The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), by testing positive for marijuana; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating persons certified in Florida as law enforcement officers. On June 29, 2000, Petitioner certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Law Enforcement Certificate number 192064. Petitioner had previously certified Respondent as an auxiliary law enforcement officer on November 3, 1998, pursuant to Law Enforcement Certificate number 183207. Respondent has worked continuously as an auxiliary law enforcement officer and as a law enforcement officer for the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) from November 3, 1998. Respondent performed her jobs well and had no disciplinary action prior to this proceeding. On January 30, 2002, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) for the Sheriff's Office collected a urine specimen from Respondent in a random procedure conducted pursuant to the Drug Free Workplace testing program. The LPN sealed the specimen in the presence of Respondent and stored the specimen in a refrigerator regularly used for that and other purposes. Staff for the Sheriff's Office forwarded the specimen to LabCorp at approximately 4:00 p.m. on the same day that the LPN collected the specimen. The specimen arrived at LabCorp with the seals in tact. LabCorp would not have tested the specimen if the seals were broken. LabCorp staff observed two deficiencies in the chain of custody documents that accompanied the specimen. The collector signed as the collector but did not sign as the person who released the specimen. Nor did the chain of custody documents indicate the mode of shipment. LabCorp began testing the specimen and sent an affidavit to the LPN for her to sign. The LPN signed the affidavit, without understanding the content or purpose of the affidavit, and returned it to LabCorp. LabCorp would not have completed testing if the LPN had not returned the affidavit properly completed. LabCorp conducted an immunoassay. The specimen tested positive for propoxyphene. The reading for propoxyphene metabolite exceeded the minimum 300 required for a positive result. The specimen also tested positive for cannabinoids (marijuana). The reading for marijuana metabolite exceeded the minimum of 50 required for a positive result. LabCorp conducted a gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) to rule out a false-positive reading in the immunoassay. The specimen exceeded the minimums of 300 for propoxyphene and 15 nanograms per milliliter for marijuana. The specimen reading for marijuana was 32 nanograms per milliliter. LabCorp referred the test results to Dr. John Eustace, a certified medical review officer under contract with the Sheriff's Office to ensure the validity of test results for controlled substances. Dr. Eustace confirmed the test results and contacted Respondent. Respondent had a prescription for Darvocet. Darvocet contains propoxyphene. The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with any violation based on propoxyphene. Respondent stated to Dr. Eustace that she was on other non-prescription pain medications. None of the pain medications would have caused a false-positive reading in the testing conducted by LabCorp. After concluding her conversation with Dr. Eustace, Respondent immediately submitted a second specimen for independent testing that was completed on February 14, 2002. The specimen did not test positive for any controlled substance. The independent test was conducted approximately 14 days after Respondent provided the original specimen. Tests may detect marijuana in chronic users for up to 14 days but generally cannot detect the drug in recreational users after three to five days. Respondent denies using marijuana and denies any willful or intentional ingestion of marijuana. The test conducted on the original specimen would have detected marijuana in Respondent's system if Respondent were to have ingested the drug unknowingly through food that she consumed or through second hand smoke. Respondent does not recall being around anyone smoking marijuana and has no knowledge of consuming food that contained marijuana. Respondent's only explanation for the positive test results is that someone tampered with the specimen tested by LabCorp. The refrigerator used to store the specimen is located in an area of the building that is not secure. Staff members of the Sheriff's Office as well as some inmates in the adjacent jail have access to the area where the refrigerator is located. Assuming arguendo that someone had access to the specimen, Respondent elicited no testimony from Petitioner's experts, and called no expert in her case, to show how those with access to the refrigerator could have added a substance to the specimen to cause it to test positive for marijuana. Nor did Respondent submit any evidence of how such tampering could have been accomplished without breaking the seal on the specimen tested by LabCorp.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.0011(4), and issuing a written reprimand in accordance with Subsection 943.1395(7)(e), Florida Statutes (2001). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 3rd day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Pine Scott Price, Esquire Bank of America Building 126 East Olympia Avenue Suite 405 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or the School Board), has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Renya Jones (Respondent or Ms. Jones).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Renya Jones, is employed by the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida. She has been employed by the School Board since the 2004-2005 school year, most recently as a music teacher at Village Green Environmental Studies School. Respondent has a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. As a classroom teacher, she is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers Association. When Respondent was hired by the School Board, she participated in an orientation process whereby she received training on a variety of School Board policies, including the Code of Ethics/Professional Competency and the Drug-Free Workplace Policy. On July 28, 2004, she signed a New Employee Orientation Verification of Training form indicating that she had received training in the areas listed (including those named above), and that she had received a copy of the St. Lucie County School Board New Employee Handbook. Respondent also submitted to pre-employment drug screening on July 30, 2004. On May 8, 2017, Respondent was a music teacher at Village Green Environmental Studies School, also referred to as Village Green Elementary (Village Green). The contractual hours for teachers at Village Green during the 2016-2017 school year were from 7:45 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. There were clubs that met in the morning before classes began at approximately 8:30 a.m., and those teachers working with clubs were required to report earlier so that they were present when the clubs were to start. Respondent was the teacher working with the chorus club, which would require her to be present early. When teachers arrive at school, they normally sign in at the front desk. Cynthia Garcia is the executive secretary to the principal at Village Green. During the 2016-2017 school year, the principal was Ucola Barrett-Baxter. Ms. Garcia typically arrives at school before anyone else and sits at the front desk as teachers sign in, as opposed to sitting in her office, adjacent to Ms. Barrett-Baxter’s. On May 8, 2017, Ms. Garcia was present when Respondent signed in at sometime between 7:30 and 7:50 a.m. Ms. Garcia asked Respondent if she was alright, because her appearance was different than normal. While Respondent was usually dressed professionally and wore make-up, that morning she was wearing no make-up and her wig was not on straight. Respondent replied that she was running a little behind and was a little messed up, and still needed to put on her make-up. Ms. Garcia testified that Respondent was different than when she usually signed in, and described her as a bit “giddy,” flailing her arms and laughing. Actavis McQueen is a fourth-grade teacher at Village Green. As she approached her classroom on May 8, 2017, Respondent called to her in the hallway a little after 8:00 a.m. Ms. McQueen described Respondent as giggly and loud, and when Ms. McQueen approached Respondent, she noticed that Respondent was not properly dressed for work. For example, her wig was twisted, she was not wearing make-up as she usually does, her stomach was showing under the tank top she was wearing, and she was wearing flip flops or slides instead of shoes. Most importantly, Ms. McQueen could smell the strong odor of alcohol. Respondent was loud and laughing, saying that the children would not recognize her without her make-up. Students were starting to come in for practice on the school play, and Ms. McQueen did not want the students to see Respondent in her current condition, so Ms. McQueen told students that there would not be a rehearsal that day. She told Respondent to go to her office in the back of her classroom and fix herself up. Ms. McQueen was shocked by Respondent’s appearance, and after telling Respondent to go to her office, Ms. McQueen headed toward the school office. On her way, she ran into Verna Brown at the cafeteria. The chorus room that served as Respondent’s classroom is adjacent to or behind the cafeteria, and can be entered from the cafeteria area by way of the stage. Verna Brown2/ is a health paraprofessional employed at Village Green. On this particular morning, she was on duty in the cafeteria for those students eating breakfast. Ms. McQueen approached her and told Verna Brown that she had spoken to Respondent, and it appeared that Respondent had been drinking. Ms. McQueen reported that Respondent smelled of alcohol and asked Verna Brown to go check on Respondent, because Ms. McQueen was uncertain what to do. Verna Brown went to Respondent’s class, and when she arrived, two other staff members were in Respondent’s room, so she closed the door and said she would come back, which she did once the others left the room. Like Ms. McQueen, Verna Brown could smell alcohol and observed that Respondent’s eyes were swollen and red, her hair was “wild,” and her stomach was showing. Respondent indicated that she had been to a party. Verna Brown was concerned for Respondent’s well-being and told Respondent she needed to get herself together. While she was talking to Respondent, students were trying to come into the room through the stage, and were asking Respondent questions about rehearsal. Respondent told them there would be no rehearsal that morning and to come back at 3:00 p.m. Verna Brown was trying to keep the students from seeing Respondent because she did not want them to see her in that condition. Verna Brown asked Respondent if Respondent needed her to call someone to come get her, but Respondent indicated that she had a rental car, and left out the back door.3/ Despite having signed in upon her arrival at Village Green, Respondent did not sign out when she left. Verna Brown was not authorized to arrange for a substitute for Respondent, but told her she would speak with Ms. Garcia about one. No substitute was ever procured. Verna Brown returned to the cafeteria and confirmed to Ms. McQueen that she also smelled alcohol on Respondent. Ms. McQueen went to the office accompanied by Sherri Brown, the media specialist, in search of the principal, Ucola Barrett- Baxter. Ms. Garcia advised Ms. McQueen that Ms. Barrett-Baxter was at student drop-off duty, and Ms. McQueen told Ms. Garcia that she needed to speak to her about a staff member. Ms. Garcia asked if it was Respondent, and went to the drop-off area to advise Ms. Barrett-Baxter of Ms. McQueen’s need to see her. Ms. Garcia believed that Ms. McQueen was very upset about Respondent and took over Ms. Baxter-Barrett’s duties at the student drop-off area so that Ms. Barrett-Baxter could speak with Ms. McQueen. Ms. Barrett-Baxter found Ms. McQueen at the media center, where Ms. McQueen advised her that she had seen Respondent and that Respondent appeared to be drunk and smelled like alcohol. Ms. Barrett-Baxter asked where Respondent could be located, and was told that she had already left the campus. Ms. Barrett-Baxter immediately called Aaron Clements, the director of Employee Relations, and explained the situation. Upon learning that Ms. Barrett-Baxter had not seen Respondent personally and that Respondent was no longer at the school, Mr. Clements advised Ms. Barrett-Baxter that at that point, there was nothing that could be done. As noted above, Sherri Brown is a media specialist at Village Green. At Ms. McQueen’s request, she accompanied Ms. McQueen to the office to find Ms. Barrett-Baxter. She and Verna Brown were both concerned about whether Respondent made it home safely, and she tried to call Respondent. Respondent did not answer her phone when Sherri Brown called, and she and Verna Brown received permission from Ms. Barrett-Baxter to leave campus and drive by Respondent’s home to make sure she had arrived. Once they saw the rental car Respondent had been driving parked at her home, they returned to campus. Respondent returned Sherri Brown’s call at about 10:17 a.m., and stated that she had left early due to an unidentified emergency. Sherri Brown told Respondent to contact Ms. Barrett-Baxter before she came back to work, and not to come back to the school. Sherri Brown relayed the telephone conversation with Respondent to her media assistant, Mary Bergerman, and told Ms. Bergerman that she needed to go to the office and report the contact with Respondent. Ms. Bergerman had heard Sherri Brown’s side of the telephone conversation and confirmed that Sherri Brown had told Respondent not to return to the school, as opposed to advising her that she needed to come back. When Sherri Brown arrived at the office, Ms. Barrett- Baxter was in a meeting with a parent. She stepped into Ms. Garcia’s office to relay the message that Respondent was going to contact the principal, and while she was there, Respondent entered the office behind her. Sherri Brown said hello to Respondent and returned to the library. She covered Respondent’s classes for the day, and she and a co-worker covered the rehearsal that afternoon. While Ms. Barrett-Baxter was in the parent conference, at approximately 10:24 a.m., she received a text from a number she did not recognize. She responded, “I’m in a meeting. Who’s calling,” to which Respondent responded, “Jones I’m there in 5 minutes.” Respondent arrived in the office while Ms. Barrett- Baxter was still in the parent conference, so she went in Ms. Garcia’s office to wait. After somewhere between ten and 30 minutes, the parent conference concluded, and Respondent went in Ms. Barrett-Baxter’s office. Ms. Barrett-Baxter testified that Respondent is normally well put together in terms of make-up and hair, but when she came in the office she looked disheveled, and noticeably different from her normal appearance. She could detect the smell of alcohol and her eyes were puffy and red. Respondent told her she had gone home to clean up a little bit, and Ms. Barrett-Baxter replied that it did not work, because she could smell the alcohol from across the desk. She told Respondent that she would have to contact the district office, and left Respondent in her office while she went to Ms. Garcia’s office to call Mr. Clements. Sometime that day, she also completed a Human Resources Reporting Form and emailed it to Mr. Clements. The Reporting Form summarized the reports she had received regarding Respondent’s apparent intoxication and what she had observed when meeting with Respondent before calling Mr. Clements. Reasonable suspicion existed to warrant testing for drugs and alcohol based upon Respondent’s appearance, behavior, and the smell of alcohol emanating from her person and noted by nearly every person with whom she came in contact. Mr. Clements advised that he would send someone from security to transport Respondent for testing. Ms. Barrett-Baxter had Respondent go sit in the conference room in the office area to wait for transport, and resumed her other duties. Ken Rodriguez is a security officer for the St. Lucie County School District (School District) and a retired police officer from New York City, and he has worked at the School District for the last nine years. He arrived at Village Green between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. Once he arrived, he went to the conference room where Respondent was waiting. He identified himself to Respondent and explained that he would be transporting her to the district office where she would meet with Aaron Clements, who would explain to her the procedures that were going to take place. Mr. Rodriguez asked Respondent about any personal affects she might have, and then asked someone in the office to retrieve her purse for her. Upon receiving the purse, Respondent placed it on the table and started looking for something. From his vantage point standing by the table, he could see a large ziplock bag of capsules in her purse, as well as a box of box cutters. He did not search her purse, but asked her about the bag of capsules, and Respondent told Mr. Rodriguez that they were vitamins. Mr. Rodriguez took her explanation at face value, but advised her that he was going to hold onto both the bag of capsules and the box cutters as a safety measure while she was transported, and return them to her when they were finished. Mr. Rodriguez and Respondent arrived at the School District offices sometime after noon. Mr. Rodriguez directed Respondent to sit in the reception area while he went in to see Mr. Clements. Mr. Rodriguez reported to Mr. Clements that he had taken possession of the capsules and the box cutter as a safety measure and gave them to Mr. Clements, and then brought Respondent in to meet with him. Mr. Rodriguez did not sit in on the meeting between Mr. Clements and Respondent. Mr. Clements advised Respondent that she was going to be taken to the lab for drug/alcohol testing, and now would be the time for her to tell him if the pills were something illegal or would cause her to have a negative result from the test, and she again stated that they were vitamins. Mr. Clements reiterated that they were sending her for drug and alcohol testing, and she indicated that she understood. She was provided with the standard forms related to testing that are used for all employees being tested, and she signed them. Respondent did not ask Mr. Clements any questions, and appeared to understand what she was told. Mr. Clements is not the medical resource officer for St. Lucie County Schools. The medical resource officer is identified on the form for drug testing, along with his telephone number. No evidence was presented to indicate that Respondent asked to speak to the medical resource officer or was prohibited from doing so. The School District typically tests for both drugs and alcohol on a reasonable suspicion test. While there may be reasonable suspicion that someone is under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, without the testing, it is difficult to know for sure the source of the influence. After meeting with Mr. Clements, Respondent was provided with a St. Lucie Public Schools Drug & Alcohol Testing notification form that identifies the time Respondent left the School District and instructs her to report to the identified testing location no later than 30 minutes from receiving the form. Respondent and Mr. Clements both signed this form at 1:10 p.m. Mr. Rodriguez drove Respondent to Absolute Testing/Consulting (Absolute Testing), where he provided the paperwork to a technician, Gina Dinello, who took her back for testing while he waited in the reception area. Absolute Testing provides alcohol testing to St. Lucie County using a breathalyzer, and provides drug testing using a urine sample. Ms. Dinello holds the appropriate certifications to conduct the breathalyzer test and to collect the urine sample for the drug test. The sample for the urine test is obtained on premises and then transported to a laboratory for processing. The breathalyzer that Absolute Testing uses is DOT- certified, and is calibrated in accordance with DOT standards. Ms. Dinello took Respondent into the back room at Absolute Testing, and explained how the procedure for the breathalyzer works. She showed Respondent the documents related to the test, and Respondent signed them. With breathalyzer tests, where there is a positive test result, it is standard procedure to wait 15 minutes and then have the person being tested blow into the breathalyzer a second time. The theory is that, by waiting the 15 minutes, any extraneous influence, such as mouthwash, that might have affected the first test would have dissipated by the second test. Respondent cooperated with the first administration of the breathalyzer test, which resulted in a reading of .186 at 1:40 p.m. Once she learned the results of the first test, however, she did not want to wait for the second administration. Ms. Dinello asked Mr. Rodriguez to help explain the process to her, and he did so, telling her that a second test was a standard part of the process. Both Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Dinello explained to Respondent that she had a right to refuse the test, but her refusal would be documented. Respondent then consented to the second administration, which resulted in a reading of .191 at 1:56 p.m. After the breathalyzer test was complete, Ms. Dinello explained that Respondent needed to provide a urine sample for the drug test. Respondent declined to do so, saying she had already blown the breathalyzer test, so there was no point to proceed with the urine test. Both Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Dinello explained again that if she chose to refuse the test, the refusal would be documented and reported to the School District. Respondent refused to submit, and Ms. Dinello submitted paperwork to that effect. Mr. Rodriguez was not informed of the results of the breathalyzer test. When the testing was finished, he took Respondent to her home, returned her belongings to her, and she walked into her home. He did not allow her to drive her car home, which remained at Village Green, because he believed that she could still be under the influence of alcohol. He testified that when he transported her to the testing facility, he could smell the heavy odor of alcohol on her, and he did not believe she was physically capable of driving home. Respondent was paid a salary for May 8, 2017, and had not requested annual or sick leave. She was on duty when she arrived at the school that morning, and she remained on duty, despite the fact that she chose to go home without signing out for the day. On May 9, 2017, Respondent received a letter by hand- delivery notifying her that she was under investigation for having a breath alcohol level of .186 and .191 while at her work location, and for refusing the drug test. She was placed on temporary duty assignment. While on temporary duty, Respondent received all of her pay and benefits. Moreover, Respondent was paid for the entire term of her contract for the 2016-2017 school year, from August 12, 2016, through June 30, 2017. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Clements provided to Respondent a Meeting Notice, scheduling a meeting regarding the charges that she refused the drug test and had unacceptable breath alcohol test results. Respondent acknowledged receiving the notice in writing and attended the meeting with her union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to provide Respondent with “due process” and give her the opportunity to provide any information she might choose regarding the allegations against her. On May 15, 2017, Respondent received written notice of a second meeting, to be held on May 22, 2017. The purpose of this meeting was to provide Respondent the results of the School District’s investigation. Respondent and her representative attended this meeting as well. On May 22, 2017, Rafaal Sanchez, Jr., Mr. Clements’ supervisor and executive director of Human Resources for the School District, recommended to Superintendent Gent that Respondent’s employment be terminated. Superintendent Gent accepted Mr. Sanchez’s recommendation and by letter dated May 22, 2017, notified Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board that her employment be terminated, as well as the procedure available to her to contest that recommendation. The letter also advised Respondent that if she chose to request a hearing, the superintendent would recommend that she be suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing. That same day, counsel for Respondent wrote to Superintendent Gent regarding the allegations against Respondent. He advised the superintendent that Respondent was relieved of duty on May 8, 2017, and was later called and told to return to Village Green, and that she voluntarily complied with this directive. He also contended that she was not presented with any drug testing policies and she had no knowledge of the consequences of failing to submit to the drug test at that time. As a result of this letter, Mr. Clements opened a second investigation to see whether anyone had told Respondent to return to school. At that time, he gathered statements from staff members, who had seen Respondent at school on the morning of May 8, 2017, and ultimately closed the investigation as unsubstantiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board finding that Respondent’s conduct as identified in the Findings of Fact constitute just cause for terminating her position as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2018.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful sexual harassment by Respondent and whether Petitioner was subjected to unlawful retaliation for participation in an activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Julie Hembrough, was a female employee of Respondent, Sikorsky Support Services. She was employed as a senior calibration technician at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (Pensacola NAS). As part of her duties she was in charge of monitoring the quality of the work her section performed and the employees who performed that work. Petitioner came to work at Pensacola NAS with Sikorsky’s predecessor, Lear Siegler (LSI). Sikorsky is a “drug free” workplace and has a written policy, entitled "Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. Strike Pensacola, Florida Drug-Free Work Force and Work Place Manual,” as part of its collective bargaining agreement. The drug free workplace policy requires periodic random drug testing of employees. The policy states: An employee who refuses to take a drug test under Section . . .V.5 Random Testing will be terminated for violation of this policy. Petitioner went through an initial drug test when Sikorsky took over the Pensacola NAS maintenance contract and hired the LSI workers. Petitioner was aware that random drug testing occurred and was required by Respondent. She knew that there had been previous random drug tests at the Pensacola NAS. Petitioner was considered a hard worker and competent technical leader of her calibration section. However, there were personality conflicts throughout the section in which Petitioner worked. The problems in the section stemmed from a weak supervisor, who was eventually terminated, who did not hold employees to the performance standards for the section, and who did not support the technical leaders, like Petitioner, when they tried to enforce those performance standards. The supervisory problems resulted in various factions in the work place. The factions were comprised of both male and female employees. Petitioner had particular conflicts with two employees, Roger York and Leon Mills. Petitioner herself testified that her conflicts with Roger York stemmed from a work disagreement regarding the repair of certain Navy radios. Mr. Mills did not want to perform certain tests on Navy radios that Petitioner thought were required for thorough testing of the radios. Petitioner also felt, with some factual basis, that Mr. Mills was not honest with her when he represented to her that he had performed such tests. Petitioner’s problems with Leon Mills were of a similar nature to those with Mr. York. However, Mr. Mills accused Petitioner of fraud in relation to trying to get rid of him. The evidence did not demonstrate that any of the difficulties with these men were related to Petitioner’s gender, but what little unspecified name-calling or derogatory statements there were was the result of animosity toward Petitioner and her supervisory role. Some workers considered Petitioner a “spy” for the Respondent. Other workers accused Petitioner of trying to “get rid of” Leon Mills through fraudulent means. Indeed Mr. Mills complained to the union about Petitioner and that he thought she was trying to get rid of him. Feelings against Petitioner were so strong that, even though she was a member of the union, she was asked by the union shop steward to not attend a union meeting. Respondent had no input or control over the union’s request to Petitioner. In September 2000, Petitioner orally complained to her manager, Joe Diehl, that another male worker used the word "bitch" and talked about his sex life and that someone else told her to put on some makeup. The details of the facts surrounding these comments were not introduced into evidence. Therefore, it is unclear if they were harassing in nature. Petitioner was never physically grabbed or groped by anyone at Sikorsky, was not sexually propositioned, and no one ever threatened her with adverse action if she refused to perform any type of sexual activity. She did not see open pornography in the workplace. Moreover, such sporadic comments do not constitute sexual harassment. She again complained in August 2001. The actual written complaints were not introduced into evidence. In essence, the bulk of the oral complaints revolved around the work problems in the section and the multi-gender employee animosity toward Petitioner. Sikorsky took Petitioner’s complaints seriously and investigated the complaints. During the investigation, people from the “upper echelon” of the company were brought in to investigate. However, the investigators could not corroborate Petitioner’s claims of sexual harassment. They did find that the section had various problems as described above. Nevertheless, to make sure that everyone understood the seriousness of sexual harassment issues, the site manager held a training session on Sikorsky’s sexual harassment policies. Petitioner attended the training session. The site manager also personally delivered the findings of the investigators to Petitioner, to show he was involved and to make Petitioner understand that Sikorsky was taking the issue seriously. Petitioner was invited to come forward with any complaints she may have at any time. After advising Petitioner of the results of the investigation, the site manager spoke to her several times encouraging her to come forward with any issues. He stopped by Petitioner’s work area in the section and asked if she was having any problems. Petitioner told him things were going okay and that she was not having any problems. Petitioner testified that sometime in May, she advised her supervisors that she intended to file another internal complaint because of actions by the union and because she had found “hot sauce” on her vehicle. Petitioner complained that the union accused her of committing fraud and that she was excluded from a union meeting. However, as indicated above, it was the union steward, not Sikorsky, that asked Petitioner not to attend the union meeting. Sikorsky was not involved in the union meeting or any accusations of fraud by the union against Petitioner. These facts do not support a finding of sexual harassment by Sikorsky. The “hot sauce” incident occurred while her vehicle was parked in an open, unfenced parking lot owned by the U.S. Navy. The Navy was responsible for security in the parking lot. Petitioner discovered that someone had poured hot sauce over her vehicle. Upon seeing the substance, Petitioner got in her vehicle and drove home. She called her manager from her vehicle to inform him about the incident. He advised her it was probably “too late” to do anything since she had left the scene. Petitioner did not see anyone put the substance on her vehicle, and does not know who did it, although she strongly suspects it was a particular coworker. Petitioner never reported the incident to Navy security. Without more detail and given the animosity in the workplace with allegations of spying and fraud, the incident does not support any finding that Petitioner was sexually harassed or that Sikorsky was responsible for such alleged harassment. On May 6, 2002, seventeen Sikorsky employees were selected for random urinalysis at Sikorsky; five employees were selected as alternates. Petitioner was one of the employees selected. Sikorsky employs a third-party contractor, Professional Health Examiners (PHE), to select the individuals to be drug tested and to administer the drug test. PHE and Sikorsky use a “name blind” system to select individuals for testing. Before a test day, Sikorsky’s administrative manager sends a list of partial social security numbers to PHE. Sikorsky does not give names to PHE, but only partial social security numbers. PHE then inputs the partial social security numbers into a computer program, which randomly selects a percentage of the numbers. Once the numbers are selected, PHE sends the list of numbers to Sikorsky. The administrative manager then matches the selected numbers with an employee list to determine the employees named. On the day of the test, those selected are called to take the test at a specific time and location. Petitioner was notified of her selection at approximately 7:15 a.m. and told to immediately report to the test site to take the test. She did not go to the drug test site, but went directly to the office of her manager, Joseph Diehl. Petitioner refused to take the drug test at the time the test was scheduled. At the time, Petitioner had no knowledge of the drug testing selection procedures and did not ask what the procedures were; she also wanted to speak with her attorney. Joseph Diehl called the administrative manager. At approximately 7:30 a.m., the administrative manager went to Diehl’s office. Since neither had been confronted with a situation similar to this one, Diehl and the manager allowed Petitioner to call her lawyer. However, her lawyer was unavailable. The morning of the drug test, the site manager and Diehl’s supervisor, Joe Colbert, had jury duty and had not arrived. Therefore, Mr. Diehl called Dan Pennington, the program manager, for guidance. Mr. Pennington stated in more colloquial language, that Petitioner must either immediately submit to the drug test per corporate policy or be terminated. Mr. Diehl, again in more colloquial language, passed the direct order to Petitioner to take the test or face termination. Petitioner said she would not take the test without calling her lawyer. Later in the morning, Petitioner spoke with Michael Neri, her supervisor, and told him she was quitting. Mr Neri had been hired only three weeks earlier and was familiar with the drug test policy. Mr. Neri told Petitioner to take the test, and that if she did not take the test, she would be terminated. Petitioner met with the site manager, Joe Colbert, after 9:00 a.m. He told her to take the test or she would be terminated. He told her that once she took the test, her lawyer could take whatever steps she wanted to take, but that she needed to take the test. All of Petitioner’s supervisors wanted Petitioner to take the test because she was a good employee whom they did not want to terminate. Petitioner did not take the test. Mr. Colbert then suspended Petitioner and gave her a letter of suspension, pending termination. The letter stated that the reason for the suspension was her refusal to take the drug test at the appointed time. Because Petitioner suggested that she had been targeted for selection for the drug test, Mr. Colbert assigned one of his managers, Frank Eggleton, to conduct an investigation of the procedures. Mr. Colbert told Petitioner that if the investigation came back clean, she would be terminated. Later in the morning, at approximately 11:00 a.m., on May 6, 2002, Petitioner called Joe Diehl and informed him that she had spoken to her lawyer and was willing to participate in the random drug testing. However, it was too late. Mr. Colbert refused to allow Petitioner to take the test at that time because she had already been suspended. Mr. Colbert testified that Petitioner had had her opportunity more than once to participate. He was concerned that if he made exceptions to the mandatory random drug testing policy, then it would open the door for everyone to seek to defer taking a random drug test. This rationale was reasonable and not pretextual. Mr. Colbert told Mr. Eggleton to investigate how individual employees were selected for the random drug test and to determine if Petitioner had somehow been targeted. Mr. Colbert did not pressure Mr. Eggleton to reach any particular conclusion and told him to conduct a thorough, open investigation. Mr. Eggleton visited the facilities of PHE to determine how individuals were selected. After conducting his investigation, Mr. Eggleton reported to Mr. Colbert that the drug-testing contractor used a name-blind system for selection and that there was no indication that Petitioner had been targeted. PHE had nothing to do with the decision to terminate Petitioner and Sikorsky did not pressure PHE to select Petitioner for the drug test. In fact, there was no evidence at the hearing that Petitioner was targeted for drug testing. After receiving the investigation report, Mr. Colbert decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment based on her refusal to take the drug test at the appointed time. He obtained the approval of the necessary authorities at Sikorsky. On May 10, 2002, Petitioner’s employment was terminated. In April 2002, employee Brian McHenry was selected for random drug testing. Mr. McHenry, prior to discovering he was going to be drug tested, used the restroom just before he was told of the drug test. As a result, Mr. McHenry was unable to produce a sufficient urine sample to allow PHE to perform a the test. He took part, tried to produce a sample, and actually produced a urine sample, but it was not enough for testing purposes. After a few hours of drinking fluids Mr. McHenry still could not produce a sufficient urine sample. Mr. Colbert wanted Mr. McHenry to stay late until he could provide a sample, but Mr. McHenry had a serious child care problem that day and needed to pick up his child in Alabama. Because Mr. McHenry had tried to complete the drug test, and because of the child care problem, Mr. Colbert told Mr. McHenry to go to the test facility in the morning. Unlike Petitioner, McHenry did not refuse the drug test; he could not provide a sufficient urine sample. The McHenry case is not similar to Petitioner’s situation. Moreover, Mr. Colbert testified that if Mr. McHenry had refused to take the test, he would have been fired. Likewise, there was no evidence at the hearing that Petitioner was terminated because of her previous internal complaints. There was no evidence Petitioner was selected for drug testing because of her previous complaints. In fact Mr. Colbert did not have knowledge of Petitioner’s two complaints, since both complaints were handled by the previous site manager. Mr. Colbert was aware of Petitioner's complaint about hot sauce thrown on her car, but said he did not even consider it a sexual harassment issue. Petitioner did not put forth sufficient evidence to prove a claim of sexual harassment. She did not introduce evidence that any conduct she complained of was severe or pervasive, or that the allegedly harassing conduct was because of her gender, as opposed to some other reason such as thinking she was a spy. Likewise, Petitioner failed to establish that she was terminated for any complaints she had made to Respondent. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. Phillips Point, East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Debra Cooper, Esquire Law Offices of Debra Cooper 1008 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Andrew Pollock (also known as Antone Pollock), should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) after testing positive for cocaine, while on duty, as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated March 7, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for the City in August 2001. In November 2012 he was reclassified as a Stormwater Technician II. Pursuant to federal Department of Transportation (DOT) safety regulations, this position is considered a safety- sensitive position and requires that Respondent have a commercial driver's license (CDL) and that he submit to random drug testing. The City has a zero tolerance for drug and alcohol use while on the job. This is explained in the City's Drug/Alcohol Program Policy, also known as Policy No. 3401.2. See City Ex. 3, p. 5 ("Any employee covered by this policy who . . . fails an alcohol or drug test . . . will be immediately removed from active duty and subject to discipline, including termination."). Respondent signed documents acknowledging that he was given a copy of the policy and was responsible for complying with its terms and conditions. See City Ex. 1 and 2. Various rules, standards, and policies have been adopted by the City to govern the conduct of its employees. Specifically, the City has adopted a Performance and Behavior Management Program (PBMP) manual, which includes Personal Responsibility, Integrity, Excellence, and Citywide Standards. Pursuant to authority in the Code of Ordinances (Code), the Civil Service Board has adopted Rules and Regulations governing the conduct of all positions in the civil service. Relevant to this case is chapter 13, section 3, Rules and Regulations, which spells out grounds for suspending, demoting, or dismissing an employee. Also, as noted above, DOT safety regulations apply to employees such as Respondent who are performing safety-sensitive functions on the job. Finally, the City has adopted Policy 3401.2, which establishes guidelines and procedures regarding the use or abuse of illegal drugs by employees. Notably, these standards, rules, policy, and DOT regulations apply only to the use of drugs and alcohol by an employee while on duty. With certain exceptions not relevant here, there is no City prohibition against the use of drugs or alcohol while off-duty. But if an employee fails a drug test administered during regular working hours, it is presumed he is using, or under the influence of, drugs while on the job. In accordance with DOT regulations, on February 17, 2015, Respondent was selected for a random drug test and willingly submitted to the collection procedure that morning. See City Ex. 4, p. 5. Respondent acknowledges that he participated in the collection procedure on that date. The results of the test, conducted by Largo Medical Center, are shown on a copy of a barely legible Verification Report (Report) received in evidence as Exhibit 4. No individual from the testing facility testified, the Report is not signed by the medical review officer, and several significant sections in the Report are not completed or signed. Given these deficiencies, the City agrees that it does not have "admissible drug lab evidence." Tr., p. 77. Without objection the Report was offered only for the purpose of showing "what action [the City took] upon receipt of this document," and not to prove that Respondent failed the drug test. Tr., p. 18. On February 23, 2015, Respondent was notified that he tested positive for cocaine. While he disputes the laboratory results, he does not dispute the laboratory collection procedure. A recommendation was then made by his department head that he be terminated for violating City rules, policies, and standards, and DOT regulations. Civil Service Board regulations allow an employee to explain the circumstances which led to the positive test results and to provide mitigating facts. See ch. 13, § 8, Rules and Regs. An employee may request a disciplinary determination meeting with the Department of Human Resources; an adverse decision is then subject to review by a hearing officer (administrative law judge). Alternatively, an employee may file a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement. If the grievance is denied, the employee may have the matter heard by an arbitration panel, but the cost of arbitration is borne by the employee. Because of financial constraints, Respondent elected to have the matter reviewed by the Department of Human Resources. A disciplinary determination meeting was conducted on March 3, 2015. Respondent was represented at the meeting by a member of his union. After Respondent's explanation was not deemed to be plausible, on March 7, 2015, the City Manager formally notified Respondent that he was being terminated effective March 11, 2015. See City Ex. 6. Respondent then requested a hearing to contest that action. At hearing, Respondent essentially repeated the explanation he gave at the disciplinary determination meeting. He testified that while at a local bar with his brother on the evening of February 15, 2015, or two days before the random drug test and while off-duty, he asked a long-time friend, Eric "Red Rock" Gibson, for a "black and mild" (a cigar). After smoking the cigar, Respondent said that something seemed different about the cigar, his tongue was numb and tingling, and he was mumbling words. However, he attributed this to being drunk at the time and gave it no further thought. After receiving the results of the random drug test, and being told that he was terminated, Respondent spoke to Gibson and learned that Gibson always laced his cigars with cocaine, including the one given to Respondent. The City relies on this admission, and not the drug test, to prove the charges in the Notice. Thus, the sum of the case is that Respondent admitted that he unknowingly smoked a cigar laced with cocaine on February 15, 2015. There is, however, no competent evidence to support the charge that he flunked a drug test two days later, as charged in the Notice, or that cocaine was in his system when he reported to work that day. Respondent testified credibly that he does not use drugs and he unknowingly injested the cocaine. He pointed out that, except for this test, he has never failed a drug test while employed by the City. Shortly after the random testing, he paid for a follow-up drug test, which produced negative results. He desires to return to work in order to reinstate his health insurance benefits and to provide a source of income for his family. It is undisputed that Respondent has a blemish-free record working for the City over the last 14 years and, among other awards, he has received over 17 certifications for exceling in his work. His last evaluation in February 2015 was "Excellent." Policy 3401.2, the City's Administrative Policy and Procedure Manual, states that an employee in a safety-sensitive position who fails a drug test "may be demoted to a non-CDL or non-safety sensitive position in accordance with the procedures outlined in this document." City Ex. 3, p. 6. Even assuming arguendo that Respondent failed a drug test, which has not been proven here, Respondent testified that he is willing to accept a demotion to a non-CDL position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board enter an order dismissing all charges against Respondent and reinstating him, with back pay, to his position as a Stormwater Technician II. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of Alachua County School Board (School Board), should be dismissed for the reasons stated in the notification letter of November 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governing body of the School District of Alachua County, Florida. It operates 43 public schools and centers in Alachua County and employs approximately 4,000 persons. At all times material, Respondent was employed by Petitioner in the position of maintenance helper. He is a member of Petitioner's career service bargaining unit. Petitioner has a "drug free workplace policy" which is part of the collective bargaining agreement with a non- instructional bargaining unit. The policy was implemented in June 1993. Before that time, Petitioner gave notice to its employees of the drug-free workplace policy. Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy requires that, as a condition of continued employment, employees submit to drug screening when there is reasonable suspicion of substance abuse. Following a positive drug screening, the employee is given an opportunity to participate in a treatment program. The policy also provides that, after completion of the treatment program, the employee may return to work, but if there is a second positive drug test, the employee may be disciplined up to and including termination of employment. Petitioner's Human Resources Division has attempted to be consistent in administering the drug-free workplace policy. Any employee having a second positive drug test has been recommended for termination. Pertinent to this case, Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy provides: It is the intent of the Board to provide a drug-free Workplace. Drug-Free Workplace Guidelines The purpose of these guidelines is to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 34 CFR Part 85, Subpart F, which requires grantees to certify that they will maintain a drug-free workplace. When a reasonable suspicion exists, the Director of Employee Relations shall be contacted. The employee, if a member of a bargaining unit, shall be afforded the opportunity to have ACEA representation. The employee will be provided an opportunity to explain his/her condition. The employee will be provided with information regarding available drug counseling, rehabilitation, assistance program, and leave options. A rehabilitation contract including drug testing may be agreed upon. Failure to participate in a treatment program following a positive drug screening will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Due process will be followed. * * * 12. Employees who return to work after completion of a rehabilitation program shall be subject to follow-up drug testing with twenty-four (24) hour notification. Any employee who refuses the drug test or subsequently tests positive may be disciplined up to and including termination. (Emphasis supplied) Respondent's drug test reported on September 2, 1998, was positive for cannabinoids-THS and cocaine metabolites. Respondent entered into a rehabilitation contract with Petitioner on September 3, 1998. Respondent's entry into a rehabilitation program was not "voluntary," in that Respondent was required to enter a rehabilitation program in order to retain his public employment. The contract Respondent signed provided, in pertinent part, as follows. 2. Following release from the rehabilitation clinic/counselor and for a period of one year from that release, the employee agrees to random breath analysis or blood alcohol test upon notification and/or urine analysis within 24 hours of notification from the Director of Employee Relations. Positive results indicating alcohol and/or illegal mind-altering substances, following the initiation of this contract, is prima facie evidence of violation of this contract. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of this contract may result in termination of my employment with the School Board of Alachua County. (Emphasis supplied) In order to enter the agreed residential drug treatment program, Respondent twice applied for leave, which Petitioner granted. The last date that his leave would run out was October 30, 1998. Ms. Pamela Love-Knerr conducted an initial evaluation/screening of Respondent in September 1998, in preparation for his admission to the residential treatment program at Bridge House, a residential treatment program operated by Meridian Behavioral Health Care, Inc. She was a counselor at Bridge House until November 1998. However, she did not conduct group sessions at Bridge House after January 1998, when, due to her health problems, she was assigned to the night shift. In August 1998, she was assigned to the evening shift. Respondent entered the Sid Martin Bridge House on October 2, 1998, and was discharged or transferred from the residential program on Friday, October 23, 1998. Also on Friday October 23, 1998, Respondent telephoned the office of Catherine L. Birdsong, Petitioner's personnel supervisor, and her secretary made him an appointment to see Ms. Birdsong the following Monday about returning to work. On October 23, 1998, Respondent's Bridge House counselor of record was Larry Faulkner, not Ms. Love-Knerr. However, since the time of her initial evaluation/screening of Respondent, Ms. Love-Knerr had been the only counselor at Bridge House who maintained regular contact with Ms. Birdsong. On October 23, 1998, Ms. Birdsong believed that Ms. Love-Knerr was the counselor assigned to Respondent. While at Bridge House, Respondent had attended therapy meetings every day, and his urine tests had been drug-free. On October 18, 1998, Respondent and his counselor, Larry Faulkner, had agreed upon an "after care" program, to begin on November 1, 1998, consisting of a schedule of meetings of a men's group, an anger management group, Narcotics Anonymous, and Alcoholics Anonymous. It was planned that Respondent would not return to work until a week or two had passed, so that he could "get [himself] together." The period from October 23, 1998, to November 1, 1998, was intended by Respondent and his counselor, Larry Faulkner, as an interim between residential treatment and "after care." Normally, a client of Bridge House would participate in an "after care" program even after he returned to work. On October 23, 1998, after learning that Respondent wanted to return to work, Ms. Birdsong telephoned Bridge House and spoke to Pamela Love-Knerr. Ms. Love-Knerr told Ms. Birdsong that Respondent had completed the Bridge House residential program; that she was recommending an "after care" program for him; and that she was releasing him for work. Mr. Faulkner may not have been aware that Ms. Love- Knerr and Ms. Birdsong had spoken by telephone on October 23, 1998. Ms. Love-Knerr shared office space with Mr. Faulkner at that time, and because Bridge House was under-staffed, Ms. Love- Knerr was assisting him in getting caught up on his paperwork. Ms. Birdsong considered the written continuing care contract for Respondent, together with her October 23, 1998, telephone conversation with Ms. Love-Knerr, and determined that Respondent had completed the residential part of his rehabilitation; that he was in or would be in a "after care" program; and that he would be able to return to work immediately. Petitioner's decision to return an employee to work is normally made by the Petitioner's District Drug Free Workplace Coordinator after discussing it with the returning employee's drug/alcohol counselor. On Monday, October 26, 1998, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Respondent met, in person, with Ms. Birdsong at her office. They discussed his impressions of the Bridge House program and his desire to return to work. Because his leave was only approved through the end of that work-week, October 30, 1998, it was arranged, through a speaker-phone conversation with Respondent's immediate supervisor, that Respondent would return to work on Monday, November 2, 1998. Ms. Birdsong then sent Respondent for a follow-up drug test for return to duty. Ms. Birdsong informed Respondent that he should report for a drug test by 10:00 a.m., that morning, October 26, 1998. It is Petitioner's normal practice to require employees who are returning from a rehabilitation program to take a drug test prior to returning to work. Respondent went to Doctor's Laboratory of Gainesville as instructed, and provided a urine specimen for drug testing at 10:00 a.m. on October 26, 1998. Respondent's specimen was transported by courier to Doctor's Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia, where it was tested and confirmed positive for cocaine metabolites as benzozlecgonine. Doctor's Laboratory reported the test result to MRO Services, Inc., in Brunswick, Georgia. After a review of the test results and a telephone consultation with Respondent, the Medical Review Officer, Robert H. Miller, M.D., reported to Petitioner that Respondent's drug test was positive for cocaine metabolites.1 On November 2, 1998, Respondent met again with Ms. Birdsong. She explained to him that because of the positive result of his October 26, 1998, drug test, he might be recommended for termination. She gave him written notice to schedule a pre-termination conference within five days. On November 5, 1998, Respondent and his mother met with Synester P. Jones, Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, in a pre-termination conference. Ms. Jones explained the procedure for drug testing. She also informed Respondent in writing that, based on his second positive drug test, she would recommend suspension and termination. At its regular meeting on November 17, 1998, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent without pay, effective November 18, 1998, pending disposition of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Alachua County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent for violating its drug-free workplace policy and his rehabilitation contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Petitioner on February 11, 1983, and was issued certificate number 19-82-502-08. On August 8, 1990, Respondent reported to Mount Sinai Medical Center Industrial Medicine Department in Miami Beach, Florida, for her biannual physical required by her employer, the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Respondent was provided with a sealed, sterile container into which Respondent urinated. Respondent then gave the urine sample container to a Mount Sinai employee who "split" the specimen by unsealing two sterile containers and dividing the urine specimen between those two containers. The Mount Sinai employee then capped and sealed the two specimen containers and labelled them in a manner making them uniquely identifiable as the Respondent's urine samples. An identifying bar code number was also placed on the two sealed containers, and the containers were then placed in a locked metal box. Later that afternoon, the locked metal box containing Respondent's "split" sample was transported from Mount Sinai Medical Center to Toxicology Testing Service's (hereinafter "TTS") laboratory in Miami by an employee of TTS. At TTS another employee removed the containers from the metal box, logged in both containers assigning a TTS control number to them, and inspected the containers for any evidence of leakage or tampering. The two containers of Respondent's urine were properly labelled, sealed, and intact. One of Respondent's samples was opened, and a portion of that sample was dispensed into a sterile cup for testing. The other container of Respondent's urine remained sealed. An initial chemical screen for the purpose of determining if there was evidence of controlled substances or their metabolites in the Respondent's urine sample was performed on the dispensed portion of Respondent's urine. That drug screen showed that Respondent's urine was positive for cocaine. Due to the positive reading, the technologist dispensed another portion of Respondent's urine from the container which had been unsealed and re-tested Respondent's urine. The re-test again showed that Respondent's urine was positive for cocaine. On the following day, August 9, a different TTS employee dispensed another portion of Respondent's urine from the container that had been previously unsealed and analyzed it using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, the most reliable and accurate method for confirmatory testing. Respondent's sample was confirmed positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine in a concentration of 202 nanograms per milliliter. Respondent and her then-employer were advised of the results of the initial screening, the re-testing and the confirmatory testing. On August 20, 1990, Respondent and a representative of her then-employer went to TTS. In their presence, the second container of Respondent's "split" sample, which had been kept in a freezer at TTS since its arrival there, was inspected by the laboratory director and the others present at that meeting. That second container had never been unsealed and still bore all identifying markings, including Respondent's initials. In Respondent's presence, that second container was unsealed for the first time, and two portions of the contents of that container were dispensed so that the second container was divided into three parts. The original container with the undispensed portion was resealed, marked, and returned to the freezer for storage. One of the dispensed portions was sent to an independent laboratory for confirmatory testing. The second dispensed portion was then tested by TTS on August 24, 1990. That testing revealed that that portion of Respondent's urine was also positive for the cocaine metabolite. The confirmatory test results showed 174 nanograms per milliliter of that cocaine metabolite. The screening and confirmatory test results are consistent with, and indicative of, use of cocaine by Respondent. No other substance produces the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine. Respondent was terminated from her employment with the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation due to the presence of cocaine in her urine on August 8, 1990. Prior to her termination, Respondent had consistently received evaluations reflecting that she was an excellent employee, had been commended for her reliability and responsibility as a correctional officer, and had been named as officer of the month.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause; Suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period not to exceed two years; and Placing Respondent on probation for a period not to exceed two years during which time she should be required to submit to random urine drug testing and substance abuse counselling. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 are adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's nine pages of excerpts entitled Proposed Findings of Fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony together with argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Linda Bass 18101 Northwest 32nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33055 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Valderrama was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida by the Commission on September 29, 2004, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 243605. From September 27, 2004, to November 9, 2007, Ms. Valderrama was employed by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. On or about October 17, 2007, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Ms. Valderrama reported to the Osceola County Sheriff's Office Administration Building for random drug testing pursuant to the terms of her employment and provided a urine sample under controlled conditions. A lab technician was the only other person in the restroom with Ms. Valderrama during the collection process. Ms. Valderrama provided the specimen by urinating in a sterile, previously unused specimen cup, which she subsequently provided to a lab technician who immediately sealed the sample. Neither the sample cup, nor the urine sample it contained, had been tampered with, altered, or adulterated since the initial collection of the urine sample and had remained sealed and maintained in the chain of custody until unsealed by a qualified laboratory personnel at Total Compliance Network, a licensed drug testing laboratory contracted by Florida Hospital Centra Care to conduct random employee drug screens for the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. The laboratory analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen was found by qualified Quest Diagnostic's laboratory personnel and a Total Compliance Network medical review officer to be positive for Cocaine metabolites in a concentration of 2046 nanograms per milliliter. The minimum level of detection for Cocaine is 150 nanograms per milliliter. On October 27, 2007, Ms. Valderrama discussed her test results with Dr. Seth Portnoy, the licensed medical review officer for Total Compliance Network. Ms. Valderrama could not provide Dr. Portnoy with any medical reason for the positive test result and did not challenge the positive test results. The procedures and methods employed in the handling and analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen provided reliable safeguards against contamination, a reliable chain-of-custody, and produced, through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, a reliable, scientifically-accepted measure of the concentration of Cocaine metabolite in the body. The laboratory standards and practices observed in conjunction with the collection, preservation, shipment, handling and analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen, for the purpose of testing for drugs, were in conformance with the applicable provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59A-24 and consistent with the requirements for reliability and integrity of the testing process pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.00225. Cocaine is rapidly metabolized by the body and can be usually detected for two to three days after ingestion. Because the minimum detection level for Cocaine is 150 nanograms per milliliter and Ms. Valderrama's test results showed a level of 2046 nanograms per milliliter, it was Dr. Portnoy's expert opinion that the tests results were indicative of ingestion of Cocaine. Dr. Portnoy's opinion is credited. Ms. Valderrama had drunk some herbal tea prior to giving her urine sample. She feels that the ingestion of the herbal tea could have resulted in the positive test for Cocaine. There was no expert testimony to establish that the ingestion of the herbal tea would result in the positive drug test. Additionally, based on Dr. Portnoy's credible expert opinion, the metabolite detected in Ms. Valderama's urine could only result from Cocaine. Cocaine is listed as a Schedule II controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Vivian Valderrama violated Subsections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and revoking her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated paragraph 2(G) of the December 14, 2010, Final Order of the Education Practices Commission ("EPC"), and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Commissioner of Education, is the head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the ultimate responsibility to investigate and take disciplinary actions against persons who hold a Florida Educator's Certificate and are alleged to have violated specified statutes. The EPC is charged with imposing discipline for violations of sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 519374 issued by the Department. Respondent's Employment History and Disciplinary History Respondent has been employed in the State of Florida public education system for thirty-one years, twenty-seven of which she has served as a full-time teacher. During the four years in which she was not a teacher, she served as an occupational specialist and career counselor, involved in helping at-risk students find employment and providing guidance regarding academic training for specific careers. She also served as a counselor for Project Hope, a drug rehabilitation program, and as a substitute teacher. She currently is employed as a classroom teacher by Broward County Public Schools. She has received positive job performance evaluations throughout her career. On or about May 14, 2010, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging violations of specified Florida Statutes and agency rules, and seeking to impose disciplinary sanctions against Respondent's Certificate. Following an informal hearing on the Administrative Complaint conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(2), the EPC entered a Final Order dated December 14, 2010, placing Respondent on two employment years of probation, subject to specified conditions. The Final Order provides in pertinent part: "2. Upon employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on 2 employment years of probation with the conditions that during that period, she shall: . . . G. [n]ot consume, inject or ingest any controlled substance unless prescribed or administered for legitimate medical purposes." To ensure compliance with paragraph 2(G)1 of the Final Order, Respondent is required to submit to random substance abuse testing, as directed by the Recovery Network Program for Educators ("RNP") or her employer.2 Pursuant to the Final Order, Respondent submitted to random substance abuse testing on January 28, 2011. Respondent was notified by letter from the RNP dated February 7, 2011, that she was in violation of the Final Order. The letter stated in pertinent part: "you failed to comply with Paragraph 2(G) of the Final Order, to wit: You consumed, ingested, or injected a controlled substance that was not prescribed by a doctor as evidenced by your drug test on January 28, 2011, that was positive for Cocaine Metabolite." On February 17, 2011, the EPC issued a Notice to Show Cause, requiring Respondent to show cause why a penalty for violating the Final Order should not be imposed. A hearing on the Notice to Show Cause was convened before the EPC on April 8, 2011. At the hearing, Respondent claimed that she had not consumed, injected, or ingested a controlled substance not prescribed or administered for legitimate medical purposes. Respondent's Random Drug Test of January 28, 2011 On January 28, 2011, Respondent reported to Occupational Medicine Centers of America ("OMC"), in Miramar, Florida, to submit to a random drug test as required under the Final Order, paragraph 2(H). Because she had to work that day, Respondent reported to OMC in late afternoon, before 5:00 p.m. Respondent brought a chain of custody form, formally known as a Forensic Drug Testing Chain of Custody Form ("Form"), with her to OMC.3 The Form for Respondent's testing was provided by the RNP or Respondent's employer.4 The Form is multi-layered, with the pages (or "layers") designated for specific recipients ——i.e., the collection laboratory, the testing laboratory, the employer, the medical review officer ("MRO"),5 and the donor. The Form lists "8543245" as the "Specimen ID No." for Respondent's random drug test conducted on January 28, 2011. Because Respondent's employer or the RNP provided the Form for her drug testing, OMC could not, and did not, generate a chain of custody form that could be used in collecting Respondent's specimen. The Form is to be filled out by the person collecting the specimen in accordance with the specific steps set forth on the Form. Step 1 lists the employer's name, address, and identification number, and the MRO's name, address, phone number, and facsimile number. Step 1 requires the specimen collector to fill in the donor's name and social security number or employee identification number; verify the donor's identity; identify the reason for the drug test; identify the type of test to be performed; and provide the collection site name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and collection side code. Step 2 is completed by the collector once the donor has provided the specimen. The collector identifies the type of specimen provided (i.e., split, single, or none provided) on the Form, reads the temperature of the specimen within four minutes of collection, and verifies on the Form whether the temperature is between 90 and 100º Fahrenheit. Step 3 requires the collector to pour the specimen into a bottle, seal the bottle with a tamper-evident label or seal, have the donor initial the seal, and place the specimen bottle in a laboratory bag along with the testing laboratory's copy of the Form. Step 4 requires the collector to certify that "the specimen given to me by the donor identified in the certification section on Copy 2 of this form was collected, labeled, sealed, and released to the Delivery System noted in accordance with applicable requirements." To complete Step 4, the collector must sign and date the form, fill in the time that the specimen was collected, and identify the courier service to which the specimen bottle is released. After the collector completes Steps 1 through 4 of the Form, the donor completes Step 5. Step 5 requires the donor to certify that he or she provided the specimen to the collector and did not adulterate the specimen, that the specimen bottle was sealed with a tamper- evident seal in his or her presence, and that the information and numbers provided on the Form and label affixed to the bottle were correct. Upon arriving at OMC, Respondent was called into the portion of the facility where drug testing is conducted. She provided the Form to OMC's medical assistant, Jackie Scialabba, who was on duty at that time. Scialabba completed Step 1 of the Form, and instructed Respondent to place her belongings in a locker, wash her hands, and provide a urine specimen in the collection cup. While Respondent was in the restroom providing the specimen, Scialabba completed Step 4 of the Form. Specifically, she signed and dated the form, filled in the portion of the Form stating the "Time of Collection" as 4:25 p.m., and checked the box identifying the delivery service courier. Respondent emerged from the restroom and handed Scialabba the specimen to pour into a specimen bottle for sealing and delivery to the testing laboratory. At that time, Scialabba discovered that Respondent had not provided a specimen of sufficient quantity to be tested. Scialabba provided water to Respondent so that she would be able to produce a specimen of sufficient quantity for testing. Respondent waited in the lobby of the facility until she was able to provide another specimen. Scialabba's shift ended at 5:00 p.m. and she left for the day. By the time Respondent was able to provide another specimen, Scialabba was gone. Before she left, Scialabba informed Christin Visbal, also a medical assistant at OMC,6 that Respondent's drug test was incomplete and that Visbal needed to complete the test. Scialabba left the partially completed Form with Visbal. Scialabba testified that Respondent did not complete Step 5 of the Form in her presence. Once Respondent indicated she was able to provide another specimen, Visbal called Respondent back into the testing facility. Both Visbal and Respondent stated that they were the only people present in the testing facility at that time.7 Visbal had Respondent her wash her hands, gave her the specimen collection cup, and instructed her regarding providing the specimen. At that time, Respondent provided a urine specimen of sufficient quantity to meet the testing requirements. Visbal checked the temperature of the specimen as required on Step 2 of the Form, and completed the portion of Step 2 requiring verification that the specimen temperature was between 90 and 100º Fahrenheit.8 Visbal poured the urine into a specimen bottle, sealed the bottle with a tamper-evident seal, and had Respondent initial the seal. Respondent then completed Step 5 of the Form, which constituted her certification that the specimen bottle was sealed with a tamper-evident seal in her presence.9 Visbal placed the sealed urine specimen and the testing laboratory's copy of the Form in a bag, and sealed the bag. Visbal provided Respondent with the donor copy of the Form. Respondent collected her belongings from the locker and left the facility. Because Scialabba had prematurely completed Step 4 of the Form while attempting to collect Respondent's specimen before she left work for the day, Visbal was unable to complete Step 4. However, Visbal provided a sworn statement and testified at hearing regarding the substance of the certification in Step 4——specifically, that the urine specimen given to her by Respondent was collected, labeled, sealed, and released to the delivery service10 in accordance with applicable requirements. The evidence establishes, and the undersigned determines, that Visbal correctly followed the established protocol in collecting, labeling, sealing, and releasing the specimen to the courier in accordance with the applicable chain of custody requirements. Accordingly, the chain of custody for Respondent's urine specimen was maintained. Scialabba's paperwork error did not compromise the chain of custody for Respondent's urine specimen. On February 7, 2011, FirstLab provided a document titled "Participant Call Test Edit" to the RNP, showing a positive test result for cocaine metabolite. The document bears "Specimen ID No. 8543245"——the same specimen identification number as was listed on the Form that Respondent brought to OMC on January 28, 2011, for use in her drug test that day. Respondent does not dispute that the tested specimen yielded a positive test result for cocaine metabolite. She maintains that she did not produce the tested specimen. Respondent's Subsequent Random Drug Test Results Since January 28, 2011, Respondent has been randomly tested for drug use each month. Respondent's drug test results have been negative every time that she has been tested since the January 28, 2011 test——nine times as of the hearing date. Respondent served a subpoena duces tecum on FirstLab in August 2011, seeking to obtain all documents related to Respondent's random drug test results, including the negative test results. The subpoena provided the correct spelling of Respondent's full name but did not list her social security number, employee identification number, date of birth, address, or school system by which she is employed. Instead of producing Respondent's test results, FirstLab produced test results for another teacher having a similar name who is employed by Miami- Dade County Public Schools.11 Ultimate Facts Regarding Alleged Violation and Penalty For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned determines that the chain of custody for Respondent's urine specimen was maintained. The evidence does not support an inference that Respondent's specimen was tampered with, tainted, or otherwise compromised in the collection, sealing, labeling, or delivery process. Therefore, either Respondent had cocaine metabolite in her system when she donated the urine specimen on January 28, 2011, or the testing laboratory or MRO made a mistake in testing or reporting the test results of her urine specimen. Respondent maintains it is the latter, but did not present any persuasive evidence to support her position. To that point, FirstLab's error in producing the wrong person's records in response to Respondent's subpoena does not provide a sufficient basis to infer that in this case, FirstLab reported another person's drug test result instead of Respondent's. It shows only that FirstLab makes mistakes when not provided sufficiently specific information about the person whose records are being subpoenaed. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent, in violation of paragraph 2(G) of the Final Order, consumed, injected, or ingested a controlled substance not prescribed or administered for a legitimate medical purpose, as revealed by the random drug test to which Respondent submitted on January 28, 2011. However, there is no evidence in the record showing that Respondent's violation of the Final Order presented any danger, or caused physical or mental harm to any students or to the public. Nor is there any evidence that the violation caused any actual damage, physical or otherwise, or that Respondent benefited from the violation. To the contrary, the sole evidence shows that Respondent is a good teacher who has performed well as a public school employee for thirty-one years. There is no evidence that the violation has in any way impaired her performance of her duties as a classroom teacher. Moreover, the sole evidence regarding Respondent's subsequent random drug test results shows that Respondent is now complying with the Final Order, and apparently has complied ever since her January 28, 2011, test. This evidences Respondent's contrition and her recognition of the seriousness of this matter. At hearing, Petitioner elicited testimony from Respondent regarding her criminal history, and an excerpt of the transcript of the EPC hearing, during which her criminal history was discussed, was admitted into evidence.12 However, her criminal history and alleged failure to report that history were the basis for the EPC's Final Order imposing penalties against Respondent, including the probation that she now is charged with violating. Respondent already has been penalized by the EPC on these bases, and they are not relevant to this proceeding. As justification for the penalty it seeks, Petitioner asserts that Respondent "never accepts responsibility for her own behavior, but blames others for her miscreant deeds." However, the evidence does not support this position. With respect to the hearing before the EPC that resulted in issuance of the Final Order, Respondent offered a plausible explanation for not having previously reported her criminal history on her Florida Educator's Certificate applications——specifically, that when she filled out the previous certification application forms, she did not realize that the form required the reporting of all prior criminal history, including offenses for which adjudication had been withheld. Indeed, when she filled out an updated version of the application form that apparently was clearer regarding criminal history disclosure requirements, she reported all prior offenses.13 Respondent acknowledged responsibility for her actions more than once during the EPC hearing. Moreover, the undersigned finds credible Respondent's testimony that she understood she was to be drug tested on a monthly basis as a condition of her probation.14 To the extent Respondent may have been incorrect regarding this detail, that mistake is more likely attributable to confusion (which is understandable under the circumstances) rather than lack of truthfulness on her part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order determining that Respondent violated the December 14, 2011, Final Order of the Education Practices Commission, and suspending Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate for a period of six consecutive calendar months, followed by two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 2011.
