The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case. At the hearing the Respondent offered eleven exhibits into evidence and presented the testimony of two witnesses, Charles Crozier and Sam Visconti. The Petitioner offered two exhibits, both of which were rejected. The Petitioner did not call any witnesses to testify on his behalf. He expressly declined to be sworn as a witness and testify on his own behalf, even after being specifically advised of his right to do so and being specifically advised that no findings of fact could be made on the basis of his unsworn assertions.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Leroy Williams-El, commenced his employment with the Respondent, Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, in 1977. His last position was Dorm Supervisor I, which position he had held since the 1980-81 school year. The position Petitioner held was somewhat critical in that not only did he have to oversee the portion of the dormitory that was assigned to him, but he was also specifically in charge of the care and safety of some ten or twelve students. The Petitioner was a permanent employee, but his work period coincided generally with the school year and ran for ten months, generally from August to June each year. The Petitioner's last official work day was June 11, 1985. He was not in a work status during the summer of 1985. The dorm supervisors were supervised by Charles Crozier, Director of Student Life. At the end of the 1985 school year, the dorm supervisors remained at the school for approximately a week after the students had left and the administration conducted a post-planning week. During the post-planning week, Crozier met with the employees, discussed the upcoming 1985-86 school calendar, and Petitioner and the other dorm supervisors were told that their date to report back to work was August 26, 1985. In addition to discussing the return date with the various employees at the June post-planning meeting, Crozier, under date of August 21, 1985, mailed a letter to the Petitioner at his last known address as it appeared in the school file, that is, 75 1/2 Lincoln Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084, reminding the Petitioner that his return date for reporting back for work was August 26, 1985. The Petitioner did not return to work as instructed on August 26, 1985. On August 27, 1985, the Petitioner called Crozier and advised Crozier he had been unable to report to work on August 26, 1985. He was advised by Crozier that he must report to work on Thursday, August 29, at 8:00 a.m. (Exhibit 2) The Petitioner did not report to work on August 29, but instead again called Crozier. Crozier, at this point, got the personnel officer of the school, Sam Visconti, on the phone with him. During the conversation on August 29, 1985, the Petitioner requested that the school "transfer" him to a position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. Crozier and Visconti both explained to him that the school had no authority to "transfer" the Petitioner to another job with another agency in another city. He was told that he should report to work immediately or submit a request for leave without pay. At the time of Petitioner's telephone call on August 29, 1985, Crozier had already prepared a letter dated August 29, 1985, advising the Petitioner that inasmuch as he had failed to report to work on August 26 and had not reported on August 29 as directed, he was being given an official reprimand. He was further advised that if he did not contact Crozier by September 4, 1985, he would be suspended without pay and failure to report to work would result in his termination. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 4, 1985, as instructed. On September 6, 1985, Crozier received a call from Lynn Rowe, Visconti's assistant in the personnel office, relaying a telephone call from a lady purporting to be the Petitioner's sister. Ms. Rowe was inquiring whether or not Crozier had any instructions for the Petitioner. Crozier advised Ms. Rowe that the Petitioner was to report to work by the time his normal work week would start, which would be Sunday, September 8. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 8, September 9, or September 10, 1985. The Petitioner did not call in and make contact with Crozier or Visconti on any one of those days. When the Petitioner did not report to work for those three days, Crozier again contacted Sam Visconti, the personnel officer, and reported this fact to him. At no time during the period from August 26 through September 10, 1985, did the Petitioner request from Crozier or Visconti, the personnel officer, annual leave, leave without pay, or any other type of approved leave. The conversations he had with Crozier and Visconti concerned a request that he be "transferred" to a job with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. On September 11, 1985, after Crozier advised Visconti of the Petitioner's failure to report to work, Visconti prepared a dismissal letter under the date of September 11, 1985. This letter summarized the chronology of events concerning Petitioner's failure to report to work and advised the Petitioner that he was considered to have abandoned his position. Petitioner was further told of his right to seek a determination and review of his abandonment. The letter of September 11, 1985, was mailed to the Petitioner's last known address in the personnel file, which was the St. Augustine address. Late in the afternoon of September 11, Petitioner called Visconti and informed him of the new address in Miami, Florida. Visconti then sent an additional copy of the same letter to Petitioner on September 13, 1985, to the Miami address. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is a separate state agency and is not in any way connected with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Furthermore, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind has no offices or positions available in the Miami area. Visconti and Crozier discussed with Petitioner his repeated requests for a "transfer" on more than one occasion and repeatedly advised him the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind had no authority to transfer him to a different job with another state agency. At no time did the Petitioner request a leave of absence from Visconti. Visconti advised the Petitioner of the critical nature of his position as a Dorm Supervisor I and explained to him the difficulties created by Petitioner's failure to return to work. Visconti further advised the Petitioner that if he wanted a leave of absence, the personnel officer had to receive the request for the leave of absence in writing and the president of the school would consider the request after it had been received. It was imperative, however, that the Petitioner either bring or mail in a written request for a leave of absence. The Petitioner did not send a request for leave of absence to the school. The last conversation Crozier had with the Petitioner occurred sometime in late October or November and concerned a request by the Petitioner that Crozier send a copy of the Petitioner's college transcripts to an HRS office in Miami. At that time the Petitioner did not request to be re-employed or to be reinstated. Crozier mailed the materials as requested. Williams did not report to the school for employment on or after August 26, 1985, and was considered to have resigned effective September 10, 1985.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner abandoned his position and that his petition should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leroy Williams 1360 N.W. 199th Street Miami, Florida 33169 Mr. Leroy Williams-E1 10566 McLaurin Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Mr. Samuel R. Visconti Personnel Officer Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 North San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by each of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner The rulings which follow immediately below refer to the five (5) unnumbered paragraphs which appear under the caption "Facts To Examine" in Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Order To Commence On Final Argument. The paragraphs are referred to in the order in which they appear. First paragraph on first page: First sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. First paragraph on second page: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Third paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. Fourth paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent All of the findings proposed by the Respondent have been accepted with a few editorial modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION LEROY WTLLlAMS-EL, Petitioner, vs. DOA Case No. AB-85-18 DOAH Case No. 85-3600 FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed by the City of Kissimmee (the City) from July 17, 1989, to the present as a tele- communicator in the Communications Center of the Police Department. Petitioner and his health care provider advised the City sometime in 1995 that Petitioner is diabetic. Diabetes has impaired Petitioner's work schedule and his willingness to train other employees but has not handicapped Petitioner. The diabetes has not substantially limited Petitioner in a major life activity and has not substantially limited Petitioner from performing a class of jobs or broad range of jobs in various classes. Petitioner is able to care for himself. Petitioner clothes himself, bathes, shaves, brushes his teeth, and combs his hair. Petitioner checks his own blood sugar level regularly during waking hours. Petitioner is able to perform other major life activities. Those activities include walking, driving a vehicle, performing manual tasks, seeing, speaking, hearing, learning, talking, and performing the duties of his occupation. Petitioner has walked for several years approximately 1.25 miles a day. Petitioner drives his own vehicle. Petitioner performs manual tasks. Petitioner operates a computer, though he has some difficulty doing so. Several months ago, Petitioner helped a friend hang an interior door. Petitioner has also helped friends paint walls in recent years. Petitioner has difficulty with his uncorrected vision. With reading glasses, however, Petitioner reads documents most of the time. Petitioner uses a device identified in the record as a CPAP machine to assist him in breathing at night. However, Petitioner does not need to use the machine during the work day to do his job. No health care provider has advised Respondent that Petitioner is disabled. Petitioner’s diabetic specialist is Dr. Jose Mandry. Dr. Mandry did not testify at the hearing. Dr. Mandry informed Respondent that Petitioner has diabetes in a note the City received on or about February 6, 1995, when Respondent attempted to schedule Petitioner for a night shift in the Communications Center. The note from Dr. Mandry did not indicate that Petitioner was handicapped (disabled), or that any accommodations were required in order for Petitioner to continue working. The note requested the City to keep Petitioner on daytime shifts "if possible." The note did not indicate that a daytime schedule was medically necessary. Rather, the note indicated that working day shifts would be “desirable.” On March 23, 1995, Dr. Mandry provided another letter to the City regarding Petitioner's medical condition. The note stated that Petitioner needed to “be accommodated with a normal daytime work schedule.” In July 1995, the City established a regular daytime work schedule for Petitioner. The City never regarded Petitioner as disabled, and the daytime work schedule for Petitioner was not an “ADA Accommodation.” The City employee who granted the request for a daytime schedule was identified in the record as Police Department Commander Johns. Commander Johns did not have authority to provide an ADA accommodation. The authority to provide an ADA accommodation is vested in the city manager and city attorney. They make a final determination of whether the City will provide an ADA accommodation to a particular employee. The city manager and city attorney did not authorize the City to provide any ADA accommodation to Petitioner. The daytime schedule granted to Petitioner is part of Respondent’s general practice and policy of working with impaired employees and employees who have personal needs. The policy attempts to help such employees with their schedules when it is possible to do so without an adverse impact on the City’s ability to provide services. Assuming arguendo that City employees had the authority to provide ADA accommodations to Petitioner in the absence of a formal determination by the city manager and city attorney, Petitioner relies on evidence of interactions between City employees and Petitioner in an attempt to show the City provided Petitioner with ADA accommodations. The relevant evidence involves two time periods. The first is the period from June 4, 1996, until June 5, 2002. The second is the period from June 5, 2002, through March 16, 2006, when Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission. The record evidence does not support a finding that City employees provided an ADA accommodation to Petitioner. The daytime work schedule authorized in 1995 remained in effect until June 4, 1996, when Dr. Mandry advised the City that Petitioner could work up to 12 hours a day, as long as the 12 hours were daytime hours. Between 1996 and June 5, 2002, the City allowed Petitioner to work overtime when he wanted to, based on Petitioner's self-assessment of his physical condition. Petitioner acknowledged the overtime schedule in a memo that he wrote to Lieutenant Donna Donato on June 5, 2002 (the memo). The memo described Petitioner's plans for his future work schedule. The memo stated that Petitioner was providing notice “that due to self-assessed health issues” Petitioner intended to restrict the amount of his overtime in the future. (emphasis added). In relevant part, the memo advised the City that Petitioner did not intend to “demand the imposition of the restrictions [on his work schedule] as addressed by City Management in June of 1995.” Instead, the memo advised that Petitioner would address his concerns “to the best of [his] abilities by modifying [his] agenda. " Petitioner listed a number of items that may be fairly described as terms or conditions for when and under what circumstances Petitioner would work overtime. Petitioner provided no new medical evidence to support a finding of medical necessity for the terms and conditions that Petitioner prescribed in the memo. Petitioner acknowledged that his concerns were based on “self-assessed health issues” and asserted that “no further documentation should be necessary.” Petitioner did provide a note from Dr. Mandry on June 20, 2002. The note states: The following is a letter as requested by the above-captioned patient [David Dey]. As you know, he suffers from diabetes and also requires insulin for his control. David needs to monitor glucose levels and follow fairly stable meal patterns in order to try to achieve good control of diabetes and avoid complications. It would certainly be to his advantage and much preferable if he could have a stable work shift where he could regulate his meals and his injections properly. (emphasis added) Respondent's Exhibit 18 (Hereinafter R-18, etc.). During the second period of time between June 5, 2002, and the Charge of Discrimination, the City hired a new manager for the Communications Center. In July 2002, the City hired Ms. Jean Moe to manage the Communications Center at the Police Department, and Ms. Moe remains responsible for the supervision and management of Petitioner. Ms. Moe is diabetic. Ms. Moe met with Petitioner on August 6, 2002. The two discussed the issues Petitioner raised in his memo and agreed on a number of items outlined in Ms. Moe’s memo of August 6, 2002 (the Moe memo). The Moe memo provides in relevant part: Beginning today, August 6, 2002 you will only work your twelve (12) hour shift assignment [sic]. You will not volunteer or be assigned any overtime. You are also no longer on the standby schedule. Here you had some concern on the overtime issue, however, as stated by your doctor in writing he is recommending that you do not work any extra hours. Should he feel your health improves and he authorizes your overtime, I will take his note under advisement. That does not mean I will immediately give you overtime but will review his letter and his suggestion. Along with the above issues, your supervisor has been advised under no circumstances will you miss your assigned lunchtime or breaks, these are important to keep you regulated on your medication per your doctor. You also requested you be allowed to lift your feet after working several hours, this will also be under consideration when I receive a note from your doctor stating it R-19. would be another requirement for health reasons. In 2004, the City Police Department considered changes to the normal work schedule for employees in the Communication Center. The City advised employees, including Petitioner, that the City would require employees to rotate work shifts between daytime and night shifts. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner wrote to the City Human Resources Department and requested a “final, permanent accommodation . . .” for daytime work only. Petitioner provided copies of documents from Dr. Mandry, which did not include a medical opinion that Petitioner is disabled. Assistant Human Resources Director Andrea Walton wrote to Dr. Mandry on July 15, 2004, and requested clarification of his letters in order for the City to arrange an appropriate schedule for Petitioner. Ms. Walton specifically inquired about the possibility of Petitioner's working a rotating work schedule and asked Dr. Mandry to clarify Petitioner's ability to work overtime. The City wanted Dr. Mandry to clarify previous statements that Petitioner could work overtime as a parking enforcement specialist but that Petitioner's overtime work as a tele-communicator must be limited. Dr. Mandry responded to Ms. Walton on July 26, 2004. The response explained that Petitioner was able to work in a rotating schedule and for unspecified amounts of overtime if control is optimal and under ideal circumstances. Dr. Mandry was unable at that time to give more specific information to the City. He explained: R-27. With regards to some of the other issues, again, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for me to give you a specific answer, and I would rather you talk to Mr. Dey specifically so that he can let you know what his current limitations are. On August 3, 2004, Ms. Beth Stefek, the director of Human Resources for the City, wrote to Petitioner and explained that the City was willing to work with Petitioner to arrive at an appropriate work schedule. Ms. Stefek did not indicate that the City considered Petitioner to be disabled. Sometime after August 3, 2004, Petitioner experienced further difficulties in controlling his diabetes. On August 10, 2004, Dr. Mandry wrote to the City again. Dr. Mandry told the City: I just saw David today who seems to be having some further difficulties with his health and his control of diabetes. At this time, I have reviewed his records, and I think it would clearly be in his best interest that from now on, he work only on a stable daytime work shift only [sic]. He certainly is not doing well when he tries to do overtime, and traditionally in the past has always become more complicated and his health has deteriorated whenever he tries to do either night shifts or overtime shifts. I have, therefore, at this time, recommended that David should not be allowed to work any overtime and/or nighttime shift. Of course, he needs to have accommodations for meals and monitoring or blood sugar levels as necessary, and he needs to have access to food in case he becomes hypoglycemic. R-29. The difficulties Petitioner experienced in controlling his diabetes were attributable to an increase in stress that Petitioner experienced between June and September 9, 2004. Petitioner's father died in June 2004, and three hurricanes impacted Petitioner’s home from August through September 2004. The hurricanes also increased stress at work due to increased demand on City services. On August 15, 2004, Petitioner advised Ms. Moe that he was intentionally running his blood sugars “higher than desired” at work to “offset and reduce the possibility of a hypoglycemic situation.” Toward the end of August 2004, the City moved Petitioner to the night shift in the Communications Center. Petitioner worked the night shift for a few nights. On September 5, 2004, Petitioner advised Ms. Moe that he was available to be part of a voluntary group of dispatchers to work catastrophic disasters like hurricanes if she decided to form the group. On or about September 9, 2004, while Petitioner was at home, Petitioner fell unconscious and was transported to the hospital for treatment. On September 16, 2004, Dr. Mandry wrote to the City and advised that it was necessary for Petitioner to refrain from working "any overtime shifts and/or nighttime shifts.” On or about September 21, 2004, Petitioner returned to work, and the City placed Petitioner on a daytime work schedule through the remainder of 2004. On January 6, 2005, Ms. Moe advised Petitioner the City needed Petitioner to work the night shift for a few nights. However, the City was able to satisfy its needs without placing Petitioner on the night shift at that time. Petitioner responded to Ms. Moe on January 6, 2005, by stating that he was going to begin a search within the City for another position that would meet his medical needs. On January 20, 2005, Petitioner inquired about an opening within the City for a parking enforcement specialist. On January 25, 2005, Petitioner informed Ms. Moe and others at the City that he would not consider either the parking enforcement position or a community service officer (CSO) position that had become available because both jobs contradicted his "medical requirements.” On April 4, 2005, Ms. Moe sent a memo to Petitioner advising him that the City would place Petitioner on a list identified in the record as the call-back list for emergency back-up in the Communication Center. Ms. Moe specified that the placement of Petitioner on the call-back list was subject to the work conditions previously established in July 1995 by Commander Johns. Ms. Moe advised Petitioner that he would be placed on the call-back list effective April 20, 2005, but only in those weeks when he was scheduled to work 33 hours so that his work week did not exceed 40 hours. She assured Petitioner that absent some extraordinary circumstances, the City would not call Petitioner back to work a night shift and would not schedule Petitioner on a call-back that would result in Petitioner working more than 40 hours in a work week. The memo from Ms. Moe expressly indicated that the City did not consider the Petitioner to be ADA disabled. Ms. Moe told Petitioner to advise her if he thought there was some medical or ADA reason why he could not be on the call-back list. On April 13, 2005, Attorney Edward R. Gay wrote to the City on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Gay stated that Petitioner believed there was a medical reason that prevented Petitioner from being placed on the call-back list. On April 21, 2005, Attorney Lucille Turner, the City’s special labor counsel, responded to Mr. Gay. Ms. Turner provided Mr. Gay with a copy of the City’s April 4, 2005, memo detailing the call-back restrictions applicable to Petitioner. Ms. Turner repeated that it was not the City's intent to call Petitioner back to work a night shift or to schedule Petitioner to work more than 40 hours a week in the absence of “some extraordinary circumstance." The City, through its counsel, expressly advised Petitioner that the City had never undertaken a formal review of whether Petitioner should be classified as a person protected by the ADA. Instead, the City had informally worked to develop a work schedule for Petitioner that takes into account the information provided by Petitioner's health care providers. The City provided Petitioner with written guidance concerning the procedure for Petitioner to follow to seek a classification from the City as ADA disabled. In relevant part, the letter advises: If [Petitioner] believes that his diabetes (or any other medical condition) requires the City to not include him on the call back list, or to change his work schedule, he should provide the City with further information in support of his request. This should include information about the legal basis for his disability claim . . . [keeping in mind case law cited earlier in the letter indicating diabetes is not a per se disability]. . . . The City will then review the information to determine whether Mr. Dey has a disability as defined by the ADA, and, if so, what accommodations can be reasonably made. R-54, at 3. Petitioner did not ask to be classified as disabled. Rather, Dr. Mandry wrote to the City on June 8, 2005. Dr. Mandry stated that he was writing at the request of Petitioner. In relevant part, Dr. Mandry explained: R-1. Mr. Dey is by no means disabled, and he can clearly work and satisfy the capacities of his job as long as there is some stability involved in it. (emphasis added) In March and August 2005, the City did not select Petitioner to fill respective vacancies for a shift supervisor in the Communication Center and a parking enforcement specialist for the City. Neither action constituted an adverse employment action against Petitioner. The job duties for the vacant shift supervisor in March 2005 required the successful applicant to work night shifts. Petitioner did not apply for the shift supervisor position. When the City posted the notice of vacancy for the shift supervisor, Petitioner requested Ms. Moe to provide Petitioner with information about the job requirements for the position. Ms. Moe responded on March 14, 2005, and advised Petitioner that the position was night shift duty and required the supervisor to train other employees. On March 23, 2005, Petitioner wrote to Ms. Moe indicating he had concluded that multiple aspects of my physical disability are contradictory to the requirements of the supervisory position and that he had elected not to apply for the position. If Petitioner were to have applied for the shift supervisor position, Petitioner was not qualified to perform the essential requirements of the position. Petitioner was unable or unwilling to work the night shift and was unable or unwilling to train subordinate employees. The Communications Center receives 911 calls from the public. Employees receive calls and dispatch them to the police department and fire department 24 hours a day. The work schedule at the Communication Center is divided into two shifts. The day shift begins at 6 a.m. and ends at 6 p.m. The night shift begins at 6 p.m. and ends the following day at 6 a.m. Approximately four to six employees work each 12-hour shift in the Communications Center. However, only one supervisor works each shift. A shift supervisor oversees the duties of all employees at the Communications Center and trains, advises, and assists subordinates. Supervisors are routinely required to work overtime, perform on-call duty, fill in for other shift supervisors, and hold over for indefinite times at the end of a shift to handle ongoing calls. Petitioner claims to suffer from hypoglycemic episodes in which he becomes unresponsive and dysfunctional. Petitioner has previously asked on two separate occasions to be relieved of responsibility to train personnel because it was too stressful for him. In each instance, the City relieved Petitioner of any training responsibilities. In August 2005, Petitioner applied for a job opening as a parking enforcement specialist for the City. The City selected another candidate identified in the record as Ms. Evelyn Thurman. The selection of Ms. Thurman over Petitioner to fill the vacant position of parking enforcement specialist was not an adverse employment action against Petitioner. Ms. Thurman was more qualified by training and experience. When the City selected Ms. Thurman to fill the vacant position of parking enforcement specialist, Ms. Thurman had 24 years of law enforcement and security experience in various agencies. From 1980 until 1996, Ms. Thurman worked as a crime scene investigator for the City of Miami Police Department, where she received numerous commendations, and her performance evaluations rated her as an above average employee. Ms. Thurman also worked at the Sheriff’s Office in Tampa, Florida, and in Security at the Florida Department of the Lottery. Petitioner was unable to meet the essential functions of the job requirements for a parking enforcement specialist. A parking enforcement specialist routinely works alone and is required to work at night. The nature of the job does not permit the type of schedule Petitioner requires. The work schedule of a parking enforcement specialist is not limited to daytime hours that do not exceed 33 to 40 hours a week. A parking enforcement specialist may be required to work evening shifts, long hours, overtime, and holidays. A parking enforcement specialist also must adjust his or her work schedule when needed. A parking enforcement specialist also must be available during emergencies to alleviate calls for service from patrol officers. A parking enforcement specialist works alone. Petitioner suffers from hypoglycemic episodes in which he becomes unresponsive and dysfunctional. The episodes can occur at any time, and Petitioner prefers not be alone on the job if possible. On October 31, 2005, Ms. Moe issued a verbal reprimand to Petitioner for insubordination. The verbal reprimand is not an adverse employment action against Petitioner. The City did not reduce Petitioner's pay and did not change the terms, conditions, or privileges of Petitioner's employment as a result of the reprimand. In preparation for Hurricane Wilma earlier in October 2005, Ms. Moe sent an e-mail to employees in the Communication Center instructing them to come to work the following day with the supplies they would need if events required them to stay at the Communication Center during the hurricane (the Moe email). Petitioner and most of the other employees did not bring their hurricane supplies with them when they reported to work the morning after the Moe email. The City sent Petitioner and the other employees home to fetch their supplies and did not impose a time limit for the task. Petitioner took about 90 minutes to get his supplies and return to work, and the span included the regular lunch hour. The time he took was not an issue of concern and did not provide a basis for the verbal reprimand. Petitioner did not eat lunch during the time he retrieved his supplies. Later in the day, Petitioner requested a meal break, and his supervisor denied the request. Petitioner took a second meal break. On October 23, 2005, Ms. Moe delivered to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Discipline for insubordination. On October 31, 2005, Ms. Moe issued an Oral Warning to Petitioner. Petitioner grieved the verbal reprimand. During the grievance procedure, the City offered to rescind the warning to resolve the grievance. Petitioner rejected the offer as unsatisfactory unless the City also destroyed the record of the discipline. The City advised Petitioner that it could not destroy the document because the document was a public record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July 2007.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, whether he should be terminated from his employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner in 1982. From 1984 to 1993, he was employed as a head custodian. He was demoted from that position to the position of custodian in 1994. Thereafter, he was employed by Petitioner as a custodian assigned to Lindsey Hopkins Technical Education Center. At all times material hereto, John Leyva was the principal of Lindsey Hopkins. Leyva delegated many of his responsibilities as principal, including his supervision over the custodial staff, to other administrative personnel. Prior to his assignment to Lindsey Hopkins, Respondent was the subject of progressive discipline, consisting of formal and informal conferences, counseling sessions, and reprimands. At the beginning of Respondent's employment at Lindsey Hopkins, Respondent was assigned to the third shift, from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. During the 1994-95 school year, Respondent was frequently absent, and he failed to follow appropriate notification procedures with respect to his absences and his whereabouts during work hours. From July 1994 through July 1995, Respondent was absent a total of 76 days, of which 7 1/2 days were without authorization. From June 2, 1995, through June 6, 1995, Respondent was absent without authorization for three consecutive work days. Respondent's absences had an adverse impact on his work site inasmuch as his absences created a morale problem among staff and resulted in areas within Lindsey Hopkins not being cleaned properly. Eventually, due to Respondent's attendance problems, Respondent was moved from the third shift to the second shift, from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. During this time Respondent was to report to James Parker, the on-site vice-principal. As a custodian, Respondent was also supervised by Dennis Caldwell, Linda Morris, and Lawrence King. Although Caldwell was not present during the major portion of Respondent's second shift, since Caldwell's regular hours ended at 4:00 p.m., there were many times when Caldwell went to the work site in the evening to spot-check his employees and address different problems in the custodial area. On March 23, 1995, Respondent was issued a memorandum that delineated his absences during the school year and which provided numerous directives to Respondent regarding the appropriate procedures he was to follow if he were going to be absent in the future. He was directed to communicate his intent to be absent directly to his supervisors and to provide documentation from a treating physician for his absences due to illness. He was also directed to comply with Petitioner's leave procedures. Respondent was also provided with notice of the adverse impact that his absences had on his work environment. He was offered assistance to achieve regular attendance. He was advised that continued non-compliance with attendance procedures and directives would be considered a violation of his professional responsibilities. On May 17, 1995, Respondent was not in his assigned work area, and he had failed to notify anyone of his whereabouts. Further, he refused to discuss his absence with Caldwell after being directed to speak with Caldwell. On May 26, 1995, Respondent was involved in a physical altercation with a woman on the premises of Lindsey Hopkins during Respondent's working hours. During the course of this incident, King noticed that Respondent was staggering and that he had alcohol permeating from his breath. King concluded that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol and sent Respondent home. On May 30, 1995, Respondent was directed to attend a conference-for-the-record on June 7, 1995, to address his conduct. Respondent failed to attend the conference-for-the- record. On June 8, the conference was re-scheduled for June 14, but Respondent did not attend that conference-for-the-record either. Respondent was administratively referred to Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program in an effort to provide him with assistance in eliminating his continuing pattern of unauthorized absences and performance-related problems. On March 19, 1996, despite directives from Caldwell regarding Respondent's work responsibilities, Respondent failed to complete his daily work assignments with respect to the lockers within his assigned area. In a written warning, Respondent was notified that his continued non-performance would result in further disciplinary action. On July 30, 1996, Respondent again failed to carry out his job responsibilities. He failed to empty trash cans and sweep or mop the corridors within his assigned area. In a written warning, Respondent was again directed to complete his daily work assignments. From July 1995 through July 1996, Respondent was absent for 45 days, 7 1/2 of which were without authorization. During the period from July 11, 1995, through July 18, 1995, Respondent was absent without authorization for at least three consecutive work days. On September 18, 1996, Tom Albano saw Respondent sleeping on the floor in the child care room during his work hours. The child care room is not an authorized break area. Further, at the time he was caught sleeping, Respondent was not on an authorized break. Albano told Respondent that his conduct was improper and that there were other things he could be doing rather than sleeping. On October 1, 1996, Parker found Respondent sleeping on the couch in the child care room at a time when Respondent was not on an authorized break. Parker prepared a memorandum addressing the sleeping incidents to give to Respondent. The memorandum documented the appropriate procedures concerning Respondent's work schedule and break areas. It notified Respondent that his actions adversely impacted the effective operation of the work site. It provided directives to Respondent and advised him that non-compliance with the directives would be considered a violation of his employment responsibilities. In order to give Respondent the memorandum, Parker called Respondent into his office to meet with him and Albano on October 2. During that meeting Respondent reacted to Parker in a loud, irate, aggressive, hostile, and threatening manner. He called Parker a racist and a bigot and told Parker that Parker must be on drugs. Parker became concerned for his own safety. Parker and Albano provided written summaries of the meeting to Principal Leyva. Leyva directed Respondent to attend a conference-for- the-record on October 7, 1996. That conference was canceled by Leyva, with the consent of Respondent's union, due to an injury Leyva suffered. The conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for the following day, but Respondent failed to attend. The conference was re-scheduled for October 15 but was postponed at the request of Respondent's union and re-scheduled for October 22. Respondent failed to appear for the October 22 conference and was absent from his work site October 21-28, 1996. The school administrators subsequently learned that Respondent was incarcerated for domestic violence at the time of the October 22 conference and during the period of October 21-28. It is Petitioner's policy that absences due to incarceration are documented as unauthorized leave without pay. As a result, Respondent's absences from October 21 through October 28 were documented as unauthorized leave without pay. Respondent returned to Lindsey Hopkins on October 30. Parker requested that Respondent come to Parker's office so they could discuss Respondent's unauthorized leave status and so that Parker could direct Respondent to report to the Office of Professional Standards (hereinafter "OPS"). Due to his previous meeting with Respondent and out of concern for his own safety, Parker had two other employees present in his office awaiting Respondent's arrival. When he arrived at Parker's office, Respondent had a strong odor of alcohol permeating from his breath. He also appeared to be stumbling, his eyes were red and bloodshot, and he appeared angry, upset, and agitated. Therefore, Parker directed Respondent to report to OPS for re-admittance to Lindsey Hopkins and had Respondent escorted off the school campus. Respondent failed to follow Parker's directive to report to OPS before returning to Lindsey Hopkins. Instead, Respondent reported to Lindsey Hopkins on the following day, October 31, 1996. When Leyva was advised that Respondent was at Lindsey Hopkins, he directed that Respondent come to Leyva's office. Two other employees were present in Leyva's office. When Respondent came to Leyva's office, those present noticed that Respondent was swaying and mumbling, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol. Leyva contacted Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell in the OPS for further direction, and she advised him to ask Respondent if he would consent to take a drug/alcohol test based upon reasonable suspicion. Respondent agreed to take the test and was escorted to the testing facility. His breath alcohol test revealed the presence of alcohol in Respondent's system. The following day Leyva administratively referred Respondent to OPS, and OPS thereafter sent Respondent a letter requesting that he contact the office to schedule a conference- for-the-record. OPS convened Respondent's conference-for-the-record on November 5, 1996. Respondent's aggressive and violent behavior at the work site was discussed, as was his October 31 breath alcohol test confirming the presence of alcohol in his system and, thus, his intoxication at the work site. His attendance and future employment status were also discussed. Respondent was directed to provide OPS with official documentation by November 12, 1996, showing his enrollment and participation in an alcohol recovery program. He was also advised of his right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in the conference summary. Respondent was again referred to the Employee Assistance Program and was administratively re-assigned to another work location pending formal notification of any disciplinary action. Respondent never provided any documentation to OPS to clarify, explain, respond to, or refute any of the allegations made against him during the conference held on November 5. Likewise, Respondent never complied with the directive given him during the November 5 conference that he provide OPS with documentation of his enrollment and participation in an alcohol recovery program. From November 1995 through November 1996, Respondent was absent a total of 37 days, 12 of which were without authorization. From July 1996, the commencement of the contractual school year, to February 5, 1997, the date on which Petitioner suspended Respondent and initiated these dismissal proceedings, Respondent had already accrued a total of 24 days of absences, 12 of which were without authorization. From October 21, 1996, through November 5, 1996, Respondent was absent without authorization for at least three consecutive work days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed in this cause and dismissing Respondent from his employment with Petitioner effective February 5, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Heidi Shulman-Pereira, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Donald Appignani, Esquire Phillips, Levy & Rind, P.A. 3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 214 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue Whether the Petitioner received a salary overpayment from the Respondent for leave usage to which she was not entitled, as set forth in amended correspondence dated October 2, 2009, and, if so, the amount of any overpayment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ms. Anderson was employed by the Department as a full- time Career Service employee until her separation on August 11, 2009. She had one year and four months' service with the State of Florida. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Anderson was paid biweekly. Based on her years of service, Ms. Anderson accrued four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave each biweekly pay period. Ms. Anderson used the People First System to complete her timesheets, request approval of leave, and review her leave balances. At issue is the amount of annual and sick leave used by Ms. Anderson during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009 and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson entered her time in the computerized People First timesheet as follows: February 6, 2009 8 hours' worked February 9, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 10, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 11, 2009 3.25 hours' sick leave 4.75 hours' annual leave February 12, 2009 8 hours' personal holiday February 13, 2009 8 hours' annual leave February 16, 2009 7.25 hours' annual leave February 17, 2009 8 hours' worked February 18, 2009 8.75 hours' worked February 19, 2009 4 hours' sick leave 4 hours' annual leave The Pay Period Overview in the People First System for the pertinent time period reflected the following: Beginning balance 2/06/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Accrual 2/19/09: 4 hours' annual leave 4 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Used N/A : (24.00) hours' annual leave (23.25) hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Ending Balance 2/19/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday The Department's Policies and Procedures for Attendance and Leave provides in pertinent part: III. Standards and Procedures * * * Annual Leave Method of Earning Annual Leave * * * Bureau of Personnel 1. Annual leave earned during any period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period or, in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Annual Leave Employee 1. Use of annual leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited and shall only be used with the prior approval of the proper authority. * * * Sick Leave Method of Earning Sick Leave * * * Employee * * * 4. Sick leave earned during any pay period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period, or in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Sick Leave Employee 1. Use of sick leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited to the employee and shall only be used with the approval of the proper authority. The Department keeps an official record of an employee's leave balances and accruals for each pay period, and it conducts audits of an employee's leave upon separation. The Department performed an audit of Ms. Anderson's leave and created an Employee Leave Record setting out annual and sick leave earned and used by Ms. Anderson up to her date of separation in August 2009. The audit revealed that Ms. Anderson had 20 hours of annual leave and 19.25 of sick leave available as of January 6, 2009, and that she accrued 4 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave on February 19, 2009, which could be used beginning February 20, 2009. As shown on the People's First timesheet prepared by Ms. Anderson and set out above, Ms. Anderson used 24 hours of annual leave and 23.25 hours of sick leave during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009, and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson, therefore, used four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave to which she was not entitled during the pay period extending from February 6, 2009, to February 19, 2009, and she was paid for these hours in the salary warrant issued February 27, 2009. In calculating the amount of the salary overpayment to Ms. Anderson, the Department made allowance for the one hour's annual leave balance Ms. Anderson had when she separated from the Department. The Department, therefore, calculated the salary overpayment based on seven non-compensable hours, and the balance owed by Ms. Anderson to the Department for the salary overpayment is $66.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order requiring Lillian Anderson to remit to the Department of Juvenile Justice the amount of $66.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 19th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lillian Anderson 3617 Carambola Circle North Coconut, Florida 33066 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. was a subcontractor in the construction of the regional juvenile detention center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is in excess of $5,000.00 and pursuant to Section 215.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of said project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between January 7, 1978 and May 20, 1978 Richard Fisher was employed by Acco Mechanical Contractors; Inc. on this project as a plumber. During this time Fisher was paid at the rate of $6.50 per hour for regular time and $9.75 per hour for overtime. The difference between the amount paid the Petitioner for regular time hours worked and the prevailing wage is $3.57 and the difference between the amount paid the Petitioner for overtime and the prevailing wage is $5.35 per hour. The Respondent also controverts the number of hours asserted to have been worked by Fisher. The Respondent asserts in its hearing brief that Fisher worked 459 regular hours and 50 overtime hours. The claim presented by Fisher indicated that he worked 512 regular hours and 50 overtime hours. Exhibit 8 reflects that Fisher worked 459 regular hours and 55 overtime hours. Exhibit 8 further reflects that Fisher received $6.50 per hour for regular time worked and $9.75 per hour for overtime worked. The prevailing wage rate established by the division was $10.07 per hour. The difference between the wage paid Fisher for regular time hours and the prevailing wage was $3.57. The difference paid Fisher between time and a half computed on the prevailing wage and time and a half paid Fisher is $5.35 per hour. The amount Fisher was underpaid is equal to the sum of the regular hours worked (459) times $3.57 end the overtime hours worked (55) times $5.35, or a total of $1,941.13. The Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(a)1 and 2 by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount of money paid for said hours. Said affidavit was filed within the time prescribed by statute. Pursuant to Section 215.19(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service is presently withholding $2,322.35 from Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. while awaiting the decision in this administrative proceeding.
Conclusions Petitioner has established that he was hired and worked for Acco, Inc. as a plumber and that he was paid $6.50 per hour rather than the prevailing wage of $10.07 for plumbers on the project in question. Petitioner is entitled to the difference between what he was paid and the prevailing wage for the total number of hours worked by Petitioner at less than the prevailing wage. The Hearing Officer, in his Recommended Order, addressed the difference in pay between the regular time worked and overtime worked. However, Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, is void of any statutory language concerning overtime. The statute only requires that the employee be paid "not less than the prevailing wage." Absent a legislative directive in Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, concerning overtime pay, the employee is only entitled to the difference between what he was paid and what he should have been paid at the prevailing wage for the total number of hours worked at a rate less than the prevailing wage. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to $1,638.63. Respondent's argument that the Division of Labor failed to properly adopt prevailing wage rates has been considered by the First District Court of Appeals of Florida in Vernon Neff et al. vs. Biltmore Construction Company, Inc., 362 So.2d 442, (1st DCA Fla. 1978) and State of Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Labor vs. Matthews Corporation, 358 So.2d 256 (1st DCA Fla. 1978). The Court, in both cases, upheld the process by which the wage rates are adopted. Respondent argues that additional insurance benefits should be included in the wage rates, but such benefits are not "wages". The amount paid by the employer to provide insurance benefits should not be included in Petitioner's wage nor deducted from the amount owed to the Petitioner based upon this claim. It is, therefore, hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the contracting authority, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pay the Petitioner, from the amount it is withholding in this claim, the amount of $1,638.63, and that the remaining amount held by the contracting authority, pursuant to this claim, be paid to Acco, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1978 at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEVEN H. CAMPORA, Director Division of Labor Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 200 - Ashley Building 1321 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Telephone No.: (904) 488-7396 COPIES FURNISHED: DEWEY H. VARNER, JR., ESQUIRE Attorney for Petitioner 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461 L. BYRD BOOTH, JR., ESQUIRE Attorney for Respondent O'Neal and Booth, P.A. Post Office Drawer 11088 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 LUTHER J. MOORE, Administrator of Prevailing Wage Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 THOMAS A. KOVAL, ESQUIRE Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Department of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Labor enter its order directing the contracting authority to pay to the employee the sum of $1,941.13 and the remaining amount held by the contracting authority pursuant to this claim be paid to Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Jr., Esquire Culp and Fisher 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461 Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 11089 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF LABOR RICHARD E. FISHER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1283 ACCO, INC., Respondent. / FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Upon due notice to all parties in the above-styled cause, an administrative hearing was held on September 15, 1978 in West Palm Beach, Florida before Stephen F. Dean, the assigned hearing officer. STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Petitioner, Richard E. Fisher, filed a claim against Respondent, Acco, Inc., alleging that he had been hired by Acco, Inc. in the capacity of a plumber and that Acco, Inc. had failed to pay him the prevailing wage for plumbers as required by Section 215.19, Florida Statutes. The question presented in this case is how many hours the Petitioner, Richard E. Fisher, worked, the wage paid the Petitioner, and what, if any, difference exists between the wage paid the Petitioner and the prevailing wage. FINDINGS OF FACT: Acco, Inc. was a subcontractor in the construction of the Regional Juvenile Detention Center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is in excess of $5,000.00 and, pursuant to Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of said project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between January 7, 1978 and May 20, 1978, Richard E. Fisher was employed by Acco, Inc. on this project as a plumber. During this time, Fisher was paid at the rate of $6.50 per hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner and the prevailing wage is $3.57. The Petitioner has complied with the prOvisions of se6ion 215.19(3)(a) 1 and 2 by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount of money paid for said hours. This affidavit was timely filed. Exhibit No. 8, the Weekly Time Reports for Richard E. Fisher, establish that Fisher corked 459 hours at the rate of $6.50 and 55 hours at the rate of $9.75. The difference between what Petitioner was paid and what he should have been paid at the prevailing wage rate is equal to the sum of hours worked (459) times $3.57 or a total of $1,638.63. Pursuant to the statute, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is withholding $2,322.35 from Acco, Inc. pending the outcome of this claim.
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Willie L. Claridy was an employee of the Department of Transportation for 2 or 3 years and was under the immediate supervision of Daniel E. Skinner at the Sarasota Maintenance Office for approximately a year, including March and early April of 1984. On or about Monday, March 26, 1984, while in the outside shop area at his place of employment, Mr. Claridy mentioned taking a vacation to some fellow employees. He said he was going home to a family reunion. The employees moved into the office area, and the conversation continued. Mr. Skinner, who was petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Claridy, and two others were present in the office. During the conversation in the office, Mr. Claridy stated that he was going to take a vacation; however, he never specifically asked for leave, he was not told that he could have leave, and no specific dates were mentioned. 1/ Although Mr. Skinner could not recall the discussion regarding Mr. Claridy's vacation, he admitted that it could have taken place. However, Mr. Claridy never signed a leave slip requesting leave, and Mr. Skinner never signed a leave slip approving leave. Nevertheless, Mr. Claridy did not report for work on April 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, 1984, and did not contact his office during that time. The Employee Handbook, received by Mr. Claridy on April 20, 1983, clearly states that an employee must obtain the approval of his supervisor before taking leave. Neither the handbook nor the memorandum to employees of January 1982 states that prior approval must be in writing, although the language in the handbook implies that it should be. However, Mr. Claridy was fully aware of the procedure that he needed to follow in requesting leave. On two earlier occasions when Mr. Claridy had wanted time off he had submitted leave slips and received approval from his supervisor prior to his absences from work. Mr. Claridy's stated reason for not submitting a leave slip in this case in advance of his absence is neither accurate nor credible. He testified that he thought he might get called back to work during the course of his leave time due to a shortage of mechanics, and, if this occurred and he had submitted the leave slip, he would not have gotten paid for his time. 2/ However, the evidence at the hearing indicated that Mr. Claridy did not plan to be and was not in town during his absence from work, and therefore could not have been called into work. 3/ Further, Mr. Claridy stated that they might need him because they were short of help but also testified that "[w]e were caught up with all our work." Finally Mr. Claridy's return to work during a period of time when he was on authorized leave would not have adversely affected his pay or his annual leave time, and Mr. Claridy would have discovered this had he made any inquiries. Mr. Skinner did not approve Mr. Claridy's leave time nor did he inform Mr. Claridy that he could submit a leave slip after his vacation. Consequently Mr. Claridy's absence from work on April 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th was unauthorized. Mr. Claridy had received the Employee Handbook and the memorandum of January 1982 which informed him that three consecutive absences without authorized leave would result in termination of employment. Mr. Claridy was properly informed by certified letter dated April 5, 1984, that having failed to report for work during the period in question and having failed to take action to notify his supervisor of the reasons for the absence he was deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the Department of Transportation in deeming the petitioner to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service was correct and affirming such action. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 18th day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner: was employed by Respondent as a counselor at the Palm Beach Juvenile Detention Center. In an effort to break up a fight among teenagers while employed on April 14, 1986, Petitioner was pushed against a wall at the Detention Center and sustained an impact injury to the upper portion of his right shoulder and its superior aspect. When Petitioner commenced his employment with Respondent on July 18, 4983, he signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the Department's employee handbook and acknowledging his personal responsibility to review the contents thereof. (Respondent Exhibit 1). That handbook provided, in part, as follows: If you expect to be absent from work for any reasons, you must request leave from your supervisor as much in advance as possible, so that suitable disposition of your work may be made to avoid undue hardship on fellow employees and clients. As soon as you know you will be late or absent from work, you must notify your supervisor. Absence without approved leave is cause for disci- plinary action. If A you are absent for 3 consecutive work days without authorization, you may be considered to have abandoned your position and thus resigned. Following the injury, Petitioner was referred for physical therapy consisting of, among other things, ultra sound and hot packs to the neck and back. Petitioner convalesced from the time of injury during April, 1986 through November 13, 1986 at which time he was released and authorized to return to work by his treating physician. Also, on November 13, 1986, Workers Compensation advised Petitioner that based on his release by his physician, he would not therefore receive further compensation benefits and was therefore to return to work. Petitioner was advised to report for work on November 14, 1986. Petitioner did not heed that directive and report for work. By certified letter dated November 25, 1906, Petitioner was again advised by Karen Christian, Assistant Detention Center Superintendent, that "if we do not hear from you within five (5) days after date of this letter, it will appear that you have abandoned your position". (Respondents Exhibit 3). Petitioner acknowledged receiving the referenced letter from Karen Christian. Petitioner did not return to work as directed and was terminated from employment on December 10, 1986 based on his failure to report to work and his failure to obtain authorized leave from his supervisor to be absent from work. Karen Christian would have offered Petitioner either reduced hours or sedentary duties to accommodate him if, as he contends, he was unable to stand for extended periods or to use his right upper extremity. Petitioner contends that he was unable to report to work inasmuch as the injury he sustained during April, 1986 left him without use of his right arm. Based on Petitioner's claimed loss of use of his right arm, he was referred to three physicians who conducted an extensive examination of Petitioner to determine evidence of any anatomical or physical impairment of Petitioner's upper extremity. All of the examining physicians found no anatomical defect consistent with Petitioner's clinical presentation. Petitioner offered no believable explanation for his failure to report to work on December 8, 9 and 10, 1986 or to otherwise obtain authorized leave for the above-referred three consecutive work days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner abandoned his position of employment with Respondent and resigned from the career service. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Eddie Harris Post Office Box 9224 Riviera Beach, Florida 33419 K. C. Collette, Esquire Department of HRS 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adis Villa, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $129.29 while he was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dunn was initially employed in a Career Service position by the State of Florida on December 14, 1984. He remained in that position until August 7, 1986, when he separated from state government. On April 13, 1987, the Respondent accepted a position within the Career Service System with the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The position was paid through a biweekly payroll system. The earning of annual leave and sick leave credits was also accounted for on a biweekly basis. Due to his eight-month break in service, Respondent was not entitled to credit for the previous state service when his annual leave earnings were credited to his leave account during his first year with the Department. On April 3, 1988, Respondent was continuously employed by the Petitioner for one full year. Within the Career Service System, this date is referred to as a career service employee's continuous creditable service date. When a reemployed career service worker completes continuous employment for one year following the date of his reemployment, he is entitled to credit all previous state service when eligibility for higher annual leave credits is computed by the employing agency and credited to his leave account. After five years of continuous and creditable service, a career service employee earns a higher rate of annual leave hours during a biweekly period. The number of annual leave hours earned and credited changes from four hours biweekly to five hours biweekly. Respondent Dunn became eligible for the five hour annual leave credit during the biweekly pay period that began on August 3, 1990. Respondent's supervisor mistakenly began crediting him with annual leave at the rate of five hours each biweekly pay period starting with the pay period beginning December 8, 1989. If Respondent had not had a break in continuous service, the supervisor's calculations as to annual leave hour credits would have been correct. His leave was calculated on continuous service instead of continuous and creditable service, as required by the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Petitioner and Respondent relied upon the records maintained by the supervisor to determine how much annual leave the Respondent had accumulated and when he would be able to take such leave. During the biweekly pay period of August 3, 1990 through August 16, 1990, Respondent used thirty-six hours of annual leave under the mistaken belief that he was entitled to use that many hours of leave during that pay period. Permission to take this leave was given by his supervisor. If the leave had been properly calculated during the time period from December 12, 1989 to August 2, 1990, Respondent's total accumulated annual leave would have been only twenty-two hours. Respondent received a paycheck during this time period that give him credit for thirty-six hours of annual leave. This resulted in a salary overpayment of $129.29 as fourteen of those annual leave hours were not earned. The agency's calculation error as to Respondent's accumulated annual leave and the subsequent salary overpayment were discovered by Petitioner during the routine annual leave audit conducted when Respondent moved from his Career Service position with Petitioner to a Career Service position with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The amount of salary overpayment was reviewed and confirmed by the Division of Banking and Finance, Bureau of State payrolls once it was discovered by Petitioner. Action was taken by the Petitioner to correct the overpayment on January 2, 1992. This was within the two year period immediately following the date of payment. The salary overpayment to Respondent was the result of an administrative or clerical oversight. Petitioner's attempt to recover the funds was neither a disciplinary action nor an attempt to punish Respondent for moving to another agency. Respondent conducted himself lawfully during his employment with Petitioner in all matters relating to annual leave. The blame for the error in the calculation of accumulated annual leave should not be imputed to Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended Respondent Dunn should refund $129.29 to the Petitioner for the salary overpayment that occurred in the biweekly pay period that began on August 3, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 23rd day of June, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: JACK E FARLEY ESQ HRS - DISTRICT VI LEGAL OFFICE 4000 W DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD TAMPA FL 33614 WILLIAM DUNN 9717 FOX HOLLOW RD TAMPA FL 33647 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position as a state employee.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issue of abandonment in these proceedings, Petitioner William Grimsley was a Career Service Employee, employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at Fort Myers, Florida, as a Public Assistance Specialist I. On January 4, 1989, the Petitioner learned that his father's brother had died in Georgia. Petitioner Grimsley requested one day of authorized leave from his supervisor in order to drive his father to the funeral in Colquitt, Georgia. The Petitioner's father was unable to drive himself to Georgia because of his heart condition, and the extreme stress he was under due to the fact that his wife's two children were in critical condition in Shand's hospital in Gainesville, Florida, during this time period. The Petitioner's father had recently suffered a heart attack, and was under doctor's orders not to drive alone for extended periods of time. When the Petitioner requested one day's leave for January 5, 1989, he anticipated that he would be able to return to work on January 9, 1989. The Petitioner was on a four-day work week, and the one day's leave gave him the opportunity to accomplish his task within a four-day time period. After the Petitioner and his father arrived in Georgia, they learned that there had been two other deaths in the family. On Saturday, January 7, 1989, the Petitioner attended his cousin's funeral. On Sunday, January 8, 1989, the Petitioner attended his uncle's funeral. On Monday, January 9, 1989, he attended his great aunt's funeral. As the family lives in a rural and impoverished area in Georgia, the Petitioner did not have access to a telephone until he drove into Bainbridge, Georgia, on January 9, 1989. The Petitioner was without money during his attempts to telephone his office from Bainbridge, Georgia. According to Petitioner, his money was stolen from his wallet by one of his deceased uncle's children during the funeral services. The Petitioner did not tell his father of the incident due to the current tension between his deceased uncle's children and the uncle's widow regarding the disposition of life insurance proceeds. The Petitioner's father was under enough stress, and the Petitioner believed he could contact his office without having to spend money. The Petitioner's attempt to charge the call to his home phone was unsuccessful because there was no one at his home to verify that he was authorized to charge calls to that telephone number. The Petitioner's attempt to place a collect call to his employer was unsuccessful because the Department refused to accept the collect call placed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner then placed a collect call to his mother's home in Fort Myers, Florida. Once his call was accepted, the Petitioner asked to speak to his sister, Iris Hill. Ms. Hill was instructed to contact the Petitioner's supervisor to inform her of the situation in Georgia. The Petitioner had to attend three funerals as opposed to one funeral, and his uncle's widow was in need of his father's assistance. No time frame was given to the Petitioner's sister regarding his anticipated return. His sister assured him that she would contact his supervisor to relay his message. The Petitioner's sister attempted to contact his supervisor by telephone several times, as she had been instructed. However, she was unsuccessful, and did not make contact until after her brother had returned to work on January 12, 1989. During her conversation with the supervisor, Petitioner's sister, Miss Hill, was surprised to learn that the Petitioner had returned to work that morning after driving from Georgia earlier that day. Upon his return to work, the Petitioner was informed that a Notice of Abandonment had been filed, and that he had been separated from his employment with the Department due to his absence without authorized leave for three consecutive work days. The Petitioner did not intend to abandon his position when he remained in Georgia for three additional days in order to assist his father in family matters. The Petitioner reasonably believed his supervisor had been informed of the reasons for his absence on Monday, January 9, 1989, and that he would return to work as soon as possible.
Recommendation Based upon the evidence, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Secretary of the Department of Administration issue a Final Order that Petitioner did not abandon his position in the Career Service System. That the Petitioner be reinstated to his position as a Public Assistance Specialist I with all rights and privileges attendant to that position before the dismissal date of January 11, 1989, and subsequent to that date. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1183 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2 and #3. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6 and #7 Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper summary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #5, #6 and #8. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted that Petitioner arrived at work on January 12, 1989. The rest of paragraph 8 is rejected as improper summary. Rejected. Witness incompetent to make legal conclusion. Rejected. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Tucker, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services 2209 Euclid Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Andrew J. McMullian General Counsel Interim Secretary Department of Health and Department of Administration Rehabilitative Services 435 Carlton Building 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit: constructively discharging Petitioner on the basis of handicap discrimination without reasonable accommodation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lake County Sheriff's Office (LCSO), constitutes an "employer" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Chris Daniels took office as the elected Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, in January 2005. He had been with Respondent LCSO for 18 years. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer for Lake County; operates the Lake County Jail for the Board of County Commissioners; and manages security and bailiffs for the Lake County Courthouse. His responsibilities also include providing final approval for staffing levels at the Lake County Jail. In 2005, Petitioner had been employed as a detention officer at the Lake County Jail for 16 years. He is a certified corrections officer. Corrections/detention officers assigned to the inmate housing/security areas at the jail work 12-hour shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. They are assigned to either "A," "B," "C," or "D" Squads. The squads rotate from day to night, and from night to day, shifts every four months. Officers assigned to inmate security are not normally assigned permanent shifts. Petitioner was such an officer. Working on rotating shifts is an essential function of working in the inmate housing area of the jail, as detailed in the job description for corrections officers as follows: . . . ensures a timely transmission of pertinent information and materials to other correctional personnel assigned to the same and/or the next shift. Petitioner understood at the beginning of his employment with LCSO that he was expected to work rotating shifts, and he did, in fact, work rotating shifts until 1996. Other corrections officers assigned to laundry, the jail kitchen, inmate transportation and other administrative functions permanently work days from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, without shift changes. Such positions with permanent day shifts have become available over the years. However, Petitioner last sought such a position in 1997 or 1998. Petitioner was working as a detention/corrections officer for Respondent when he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1996. Petitioner's diabetes causes tingling in his hands and feet, impotence, floaters in his eyes, dizziness, profuse sweating, frequent urination, a weakening immune system and occasional outbreaks of boils. Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 reveals that he takes multiple oral medications and that each kind of medication ideally should be taken at the same time of day, each day, but there are instructions on how to compensate if a dose is missed. With the exception of working rotating shifts, Petitioner was able at all times to perform the essential functions of a corrections officer for Respondent. The Veterans’ Administration pays Petitioner $218.00 per month because it believes his diabetes was induced by Agent Orange he encountered while in Viet Nam. At Petitioner's request, Respondent allowed Petitioner to work a permanent day shift from 1996 to June 30, 2005, when he retired. Petitioner testified he has worked in the past as a military medic and as a physician's assistant in correction facilities, so he is knowledgeable about the horrific, and sometimes fatal, effects of uncontrolled diabetes. Petitioner expected to live a normal life so long as he controlled his diabetes. Petitioner claims to have explained over the years to all his superiors that he needed to consistently take his medications at the same time of day. However, he did not offer any evidence in the present proceeding to explain why he could not take his medications consistently on a 24-hour clock, e.g. during nights, as opposed to during days. There have been periods when he experienced problems with his diabetes while working a permanent day shift. His medications have been adjusted several times since 1996. All witnesses agreed that Petitioner spent 18 months alone in a permanent day position in the third-floor control room. Petitioner claimed that he was assigned this long period of duty on the third-floor as “punishment” for being allowed to permanently work a day shift. He maintained, without any supporting evidence, that being assigned to a single position for more than a few months this way was unusual. However, although Respondent assigned Petitioner to the third-floor control room alone for a duration of 18 months, Respondent also assigned a non-diabetic employee alone there for about one year. Petitioner speculated, again without any supporting evidence, that the non-diabetic employee was also being punished for something. Both Petitioner and the non-diabetic employee experienced being confined to the control room without a restroom. Having to urinate when no other officer could stand- in for them created a hardship on both men. On one occasion, the non-diabetic employee urinated in a garbage can. At the date of hearing, Gary Borders had been with LCSO for 17 years and served as its Chief Deputy.1/ On the date of hearing, and at all times material, Chief Borders’ duties included responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the Lake County Jail and the Lake County Courthouse and for training. Petitioner claims to have frequently protested to many superiors about not having a restroom on the third-floor and not being allowed to bring food in for his diabetes. He also claimed to have specifically asked Chief Borders to be transferred from service on the third-floor, but Chief Borders did not recall more than one vague conversation concerning Petitioner’s complaint about how long Petitioner had been posted there and that he had told Petitioner he, Borders, had no problem with Petitioner’s being transferred elsewhere in the jail. It is not clear when, precisely, this 18 month-period occurred. Because Petitioner was on a permanent day shift from 1996-1997 to 2005 (eight years), and Petitioner testified his 18-month posting on the third-floor was "over" and was from 2003-2005, his time on the third-floor was not affirmatively shown to have occurred within the 365 days immediately preceding the filing of his Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on December 8, 2005. When Sheriff Daniels took office in January 2005, Chief Borders advised him that because the date for the squads to rotate shifts (see Finding of Fact 4) was due to occur on May 1, 2005, the number of persons assigned to permanent shifts was affecting Chief Borders' ability to make assignments. When corrections officers working in inmate housing of the jail are assigned permanent shifts, staff shortages can occur on other shifts. Chief Borders further advised the new sheriff that he, Borders, was receiving additional requests for permanent shifts. While discussing why there were so many employees assigned permanent shifts, and not subject to the standard four months' rollover of the squads from day-to-night and night-to- day shifts, Sheriff Daniels and Chief Borders concluded that LCSO needed a formal method of differentiating between those employees who genuinely needed a permanent day or night shift and those employees who merely wanted a permanent shift assignment. To determine which employees needed a permanent shift as an accommodation for their specific condition or situation, Sheriff Daniels instructed Chief Borders to send a memorandum to the 12-14 employees assigned to permanent shifts, requiring those employees to provide medical evidence of their need for a permanent shift assignment. On March 25, 2005, Chief Borders sent all employees assigned to permanent shifts the following memorandum: There is a requirement for rotating shift work for Detention Deputies, Auxiliary Detention Deputies and Deputy Sheriffs at the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Please ask your physician to review the Job Description for Detention Deputy (or Auxiliary) and ask if you can perform all the job requirements. If you are cross- sworn, also have your physician review the Deputy Sheriff job description and ask if you can perform all of the job requirements for that position. When your job description(s) have been reviewed, bring your physician's letter and all related supporting material (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment notes, test results and any other documents that would assist the agency in evaluating your request) to me so that our agency physician can review them for possible accommodation. Because shift changes will take place on May 1, 2005, you must have your documents to me no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, April 15, 2005. If I do not hear back from you by Friday, April 15, 2005 at 5:00 P.M., I will take it that you are available for rotating shift work assignment. The process envisioned by the Sheriff and Chief was that when an employee, who wanted an accommodation, provided the requested information from his own treating physician, that employee's supervisor would pass the information along to LCSO's physician, and an interactive process would begin. As of the date of hearing, LCSO had employees working in modified jobs, including job sharing, and an accommodation had been made for a person in a wheelchair. In 2005, LCSO also fully intended to accommodate those employees who provided proof from their physicians of their need for other accommodations. Petitioner testified that he did not want to repeatedly roll over from day-to-night shifts every four months because past experience had taught him that each time his shift changed, it took him at least two weeks to properly regulate and space his intake of food, liquids, and medications, in such a way that his diabetes was controlled and he felt alert and capable. In response to receiving the March 25, 2005, memorandum, Petitioner presented Chief Borders with a note from Petitioner's primary physician, Dr. Gelin, written on a prescription pad, stating: brittle diabetic pt needs to work day shift only. Petitioner did not present any other written information in response to Respondent LCSO’s detailed request. Petitioner testified that he discussed Dr. Gelin’s note with Chief Borders to the extent that he told Borders that if anyone on behalf of LCSO phoned Dr. Gelin, Dr. Gelin would discuss or fax further information to that person; Chief Borders does not recall this conversation. Chief Borders is a diabetic himself, but he had never heard the term, "brittle diabetic." It is Petitioner's position that because, in Dr. Gelin's private conversations with Petitioner, Dr. Gelin had told Petitioner that “any doctor” should know the sequelae and effects of "brittle diabetes," all Petitioner’s LCSO superiors needed to do was pass on Dr. Gelin’s prescription note to LCSO’s consulting physician in order for Petitioner to be accommodated. Petitioner believed it was his superiors' duty to make Dr. Gelin submit the written materials they wanted. Sheriff Daniels generally distrusted the information that physicians submitted on prescription pads, because, in his experience, when the employee or physician was pressed for details, there was often no supporting information forthcoming. Therefore, he did not believe the information on Petitioner's prescription slip, as described to him by Chief Borders, was sufficient to begin the interactive process with LCSO’s Human Resources Department or its consulting physician. Neither Sheriff Daniels nor Chief Borders presented Petitioner's prescription slip to them. It was decided between the Sheriff and the Chief, that Chief Borders would try to get more detailed information from Petitioner. Petitioner testified that he tried to get more information from his primary physician, Dr. Gelin, but Dr. Gelin would not provide in writing the detailed information requested by LCSO’s March 25, 2005, memorandum. On April 22, 2005, Chief Borders wrote Petitioner that Dr. Gelin's prescription pad note was insufficient and that Petitioner would not be reassigned to a permanent day shift position, stating: I have reviewed the information provided by your physician and find there is insufficient evidence presented to justify a permanent shift assignment. As such, your request is denied. You will rotate day/nights with your assigned shift during the normal rotation. None of the 12-14 employees assigned to permanent shifts, had submitted the requested information, so all of them, including Petitioner, were assigned to a rotating shift. The Sheriff and Chief received no report of complaints from any employee. However, on April 26, 2005, Petitioner received a memo stating that effective May 4, 2005, he would be assigned to "C" squad. "A" Squad, where Petitioner was then assigned, was scheduled to rotate from day shift to night shift on May 1, 2005, and "C" Squad was due to rotate from the night shift to the day shift on the same date. Accordingly, LCSO’s purpose in transferring Petitioner to “C” Squad was to provide him with four more months (until September 1, 2005) to obtain the required medical opinion and detailed supporting documentation from his treating physician. The "A" to "C" Squad change also would have allowed Petitioner to remain on a day shift, without interruption, and allow him an additional four months in which to gather medical information from any appropriate source to support his request to indefinitely remain on a permanent day shift. In fact, Petitioner was regularly seeing Dr. Flores, at the Veterans’ Administration, as well as Dr. Gelin. Dr. Flores coordinated oversight of Petitioner's medical condition with Dr. Gelin, who is Petitioner's private physician. However, Petitioner did not approach Dr. Flores, and he did not go back to Dr. Gelin, until after Petitioner retired. Petitioner had hoped to work another six years before retiring, but on May 13, 2005, while still assigned to the day shift, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation, hoping that someone in his chain of command would try to talk him out of leaving. He expected his supervisors to "workout" a permanent day shift for him, instead of permitting him to retire.2/ Petitioner's resignation letter stated: Regrettable [sic] I am submitting my letter of resignation effective June 30, 2005. Your recent decision denying me permission to remain on the day shift in spite of my doctor's recommendation to remain on the day shift because of my medical condition (brittle diabetic) has forced me to retire earlier than I had planned to. There is no other way that I can regulate my medication switching from days to nights . . . Respondent never required Petitioner to work the night shift, and he never did work the night shift after 1996-1997. Petitioner gave notice of his retirement in May 2005, rather than work in "C" Squad on the day shift until September 1, 2005, or continue to try to obtain additional medical information that would allow him to indefinitely remain on a permanent day shift. Petitioner elected to retire effective June 30, 2005, because, upon advice of “Retirement” he believed it was more financially beneficial for him to retire in June 2005, rather than wait until January 2006.3/ Since January 1, 2006, Petitioner has been employed managing real property in Florida and Costa Rica. Petitioner testified that when he retired, he could perform all the duties required by his detention/corrections officer job description, and perhaps other duties as well, except for the rotating shifts. He believes, but offered no supporting documentation, that rotating shifts are counter- productive and are on their way out in most jails. He further testified that he could probably even work the rotating shifts required by this employer but he believed that to do so would have put him in a health crisis due to his diabetes and multiple medications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2007.
