The Issue May Petitioner proceed to a hearing on the merits of her charge of employment discrimination or does the untimeliness of her Petition for Relief bar her claim?
Findings Of Fact On March 10, 1997, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission), alleging that Respondent Department of State had discriminated against her because of her race (Black) when it had discharged her on October 1, 1996. The Commission concluded its investigation into the matter, and on January 31, 2000, the Commission issued its "Determination: No Cause." A "Notice of Determination: No Cause" was mailed by the Commission to Petitioner on January 31, 2000. It contained the following statements: Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2000, 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 24th day of July, 2000.
The Issue Has Respondent violated the Human Relations Act of 1977 with regard to Petitioner by an unlawful employment practice?
Findings Of Fact In the course of hearing several motions and rulings were made which arose out of the prehearing procedural background of the case, which of necessity now become findings of fact. This cause commenced by "Transmittal of Petition" from the Florida Commission on Human Relations for hearing de novo upon a Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner Leroy McDuffie Jr. from that agency's determination of "no cause" to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred in regard to Petitioner and Respondent's employment relationship. Included with that transmittal were copies of all pleadings and jurisdictional papers previously filed with the Commission. On or about October 25, 1984 Respondent filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Relief from Unlawful Practice for Failure to State a Cause of Action Upon Which Relief May Be Granted, and/or Motion for More Definite Statement. On or about October 29, 1984 the Commission on Human Relations transmitted to the undersigned a handwritten notice from Petitioner of a change in his mailing address from "159 9th Street, Winter Haven, Florida 32787" to "1600 W. Washington St., Orlando, Florida 32805 PH. No. 425-1851." The undersigned determined that certificate of service on Respondent's pending Motion to Dismiss recited only Petitioners old address of "159 9th Street, Winter Garden, Florida 32787" and entered a November 5, 1984 Order requiring re-service of the Motion upon Petitioner at his new address and requiring Respondent to initiate a formal hearing on the motion. The parties were encouraged to use a telephonic conference call. Due to typographical error, a Corrected Order was entered November 8, 1984. The original order was mailed to Petitioner at "1600 W. Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32805" and the Corrected Order was mailed to Petitioner at "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32805." Neither was returned to the undersigned by the U.S. Postal Service. The Motion was re-served by mail to the new address of "1600 W. Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32805," but Respondent was unable to complete connections for a telephone conference call on a number of occasions, so on December 28, 1985, the undersigned issued a Notice of Motion Hearing to the parties for a date and time certain requiring Petitioner to contact Respondent and for Respondent's attorney to initiate such a call. This Notice was sent to Petitioner at "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32805." It was not returned to the undersigned by the U.S. Postal Service. At the time scheduled for the telephonic conference call (1:00 p.m., January 9, 1984) Respondent's attorney represented that he had had no contact from Petitioner and had, himself, been unable to reach him by phone. Since in excess of the time permitted by rule for filing of a response by Petitioner had passed, and since notice of the hearing was apparently complete with no response by Petitioner, argument was heard without Petitioner on the line. An order was entered January 23, 1985 denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss but requiring that Petitioner file a more definite statement within 30 days. This Order reflects it was mailed to "Leroy McDuffie, Jr., 1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32802." Also on January 23, 1985, the undersigned entered a Notice of Hearing for 11:00 a.m., April 5, 1985 and standard Pre- Hearing Order with detailed instructions cutting off discovery, requiring exchange of witness and exhibit lists, and requiring pre-hearing stipulation or statements by the parties. The Pre- Hearing Order indicates it was mailed to Petitioner at "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32802" and "159 Ninth Street, Winter Garden, Florida 32787." The Notice of Hearing indicates it was mailed to Petitioner at "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32802" and "129 Ninth Street, Winter Garden, Florida 32787." However, based on recollection and standard business procedure in the office of the undersigned, it appears that duplicates of the Order for More Definite Statement and Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing Order all of the same date of January 23, 1985 were all mailed to Petitioner together in envelopes addressed to both addresses as set out above. There was no return from either address by the U.S. Postal Service. Petitioner did not timely comply with the January 23, 1985 Order requiring more definite statement and on March 1, 1985 Respondent moved for entry of sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal. This Motion was served on Respondent at "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32802." Petitioner did not timely file a response in opposition to the March 1, 1985 motion but by Order of the undersigned dated March 15, 1985, dismissal was still not granted and the sanctions specifically requested were not granted. The only sanctions imposed by the undersigned in response to the general prayer of Respondent's Motion were that to prevent unfair surprise to Respondent due to lack of a More Definite Statement, Petitioner would not be permitted to call at formal hearing any witnesses other than himself and would not be permitted to submit at formal hearing any documentary evidence; further, Respondent was relieved of filing the Pre-Hearing Statement previously mandated by the Pre-Hearing Order. Petitioner was further ordered to show cause in writing by March 26, 1985 why his failure to comply with the January 23, 1985 Order requiring More Definite Statement should not be deemed an admission there were no disputed issues of fact and why a Recommended Order of Dismissal ought not to be entered accordingly. This Order was mailed to Petitioner at "1600 W. Washington Street, Orlando, Florida, 32802" and "129 Ninth Street, Winter Garden, Florida 32787." It was not returned to the undersigned by the U.S. Postal Service from either address. Petitioner did not timely show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Petitioner did not timely file a unilateral Pre-Trial Statement as required by the January 23, 1985 Pre-Hearing Order, which portion had not been rescinded by subsequent orders. Nonetheless, in what may have been an overabundance of caution, the undersigned did not enter a Recommended Order of Dismissal at that point nor did she cancel the hearing scheduled for April 5, 1985. At the time and place appointed for final formal hearing, Petitioner appeared on his own behalf. Before proceeding into final formal hearing on the merits, the undersigned inquired why the Petitioner had failed to comply with all prior orders and requested he show cause orally why the action ought not to be dismissed. It was Petitioner's explanation that although he received his mail at "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32805" he had never received any orders or correspondence or papers from the undersigned at that address. Upon inquiry as to how he knew to be at the formal hearing scheduled at that particular time and place, Petitioner said he had only received a phone call from his former residence in Winter Park that morning and so he arrived only at the last moment. The undersigned observed Petitioner arrived some 10 minutes before Respondent's attorney. Petitioner conceded that with the exception of the last digit of the zip code all orders and Notices had been correctly addressed to "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida" but maintained he had received none. He permitted the undersigned to examine the papers he had brought with him and indeed no pleadings or orders were included. Petitioner indicated he normally got no mail at the old address but sometimes he had his children pick up his mail there and deliver it to him which would explain why the items mailed to Winter Garden were not returned to the undersigned. Further, by his own admission, someone at the old Winter Park address appears to have opened duplicate mail there and relayed him messages about it. Petitioner apparently does not physically reside at either address, but does intend to receive all his mail at the West Washington Street address. However, Petitioner had no explanation why the items were not delivered to him or alternatively returned to the undersigned from the 1600 West Washington Street address. Petitioner stated that he had received phone calls and mail from the Respondent's attorney at the old address. Respondent's attorney stated with one exception everything sent by his office had been sent to "1600 West Washington Street, Orlando, Florida 32802 and nothing had ever been returned to him by the U.S. Postal Service. In light of all of the foregoing, the undersigned ruled that she must conclude that a last digit zip code error was not sufficient to indicate Petitioner had not timely received all pleadings and orders at the 1600 West Washington Street address, and that having received them and having failed to comply, the sanctions previously imposed would stand. However, the undersigned also ruled that in light of Petitioner appearing for the hearing, and obviously indicating a controversy of some kind, she would proceed with the formal hearing and allow him to present his own testimony and at the conclusion of his testimony, so as to prevent any surprise to Respondent, the hearing would be continued to allow Respondent to prepare a defense and present it at a subsequent date by bifurcated hearing. This would be done because the Petition had never set out even the disputed issues of material fact and no More Definite Statement had corrected that deficit. Petitioner refused to be sworn, refused to indicate the issues of material fact in dispute, refused to give testimony and refused to present any evidence at all. The undersigned explained to Petitioner that the burden of proof was his, that if he put on no case whatsoever he could not prevail and she would have no choice but to enter a Recommended Order of dismissal upon all grounds raised by Respondent, upon failure to prosecute, and upon failure to carry the burden of proof. Petitioner stated he did not care as long as he had an appeal and could get a lawyer to "write it out" and "tell somebody what was going on here." The undersigned explained that after entry of a Recommended Order she would lose jurisdiction, that the Florida State Commission on Human Relations would then enter a Final Order which might accept, reject or diverge from the Recommended Order and then an appeal could be had to a District Court of Appeal, but that it was in Petitioner's interests to proceed now. Petitioner moved for a continuance so that he might hire a lawyer, stating he had the money to hire one now that he was working. The undersigned observed that Petitioner had had notice of this hearing since late January and had not hired a lawyer. Petitioner said he had consulted a lawyer who told him to get his papers together but had never gone back to hire that lawyer. The gist of Petitioner's argument on continuance was that a previous continuance had been granted to Respondent by an internal hearing officer or investigator for the Florida Human Relations Commission prior to commencement of this de novo proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The undersigned concluded Petitioner had had opportunity to hire an attorney if he chose and denied a continuance. Petitioner again refused to be sworn or to put on any evidence. Respondent renewed all previous motions and it was stipulated that rulings thereon and the rulings made at the hearing would be incorporated in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Human Relations Commission enter a Final Order dismissing with prejudice the Petition herein. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Leroy McDuffie, Jr. 1600 West Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32805 Charles M. Rand, Esquire 10th Floor, CNA Building Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Commission on Human Relations c/o Suzanne Oltman, Clerk 325 John Knox Road, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director 325 John Knox Road, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether the Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition was not timely filed.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1994, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, together with all other "pleadings and jurisdictional papers heretofore filed in this proceeding." The pleadings and papers transmitted by FCHR show that Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on November 2, 1993, charging an unlawful employment practice by Respondent in connection with her lay off on October 29, 1992. On October 21, 1994, the FCHR concluded its investigation into the matter and issued its determination of No Cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred. Notice of that determination was mailed to Petitioner and Respondent on October 21, 1994 by regular mail. The Notice of Determination of No Cause served on Petitioner included the following statement: Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE. A Petition for Relief form is enclosed with Complainant's notice. It may be beneficial to seek legal counsel prior to filing the petition. If the Complainant fails to request an admini- strative hearing within 35 days of the date of this notice, the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992). Counsel for Petitioner, George T. Paulk II, received the Notice of Determination on behalf of Petitioner and prepared the petition to be "filed" with the FCHR. On November 25, 1994, 35 days after the Notice was mailed, Counsel for Petitioner transmitted to the FCHR her Petition for Relief, requesting an administrative hearing. The petition was submitted on the form provided by the FCHR. The petition was sent by regular U.S. Mail. The Petition for Relief was filed with the FCHR on November 29, 1994, 39 days after the Notice of Determination was issued. The FCHR transmitted the pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. At the same time of the transmittal to Division of Administrative Hearings, FCHR issued a notice of the petition to Respondent advising it of the requirement to file an answer to the Petition for Relief. Respondent timely filed its answer with affirmative defenses, including the first affirmative defense that "Petitioner failed to file her petition within the time allowed by law." Respondent also filed a separate Notice to Dismiss raising the same issue. The Petition for Relief was deposited in the mail on Friday, November 25, 1994, the day after Thanksgiving which is an official state holiday. The next business day was Monday, November 28, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in Division of Administrative Hearings' Case No. 94-6976 and FCHR Case No. 94-7490, for failure to timely file the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of March, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by HRS at the Broward County Public Health Unit ("BCPHU") as a Fiscal Assistant II, a career service position. Petitioner began working for HRS in approximately August, 1973. From approximately July of 1986 through July of 1991, Petitioner's supervisor at BCPHU was Sylvia Villafana. During this time period, Ms. Villafana frequently counseled Petitioner regarding excessive absenteeism and tardiness which interfered with Petitioner's ability to meet necessary deadlines at work. Even before 1986, Petitioner's personnel record reflects excessive use of sick leave and problems with prompt and consistent attendance at work. These issues were discussed with Petitioner on several occasions. In March of 1991, Ms. Villafana scheduled a meeting for March 21, 1991, with Petitioner and Jeff Keiser, the personnel manager for BCPHU. At that meeting, Ms. Villafana intended to issue a written reprimand to Petitioner regarding excessive absenteeism. The March 21, 1991, meeting was scheduled to begin at 2:00. Petitioner left the BCPHU building at approximately 1:00 p.m. that day and did not attend the meeting. Petitioner contends that she was having chest pains and went to the hospital that afternoon. Petitioner did not advise her supervisor that she was leaving the premises. Petitioner did advise at least one co-worker at BCPHU that she was leaving. The next day, Petitioner's daughter called Ms. Villafana and told her that Petitioner was in the hospital. Ms. Villafana told Petitioner's daughter that documentation would be needed of Petitioner's medical problems. No records of Petitioner's hospitalization were ever presented to Ms. Villafana or any other HRS supervisor. Petitioner was apparently discharged from the hospital on the evening of March 22, 1991. Petitioner contends that she called Ms. Villafana on Monday, March 25, and told her that she was still under a doctor's care and that she would return to work as soon as he released her. Ms. Villafana contends that the telephone conversation did not occur until March 29, 1991. In any event, Petitioner did not ask for authorized leave. During the telephone conversation, Petitioner indicated that she had a doctor's appointment on April 2. Ms. Villafana told Petitioner that medical documentation of her problem would be necessary. On April 3, 1991, Petitioner did not return to work. At this point, Ms. Villafana had virtually no information regarding Petitioner's alleged illness and/or condition. Ms. Villafana inquired of other employees regarding Petitioner's condition, but was unable to learn anything more. On the afternoon of April 3, 1991, Petitioner contacted Ms. Villafana and indicated that she would be back to work on April 9, 1991. The April 3 conversation was acrimonious. Because there were several large project deadlines coming due, Ms. Villafana emphasized that medical documentation was needed to support Petitioner's claim of illness. Petitioner did not show up for work on April 9, 1991. On April 10, 1991, Petitioner called and told Ms. Villafana that she was mailing in notes from her doctors and then hung up. On April 11, 1991, Ms. Villafana found notes from two doctors on her desk. The notes were submitted into evidence at the hearing, but were not authenticated by the physicians who purportedly authored them. One of the notes was allegedly from Dr. Murillo, a cardiologist. This note indicated that Petitioner would be able to return to work on April 15, 1991. The second note was from Dr. Love, an orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that he was scheduled to see Petitioner again on April 24, 1991, and that Petitioner was "unable to return to work" until then. No explanation was given as to the nature of Petitioner's injuries. At the hearing in this case, Petitioner contended that she was seeing Dr. Love in connection with injuries supposedly received during an automobile accident on February 20, 1991. No persuasive evidence was presented as to the nature and extent of those injuries. The car accident occurred on the evening of February 20 and Petitioner reported to work the next day. No evidence was presented to establish that Petitioner missed any work as a result of the car accident prior to the time she left work on March 20, 1991, complaining of chest pains. Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that the doctor's notes submitted on April 11 did not provide adequate documentation of her medical condition and/or inability to work. Petitioner did not report to work on April 25, 1991, and did not contact her supervisor. Neither Ms. Villafana nor the personnel office had a home phone number or current residence address for Petitioner. One of Petitioner's friends gave Ms. Villafana a P.O. Box number which Petitioner was using as a mailing address. On April 30, 1991, Ms. Villafana prepared a letter which was sent to Petitioner at her last known address and by certified mail to the post office box. That letter advised Petitioner that as of the close of business on Monday, April 29, 1991, she was absent without authorized leave and was in jeopardy of being deemed to have abandoned her position. The letter noted that the last medical excuse from Dr. Love expired as of the end of the normal work day on April 24, 1991. The certified letter was not claimed. On April 30, 1991, Petitioner spoke with Jeff Keiser who advised her that she would be receiving a letter regarding the possible abandonment of her position. Petitioner did not request and was not given authorized leave. During one of their conversations over this period of time, Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that she should document in writing a request for leave. No such written request was ever received. Also during one of these conversations, Petitioner acknowledged that she had received the April 30, 1991 letter. On May 2, 1991, Ms. Villafana received two additional notes on Dr. Love's letterhead. One of the notes was dated April 24, 1991, and indicated that Petitioner was scheduled for a follow up visit on May 8, 1991. The second note was dated May 1, 1991, and indicated that Petitioner was unable to return to work for two weeks. The note on Dr. Love's letterhead dated May 1, 1991, included some information regarding Petitioner's alleged medical problems. However, Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that she needed additional information regarding her condition. On May 13, 1991, Petitioner provided Ms. Villafana with a note on Dr. Love's stationery dated May 8, 1991. This note indicated that Petitioner was unable to work for two more weeks and was scheduled for a follow up visit on May 22, 1991. Ms. Villafana spoke with Petitioner on May 23, 1991. During that conversation, Petitioner indicated that she was returning to the doctor on May 30 and hoped to be in the office on May 31. Petitioner did not show up for work on May 31, 1991. On June 3, 1991, Petitioner called Ms. Villafana and advised her that she was going to see the doctor and, if he released her, she would be back at work on Wednesday, June 5. Petitioner did not show up for work on June 5, 1991. On June 20, 1991, Ms. Villafana received a note on Dr. Love's office letterhead indicating that Petitioner visited his office on June 14, 1991, and was unable to return to work for one week. Around this time, another note was received which indicated that Petitioner had an office visit on June 7, 1991, and was unable to return to work for one week. In a letter dated June 21, 1991, Ms. Villafana advised Petitioner that her [C]ontinued actions have placed [her] employment with the HRS BCPHU in serious jeopardy. Leave of absence (sick leave and/or leave without pay) was never formally requested by you since your midday departure on 3/20/91 and was, therefore, not approved. Chapter 22A-8.002 of the State of Florida Career Service Personnel Rules and Regulations states that 'the granting of any leave of absence with our without pay shall be in writing and shall be approved by the proper authority within the agency.' This was not done. On various occasions, I requested that you inform me of your intentions in reference to your leave, which you did not communicate to me, your supervisor, of your plans. As of this date, you have been on unauthorized leave for three months... All avenues of communication to you have been exhausted; I am unable to call you because you state that you have no telephone; certified mailings to your P.O. Box and various addresses have been returned unclaimed; etc. On the few and far between telephone calls from you, I received the run around stating that medical notes are forthcoming in the mail. This practice will no longer take effect. You are therefore, Ms. Gray, to return to work on 8:00 a.m. on Monday, July 1, 1991... The June 21, 1991 letter was sent to Petitioner by certified mail. Copies were also sent to Petitioner's P.O. Box and last known address in unmarked envelopes. Petitioner did not show up for work on July 1, 1991. During the hearing, Petitioner contended that she did not receive the June 21 letter until July 3, 1991. Petitioner contends that Dr. Love did not release her to return to work until July 10, 1991. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she spoke to Ms. Villafana and Mr. Keiser on July 3, 1991. Neither of these supervisors gave her authorization for any additional leave. Petitioner contends that she told them that she would not return to work until released by her physician. There is no evidence that either Ms. Villafana or Mr. Keiser granted her leave to remain absent for any additional time. On July 10, 1991, Petitioner contacted her supervisor about returning to work, but was told that she was deemed to have abandoned her position. At the hearing Petitioner produced two typewritten notes on the stationary of Dr. Love dated June 21, 1991, and July 10, 1991 (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 2). Neither of these notes were properly authenticated and there is no evidence to establish who wrote them or when. As noted above, Dr. Love did not testify at the hearing. These alleged records of Dr. Love's treatment of Petitioner were not provided to Ms. Villafana or the BCPHU Personnel Office until after Petitioner as deemed to have abandoned her position. Petitioner contends that she provided the Personnel Office and/or her supervisors with a copy of Dr. Love's reports prior to receiving the June 21, 1991 certified letter. However, the more credible evidence established that from June 20 through at least July 10, neither Ms. Villafana nor the Personnel Office was provided with any documentation from any physician that Petitioner was unable to work. The evidence established that from June 21, 1991, until July 10, 1991, Petitioner did not show up for work, did not provide any additional documentation regarding her absences and was not granted authorized leave. During the time she was employed at BCPHU, Petitioner was presented with a copy of the HRS Employee Handbook. That Handbook advised employees that they could be deemed to have abandoned their position if they were absent for three consecutive work days without authorization. Ms. Gray should have been aware of the requirements regarding sick leave and leaves of absence and her need to provide documentation regarding her course of treatment to the BCPHU Personnel Office. By certified letter dated July 25, 1991, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was deemed to have abandoned her career service position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Inez Gray abandoned her career service position with HRS and is not eligible to be reinstated or to receive any back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 7 day of August 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 7 day of August 1992. APPENDIX Only Petitioner submitted a proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 24. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 24. The last note submitted was dated June 14, 1991 and indicated that Petitioner was unable to return to work for one week. This last note was received by Petitioner's supervisors on June 20, 1991. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 19-22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. The first sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 25 and 27. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Rejected as vague and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Larry Strong, Acting Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Drive, Knight Building Koger Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Drive, Knight Building Koger Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Ben Patterson, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 1215 Thomasville Road P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Judith C. Engelberg Acting District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 513 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Henry L. Curry, was employed by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, from October 26, 1970 to March 3, 1988. Petitioner was employed at Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, as a Human Services Worker I, Forensics, Unit 20, during the winter of 1988. The position was part of the Career Service System in which the Petitioner had attained "permanent" status. On February 1, 1988, Petitioner telephoned a person named Grady James, another employee at Florida State Hospital. (R-1) Petitioner informed Mr. James that, due to illness, Petitioner was not able to work and would bring a "sick slip" when he was able to return to work. Petitioner had no further contact with Respondent until March 28, 1988, when Petitioner's letter, dated March 24, 1988, was received by Florida State Hospital. (P-1) In the letter, Petitioner stated that he was "an inpatient at the VA Medical Center" and that "a letter of verification" of his hospitalization was forthcoming. On March 30, 1988, Florida State Hospital received a letter from the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center's Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Treatment Unit in Decatur, Georgia. The letter, dated March 28, 1988, stated that Petitioner had been hospitalized March 16 - 28, 1988, in said unit. (P-2) There is limited information indicating Petitioner's physical location or functional ability during the period of time between February 1, 1988, when he contacted Mr. James, and March 16, 1988, when he was hospitalized. Petitioner testified that he was not in his "right mind", that he "was possessed", "drugged out", and "couldn't cope". Petitioner slept "in the car, in the crack houses and everywhere". (Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner was seen once during that time by his father in Quincy, Florida, (Testimony of Perman Curry) and apparently was hospitalized for unexplained reasons in "Montgomery" for some period (Testimony of Petitioner) While Petitioner states that he did not intend to resign from his position, no contact was made with his employer from February 1, 1988 to March 28, 1988, a period of 56 days. Prior to February 1, 1988, Petitioner had been counseled on several occasions, and his attendance had been closely monitored, due to unscheduled absences. (R-1) On February 9, 1988, Dorothy N. Stinson, the supervisor of the unit in which Petitioner worked, sent by certified mail, appropriately addressed, a letter to Petitioner noting the lack of communication from Petitioner and stating that, unless medical certification for the unauthorized absence was provided within three days of receipt of the letter, Petitioner would be considered to have abandoned his position and resigned from employment. The letter was returned as "unclaimed" by the postal service on February 25, 1988, after two unsuccessful attempts to effect delivery. (R-3) On March 4, 1988, Faye H. Alcorn, Deputy Hospital Administrator, sent by certified mail, appropriately addressed, a letter (dated March 3, 1988) to Petitioner which stated that due to his absence without authorized leave from February 2 - March 2, 1988, during which time there had been no contact with Petitioner, he was deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the state's career service system pursuant to rules related to separation from employment resulting from abandonment of position. The letter was returned as "unclaimed" by the postal service on March 20, 1988, after two unsuccessful attempts to effect delivery. (R-2) In or around December, 1987, Ms. Stinson became aware that Petitioner had a substance abuse problem. Ms. Stinson testified that it is possible to take "leave without pay" for a period of up to one year and that such leave could possibly be granted to an employee who is ill due to a drug and alcohol addiction. A person seeking to take such leave would either submit a written letter of request or would submit medical certification indicating that the employee was unable to work. Petitioner did not request to be placed on "leave without pay" status. The "leave without pay" status assigned to Petitioner during that period was assigned for administrative purposes and did not indicate that the leave had been authorized or approved. The medical certification submitted by Petitioner is for the period of March 16 - 28, 1988. No medical certification was submitted for the period of February 1 - March 16, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the panties to this case. Petitioner Accepted. Accepted, however, letter indicated that continued absence would constitute abandonment. Accepted, insofar as the absence from 2/2/88 to 3/2/88, however, Petitioner did not notify Respondent of his situation until 3/28/88, (or 26 days following termination). Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, irrelevant. Accepted, however, such leave must receive prior approval. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected. If Petitioner was unable, as counsel asserts, to form the intent to resign from his position he was likewise unable to form the intent to return. Respondent Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy R. Newman, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 211 East Jefferson Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Dennis X. Crowley, Esquire Florida State Hospital Administration Building Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, thereby permitting the Division of Administrative Hearings to exercise jurisdiction for the conduct of a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On December 13, 1995, and again on January 12, 1996, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, together with all other "pleadings and jurisdictional papers heretofore filed in this proceeding." The pleadings and papers transmitted by FCHR show that Petitioner filed a complaint with FCHR on December 2, 1994, charging an unlawful employment practice by Respondent. On October 11, 1995, the FCHR concluded its investigation into the matter and issued its determination of No Cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Notice of that determination was served on Petitioner at his Quincy, Florida address by regular mail. The "Notice of Determination: No Cause" served on Petitioner included the following statement: Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF with 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETER- MINATION: NO CAUSE. The "Notice of Determination: No Cause" also contained the following statement: If the Complainant fails to request an admini- strative hearing within 35 days of the date of this notice, the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992). Petitioner received the Notice of Determination. Sometime after receipt of the notice, Petitioner telephoned the FCHR and spoke with a secretary who again explained the necessity of filing a Petition For Relief to Petitioner within the specified time limits. Petitioner filed a Petition For Relief on November 27, 1995, approximately 47 days after issuance of the Notice of Determination: No Cause. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that he did not receive the mail notice of the FCHR determination in a timely fashion sufficient to permit his timely filing of a Petition For Relief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in DOAH Case No. 95-6018 and FCHR Case No. 94-E334, for failure to timely file the Petition. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th of March, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorenzo McGill Route 7, Box 4096 Quincy, Florida 32351 Kimberly L. King, Esquire Messer, Caparello, Madsen, et al. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact We find the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact to be supported by competent substantial evidence. FCHR Order No. 06-058 Page 2 We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact. Conclusions of Law We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law. Exceptions Petitioner filed four numbered exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order in a document entitled “Petitioner’s Exceptions to Filed Recommended Order.” There is no indication on Petitioner’s exception document that it was served on Respondent by Petitioner as is required by Fla, Admin. Code R. 28-106.110. The exceptions docurnent was received after the expiration of the 15-day period from the date of the Recommended Order for filing exceptions. See, Recommended Order, Notice of Right to Submit Exceptions; Section 120.57(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2005); and Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.217(1). The Recommended Order is dated March 23, 2006, the cover letter accompanying the exceptions document is dated April 10, 2006, and the exceptions document was received by the Commission on April 17, 2006. All exceptions relate to the elements for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Exceptions 1 and 4 deal with issues surrounding whether Petitioner was handicapped within the meaning of the law. Exception 2 deals with the issue of whether Petitioner was qualified for the position in question. Exception 3 deals with the issue of whether Petitioner was treated less favorably than other employees. In our view, if all these exceptions were granted, the outcome of the case would not change, since the Administrative Law. Judge concluded that, even if a prima facie case had been established, Respondent established legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Petitioner from her position as a bus driver, namely Petitioner’s taking of the indicated prescription drugs and her inability to meet the lifting requirements of the position (Recommended Order, [42 and J 49), and that there was no showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination (Recommended Order, { 49). Further, the Commission has stated, “It is well settled that it is the Administrative Law Judge’s function ‘to consider all of the evidence presented and reach ultimate conclusions of fact based on competent substantial evidence by resolving conflicts, judging the credibility of witnesses and drawing permissible inferences therefrom. If the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the Administrative Law Judge’s role to decide between them.’ Beckton v. Department of Children and Family Services, 21 F.A.L.R. 1735, at 1736 (FCHR 1998), citing Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9 F.A.L.R. 2168, at 2171 (FCHR 1986).” Barr v. Columbia Ocala Regional FCHR Order No. 06-058 Page 3 Medical Center, 22 F.A.L.R. 1729, at 1730 (FCHR 1999). Accord, Bowles v. Jackson County Hospital Corporation, FCHR Order No. 05-135 (December 6, 2005). Petitioner’s exceptions are rejected. Dismissal The Petition for Relief and Complaint of Discrimination are DISMISSED with prejudice. The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110. DONE AND ORDERED this__20th _ day of June 2006. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: Commissioner Donna Elam, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Onelia A. Fajardo; and Commissioner Mario M. Valle Filed this__20th day of June _, 2006, in Tallahassee, Florida. . eld baed iolet Crawford, Cler! Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 488-708 Copies furnished to: Lorraine C. Morris c/o Warren K. Anderson, Jr., Esq. c/o Michael L. Howle, Esq. Anderson & Howell, P.A. 2029 North Third Street Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250-7429 FCHR Order No. 06-058 Page 4 Lee County Government c/o Andrea R. Fraser, Esq. c/o Jack Peterson, Esq. Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, FL 33902-0398 William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel IHEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this__20th _ day of June 2006. we Yat Can Clerk of the Commission Florida Commission on Human Relations
