The Issue Whether or not Petitioner, pursuant to Rule 6C-770 F.A.C., abandoned her position as a Secretary Specialist, thereby resigning from Florida State University by being absent without leave for three consecutive days.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner, Teresa Loewy, was employed as a Secretary Specialist in the Department of Educational Leadership at Florida State University (FSU). On October 22, 1989, Petitioner Loewy reported that she had suffered a head injury as a result of an on-the-job accident. That same day, she was seen at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center and released. On October 23, 1987, FSU placed Petitioner on administrative leave for 40 hours. Contact was made by Petitioner and her husband, Mr. Samuel Loewy, with Dr. David Leslie, Department Chairman, with Nina Mingledorff, Department Staff Assistant and Petitioner's immediate supervisor, and with Motney Gray, FSU Workers' Compensation Supervisor. The Loewys were informed that a worker's compensation report had been completed and forwarded by the Department to Ms. Gray. This is the first formal step in an employer acknowledging that workers' compensation or medical benefits may be due a worker pursuant to Chapter 440, F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Law." By letter dated November 3, mailed November 5, and received by Petitioner on November 10, 1987, Chairman Leslie informed Petitioner in pertinent part as follows: As you may be aware, you have been on disability leave for a 40 hour work period. Beyond that limit, this office will not certify any additional leave for you unless we receive medical proof that you are unable to return to work. Although you may apply for workers' compensation, I believe that similar proof will be required by that office. Absent any further communication from you and absent proof to the contrary, we assume that you are capable of returning to work and have elected not to do so (R-3). By letter of November 5, 1987, (R-9) Motney Gray notified Petitioner that Ms. Gray's communications with Joe D. Rawlings, M.D. had convinced Ms. Gray that Petitioner was not still impaired and was able to work and that Ms. Gray was terminating workers' compensation medical benefits and Petitioner's disability leave as of that date. By letter dated November 12 and received November 13, 1987, Robert L. Lathrop, Dean of the College, informed Petitioner as follows: Based on Motney Gray's letter of November 5, to you, we are hereby notifying you as of 8:00 a.m. November 6, you have been on unauthorized leave. Because of your unauthorized leave of absence, I am writing this letter to determine your intentions concerning continued employment at Florida State University. You must report for work immediately, or provide your supervisor, Mrs. Nina Mingledorff, with appropriate medical certification by 4:30 p.m., Monday, November 16, or it will be assumed you have voluntarily resigned due to abandonment of your position. (R-1) In response, on November 16, 1987, Mr. Loewy, on behalf of his wife, delivered to the Department a handwritten note from Dr. Rawlings, (R-2) which read: To whom it may concern: Mrs. Teresa Loewy is still under my care for headaches dating back to her injury on 10-22-87. At that point in time, Dr. Rawlings could be accurately characterized as Petitioner's primary treating physician pursuant to Chapter 440, F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Law". Copies of this letter were seen by Nina Mingledorff and by Annette Roberts, FSU Employee Labor Relations Coordinator. On November 17, 1987, Petitioner and Mr. Loewy, together with another couple, visited Petitioner's workplace. Their purpose was to have Petitioner physically on the employment premises to demonstrate that Petitioner was unable to work due to her injury. At that time, the Loewy faction spoke with Annette Roberts, with John Goldinger, Assistant Personnel Director, and with Dean Lathrop. Initially, Petitioner was given a termination letter prepared for the Dean's signature, based upon Petitioner's three consecutive days' absence without prior authorization, which letter was as yet unsigned. However, as a result of the Loewy faction's face-to-face interview with Dean Lathrop, a new memorandum was prepared and actually signed by the Dean. This second communication was addressed to John Goldinger and read as follows: I am hereby authorizing leave of absence for Ms. Teresa A. Loewy beginning November 16, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. and ending no later than 10:00 a.m. on November 20, 1987. The purpose of this leave is to provide time for Mrs. Loewy to secure medical certification that she is unable to drive herself to work. (R-4) The effect of this memorandum, signed by Dean Lathrop and handed to Petitioner, was to supersede his other unsigned/unconsummated correspondence attempting to terminate her under the three days' absence rule. On November 20, 1987, Mr. Loewy obtained a two page letter from Dr. Rawlings (R-6) dated the preceding day. That letter, which Mr. Loewy was unable to pick up at Dr. Rawlings' office in Thomasville, Georgia, until shortly after the 10:00 a.m. November 20 deadline established by Dean Lathrop's November 17 signed memorandum, may be summarized as follows: Dr. Florek, a board certified neurologist had diagnosed Petitioner as having post-concussive syndrome on October 29, 1987. Sometime between November 3 and 6, Dr. Bridges, an opthomologist had diagnosed her eye examination as "essentially within normal limits". With the concurrence of FSU's Motney Gray, Petitioner was scheduled for an MMPI (a psychological assessment), the results of which had not yet been received on the date of Dr. Rawlings' letter, November 19, 1987. She was also scheduled for an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging, a type of x-ray particularly helpful in determining head and soft tissue injuries) which was scheduled for November 24, 1987. Dr. Rawlings confirmed that the Petitioner continued to come to him with the subjective complaints of headaches, blurred vision, and diplopia. The overall tone of his letter is that Dr. Rawlings thought Petitioner could work as of November 19, 1987, although he did not specifically say so. His rather vague summation was, "I have relayed to Mrs. Loewy [on] a number of occasions that I feel this problem will be self limited and that all attempts will be made on my part to not give her any type medication which might be habit forming." (R-6) On his wife's behalf, on November 20, 1987, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Mr. Loewy presented Dr. Rawlings' November 19, 1987 letter in a sealed envelope to Evelyn Ashley, Dean Lathrop's Administrative Assistant, and also gave a copy of it to Nina Mingledorff. Dean Lathrop was not in the workplace that day. During the time he was at Petitioner's workplace on November 20, 1987, Mrs. Ashley presented Mr. Loewy with a request form for a leave of absence without pay. She and others emphasized to him that the completed form must specify a date the Petitioner could return to work, a fact clearly in contention at that point. He was requested to have Petitioner complete the form and return it. He was not told how long Mrs. Loewy would have in which to complete and return the form. From this point forward the testimony is in sharp conflict. It is debatable whether Mr. Loewy was concerned about the effect such a "form" request might have upon his wife's job status or her incipient workers' compensation claim, whether he merely felt she was entitled to leave with pay, or whether he was ever told he could sign the form for his wife. It is clear, however, that Mr. Loewy refused to complete the form on Petitioner's behalf and also refused to take it to her unless he could add a notation to the form that her job would not be jeopardized by requesting such voluntary leave. Having assessed the candor and demeanor of the respective witnesses and the internal and external credibility and consistency or lack thereof of their respective versions of the events and conversations of November 20, 1987, it is found that FSU personnel refused to permit any additions or deletions to the form. They also refused to permit Mr. Loewy to submit a separate explanatory note with regard to the Loewys' position on the subject, even though it was John Goldinger's view at the time of formal hearing that it had always been normal FSU procedure to permit attachments and addendums to other requests for leave without pay. The standard forms requesting leave without pay which were presented by FSU employees to Mr. Loewy therefore were never given to Petitioner, completed by her, or submitted by the Petitioner to the University, although Mr. Loewy was repeatedly told that Petitioner's job would not be held for her unless the forms were filled out and submitted. Dr. Rawlings' November 19 letter (R-6) was not transmitted by his subordinates to Dean Lathrop at or near the time Mr. Loewy submitted it to them. Neither did Chairman Leslie contemporaneously see Exhibit R-6. According to Dr. Leslie, no one below his administrative level had the authority to determine the sufficiency of that "excuse" and the appropriate person to have decided that issue would have been Dean Lathrop. Annette Roberts and John Goldinger agreed that leave requests often went through Dean Lathrop. Although the Dean might not vary duly promulgated rules, the evidence as a whole, including Dean Lathrop's prior informal extension of Petitioner's leave, supports Annette Roberts' assertion that Dean Lathrop had the discretion to either effect the abandonment or increase the grace/leave period he had previously granted Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner never did return to work. On Wednesday, November 25, 1987, Dean Lathrop, unaware of the contents of the November 19 letter from Dr. Rawlings, and therefore never having decided on its sufficiency or lack thereof, prepared the following termination letter to Petitioner: You have been absent without leave of absence for 3 or more consecutive workdays . . . [Rule 6C-5.770(2)(a) is quoted] . . . Based on the above stated rule, you are deemed to have resigned from your position. . . effective this date, November 25, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. (R-10) Bracketed material and emphasis provided] It is clear from the foregoing, that regardless of Petitioner's not having submitted any leave without pay request forms, and regardless of Petitioner's nebulous status as to leave after her initial 40 hours disability leave (See Findings of Fact 4-9 supra), Dean Lathrop counted toward implementation of the three days' abandonment rule only the three consecutive "working days" (presumably 24 work hours) elapsing after his own ultimatum time and date of 10:00 a.m., November 20. The Dean's reasoning, as explained by him at formal hearing, was that the Petitioner had not requested a leave of absence. Evelyn Ashley stated that she had told Dean Lathrop both that the doctor's letter (R-6) had been submitted and also that the Dean could do nothing about processing leave for Mrs. Loewy because R-6 had to be attached to a "request for leave form" and that "form" had not been submitted by the Petitioner. Dean Lathrop testified that if he had seen R-6 and still had any doubts of its sufficiency, he probably would have approved leave on the same basis as he had on November 17, at least until he had the opportunity to consult medical personnel further. It was never determined by FSU personnel prior to formal hearing whether the December 19 communication from Dr. Rawlings (R-6) was sufficient under the terms of the Dean's November 17 memorandum granting further leave up to 10:00 a.m., November 20, 1987. As of Friday, November 20, 1987, Petitioner had only 1.7 hours annual leave and 3.5 hours sick leave status to draw upon. After her separation date, Petitioner was paid for 1.7 hours of accrued annual leave; she was not paid for any accumulated sick leave. Subsequently, Petitioner and FSU became embroiled in workers' compensation litigation and entered into a "Stipulation and Joint Petition" which was adopted and approved by an Order of the Deputy Commissioner dated August 8, 1988. (P-3) 1/ Admitted facts found therefrom which are relevant, material, and significant to the instant cause and which are not cumulative to any of the facts found supra, are as follows: . . . She [Petitioner] was scheduled for an MMPI which was done on November 20, 1987. An MRI scan of the brain was done November 23, 1987 and was interpreted as normal. . . . Dr. Bridges examined the Employee [Petitioner herein] on 11/3/87 and found irregular visual fields, more constricted in the right eye, but otherwise normal examination. The employee was then seen by Dr. Thomas J. Perkins who diagnosed occipital syndrome on the right side and recommended treatment by Dr. Seay. . . . The employer/carrier and employee/claimant stipulate and agree that the maximum medical improvement date is April 25, 1988, pursuant to the medical report of Dr. James T. Willis. [Bracketted material provided] It is clear on the record that Motney Gray, FSU's Coordinator for Insurance Risk, informed Dr. Rawlings on several occasions that it was "possible" that workers' compensation would pay for another employee to transport Petitioner from her home in Thomasville, Georgia, to work at FSU in Tallahassee, Florida, but it is not clear that this offer was ever made any more concrete than as a "possibility", and the offer apparently was never made directly to the Petitioner by any representative of FSU. It is clear that, at some point, Dr. Rawlings conveyed this offer to the Petitioner, but it is not clear on the record that this information ever reached Petitioner at any time prior to November 25, 1987 and simultaneously with a period she also was not taking a drug prescribed by some physician. Petitioner was treated, not just by Dr. Rawlings, but by Doctors Florek, Bridges, Seay, Willis, Hogan, and Perkins. At some point in time, Dr. Willis, a chiropractic physician, became Petitioner's primary treating physician. Moreover, it is clear that Dean Lathrop, who was Petitioner's only superior with authority to determine the sufficiency of the letter of certification (R-6), was concerned about Petitioner's ability or inability to drive herself, not whether someone else could or would drive her to work. In addition to the oral communications to Mr. Loewy on November 20, FSU had directly advised Petitioner concerning the general nature of its abandonment rule and of FSU's requirements for prior approval of all leave requests, first by circulating standard informational documents to all employees, and secondly, by its various letters to Petitioner which are described supra. The parties stipulated that in the event abandonment was not proven, any back wages awarded to Petitioner should be subject to all appropriate class pay increases, and should be reduced by the workers' compensation and unemployment compensation already paid to Petitioner, and should be further reduced by any income earned by her.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Finding Petitioner has not abandoned her position. Reinstating Petitioner to her position. Ordering payment of backpay and emoluments from November 25, 1987, less unemployment and workers compensation paid by Respondent and less mitigation earnings of Petitioner, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Denying any attorney's fees. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1989. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 5th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. operated a meat packing plant in Plant City, Florida. Hennis Washington, III was employed by Respondent at that plant as a utility worker. Petitioner, Hillsborough County, through its Human Resources and Equal Opportunity Department, had the authority to investigate and administratively enforce County Ordinances relative to unlawful discrimination in employment. Respondent is 5'1/2" tall and weighs about 114 pounds, much the same as at the time in issue. He is a power lifter and claims to be able to lift 405 pounds in a dead lift. He was employed at the Respondent's plant from July, 1991 to May, 1993, when he was terminated in the action which is the subject of this hearing. On May 24, 1993, while in the performance of his duties, Mr. Washington was carrying a stack of empty boxes from one place to another through the plant's bacon curing department. The stack of boxes he was carrying extended above his head and as a result he was unable to see in front of him. As he proceeded down the aisle, he ran into some resistance which prevented him from going further. He changed direction to the side where he could see, and which, he believed, was clear, and again ran into resistance which, this time, caused him to drop the boxes. After the boxes fell, and he could see in front of him, he observed Mr. Romero, a sanitation worker, in front of him, smiling. There is some question whether or not Mr. Romero took a step toward Mr. Washington. At hearing, Mr. Washington said he did and that he felt threatened by Mr. Romero's advance, though at his grievance hearing he did not indicate that. In response, howevever, Mr. Washington moved toward Mr. Romero, a man approximately 5'8" tall and weighing approximately 175 pounds, picked him up, and dropped him on the floor. As a result of that, Mr. Romero claimed to have injured his back and reported to the medical office by which he was released from duty for the evening. After this action, Mr. Washington was terminated from employment with the company. He is of the opinion it was because of his race, but admits he was advised by his supervisor, Mr. Freeman, it was because it was felt he had over- reacted to the situation with Mr. Romero. Nonetheless, an employee action request initiated by Mr. Freeman, dated May 24, 1993 reflected that Mr. Washington was administratively terminated. Administrative termination deals with unauthorized absences, according to the company's Employee Handbook. Mr. Freeman, himself African-American, was not present at the time of the incident, but was informed of it shortly thereafter, and called Mr. Washington to his office. Mr. Washington admitting picking up Mr. Romero, whom he did not previously know, and thereafter dropping him to the floor. Mr. Freeman, after finding out what happened, referred the matter to Mr. Harris, the employee relations manager, who is also African-American. Mr. Freeman did not interview Mr. Romero. He prepared the administrative termination notice upon direction of his supervisors. He claims the termination was based on Mr. Washington's fighting and not on the basis of his race. Mr. Harris, over a period of the next several days, conducted his independent investigation into the incident which investigation included speaking with Mr. Washington, Mr. Romero, and several other witnesses. During this period, both Mr. Washington and Mr. Romero were suspended. Mr. Harris' investigation confirmed there had been an incident, but he could find no evidence that Mr. Romero had pushed the boxes Mr. Washington was carrying. It was for that reason that Mr. Romero was not disciplined. The termination of Mr. Washington was predicated upon the fact that he had been engaged in a fight with another employee. The Respondent's personnel rules indicate that fighting, as opposed to mere horseplay, is a Class I infraction, the punishment for which can include dismissal. It includes the throwing of punches, the use of weapons, and the threat of injury. Horseplay, on the other hand, usually amounts to no more than pushing, tugging, and actions which are not likely to result in injury. In the instant case, Mr. Washington's actions constituted a direct battery of Mr. Romero which resulted in injury. It was, therefore, properly considered fighting. Mr. Harris concluded that Mr. Washington had reacted to the situation improperly. If, as he claimed, Mr. Washington felt he was being harrassed by Mr. Romero and Mr. Barbosa, who was with Mr. Romero at the time of the incident, he should have reported the matter to his supervisor rather than taking matters into his own hands. Employees are given an Employee Handbook when they begin employment with the company, and they are taught, in a four hour orientation course given to all employees, to back off from incidents of this nature - not to fight. Because he felt Mr. Washington had overreacted, Mr. Harris recommended termination, even though a check of both employees' personnel records indicated neither had any previous incidents. At the time of the incident, Lykes had approximtely 750 production maintenance employees, (Mr. Washington's category). Of this number, between 30 and 35 percent were African-American, 15 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were other minorities, and between 45 and 50 percent white. Mr. Hampton, Lykes' Vice-President for Employee Relations, was made aware of the situation involving Mr. Washington by Mr. Harris, who recommended termination. Mr. Hampton agreed with this recommendation because Mr Washington had thrown Mr. Romero down and injured him. The recommendation for termination was not based on race and was consistent with discipline taken in prior incidents. Specifically, Mr. Hampton referred to a situation occuring not long before the instant case in which two white employees were initially terminated for an altercation they had. In that case, the investigation showed the employees had been fighting and both initially were fired. However, the union filed a grievance. A hearing was held and the decision to terminate was upheld. Thereupon, the union indicated its intent to take the matter to arbitration, and as a result of a meeting held on that issue, it was determined that the incident was more horseplay than fighting and there was little likelihood the company could prevail at arbitration. That conclusion was based on the fact there were no blows struck, there was no injury, and the incident stopped immediately upon the arrival of the supervisor. The employees thereafter were disciplined and reinstated. Mr. Washington also filed a grievance regarding his case. A hearing was held persuant to the union contract. Based on the information presented at the hearing, the grievance committee, made up of two African-American employees and one white employee, concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the issue to arbitration. This committee included the same individuals who heard the previously noted grievance, regarding the white employees. Mr. Washington asserts that because he had been assigned to a position previously held by Mr. Romero, who, he claimed, was demoted from utility to sanitation, Mr. Romero was angry with him and was looking for trouble. The evidence of record indicates that in March, 1993, Mr. Romero was transferred to another position on a different shift from that he was then occupying. The evidence also indicates the position to which Mr. Washington was assigned cannot be considered to be Mr. Romero's old position. Utility and sanitation jobs are, purportedly, on a par. Mr. Washington was assigned to a job identical to that which Mr. Romero had vacated, but on a different shift. Mr. Romero would have had no reason to think Mr. Washington took his job any more than any other utility employee. Further, there is no evidence, save the claim by Mr. Washington, that Mr. Romero acted in a threatening manner. Mr. Glisson, a witness to the incident, indicated the two "tangled". but there was no indication of aggressiveness by Mr. Romero. Taken together, while Washington may have believed Mr. Romero was threatening him, there was insufficient provocation for him to react in the way he did. Under the terms of the Employee Handbook, he should have retreated, and his actions constituted fighting which is grounds for discipline. It is impossible to conclude, from the evidence of record, that the termination of Mr. Washington resulted from anything other than a reaction to his demonstrated misconduct. Only one question remains unanswered. On June 1, 1993, an Employee Action Request was prepared, purporting to administratively terminate Mr. Washington because of fighting on the job and threats of violence. Counsel for the County claims this is an alteration of that action form prepared on May 24, 1993. Both exhibits were photo copies and it is impossible to tell, with certainty, that an alteration occurred. However, a close comparison of the copies leads to the conclusion that the latter dated form is, in reality, an alteration of the former with the dates changed, and an addition of fighting and threats with a direction to remove Mr. Washington from the payroll. No evidence was presented regarding a reason for the alteration, and nothing improper can be legitimately inferred therefrom. Counsel representing Mr. Washington makes reference to the opinion of an Appeals Referee of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, dated July 30, 1993, which, in reversing the determination of the claims examiner in Mr. Washington's unemployment compensation claim, determines that he was not the aggressor in the incident that led to his discharge, and that his involvment was merely for self-protection. The Referee also finds that Mr. Washington's actions could not be viewed as misconduct connected with his work, and he is, therefore, not disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The Referee concludes, as a matter of law, that inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, and/or good faith errors in judgement or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct" "within the meaning of the statute, (Chapter 443, Florida Statutes). The finding of the Appeals Referee is not binding on the undersigned in this action. Mr. Washington was deemed by his employers to have, by fighting, overreacted in the confrontation with Mr. Romero. Overreaction can be equated with poor judgement which, in an industry as hazardous as is meat packing, may well serve as appropriate grounds for discharge even if not classified as misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Determination of No Cause be entered by the Hillsborough Human Relations Board concerning the termination from employment of Hennis Washington, III by the Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorported herein. Second sentence rejected as a being more a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. - 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. 2. & 3. 4. 5. & 6. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted and and and and incorporated incorporated incorporated incorporated herein. herein. herein. herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine P. Teti, Esquire Office of the County Attorney Hillsborough County P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael D. Malfitano, Esquire Malfitano & Campbell, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1080 P.O. Box 1840 Tampa, Florida 33601-1840 Daniel A. Kleman County Administrator Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner City of Opa Locka is responsible for reimbursing the Department of Transportation for the cost of relocating water and sewer lines owned and maintained by Petitioner within the State Road 916 right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact Opa Locka Boulevard and N. W. 135 Street in Dade County, Florida, are paired one-way streets between I-95 and N. W. 27 Avenue. They are located within the city limits of the City of Opa Locka and have been designated as State Road 916. Public records reveal that the portions of Opa Locka Boulevard and N. W. 135 Street which were involved in the Department’s road construction project and the right-of-way attendant to those streets were dedicated to perpetual public use by private landowners platting subdivisions between 1928 and 1956. In 1959 the City of Opa Locka transferred those roadways and rights-of-way to Dade County, Florida, so that the County would be responsible for maintaining them. In 1979 Dade County transferred its interests to the Department. The State Road 916 designation was subsequently made. The Department determined the need to improve those streets by widening them and making other improvements such as installing drainage and lighting. As the Department prepared to begin that project, it conducted a utility pre-design meeting on May 26, 1992. Such a meeting involves the Department’s employees who will be supervising portions of a road improvement project and representatives of the owners of utilities located within the area of anticipated construction. The owners of utilities are advised as to the details and extent of the anticipated construction, and they mark maps as to the location of their utilities. As the road design process proceeds, agreements are made and relocation schedules are prepared. If practical, the Department will design the road around utilities which conflict with the location of the roadway. If designing around the utility is not practical, the owner is required to relocate any utility which conflicts with the Department’s roadway or which interferes with the construction project. If the utility owner intends to relocate its own utilities, a Utility Relocation Schedule is agreed upon by the owner and the Department. If the owner requests that the Department do the relocation work and agrees to pay the costs in advance, a Joint Participation Agreement is entered into, and the Department’s contractor performs the work. The City’s consulting engineer attended the May 1992 utility pre-design meeting and attended many subsequent meetings. Subsequent meetings were also attended by the City’s public works director and the City’s project engineer. During the pre-design and design stages of the road project, the Department was able to design around all utilities or obtain voluntarily removal or relocation by all utility owners except the City. The City maintained that it could not afford to remove or relocate its water and sewer lines. Both the City and the Department were very concerned about the location of the City’s lines and about the lines themselves. The lines were made of cement asbestos and were old. Cement asbestos lines cannot withstand nearby construction and will break. Neither the Department nor the City wanted the lines to break during construction, and the Department did not want to build new roads and have the lines underneath breaking afterward, requiring re-construction. As feared, the City’s sewer line ruptured while another utility owner was relocating its utilities in the area of the City’s sewer line prior to the Department’s construction work. Further, as a result of that other utility owner’s relocation work, it was discovered that the City’s water and sewer lines within the project limits were not in fact located where the City’s maps of the lines reflected. Therefore, the City’s utilities posed a danger to the construction project, and the Department could not allow the lines to remain wherever they were. Due to the City’s position that it could not afford to remove or relocate its water and sewer lines and due to the Department’s need to proceed with the construction project, the Department and the City’s representatives agreed that the Department would issue to the City a 30-day notice to remove or relocate, but the City would not do so. The Department would then do the work for the City, and the City would reimburse the Department for its costs under a reimbursement plan yet to be negotiated. That meeting was attended by the City’s consulting engineer, the City’s former public works director, and the City’s current public works director. Everyone attending agreed that the lines needed to be replaced with newer, stronger lines. The Department agreed to issue the 30-day notice, do the work, and then seek reimbursement from the City since doing so was the only solution to the problem which would allow the road project to proceed without substantial damages and increased costs due to delay. Based upon that agreement and the City’s inability to pay the costs of relocating its water and sewer lines, no Utility Relocation Schedule or Joint Participation Agreement was entered into by the City and the Department. The City’s consulting engineer drew preliminary plans for the relocation of the City’s utilities, and the Department submitted those plans to its contractor to obtain bids for the City’s relocation work. The contractor priced the work and obtained three bids. The subcontract was awarded, the prime contractor added its overhead costs, and that became the anticipated cost. The Department kept the City advised as to additional costs as they were incurred. On July 7, 1993, the Department issued its 30-day notice to the City, expecting the City to respond in the agreed non-adversarial manner. Instead, the City requested this administrative proceeding. As the work was actually performed, the City expressed no disagreement with the materials used or the construction techniques. The City’s representatives were frequent visitors to the construction site since the actual work disclosed more problems. Not only were the City’s utilities not located where the City indicated they were but also the construction crews encountered lines which the City did not know existed. These problems caused additional delays in the project and thereby caused additional expenses to the Department. The reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Department to remove and relocate the City’s utilities within the project limits total $791,751.07
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner City of Opa Locka responsible for reimbursing the Department of Transportation in the amount of $791,751.07 for the costs incurred in relocating and replacing the City's water and sewer utilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia C. Ellis, City Attorney City of Opa Locka 777 Sharazad Boulevard Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Francine M. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation c/o Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation in the amount of $2,500, to pay for "fill dirt" which was installed on the Applicant's real estate in relocating his homestead, after his former homestead was bought as right-of-way for Interstate Highway 75. This claim is under the guise of a relocation appeal, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 USC, 4601 - 4655).
Findings Of Fact In November, 1974, the Florida Department of Transportation paid the Applicant $32,500 in a negotiated purchase for the Applicant's property which was located in the line of construction for Interstate Highway 75. This price was for a mobile home 24' wide and 40' long, with appurtenances to the mobile home, to include a screen room, privacy paneling and carport. Prior to the November, 1974 sale of the property to the Department of Transportation, the Applicant had purchased another parcel of land in late 1973 or early 1974. It was on this parcel of land that was purchased at that time, that the Applicant relocated his home. The amount of payment for the new lot was between $2,800 and $2,900. In order to comply with certain standards of the DeSoto County, Florida Health Department, ten inches of "fill dirt" were required to be implaced to have the septic tank meet requirements for a drain field. The cost of the application of the "fill dirt" was $2,500. The expenditure of $2,500 for "fill dirt" is the item of controversy between the Applicant and the Respondent. The Applicant is claiming that the $2,500 should be reimbursed to him as part of a relocation assistance payment. The Respondent denies that the $2,500 is a proper item of compensation under the governing law on relocation assistance payments. The Respondent's denial is based upon the fact that it believes that "fill dirt" is not a compensable item. More specifically, the Respondent regards the selection of this piece of property by the Applicant as being a matter of choice, which did not have to be made. The Respondent is persuaded that other parcels of property were available, which did not require "fill dirt" to be brought in, in order to comply with health requirements and the Applicant failed to purchase such a parcel, therefore, the Applicant must defray the expense of his selection, in terms of the $2,500 which was spent to bring the property up to health standards. The history of the payments that were made by the Respondent can be derived by the application of the formula utilized. The Respondent looked at three comparable pieces of land , one for $32,500, a second for $28,500 and a third for $32,900. The closest comparable to the home that the Applicant sold, was the comparable listed at $32,500. The Respondent compared these comparable figures with the so called, "carve out" figure of a typical mobile home with equipment, on a typical mobile home site, which would have been a price of $25,721. Based upon this figure for a "carve out", and taking the figure for the closest comparable $32,500, the amount of maximum relocation reimbursement would have been $6,779. This figure is arrived at by subtracting the amount of the "carve out" figure from the closest comparable. In fact the Respondent spent $27,372 for the land purchased and other compensable items, thus entitling him to $1,651 in relocation reimbursement, according to the Respondent's calculations. Although, in the course of the hearing the Applicant was questioned about taking $1,651 as settlement. The Applicant said that he was only interested in the $2,500 figure. It should be stated that the $1,651, is an amount which does not contemplate the payment for "fill dirt". It is in fact a figure arrived at for payment of other items considered to be compensable. The question then becomes one of whether or not the Applicant is entitled to a $2500 payment for "fill dirt" which is not associated with the $1,651 which the Respondent claims the Applicant is entitled to. One final factual comment should be made. That comment is that the Respondent's acquisition and relocation assistance officer, David Nicholson, saw the Applicant's new property after the twenty five hundred dollars worth of fill dirt had been installed. At that time, Mr. Nicholson said that the property appeared to meet the criteria for a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling. The witness, Nicholson had not seen the property prior to the installation of the "fill dirt". Consequently, the Respondent can not challenge the statement by the Applicant to the effect that the "fill dirt" was necessary in order to achieve a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent deny the payment of $2,500 to the Applicant for installation of "fill dirt" at the Applicant's present homesite. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Herman A. Beyer Post Office Box 382 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination should be dismissed as time barred; and Whether Petitioner, Susan Indish-Militello (formerly known as Susan Indish and referred to herein as “Petitioner”) was discriminated against in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Susan Indish-Militello, is a resident of Marion County, Florida. Respondent, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority ("PSTA"), is a transit agency located in Pinellas County, Florida and is an employer under the FCRA. Petitioner was employed by Respondent, as a bus operator, beginning in 1989 until September 8, 1994. Petitioner was involved in a work-related bus accident on May 2, 1994, and as a result, she suffered neck and back injuries. Petitioner’s injuries were evaluated by Petitioner’s treating physician Dr. Jeffrey Tedder on May 4, 1994. On May 19, 1994, Dr. Tedder issued a note releasing Petitioner to return to full work duty on May 29, 1994. Petitioner did not to return to work on May 29, 1994, and utilized vacation and sick leave for approximately the next three weeks. During this time, a second medical evaluation was performed by Dr. Joseph Sena. Dr. Sena issued a report on June 9, 1994, stating that he was unable to substantiate any objective findings which would warrant Petitioner being out from work. Respondent informed Petitioner that she had been released to work by both Dr. Tedder and Dr. Sena. Petitioner returned to work in late June 1994 and worked until July 18, 1994. Petitioner exhausted her sick leave on July 19, 1994. When Petitioner then again failed to return to work, on August 12, 1994, Respondent’s General Counsel sent Petitioner a letter by certified mail advising her that all her sick leave had been exhausted and that in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act and PSTA’s Labor Agreement with the bus operators’ union, Petitioner was required to provide medical certification establishing a qualifying reason for leave within 15 days. The letter also required Petitioner to provide an expected date of return to work. Finally, the letter stated that failure to provide medical certification would subject Petitioner to discipline up to and including termination. The Labor Agreement between the PSTA and its employees is applicable to Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledged that she received a copy of the Labor Agreement. Article 15 of the Labor Agreement, titled "Leave Without Pay" provides in pertinent part the following: Section 8. Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. * * * Section 13. Leave of Absence - Illness * * * B. All leaves of absence without pay for illness shall be supported and confirmed by a medical certificate executed by a doctor. Petitioner forwarded to Respondent a note dated August 17, 1994, from Rev. Dona Knight, a minister, which claimed that Petitioner was “in extreme distress with sucidal [sic] tendencies and sevare [sic] depression.” This document, however, did not state an opinion regarding Petitioner’s ability to work nor did it provide an expected date of return. In response to the aforementioned note, Respondent’s benefits specialist informed Petitioner that the document was inadequate and that she was required to provide proper medical certification. Notwithstanding this request, Petitioner failed to provide any medical documentation indicating a qualifying reason for her unexcused absence from work or an expected date of return. As a result of Petitioner's failing to provide the required documentation, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on September 8, 1994, in accordance with the Labor Agreement and PSTA attendance policy. After her termination, Petitioner filed a grievance disputing the termination, and a first-step hearing was held before PSTA’s deputy of operations, Ed King. Mr. King denied Petitioner’s grievance and upheld the termination. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second-step grievance, and a hearing was held before PSTA's executive director, Roger Sweeney, on October 17 and October 31, 1994. At the hearing, Petitioner did not provide any medical documentation or request any reasonable accommodation for any alleged handicap or disability. Therefore, Mr. Sweeny denied the second step grievance, and the termination was again upheld. Following the grievance hearings, Petitioner filed a request for arbitration in accordance with the PSTA's Labor Agreement. An arbitration hearing was held on October 11, 1996, at which Petitioner was represented by counsel. After the hearing, the arbitrator found that Respondent had just cause to terminate Petitioner based on her failure to provide medical documentation for her continued absence from work. After being terminated, Petitioner also filed a claim for unemployment compensation which was denied by a claims examiner on or about October 6, 1994. Petitioner then appealed this decision and a hearing on the appeal was held by an Appeals Referee, where Petitioner was again represented by counsel. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Appeals Referee found that given the length of time Petitioner was absent from work, it was not unreasonable for Respondent to expect her to provide medical certification for her continued absence. The Appeals Referee further found that the statement from Rev. Knight was not a medical document and gave no assessment of Petitioner’s ability to resume her duties as a bus driver. The Appeals Referee concluded that Petitioner’s failure to provide the requested medical documentation was an intentional violation of her duties and obligations to Respondent and amounted to misconduct connected with work and, thus, found that Petitioner was properly disqualified from receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on or about July 11, 1995, alleging that Respondent had discriminated against her based on her handicap. The Charge of Discrimination did not give any "particulars" regarding the alleged discrimination, but indicated that the most recent discrimination took place on September 8, 1994. On or about July 20, 1999, Petitioner filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination, again alleging that Respondent had discriminated against her based on her disability. In the Amended Charge, Petitioner alleged that on September 8, 1994, she was terminated as a bus driver. She further noted that the "most recent or continuing discrimination took place" on September 8, 1994. Under the section of the charging document referred to as "Discrimination Statement," Petitioner stated the following: I have been discriminated against because of my handicap. I believe my rights have been violated under the American with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as amended. 1. I was not reasonably accommodated. By August 12, 1994, and prior to her termination, Petitioner had relocated her residence to Marion County, Florida. Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that she suffered from any handicap or disability under the terms of the FCRA, that she required or requested reasonable accommodations to perform her duties, or that her termination by Respondent was based upon or influenced by any alleged disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Indish-Militello 2835 North Seneca Point Crystal River, Florida 34429 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Elita D. Cobbs, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman & Feldman, P.A. Two Prestige Place 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33759 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began working at Apalachee Correctional Institute (ACI) in 1993. ACI had about 1,600 to 1,800 inmates during times pertinent to this case. The inmates assigned to ACI are those found to be mentally disturbed. ACI is divided into the East Unit and the West Unit. Petitioner was hired as a Clerk Typist Specialist. She worked in the health services area performing typing and filing in the East Unit. In time Petitioner developed carpal tunnel syndrome. She had three surgeries, two of which involved her wrists. These medical problems prevented her from working a normal schedule and she had to expend her leave in order to cover her absences. Because of the problems with her wrists, she had, from time to time, difficulty typing without experiencing pain. Ann Lashley was employed in the West Unit. In 1995, she had a disagreement with her co-workers and, as a result, she was transferred to the East Unit. Subsequently, Petitioner was moved to the West Unit. Much of the work accomplished by the clerk-typists was related to transcribing psychiatrists' notes. The psychiatrists in the East Unit often typed their own notes. The psychiatrists in the West Unit did not. Therefore, there was more typing for the clerk-typists in the West Unit. Petitioner had difficulty keeping up with this additional typing. John Frank Williams was the overall supervisor of the East and West Units. He does not know, or in any event does not recall, why Petitioner was transferred. Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim based on a date of accident of August 1, 1993. Petitioner's medical situation was coordinated with the Florida Division of Risk Management. A contract service, Compensation Rehabilitation Associates, was employed to audit Petitioner's work station and to determine what, if any, special equipment might assist Petitioner in accomplishing her employment duties without pain. A representative of Compensation Rehabilitation Associates opined that Petitioner required an ergonomically designed chair. Mr. Williams ordered one for her and Petitioner used it. Mr. Williams had work which had to be addressed. Nevertheless, he was aware of Petitioner's limitations and need to visit doctors and made diligent efforts to resolve the situation, including scheduling her work hours in a manner which would permit her to seek medical care. Petitioner related the following events which she contended constituted harassment: In 1994, when she first had problems with one of her wrists, she was told by Kenneth Swann to type with one hand. She was also told, at some time, by Dr. Cherry to type with one hand. She attended a meeting where Mr. Williams said, apparently in response to her continuing medical difficulties, that no one would want her. Joseph Thompson, at some point, told her she was not a team player. Dr. Loeb placed Petitioner at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on June 6, 1995 with no impairment or restrictions. Dr. Vogter placed the Petitioner at MMI on June 25, 1995, with an impairment rating of 17 percent, with restrictions of light duty and no continuous transcription work. Dr. Chason placed the Petitioner at MMI on April 7, 1998, with regard to psychological care, with a zero impairment rating. In a letter from Margaret Forehand dated August 12, 1996, a Personnel Technician II of ACI, Petitioner was informed that she was being placed on alternate duty. This letter outlined Petitioner's proposed work hours and took into consideration her need for reduced hours of typing and her need to visit her doctors. Petitioner, in response to this letter, declined to return to work. She had failed to report for work on August 15, 1996, and has been continuously absent since that date. Her sick leave was exhausted on October 4, 1996. Her Family Medical Leave Act benefits terminated on November 17, 1996. In a letter dated November 25, 1996, C. W. Sprouse, Superintendent of ACI, informed Petitioner that another position had been found for her and invited her to contact Ms. DeDe McMillian so that she could begin working. On or about December 10, 1996, Petitioner called Ms. McMillian and declined the offer. In a letter dated December 17, 1996, C.W. Sprouse informed Petitioner that a personnel action was being taken which could result in her dismissal. She was further informed that she was entitled to a predetermination conference. Petitioner did not request a predetermination conference and on January 3, 1997, her employment with ACI was terminated by Superintendent Sprouse. On May 26, 1998, a Judge of Compensation Claims entered an order adopting a stipulation between Petitioner, ACI, and the Florida Division of Risk Management whereby Petitioner received a lump sum of $50,000. The stipulation further recited that the stipulation resolved any and all issues regarding any aspect of the Petitioner's workers' compensation benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 13th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Bullard, Qualified Representative 805 Shelby Avenue Alford, Florida 32420 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, Petitioner Mike Anagnostakis began operating a Texaco service station on South State Road 7 in Broward County, Florida. At that station, gasoline was pumped, and automobiles were washed and repaired. In October, 1981, Petitioner purchased a Shell service station located on South State Road 7 in Broward County, Florida, approximately four miles south of his Texaco station. At the Shell station, gasoline was pumped, and automobiles were repaired. On April 1, 1982, Respondent contacted Petitioner in conjunction with a Relocation B Plan and completed a business survey questionnaire. A Relocation A Plan generally describes the businesses and residences that could possibly be displaced by a number of alternative highway alignments. After the Federal Highway Administration makes the final determination on which alignment a road will take, the Department of Transportation acquires the maps necessary for that particular alignment. Then the Relocation Section personnel go out and perform the Relocation B Plan survey identifying the persons who will be displaced based upon the final road alternative chosen. Business survey questionnaires are compiled and contracts are entered into for appraisals for the purchase of the property affected. Thereafter, the Department of Transportation commences the actual acquisition process. Years may elapse between the Relocation A Plan which includes all possible alternatives for the proposed road and the actual acquisition by the Department of Transportation of the specific properties finally affected. No notice to vacate or notice that a parcel is going to be acquired is given until the beginning of negotiations with the occupants of those properties. If a business relocates prior to the beginning of negotiations, that business is not eligible for moving costs. Under Department procedures, an offer must be made before an occupant is considered eligible for any relocation payments. On April 1, 1982, when Respondent made its first contact with Petitioner relative to the determination that Petitioner's business would be displaced in conjunction with the property acquisition for the proposed roadway, the business survey questionnaire involved only the Texaco service station since the Shell service station was not being acquired by the Department of Transportation. In September, 1983, Petitioner's gas lease with Texaco expired. Although a new lease was entered into between Petitioner and Texaco, that new lease authorized Petitioner to use the premises only as an automotive garage and no further gasoline was supplied by Texaco to Petitioner. At that time Petitioner ceased pumping gasoline at that site. At the Texaco site, Petitioner continued washing . and repairing automobiles. At some undisclosed time he also commenced selling used cars from that site. Follow up contact between Respondent and Petitioner occurred at the end of 1983, and an offer to the real estate owner may have been made at that time. When that contact occurred, Petitioner was physically working at the Shell station and not at the Texaco site. However, cars were being sold at both locations, and the same repairs were being performed at the Texaco and at the Shell sites. Since Petitioner did not own the real property on which the Texaco station was situated, on February 27, 1984, Respondent delivered to Petitioner an offer relative to the improvements on the real estate. At the same time other written materials were delivered to Petitioner advising him as to the procedures involved in the relocation program, including a letter advising Petitioner that he would be afforded no less than so days notice of the date on which he would be required to vacate the property. On February 27, 1984 automobiles were being sold and repaired at both the Texaco and the Shell service stations. Petitioner presented no evidence to compare the cars available for sale at the Texaco site compared to the Shell site or the rate of repairs being accomplished to the automobiles at either of those two sites. The initiation of negotiations between Petitioner and Respondent occurred on February 27, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Petitioner Mike Anagnostakis does not qualify for a fixed relocation payment in lieu of any other moving expense payments. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RI60T, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James R. Clodfelter, Esquire Suite 207 1701 West Hillsboro Boulevard Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to relocation benefits from Respondent after receipt of settlement proceeds, pursuant to a final judgment entered following Petitioner's acceptance of an offer of judgment made during the condemnation action previously prosecuted by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The parties previously litigated a condemnation action in which Respondent sought to terminate Petitioner's leasehold interest in certain real property in order to construct a federal-assisted road project. As between the two parties, the condemnation action ended in a settlement and stipulated final judgment. In an Offer of Judgment dated May 2, 1997, Respondent offered $30,000 "to settle all claims with said Respondents, exclusive of attorneys fees and costs . . .." By letter dated June 6, 1997, Petitioner notified Respondent that it was accepting the offer of judgment, "which was in the amount of $30,000 for business damages." The parties stipulated to the entry of a Final Judgment pursuant to their settlement. By Final Judgment dated June 19, 1997, the court entered final judgment, stating that the payment of $30,000 was "in full payment for any and all business damages for Parcels 136 and 736 herein taken, and for all other damages of any nature, including interest " Paragraph 15 of Petitioner's Answer in Eminent Domain, served December 6, 1994, states that Petitioner "will suffer moving expenses, relocation costs[,] loss of personal property and other expenditures not known at this time, for all of which it seeks recovery from the [Respondent]." In providing Respondent with information to assess the settlement value of the condemnation case, Petitioner included claims that are properly classified as relocation expenses. In a letter from counsel for Petitioner to counsel for Respondent dated April 1, 1997, Petitioner provided "our business damage report . . .." The total claimed was $406,225, which included numerous costs of relocation. Respondent maintains a manual entitled "Relocation Assistance Program" ("Manual"). The Manual contemplates that claims for relocation assistance are separate from takings claims. For example, Manual Section 9.2.18 provides, for owners, that relocation claims must be made within 18 months from the latter of the date of displacement or the date of final payment for acquisition of the property. Manual Section 9.2.22 contemplates the possible inclusion of relocation claims within administrative or legal proceedings. Additionally, Manual Section 9.2.24 provides for a formal administrative hearing of unresolved disputes concerning relocation claims. Manual Section 9.2.22 provides that relocation benefits included in a settlement must be accompanied by certain documentation. Manual Section 9.2.22.2 provides that, absent the required documentation, a specific individual within Respondent must grant an exemption. The record does not indicate that Respondent complied with either of these alternative requirements in settling the condemnation action.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim for monetary relocation assistance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Vanessa Thomas Forman, Krehl & Montgomery Post Office Box 159 Ocala, Florida 34478 Kelly A. Bennett Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner’s mother is eligible for a replacement housing payment in addition to funds already received from the Department.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner and his mother, Frances Scott, owned real property owned property located in Pasco County, Florida, some of which was taken, and all of which was affected by the construction of the Department’s project no. 97140-2303. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, is the state agency in Florida responsible for the construction of public roadways in this state. In the acquisition of land for the construction of this project, the Suncoast Parkway, the Department of Transportation utilized Gulf Coast Acquisition Company. Consistent therewith, Gulf Coast initiated relocation programs for the individuals whose property was being taken for the construction of the project. Its operation was overseen by an engineering company, PBS&J, to ensure that all relevant policies and procedures were followed correctly. In this as in all acquisition cases, an initial determination was made, prior to any offer being made, as to value of the property to be taken. After the offer was made, an order of taking was entered. Once Final Judgment was entered, the relocation specialists went back to the property owner to see if any modification was necessary. In dealing with relocation of property owners, a replacement payment is defined as the difference between the acquisition price paid for the property and what it costs for an equal replacement of the property. In the instant case, Frances Scott, Petitioner’s mother, an octogenarian not in the best of health, was determined to be eligible for a replacement payment as a 180-day homeowner occupant of the property acquired. Her property consisted of two acres on which a residence was located. The approved appraisal amount for her property was $39,400. The value of the acquired dwelling on the homesite represented 67.9% of the approved appraisal amount, as calculated by the Department, which was $26,750. The value of the comparable replacement dwelling offered by the Department was $33,900. Therefore, the replacement housing payment amount was $7,150, the difference between the appraisal value of the dwelling and the replacement dwelling cost. However, through mediation, at which the Scotts were represented by counsel, a settlement payment for the entire acquisition in the amount of $114,000 was arrived at. Of this figure, $52,952 was attributable to the land, mobile home, and septic and water systems belonging to Frances Scott. The second mobile home located on the land, an unrelated septic system, the land other than that owned by Frances Scott, and damages relating to the move of Petitioner’s business amounted to a total of $61,048. Taken together, the two parcels and accouterments totaled the $114,000. Since that $52,952 figure attributed to Frances Scott’s property exceeded the $33,900 cost of a comparable replacement dwelling, the entitlement to a replacement housing payment was nullified. Because of the taking in issue here, and because of Frances Scott’s advanced age and fragile health, it became necessary to move her residence onto Petitioner’s property to keep the family together. The relocation program is designed to reimburse the expenses of people who are displaced by highway projects. Implementation of the program is governed by both federal and state law. (Public Law 91-646 - the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970; and Sections 339.09 and 421.55, Florida Statutes.) These statutory bases and the rules of the Department implemented thereunder spell out how payments are to be calculated. Replacement housing payments relate to housing only. In the instant case, the issue was one of mixed use which had to be distributed. Frances Scott met the criteria for eligibility and was found to be entitled to $7,150 as a replacement payment. She received this amount, and more, as a result of the settlement reached through mediation by means of which she received more than the amount calculated initially. There is an internal Department process through which the determinations of eligibility and payment amounts made at District level can be reviewed at Departmental level. In this case, the Scott file, at their request, was forwarded to the Department’s Relocation Manager, Mr. Eddleman, in Tallahassee. Mr. Eddleman reviewed the file and discussed its contents with District personnel. Based on his review, Mr. Eddelman determined that the calculation made at the District was correct. It is his policy in this process to lean towards the side of the displaced person in those cases where there is some question as to either entitlement or amount. Here, Mr. Eddleman found the District acted properly in denying extra replacement housing payment. It is easy to see the basis for Petitioner’s dissatisfaction. He relates, and there is no basis for doubting him, that at the mediation he was led to believe by the mediator that the relocation payments had nothing to do with the settlement amount to which he agreed. In this, he was misled. Inclusion of the amount for replacement payment in the settlement figure excluded him from further compensation and served to increase the settlement amount on which his counsel’s fee was based. Mr. and Mrs. Scott seem to have been poorly served in the process. They did not understand the communications they received from the state, categorizing them as “legal mumbo- jumbo.” They do not understand how the figure upon which the settlement was based and do not understand the 67.9 percent calculation. It was again explained at hearing but they remain unsatisfied with the settlement amount.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order affirming the relocation assistance payment (replacement housing) previously calculated for Petitioner’s mother, Frances M. Scott. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James O. Scott, pro se Post Office Box 11231 Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
