The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for an exemption pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1995 Hunt was charged with battery on his wife. The facts surrounding this incident are limited, but essentially the evidence indicated that Hunt struck his wife with a closed fist. Subsequently, Hunt pled no contest to the charge and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and nine months supervised probation. Approximately six months after the above-referenced battery, Hunt began work at Bayshore Cluster, a residential facility that houses non-ambulatory residents with severe developmental disabilities, located in Panama City, Florida. Based on Hunt's conviction of battery on his spouse, the Department advised Hunt that he was ineligible to hold a position caring for the developmentally disabled. The Department also advised Hunt that he was ineligible for a statutory exemption. Hunt contested the decision of the Department that denied him an exemption for employment in a position for which a security background check is required pursuant to Sections 435.03 and 435.04, Florida Statutes. The contest resulted in this Chapter 120 hearing before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, Hunt failed to take responsibility for battering his wife. In fact, Hunt attempted to shift the blame for the incident by claiming that his wife initiated the dispute that resulted in the battery.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order and therein DENY Hunt's request for exemption. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1996.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether excessive absences constitute just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent at Skyline Elementary School in Lee County, Florida, from August 25, 1997, until May 22, 2006, when Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay and benefits. Respondent was a member of the food service defined in Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), as an educational support employee. Petitioner proposes to terminate Respondent from her employment due to excessive absences during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years. Petitioner alleges that the absences affected Respondent's ability to carry out the essential functions of her position and that Respondent received two reprimands for excessive absences prior to the proposed termination. The term "excessive absence" is defined in Section 9.015 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Petitioner and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County1 to mean: three consecutive days of absence without medical verification in a case where abuse is suspected and/or three (3) unauthorized absences in a twelve (12) month period and/or a continued pattern of absence that affects an employee's ability to carry out the essential functions of his/her position. Art. 9, § 9.015, Petitioner's Exhibit 11 (P-11). Many of the material facts are undisputed. Respondent was absent for 47 days during the 2004-2005 school year and 35 days during the 2005-2006 school year. Petitioner does not suspect abuse in connection with any of the absences within the meaning of Article 9, Section 9.015.a. of the CBA. All of the absences were caused by medical conditions identified in the record as diverticulitis and gout. Respondent did not have three consecutive days of absence without medical verification. Whenever requested, Respondent consistently provided a doctor's note for her absence from work. The admitted absences that exceeded Respondent's accrued leave were unauthorized within the meaning of Article 9, Section 9.016. The relevant portion of the CBA defines the term "unauthorized absence" as: Failure of an employee to give notice of absence may be regarded as an unauthorized absence. . . . Absence in excess of accrued sick and personnel leave, when such absence is not specifically authorized in advance. . . . Art. 9, § 9.016, P-11. None of the absences were unauthorized within the meaning of Article 9, Section 9.016a. Respondent consistently provided notice of absence to her employer, frequently before her work shift began at 7:00 a.m., much to the displeasure of her supervisor. Respondent was absent for 28 days in excess of her leave during the 2005-2006 school year. The 28 absences were not authorized in advance, were unauthorized absences within the meaning of Article 9, Sections 9.015b. and 9.016b., and the excessive absences constitute grounds for "appropriate discipline" authorized in Article 9, Sections 9.011 and 9.014. Respondent disputes that any of her absences affected her ability to carry out the essential functions of her position within the meaning of Article 9, Section 9.015c. Respondent also disputes allegations that her absences during the 2004-2005 school year can be considered in this proceeding, that she has any prior discipline, and that termination is "appropriate discipline" within the meaning of Article 9, Sections 9.011 and 9.014. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that the 47 absences during the 2004-2005 school year are grounds for termination or that they affected Respondent's ability to carry out the essential functions of her job during that school year. During the 2004-2005 school year, Respondent's school principal recommended on March 24, 2005, that Respondent be rehired for the 2005-2006 school year. The principal signed Respondent's 2004-2005 Performance Assessment scoring Respondent at an "effective level" of performance in all 16 areas targeted for assessment. The Performance Assessment rated Respondent as "punctual in attendance" and "exhibits dependability." The area on the Performance Assessment reflecting "Attendance" and "Total hours absent" is blank. Petitioner employed Respondent for the 2005-2006 school year without conditions and without probation. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that the 28 unauthorized absences during the 2005-2006 school year affected Respondent's ability to carry out the essential functions of her position. The principal views Respondent's absences as a "health issue, it was not a work issue." He describes Respondent as a "good worker." The testimony of Petitioner's two witnesses that was intended to provide hearsay testimony of Respondent's peers at work was neither credible nor persuasive. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that two prior actions intended by Petitioner to be letters of reprimand evidence prior disciplinary action. Petitioner issued each purported letter of reprimand during the 2005-2006 school year,2 but neither letter included a notice of rights that provided Respondent with a clear point of entry into the administrative process. Article 7, Section 7.09 of the CBA defines the term "discipline" to include a reprimand and provides in relevant part: Employees subject to disciplinary action as specified in Articles 7.091-7.093 shall be entitled to appeal through the grievance process as set forth in Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement. Article 5 of the CBA describes an extensive grievance process that may culminate in arbitration.3 However, arbitration is not the exclusive procedure of review for proposed discipline. None of the grievance procedures may be construed to deny rights otherwise guaranteed by law.4 Petitioner utilizes the administrative process available at DOAH in connection with challenges to proposed discipline. Neither of the alleged prior reprimands complied with material procedural protections in the CBA. Contrary to Article 7, Section 7.09, Petitioner's Department of Personnel Services never conducted an informal pre-determination conference to review the allegations against Respondent and to afford Respondent an opportunity to respond. Petitioner did not provide Respondent with two days' advance notice to have a representative accompany her to a pre-determination conference where she would have been permitted to present relevant information. The director of personnel did not make a recommendation of disciplinary action to the superintendent. Respondent was sick and not at work on February 21, 2006, and Petitioner never delivered the letter to Respondent. Respondent's supervisor submitted the matter to the executive director of human resources initiating the process for this proposed termination of employment. However, Respondent never had an opportunity to grieve the second "Letter of Reprimand," and Petitioner submits the second "Letter of Reprimand" as evidence of prior discipline that supports the proposed termination of employment. The CBA does not prescribe termination of employment as required discipline for unauthorized absences. The "appropriate discipline" in this proceeding is properly determined by reference to the severity of Respondent's misconduct and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Evidence of aggravating circumstances is limited to the excessive frequency of absences. The purported prior "Letters of Reprimand" were issued without a clear point of entry, in violation of relevant procedural protections in the CBA, and the trier of fact does not consider the purported letters of reprimand for the purpose of determining the appropriate discipline. Several mitigating factors are relevant to a determination of "appropriate discipline." Petitioner employed Respondent for nine years. Respondent has been a good worker during that time. The unauthorized absences are attributable to medical conditions rather than misconduct. Respondent has been successfully treated for her medical condition, her present health is good, and there is no evidence that the unauthorized absences will persist after her current suspension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's employment from May 22, 2006, through the date of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2006, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent for his failure to file fingerprint and abuse-registry screening forms for one of his employees, in violation of Rule 10M-12.002(1)(d)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and failure to employ a person certified in first aid, in violation of Rule 10M-12.004(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Respondent license number 288-7 on February 15, 1988, for the operation of a child-care facility at 261-B S. Central Avenue in Oviedo, Florida. The license was amended on October 3, 1988. On November 15, 1988, Larry D. Lowe, a Human Services Program Analyst employed by Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the subject facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, he prepared a checklist noting deficiencies as to background screening. Specifically, Mr. Lowe noted that the fingerprint cards and abuse-registry forms had not been completed for an employee named Cindy Samons and that these omissions were in violation of Rule 10M-12.002(1)(d)(2), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Lowe gave Ms. Samons a copy of the checklist, which gave Respondent until November 22, 1988, to submit the required forms. Mr. Lowe returned to the subject facility on December 28, 1988, and discovered that the forms had been completed and placed in the employee's file, but they had never been submitted to Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner had never had the chance to conduct the necessary background screening on Ms. Samons, who was at the time the sole employee at the facility. Mr. Lowe recommended an administrative fine of $360 based upon a daily fine of $10 for the 36-day period between the initial corrective due date and the date of the follow-up inspection. On October 11, 1988, Ms. Marilyn Willming, R.N., who is a public health nurse with the Seminole County Public Health Unit, performed a medical inspection of the subject facility and discovered that, among other things, no employee on the premises had obtained a current first-aid certificate and that this omission was in violation of Rule 10M-12.004(1), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Willming gave one of the employees a copy of the medical inspection checklist, which gave Respondent until October 25, 1988, to correct this problem. Flora Kavitch, R.N., who is also an employee of the Seminole County Public Health Unit, conducted a reinspection of the facility on December 23, 1988, and discovered, among other things, that the facility still had no employee with a current first-aid certificate. She recommended an administrative fine of $780 based upon a daily fine of $10 for the 78-day period between the date of the initial inspection and the date of the follow-up inspection. Each of the above-described deficiencies is a condition or occurrence related to the operation and maintenance of a facility and indirectly or potentially threatens the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the children.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1140. ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 1st day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr. District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hilton J. Soto 6501 Palmetto Drive Winter Park, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Hilton J. Soto Little Theresa Child Care 261-B South Central Avenue Oviedo, Florida 32765 =================================================================
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the employer, School Board of Alachua County, committed an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against Ms. Bates on the basis of her handicap. At the commencement of the hearing the Petitioner moved for a judgment on the pleadings or a determination that the facts were not in dispute on the basis of the respondent having failed to file an answer in accordance with Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the motion and provided the parties an opportunity to present their evidence. Both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and both parties offered exhibits. On March 17, 1988, a transcript of the hearing was filed and on March 28, 1988, both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' post-hearing submissions during the formulation of this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Ann Bates, began employment with the Respondent, School Board of Alachua County, on August 15, 1983, as a classroom aide assigned to Stephen Foster Elementary School. In August of 1985, she was transferred to the A. Quinn Jones Center and assigned to the classroom of a teacher named Sue Clarey. The Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center had initially contacted the Petitioner and asked her to work at his school. The Petitioner continued to be employed by the Respondent until March 14, 1986. The Petitioner's last job title was Paraprofessional II. On February 28, 1986, the Petitioner saw Dr. W. Alvin McElveen and was given a definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Richard Cunningham in early March, 1986. Petitioner has been a patient of Dr. Richard Cunningham for approximately four and a half years. In March of 1986, Dr. Richard Cunningham did not place any restrictions on Petitioner's employment. Petitioner's duties as a Paraprofessional II at A. Quinn Jones included feeding and tutoring students, as well as assisting the teacher in general clerical and administrative tasks. At all times the Petitioner was able to satisfactorily complete the job duties of a Paraprofessional II. On March 3, 1986, the Petitioner notified Mr. Jeff Jones, the Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center, that she had been diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis. In March of 1986, the Petitioner took six days off from work on sick leave (March 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11) and returned to work on the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986. On March 12, 1986, the school secretary, Ms. Dorothy Emo, placed a handwritten note in the Petitioner's school mailbox, which stated, in substance, "Please see Mr. Jones at your convenience." It was the common practice of the Principal to speak informally with any employee who was returning from more than a day or two of sick leave to ascertain how the employee was doing and to make sure that the employee felt well enough to return to work. On the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986, the Petitioner left the classroom, informing the teacher that she was going to see Mr. Jones, and went to the front office. She met with Mr. Jones at about 10:00 a.m. In the Principal's office, the Petitioner expressed her frustration with her medical condition and stated that it was her desire to resign her employment. In response to the Petitioner's expressed desire to resign, Mr. Jones asked the school secretary to bring in a "resignation form," which she did. It was a new form, with which the Principal was not familiar. The Petitioner and Mr. Jones then discussed her leaving employment and the effect it would have on her ability to collect unemployment compensation. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed that a voluntary resignation would preclude her from being able to receive unemployment compensation. This belief, as it turned out, was erroneous. The Respondent School District had recently revised its separation form to include all three types of separations (voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and retirement) on one form. Previously, resignation and terminations were processed on separate, different forms. The Principal, Mr. Jones, had never used this particular separation form. Further, the Principal had never used any separation form which indicated that an employee was being involuntarily terminated. He was also unsure what was meant by the term "involuntary termination." The Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed, albeit erroneously, that for the purpose of permitting the Petitioner to separate from employment and also collect unemployment compensation, the "involuntary termination" selection was the appropriate choice. This was by their mutual agreement. Mr. Jones had the form prepared in that manner and then he and the Petitioner signed the form. Mr. Jones gave a copy of the signed form to the Petitioner (which was contrary to the normal procedure) and then forwarded the original of the form to the district office for processing. Mr. Jones also called Will Griffin, the district supervisor of personnel, informed him of Ms. Bates' resignation, and told him that the form was en route. The above-mentioned form was received by Mr. Griffin around noon on March 12, 1986. Upon reviewing the form, he realized that it had been filled out incorrectly and he immediately so advised Mr. Jones by telephone and told Mr. Jones that the Petitioner would have to complete the proper section of the form. The Respondent's School District's procedures are that "involuntary termination" is used for only three types of separation: (a) dismissal of an employee, (b) job abandonment by an employee, or (c) deletion of a position. A school principal does not have the authority to involuntarily terminate an employee or to fill out a form to that effect. The "involuntary termination" form was, therefore, a nullity and of no effect. That form was not processed by the district office staff and was never acted on by the School Board. Principal Jones told his school secretary of the error on the form and asked her to prepare a corrected form. The corrected form indicated that Petitioner was resigning and was not being involuntarily terminated. The corrected form was signed by the Petitioner and the Principal on March 14, 1986, and it was then processed by the district office. At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 15, 1986, the Respondent School Board acted on the Petitioner's resignation and accepted it in a routine manner. At the time the Petitioner signed the second form on March 14, 1986, she did not indicate to the Principal in any way that she had changed her mind about wanting to resign. If the Petitioner had objected and had not signed the resignation form, she would have remained employed by the Respondent. At any time prior to the School Board's formal approval of a resignation, an employee may withdraw a resignation. At no time prior to the School Board's action on April 15, 1986, did the Petitioner withdraw her resignation or notify Mr. Jones or any other representative of the School Board of any change of mind regarding her resignation. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, no steps had been taken by Principal Jones, or by any other representative of the School District, to dismiss the Petitioner from her employment. At that time the possibility of dismissing the Petitioner had not even been discussed. The Petitioner applied for and was awarded unemployment compensation on the basis that she had resigned her employment for health reasons. It is the policy and practice of the Respondent to provide all employees with a written notice of deficiencies on a job performance warning record before any dismissal action is begun. It is also the Respondent's policy and practice that prior to initiation of dismissal proceedings, an employee's immediate supervisor takes steps to try to resolve any problem before referring the matter to the district supervisor. Employees are normally suspended with pay pending an investigation of the basis for proposed dismissal, and actual dismissal is only carried out by the School Board after the employee has been given an opportunity for a hearing. None of these things took place with regard to the Petitioner, because the School Board was not trying to and did not dismiss her. The Respondent has a policy of providing for grievances by its employees who believe they have been treated unfairly. The Petitioner did not file a grievance with the School Board.
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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as an Accountant II on December 1, 1987 and in December of 1993, was promoted to Tax Auditor II. In September of 1991, the Respondent received a complaint regarding Petitioner from a taxpayer. The taxpayer alleged that the Petitioner had accused the taxpayer of attempting to sabotage the Petitioner's van. When questioned about the complaint, the Petitioner stated that the taxpayer had attempted to damage his van because the Petitioner had denied the taxpayer's refund claim. The Petitioner's supervisor investigated Petitioner's claims, counseled him and suggested that the Petitioner participate in the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Petitioner declined assistance. In October and November of 1992, the Petitioner began making bizarre allegations about his co-workers and supervisors engaging in outrageous and deviant sexual conduct and activities, and began to behave strangely. The Petitioner told his supervisors that his co-workers were engaging in sex with his mother, aunt, uncle and other members of his family. According to the Petitioner, these sexual activities were taking place in the office. The Petitioner was upset particularly at one co-worker, who Petitioner stated had moved in next door to him or into his neighborhood in order to spy on Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner stated that the "sex police" were observing him at Walmart. The police would get on top of his van to spy on him according to Petitioner. During this time, the Petitioner filed a "sexual harassment" complaint with the Respondent's Inspector General. Petitioner's statement to the investigators repeated the bizarre accusations outlined above regarding his co- workers. After investigating the Petitioner's claim, the Respondent's Inspector General found no evidence to substantiate these allegations and statements. Because the Petitioner's increasingly bizarre behavior, the Respondent became concerned about the Petitioner's ability to perform his duties as a Tax Auditor I. Therefore, the Respondent requested that the Petitioner go to a psychiatrist for an evaluation. The Petitioner agreed and went to the Apalachee Center for Human Services, where he was examined by Dr. Terence Leland, a psychologist and Dr. Inez Bragado-Spence, a psychiatrist. The evaluation consisted of three, one- hour interviews and various written tests. It was understood that the results of this examination would be shared with Respondent. Dr. Leland reported to the Respondent that the Petitioner had made delusional statements of the type made to and investigated by the Inspector General and found to be baseless. The Petitioner reported that co-workers and others were spying on him. The Petitioner reported alleged sexual liaisons at the office between various employees and supervisors. The Petitioner reported plots against him by various conspirators and "hit men" of the Respondent. Dr. Leland's diagnosis was that the Petitioner suffered from a delusional (paranoid) disorder, persecutory type. It was Dr. Leland's opinion that the Petitioner clearly needed treatment. Dr. Leland felt that the Petitioner could not perform his duties without treatment, and recommended requiring treatment as a condition of the Petitioner's continued employment. During this period, the Petitioner's job performance suffered. Based upon Dr. Leland's reports, the Respondent required that the Petitioner obtain treatment as a condition of continued employment. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement which required the following as a condition of continued employment: Seeking psychiatric treatment within 40 days. Furnishing documentation that treat- ment had commenced and was continuing for as long as treatment was recommended. Following the prescribed treatment so long as it was recommended. The Petitioner commenced treatment in June of 1993, Dr. Prasad, a psychiatrist, prescribed medication for the control of Petitioner's illness and Suzan Taylor, a counselor associated with Dr. Prasad, held regular counseling sessions with Petitioner. As a result of his treatment, the Petitioner was asymptomatic, his work improved, and he was promoted to Tax Auditor II in December of 1993. In the summer of 1994, approximately one year after commencing treatment, Dr. Prasad and Suzan Taylor began to suspect that the Petitioner was no longer taking his medication when he again began making delusional statements. At the same time, the Petitioner's supervisor began to notice the reoccurrence of Petitioner's prior conduct. When confronted by his doctors in November of 1994 about the failure to take his medication, the Petitioner stated that he had quit taking it. He was given the option of getting shots of the same medication on a regular basis, but he declined. On November 18, 1994, the Petitioner had an altercation with a co- worker and received a one-day suspension. Dr. Prasad had diagnosed the Petitioner as having major depression with psychotic features of persecution and delusion. Dr. Prasad's opinion was that the Petitioner could not perform his essential job functions without treatment. On or about November 21, 1994, the Petitioner told his supervisor that his last visit to Dr. Prasad was on November 16, 1994. Dr. Prasad was contacted by Petitioner's employer, and Dr. Prasad issued a final report dated November 23, 1994, in which she stated that the Petitioner refused to take any further medication or follow her directions; therefore, there was nothing further she could do to help him if he refused her recommended treatment. She did not release Petitioner from treatment. The Respondent issued its proposed letter of termination based upon the Petitioner's refusal to continue treatment contrary to his agreement and the Petitioner's behavior on the job. In a response to the letter of termination, the Petitioner made bizarre statements about the co-worker with whom he had had the altercation with on November 18, 1994. At a pre-determination conference conducted by William Fritchman, the Respondent's Chief of Personnel and Training (at the time), it was suggested that the Petitioner go to another doctor for evaluation and treatment, if necessary. The Petitioner stated that he would not seek further medical help and stated that he would not take any drugs. The Respondent had real concerns about the Petitioner's ability to perform his job duties, his interaction with taxpayers, and potential harm to fellow employees. Based upon Dr. Prasad's diagnosis and opinion that Petitioner required continuing treatment and Petitioner's declining job performance, Mr. Fritchman issued the Final Action Letter of Termination citing the Petitioner's breach of the conditions of employment, as agreed in the letter of April 30, 1993, which constituted insubordination. Petitioner offered no evidence showing he was sexually harassed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's claim be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Franklin Post Office Box 572 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0572 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6668 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this order closing file is entitled to Judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950, and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Order Closing File was filed in the official records of the Department of Management Services and copies were furnished to: Larry D. Scott, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950; Jane M. Letwin, Esquire, 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, and Judge Claude B. Arrington, Division of Administrative Hearings, the DeSoto net Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, this | a day of Quis, Us? ‘ , 2009. Debbie Shoup Clerk Department of Management Services (850) 487-1082 2 of 2 Jul 11 2009 11:41 a7/11/2889° 12:23 9549617454 PACK-SHIP&BEYOND PAGE 91/03 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS GLORIA MARSHALL, Petitioner CASE NO: 08-3716 JUDGE ARRINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT. Respondent. / PETITIONER’S AMENDED NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER, GLORIA MARSHALL, through undersigned counsel, hereby files this AMENDED PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, on the following grounds: 1. Petitioner Marshall is not working for the employer since June of 2008, when she retired after a long career as an employee of the Broward County School Board. Most of the documents to be used in this petition are already in possession of Respondent and the attorney for Petitioner. 2. Petitioner patiently and conscientiously worked as an adult ed teacher from 1981 through 2005, a period of some twenty four years. EXHIBIT att Jul 11 2009 11:41 @7/11/2889 12:23 9549617454 PACK-SHIP&BEYOND PAGE 62/83 3. In view of the relationship between the Repondent and Petitioner, who has been enrolled several times in the FRS, Petitioner contends that the Respondent exercise its fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the member by not opposing this dismissal without prejudice. 4. Petitioner contends that no prejudice to Respondent will result. 5. No expenses have been incurred thus far other than the transmission of employment records by the Respondent to undersigned counsel, and those will not change. If a plan has been proposed for the case by Respondent, that plan can be laid aside and will serve the same purpose in the future. 6. In light of the circumstances which prevail, to insist on the prosecution of this petition at this time will not serve the interests of justice. 7. Petitioner has indicated that she is unable to assist in this petition until the month of December 2009. 8, In addition, the goal sought in these proceedings is a very precious one, that is, a pension and social security fund which will influence the comfort or lack thereof of this petitioner’s last years, and is worthy of the Court’s indulgence in acknowledging this dismissal without prejudice. BASED ON THE FOREGOING recitation of facts, Petitioner files this ‘ Amended Notice of Voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Jul 11 2009 11:42 97/11/2009 12:23 9549617454 PACK-SHIP&BEYOND PAGE 43/03 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been fax-filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings and e-mailed to 850 922 6312, to Larry Dz. Scott, Esq., Asst. General counsel to DMS, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Eleventh day of July, 2009. LAW OFFICE OF JANE M. LETWIN Attorney for Petitioner: Florida Bar Number 990329 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale Fl 33312 Phone: 954 245 8495: Fax: 954 301 8401 E-mail; Janeletwintv@aol.com By * ou Jane M. Letwin
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact On January 4, 1994, Respondent completed an applicant security check form for employment with the Petitioner. The form specified a series of questions related to past or pending criminal charges to which Respondent was to check either a "yes" box or a "no" box. On each occasion, Respondent checked the "no" box. At the conclusion of the form is a certification as follows: I certify that the above responses are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and are made in good faith. I understand that any incompleteness or false information on this form may be just cause for a rejection of my application for employment or dismissal in the event I am employed by the School Board of Palm Beach County. Respondent did not disclose that in 1987 she was charged with aggravated assault and possession of a weapon. As a result of the charges, Respondent was sentenced to one year probation, required to pay a fine and court costs, and fifty hours of community service. When Mr. Lachance learned of the results of the background search (which differed from Respondent's application), he met with Respondent who admitted the criminal charges but who alleged that she had believed them to be resolved. The recommendation was then made to the Board to terminate Respondent's employment as a bus driver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the school district in accordance with the Board action of April 7, 1995. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 12th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2884 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee M. Rosenberg, Esq. School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Ms. Tina King 5030 Elcharo North West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Dr. Bernard Shulman Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact By a three-count Administrative Complaint dated June 7, 2011, the Respondent charged the Petitioner with alleged violations of law related to the sale of certain products. The allegations of the Administrative Complaint were prosecuted in the disciplinary case. A final hearing in the disciplinary case was conducted on January 24 and 25, 2012. On April 18, 2012, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order determining that the products referenced in the Administrative Complaint were unregistered securities and that the Petitioner "violated section 626.611(16) [Florida Statutes,] by selling an unregistered security that was required to be registered pursuant to chapter 517." The Administrative Complaint also charged the Petitioner with additional violations of statute including a "[d]emonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance," in violation of section 626.611(7). As set forth in the Recommended Order, the ALJ determined that the evidence failed to establish the additional violations. Based on violation of section 626.611(16), the ALJ recommended that the Petitioner's license be suspended for a total of six months, two months for each product sale alleged in the three separate counts of the Administrative Complaint. On July 6, 2012, the Respondent issued a Final Order determining that in addition to the violation of section 626.611(16) found by the ALJ, the Petitioner had also violated section 626.611(7). Despite finding the additional violation, the Respondent adopted the penalty recommended by the ALJ. The Petitioner took an appeal of the Final Order to the District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. The Court determined that the products sold by the Petitioner were not securities that required registration at the time they were sold by the Petitioner, and, on June 21, 2013, issued an order reversing the Final Order issued by the Respondent. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner was the prevailing party in the disciplinary case and is a "small business party" as defined by section 57.111(3)(d).
