explicate, announce, or publish this method to Petitioner or anyone else. When an agency makes such an assertion, it must explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case- by-case basis. MacDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). This is a heavy burden, and the non-rule policy does not have the presumption of validity which is afforded formally promulgated agency rules. Barker v. Board of Medical Examiners, 428 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). From the testimony of Lloyd Ringgold, and the testimony of his supervisor, Marsha Nims, DGS Employment and Training Manager, it was established that DGS uses the information provided by the applicant on the application form, the Employer's Quarterly Wage and Tax (Unemployment) Reports, and other employee records to initially consider whether an applicant employs twenty-five or fewer permanent full-time employees. What formula, if any, is applied at that stage of agency review, other than a general discussion between DOS employees, was not fully explicated at formal hearing. However, after the first stage of review, if the reviewer has a question as to whether an applicant has more than twenty- five permanent full-time employees, DOS then conducts an on-site interview as it did in this case and relies on the applicant's definition of "permanent" and "full-time" employee given in that interview. The reasoning behind this approach by the agency is apparently that someone within DOS believed such an approach to be the fairest method for judging MBE applicants who represent diverse types of businesses, not all of which businesses are susceptible of easy analysis. No non-speculative rationale was advanced for this method of defining "permanent, full-time employee." This method has built-in external inconsistency and subjectivity as between applicants and is subject to manipulation and control by every applicant. Moreover, as the foregoing findings of fact demonstrate, ordinary conversational misunderstandings subject the method to internal inconsistencies in actual practice. The method/policy does nothing to apply presumed agency expertise to a program the agency is mandated by statute to administer. The method also was not demonstrated to conform with any generally recognized MBE or employment planning and reporting considerations. Therefore, DOS failed to explicate its non-rule policy and failed to demonstrate its reasonableness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 87-1950 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF 1-3,5. Accepted in substance but not adopted where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found or never at issue. 4,7. Accepted. 6. Rejected as a FOF: covered in conclusions of law (COL). 8-9. Rejected as mere statements of position or argument. To the extent they address the evidence presented and are contrary, they are rejected for that reason. The non-rule policy is addressed within the RO and FOF made therein that conform to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. 10-16. Accepted in substance but not adopted as cumulative, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found. 17-18. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found and portions are also mere argument or statement of position. 19. Accepted as Petitioner's classifications only. The second sentence is modified to conform to the relevant and material evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF 1-14. Accepted in whole or in substance except where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative. A portion of PFOF 3 has been rephrased so as not to constitute an ultimate conclusion of law. Mere recitations of testimony have been rejected as-such. 15-20. Generally accepted; what is rejected is rejected as contrary to the evidence, cumulative in part, and in part as mere recitations of testimony. Further explanation and rulings are contained within the RO itself. 21-23,25. Accepted in substance, modified to clarify or conform more closely to the record evidence as a whole. 24. Accepted in substance but conformed to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole in FOF 15. During year 1987, Respondent does not state that employees Budgett and Ocasio were not employed for a significant number of pay periods and seems to have confused Ruben Ocasio (59415) and Jose Ocasio (59400) throughout the pay periods as well as with regard to the first and last payrolls. In 1988, Figueroa and Zager were not employed for a significant number of pay periods. The Hearing Officer has read composite exhibit 6 with diligence and has conformed the FOF to the evidence, without cumulative verbiage. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald G. Sternstein, Esquire MacFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Suite 600 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services 200 East Gaines Street Room 452 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s employment position was properly reclassified from Career Service to the Select Exempt Service (SES) on July 1, 2001, pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact On May 1, 2001, Petitioner was reassigned from Accountant Supervisor I to Administrative Assistant II. At the time, Petitioner was under the Career Service System and was a probationary status employee. Petitioner’s position as an Administrative Assistant II was a position within the PERC certified collective bargaining unit, entitled the Administrative and Clerical Unit, Certification Number 542 issued on June 25, 1981. For inclusion within such a unit the position was considered to not involve managerial or supervisory functions. In the early part of 2001, the Department’s Bureau of Personnel Services worked with the Department of Management Services to implement the Service First initiative. As part of Service First’s implementation, the Bureau reviewed positions to determine whether they met the criteria set forth in Section 110.205, Florida Statutes. After its review, the Bureau forwarded its determination regarding those positions to the Department of Management Services (DMS) for reclassification or exemption as appropriate. The Bureau reviewed Petitioner’s duties and consulted with Petitioner’s immediate and indirect supervisors regarding the essential duties assigned to Petitioner’s position. Based on that review, the Bureau determined that Petitioner’s position was confidential. Although the evidence at the hearing did not demonstrate such the Bureau determined that Ms. Wofford and Petitioner had access to confidential collective bargaining material due to their work with the Long-Range Program Plan (LRPP). On July 1, 2001, Petitioner’s position was reclassified from Career Service to SES due to the Service First initiative. Petitioner’s position was reclassified to SES because it was determined to be a confidential position as defined in Section 110.205, Florida Statutes. The title of the position remained the same. A new position description under SES was approved by the Division Director, Ms. Sandy Delopez. The new SES description was essentially the same as Petitioner’s old Career Service position description. In pertinent part, the position description as of July 1, 2001, stated the following: This position is authorized to work independently assisting management in the coordination of tasks and/or assignments, which are complex in nature, broad in objective with diverse functions. Duty [Sic] involves the performance of activities, which involve independent planning and prioritization. Assists in collecting, evaluating and analyzing data and work. Review records and reports that require action and recommend solutions that fully utilize technology. Perform special assignments, research, report preparation, conducting and/or directing special projects or activities as directed. Responsible for performing other related duties as required. Petitioner remained employed under the new classification until his termination on March 12, 2003. As an Administrative Assistant II under SES, Petitioner worked in the Office of Planning and Business Support under the Division of Administrative Services in the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. One of the Division’s major responsibilities was to coordinate preparation of the LRPP. The Division provided administrative support functions for the Department, including budgeting, accounting, human resources, purchasing and contracts. Petitioner reported to Stacy Wofford, the Bureau Chief of Purchasing and Contracts, who acted as his immediate supervisor. Ms. Wofford served as the Agency Planning Officer. Petitioner’s chain of command also included Ms. Wofford’s direct supervisor, Mallory Horne, Jr., Chief of Staff, and the Division Director, Ms. Sandy DeLopez. Ms. Wofford had the primary responsibility for preparing the LRPP. The Office of Planning only had two employees, Ms. Wofford and Petitioner. The LRPP is a five-year plan prepared by Respondent each year, pursuant to Section 216.013, Florida Statutes, that lays out the agency’s goals, strategies for reaching those goals, and the performance measures used by the agency in evaluation of its performance. The Governor’s Office directed the items and issues that were to be included in the LRPP. The LRPP addresses Respondent’s plan for reductions in force, and identifies specific positions that could be impacted by such reductions in force. There was no substantive evidence that this information was used in collective bargaining in any substantial way. The LRPP also is used to justify the Department’s legislative budget request. The plan provides the framework and foundation for the Department’s legislative budget request and addresses how the Department is going to meet the Governor’s mandate of a five percent budget and workforce reduction for each year. As a part of the LRPP, the Department provided its plan for reductions in force and identified specifically positions that would be impacted. It has a substantial impact on the preparation of the Department’s budget and legislative consideration of that budget. However, neither Ms. Wofford, nor Petitioner prepared or administered agency budgets. Ms. Wofford had primary responsibility for coordinating the plan’s preparation. In preparing the LRPP, Ms. Wofford had to analyze the goals of the various Divisions in the Department and what positions may be possible for elimination or consolidation. Furthermore, Ms. Wofford consulted with bureau chiefs in staff meetings and briefings to provide information to the Division Director that could be used in determining where job cuts would be made. Based on her job description, Ms. Wofford’s position was not of a routine, clerical or ministerial nature and did require the application of independent judgment, such that she constituted a managerial or supervisory employee. However, the information used in the LRPP was developed by and collected from the various Divisions of the Department. In that regard the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Wofford’s true duties were of a ministerial nature and included faithfully reporting to others the information she obtained from others. Petitioner assisted Ms. Wofford in obtaining the information collected from the various Divisions and putting that information into the correct format for easy inclusion into the LRPP. To accomplish these tasks Petitioner utilized Microsoft Word, Excel and Access and had significant experience in those areas. None of the information gathered in preparing the LRPP was exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The information contained in the LRPP was clearly important and sensitive because of its potential impact. The evidence did not show that such information was secret or confidential information. The testimony of the Division Director that he considered everything in his office to be confidential is insufficient to establish such confidentiality, since clearly the Sunshine laws apply to his office and much of the information he deals with is subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, such testimony is insufficient to establish confidentiality strictures down to Petitioner’s level of employment. At the time, the DMS conducted the collective bargaining negotiations with unions representing State employees. The Department did not conduct such negotiations. However, the Department had several managers on the advisory council that worked with DMS on collective bargaining with unions. These included Ken Wilson, Sandra DeLopez, a chief from the Highway Patrol, and sometimes one of the agency attorneys. Neither Stacy Wofford, nor her supervisor, Mallory Horne, was the bargaining team. Neither Ms. Wofford, nor Petitioner prepared, or assisted anyone in preparing, collective bargaining proposals to be used in collective bargaining negotiations. Moreover, neither was ever asked to do so. According to Petitioner’s testimony, he preformed two general functions in his position as an Administrate Assistant II: writing computer programs and performing ad hoc clerical tasks for Ms. Wofford. Approximately 80 percent of Petitioner’s time was spent on various computer programming tasks; approximately 20 percent was spent in performing clerical tasks. On the other hand, Ms. Wofford described Mr. Snyder as her “right hand person,” and as someone who worked very close with her. The evidence showed that Petitioner’s work in programming consisted of creating various programs that were ultimately used by other administrative units to collect and display data. After creating the programs, Petitioner would turn the application over to the administrative unit for which it was prepared, for its use. He developed programs, to analyze how quickly property was entered into the State property system, customer service surveys, the use of electricity in State buildings and programs for the State childcare facility. These were created, primarily, using Visual Basic for applications and Microsoft Excel. Petitioner’s work on the LRPP was essentially clerical in nature. It consisted of receiving numerous documents from the various Divisions of the Department, and compiling all of the documents into a single document, with consistent formatting. His primary concerns were that the final document used the same typeface, or font, the same margins, and that the various compiled documents fell on the correct page. He had no control over the data; he simply arranged the formatting and entered information into spreadsheet and database programs for use in the LRPP. Petitioner had no policy-making role in the development of the LRPP. Petitioner helped Ms. Wofford in assimilating information and verifying that the information being provided by the various program areas was the most recent and accurate. In addition, he made sure that the information was uploaded electronically in the Legislature’s budget system. Petitioner also created the formulas used to get to the output reflected on the LRPP. However, these formulas were basic mathematical formulas and not formulas that used policy parameters in their creation. The evidence did not show Petitioner’s assistance was independent or required significant amounts of independent judgment. Petitioner, also, along with Ms. Wofford, was involved in meetings related to the preparation of the LRPP. These meetings would have included Mr. Neal Standley, Budget Chief, Ms. Sandy DeLopez, Division Director, Mr. Ken Wilson, former Personnel Chief, Ms. Rene Knight current Personnel Chief, and other managers. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner’s role was other than to explain various processes used to create the LRPP. His role did not involve policy judgments or require independent action or judgment. Petitioner did not supervise any other employee; did not give performance evaluations; did not work on collective bargaining grievances or arbitrations or on Career Service appeals; and did not assist in developing policies or materials to be used in collective bargaining. Petitioner did not regularly handle information that was not subject to public inspection. Although he performed clerical work on the LRPP, he never knowingly viewed information identifying positions the agency intended to eliminate or consolidate due to reductions in force. In particular, Petitioner did not have access to a database of positions to be eliminated due to reductions in force, and did not know of the existence of any such database. In short, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner was either a managerial employee or an employee involved with confidential matters. Therefore his position should not have been reclassified from Career Service to SES.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner's position of Administrative Assistant II, is that of a Career Service employee, setting aside the classification as Select Exempt Service, and reinstating Petitioner as a person entitled to rights pertaining to Career Service employees as of the time of his improper reclassification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Judson Chapman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Room A-432, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Fred O. Dickinson, III, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Melissa Horwitz, Esquire 6840 Highland Park Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Avery D. McKnight, Esquire Alien, Norton and Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Petitioner was a supervisory employee as defined by Subsection 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and was, therefore, properly reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service effective July 1, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The 2001 Florida Legislature enacted a substantial revision of the Florida Civil Service system referred to as the "Service First" initiative. (See Chapter 2001-43, Laws of Florida). This revision, which became effective on July 1, 2001, substantially expanded the parameters of the Selected Exempt Service classification to include many positions which had previously been identified as Career Service positions. Generally, Selected Exempt Service employees serve at the pleasure of the agency head and are considered at-will employees; whereas, Career Service employees have greater employment rights and job security. Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the Pinellas Maintenance Yard from December 15, 1997, to September 19, 2002. Initially, Petitioner held the position of Office Support III, but was eventually promoted to Office Support V in June 2001, both Career Service classifications. Following the enactment of the Service First initiative, Respondent reclassified Petitioner's Career Service position to Selected Exempt Service status in July 2001. On September 19, 2002, Petitioner was terminated from employment without explanation. His annual salary was $32,500. Following the decision in Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), Respondent notified Petitioner of his rights to seek an administrative hearing and challenge the reclassification. Petitioner timely challenged Respondent's action. During his tenure working for Respondent, Petitioner, pursuant to his written position description, was responsible for various administrative functions, including personnel, records, and fiscal matters, as well as supervisory responsibilities, including the supervision of a few administrative staff. Specifically, his position description provides in part: 20% of time: Supervises and/or participates in the daily administrative activities . . . . Ensuring the reception telephone and radio are fully staffed at all times. . . 15% of time: Supervises and/or participates in the personnel activities for Pinellas Maintenance Office. Counsels employees in matters of retirements, benefits, grievances, discipline and other personnel and work related problems. . . 15% of time: Supervises and/or participates in the fiscal activities for the Pinellas Maintenance Office. Supervises the maintenance of ledgers and Journals associated with local Purchase Orders, local Charge Accounts and Purchase Requisitions, Utility Invoice Transmittals, Contract Invoice transmittals, Partial Payments, etc. . . 10% of time: Directs purchasing for the Pinellas Maintenance Office. . . 10% of time: Serves as representative of the Pinellas Maintenance Engineer at meetings. . . 10% of time: Receives incoming mail, reviews and distributes to appropriate personnel. . . 5% of time: Participates in the selection process for entry level Field Operations Unit positions. . . 5% of time: Directs and coordinates the maintenance and use of records storage. . . 5% of time: Trains employees in methods for performing an efficient and effective job. 5% of time: Performs other related duties as required. Petitioner admits that he was responsible for and routinely engaged in many activities that were supervisory in nature. The evidence supports the fact that Petitioner performed these duties, and his performance evaluations reflect his activity. Petitioner's position description allocated specific time frames to the written duties and responsibilities. Upon careful review, the position description provides that the Office Support, Level V position employee shall "supervise and/or participate" in administrative, personnel, and fiscal matters 50 percent of the work-time. The remaining 50 percent of work-time is allocated to other duties, including purchasing, attending meetings, mail distribution and inquiries, assisting with the selection process of certain entry level positions, coordinating records storage, training certain employees, and performing other "related duties as required." While Petitioner admits that he performed supervisory activity, he contends that it consumed a small percentage of his work-time. He further argues that he was authorized and required to spend 50 percent of his time "supervising and/or participating in" certain activities. Petitioner alleges that he spent little time "supervising" and most of his time "participating" and actually performing the activities. The evidence demonstrates that among the 80 to 100 people employed at the yard, Petitioner supervised a personnel technician, a financial clerk, a clerical employee, and a receptionist, all of whom required limited supervision. Petitioner primarily served as the personnel liaison for all of the employees, maintained their files, researched personnel matters, and responded to inquiries. He handled the personnel paperwork related to hiring and firing, leave, pay adjustments, travel reimbursements, and employee benefits. In addition, Petitioner investigated and processed workers' compensation claims and handled the yard's safety and training records. He worked on special projects including ferreting out overtime abuse, installing a security system, and handling certain maintenance issues. In addition to his administrative personnel responsibilities, Petitioner admittedly supervised, trained, directed, and evaluated four subordinates and was responsible for improving their performance via counseling and corrective action. He initiated disciplinary action and issued a written reprimand to one employee with poor attendance. On occasion, Petitioner conducted staff meetings with his subordinates and also met with them individually. He managed attendance and approved leave for his staff of four. He participated in interviewing and selecting candidates for open positions under his supervision and determined the appropriate criteria, created the interview questions, and was a member of the interview panel. Petitioner was evaluated, in part, upon his supervision of subordinates. One evaluation noted that he needed to improve follow-up with assignments made to others and another indicated that he capably initiated change, but occasionally required assistance to effectuate it. Petitioner's evaluations also assessed his leadership and delegation skills, and one noted that he delegated well, but needed to work to regain better control of his areas. Although some of Petitioner's time was spent supervising, the evidence demonstrates that the vast majority of his work-time was spent performing non-supervisory activities. The facts show that Petitioner actually performed the noted activities the majority of the time and supervised those activities on occasion. Furthermore, Mr. Nawab, who periodically served as Petitioner's supervisor, provided credible evidence that Petitioner's primary responsibilities and the majority of his work-time involved non-supervisory activities. While Petitioner, during his testimony, diminished the time he spent engaged in supervisory work, the credible evidence demonstrates that he spent the minority of his work-time communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees and planning and directing employees' work. Although Petitioner may have demonstrated mediocre supervisory skills, which does not make the position any less supervisory, neither Petitioner's supervisor nor his position description required him to spend the majority of his work time engaged in those supervisory activities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The position of Office Support V for the Pinellas Maintenance Yard for the State of Florida Department of Transportation was not exempt from Career Service classification as defined in Subsection 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001); Respondent improperly reclassified the position as Selected Exempt Service; and Petitioner should be reinstated with the full benefits accrued since his termination on September 19, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33606 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the following activities: (a) Discharging the Petitioner from her position of employment with Respondent because of Petitioner's race and (b) after discharging the Petitioner, continuing to seek applications for the position previously held by the Petitioner from similarly qualified or less qualified applicants. Subsequent to the filing of her petition for relief, the Petitioner filed a motion for default pursuant to Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer to the petition as required by the cited rule. By order dated September 21, 1987, the Respondent was given until October 5, 1987, within which to show cause as to why the relief requested in the motion for default should not be granted. The Respondent failed to respond to the order of September 21, 1987, and on October 7, 1987, an order was issued which included the following language: That pursuant to Rule 22T-9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is hereby deemed to have admitted all material facts alleged in the petition. That at the final hearing in this case the material facts alleged in the petition will be taken as established without further proof, but both parties will be afforded an opportunity at the final hearing to offer evidence regarding any additional relevant facts. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the Petitioner and her attorney appeared at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled commencement time, the Hearing Officer called the Respondent's offices in Jacksonville and was advised by an employee of Respondent that the Respondent did not intend to have anyone attend the hearing. Shortly thereafter the hearing was convened and the Hearing Officer received evidence offered by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Petitioner, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, 15 days within which to file a proposed recommended order. Thereupon the record of the hearing was closed without any appearance having been made on behalf of the Respondent. On November 16, 1987, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order. Following the hearing, the Respondent was advised by letter of its right to file a proposed recommended order, but as of the date of this recommended order the Respondent has not filed any post-hearing document with the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1985, the Petitioner was referred by Job Finders of Florida, a private job placement service, to apply for a position with the Respondent, Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. The job the Petitioner applied for was Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner met all of the qualifications for the job of Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Jim Hart, the manager of the Ocala office of the Respondent. After interviewing the Petitioner, Mr. Hart decided, on the basis of her experience and references, that the Petitioner was the best qualified of several applicants. In this regard, it is noted that the Petitioner's prior employment had required the performance of duties substantially similar to those of the Secretary/Dispatcher position with Respondent. Thereafter, in the afternoon or evening of October 11, 1985, Mr. Hart telephoned the Petitioner, offered her the job, and advised her that she was to report to work on October 14, 1985. On October 14, 1985, the Petitioner reported to work at the Ocala office of the Respondent and immediately began performing the duties of Secretary/Dispatcher. During the work day on October 14, 1985, the Petitioner received a telephone call from Mrs. Lou Mohrman, the managing director of the Respondent. Mrs. Lou Mohrman welcomed the Petitioner to her position of employment and stated that she was pleased with the Petitioner's placement with the company. On October 15, 1985, Mr. L. D. Mohrman, president of Respondent, accompanied by Mrs. Lou Mohrman, managing director, visited the Ocala offices of the Respondent. After engaging in a boisterous conversation with Mr. Hart and visually ascertaining the Petitioner's race, Mrs. Mohrman summarily dismissed Petitioner without articulating a legitimate business reason for the termination. Within the next few days the Respondent listed the Secretary/Dispatcher position as vacant and continued to seek to fill the position with individuals with qualifications similar to or less than the qualifications of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a black female. She is a person within the meaning of Sections 760.02(5) and 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The dismissal of the Petitioner from her position of employment with the Respondent was motivated by the president and the managing director ascertaining the Petitioner's race. The dismissal of the Petitioner was motivated solely by her race. The Petitioner's starting salary at the Respondent company was $4.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. After her termination, the Petitioner sought employment elsewhere and obtained another job in January of 1986, where she worked until November of 1986. In November of 1986 the Petitioner voluntarily left her job in order to finish school. When she began work in January of 1986 the Petitioner was making $3.80 per hour. When she quit in November of 1986 she was making $4.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice; Prohibiting the Respondent from terminating any employee on the basis of the employee's race; Requiring the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the Petitioner under the terms and conditions of employment to which she would be presently entitled if she had been continuously employed, including any raises to which she would have been entitled on the basis of longevity. Requiring the Respondent to pay back pay to the Petitioner from the date of termination until November of 1986 in an amount equal to the total amount the Petitioner would have earned as a Secretary/Dispatcher during that period, less any amounts actually earned during that period; and Requiring the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3048 The following are my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8: Accepted Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Not included in findings of fact because they are subordinate procedural details. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Covered in prior findings. Paragraph 16: Accepted Paragraph 17: Covered in prior findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esq. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 312 W. First Street Suite 605 Sanford, Florida 32771 Mr. L. D. Mohrman, President Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. 3000 West 45th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
