Findings Of Fact At the final hearing in this case on June 11, 1987, counsel for the Petitioner, Mary Ann Hunter, made a special appearance but did not present any evidence in support of her contention that the Respondent, Bank of South Palm Beaches, unlawfully terminated her employment for racial reasons, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Counsel for the Respondent was present with witnesses, and was prepared to proceed as the Respondent's interests might require. Without any evidence in support of the Petition for Relief, the allegations therein have not been substantiated. Accordingly, the Petition for Relief must be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Mary Ann Hunter be dismissed. This Recommended Order entered on this 15th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 15th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Arlyne G. Warshall, Esquire 415 - Fifth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Regina McGriff, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 22A- 13.002(2), (3), and (4), Florida Administrative Code, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final hearing in this case was consolidated, for purposes of hearing only, with the final hearing in two related cases; namely, Case Nos. 87-5321 and 87-5437. At the final hearing all parties presented testimony and the Petitioner also offered six exhibits, all of which were received without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties agreed to a ten-day deadline for the filing of proposed orders. All parties have filed proposed orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order and specific rulings on all proposed findings are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this final order.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mr. Parsons, is employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") as an "Assistant Mental Health Hospital Administrator." He is a career Service employee of the State of Florida. By memorandum dated October 23, 1987, Mr. Parsons submitted a "Notice Of Intent To Run For Local Political Office." The memorandum was directed to Mr. Parsons' supervisor, Mr. Britton D. Dennis. The memorandum sought approval from DHRS and from the Department of Administration ("DOA"), described the nature of the political office Petitioner is seeking, and described the working hours of the position and the salary. In the memorandum, Mr. Parsons stated that he would not campaign on job time, and would not make use of any of the state's facilities in regard to campaign activities. He also stated his intention to request a leave of absence and that he would resign from his current position with DHRS, if elected. The District Administrator of DHRS denied Mr. Parson's request for approval to become a candidate by letter dated October 30, 1987. The Administrator stated that the request was being denied "... because your candidacy would be in violation of Chapter 22A-13.002, Personnel Rules and Regulations, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes." On October 30, 1987, Mr. Parsons' supervisor, Mr. Britton D. Dennis, indicated that he would deny the request for leave of absence because he felt that the position held by Mr. Parsons could not be vacant for an extended period of time. Mr. Parsons responded that he nonetheless desired to be a candidate for the local political office, and that he would not campaign on the job, nor use state facilities for campaign purposes. By letter dated November 5, 1987, the Secretary of DOA stated that she was unable to approve Mr. Parsons' request because it had been denied by DHRS, and because, if elected, the duties would be performed during assigned working hours. The Secretary of DOA cited DOA Rule 22A-13.002(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. This proceeding ensued. Mr. Parsons filed a petition challenging the denial of his request by DHRS, a petition challenging the denial of his request by DOA, and a petition challenging the validity of the DOA rules that had been cited in support of the denials. Mr. Parsons is seeking to stand for election to the position of County Judge in Gadsden County, Florida. The position of County Judge is a full-time position. If elected, Mr. Parsons could not continue in his employment with DHRS. He has clearly stated that if elected he would resign from his employment with DHRS. The challenged rule provisions read as follows: 22A-13.002 Statements of Policy Section 110.233(4)(a) further provides that no employee shall hold or be a candidate for public or political office while in the employment of the state unless: The employee is seeking or holding a local public office and; Such candidacy and office is authorized by the employee's agency head and approved by the Department of Administration as involving no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his/her state employment. Candidacy for or holding a local public office shall be presumed to involve an interest which conflicts with an employee's state employment when the campaign or the office, if elected, is likely to give rise to a situation in which regard for a private or local interest tends to lead to a disregard of the employee's duty as a state employee. Candidacy for or holding local public office shall be presumed to involve activities which interfere with an employee's state employment in the following instances: The office is a full-time office. Campaign or, if elected, office activities are performed during the employee's assigned working hours with the State. Campaign or, if elected, office activities will involve the use of State space, personnel, time, equipment, or supplies. In its application of the challenged rule provisions, DOA reads those provisions in conjunction with Rule 22A-13.0031, Florida Administrative Code, regarding procedures. DOA has interpreted and applied the presumptions in the challenged rule provisions as rebuttable presumptions, rather than as conclusive presumptions. On at least one prior occasion since the challenged rule provisions went into effect, the DOA and the DHRS granted approval for an employee of DHRS to become a candidate for the office of County Judge without requiring resignation from state employment.
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by obtaining funds from Orange County in the form of a severance payment while remaining employed as General Counsel for the Orange County Clerk of Courts; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Stephan Carter, served as General Counsel for the Orange County Clerk of Courts (the “Clerk’s Office”) from June 2003 through April 1, 2014. Respondent was a public employee at all times material to this action. Respondent was personally hired by Lydia Gardner, the Orange County Clerk of Courts. In January 2005, Respondent and Ms. Gardner executed an employment contract (the “Employment Agreement”). The Employment Agreement was signed by Respondent and Ms. Gardner, in her capacity as the Clerk of Courts, on January 10, 2005, and January 13, 2005, respectively. The Employment Agreement, paragraph 6, entitled “Termination of Employment,” established that the Clerk would pay Respondent a fee should the Clerk terminate the Employment Agreement prior to its expiration date (the “Severance Payment”). Paragraph 6 specifically provided: The Clerk may declare this agreement terminated at any time. . . . The Clerk shall promptly pay to the General Counsel a sum equal to i) the salary and deferred compensation that is accrued but unpaid as of the date of the termination, plus ii) an amount equal to the pro rata portion of his salary for all accrued but unused leave time, plus, iii) an amount equal to the salary and deferred compensation that the General Counsel would have received during the 180 days immediately following the date such termination takes effect, as if this agreement had not been terminated. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that when he accepted the position of General Counsel (then titled “Legal Counsel”) with the Clerk’s Office in June 2003, he informed Ms. Gardner that he would only agree to work for the Clerk’s Office if he could be protected from losing his position. Therefore, Respondent sought and obtained the Severance Payment provision should he be terminated for any reason other than his voluntary resignation. The Employment Agreement provided that Respondent’s term of employment continued until January 6, 2009. On January 7, 2009, Respondent and Ms. Gardner entered a signed agreement wherein the Employment Agreement was “extended indefinitely.” On February 5, 2013, Respondent and Ms. Gardner signed a second amendment to the Employment Agreement.2/ This “clarification of terms” stated: [A]s to the definition of termination in paragraph 6, for the purposes of the contract, termination by the Clerk includes the ending of the employment relationship for any reason other than General Counsel’s voluntary resignation. The amendment also provided that an $11,000 annual payment into Respondent’s deferred compensation plan contained in the original Employment Agreement be considered compensation under Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-6.001(15)(relating to pensions) and not a fringe benefit. In February 2013, Ms. Gardner became gravely ill. Ms. Gardner’s illness caused her to be absent from the Clerk’s Office. In Ms. Gardner’s absence, Colleen Reilly, the Chief Administrative Officer for the Clerk’s Office, assumed Ms. Gardner’s responsibilities. Ms. Reilly was hired in 2009. At that time, Respondent prepared an employment contract for Ms. Reilly modelled on his own Employment Agreement. In April 2013, Ms. Reilly approached Respondent to talk about their future employment with the Clerk’s Office. Ms. Gardner’s health was deteriorating. Respondent and Ms. Reilly discussed the impact of Ms. Gardner’s death on their positions. Ms. Reilly was also concerned whether the new Clerk of Courts would honor their Employment Agreements. Respondent and Ms. Reilly’s conversation led to a discussion regarding how they could protect the Severance Payments under their respective Employment Agreements. Respondent and Ms. Reilly considered several possibilities. One position was that their Employment Agreements would remain in effect upon Ms. Gardner's death, and they could ask the new Clerk of Courts to honor the payout terms. Respondent, however, determined that the Employment Agreements were not clear on whether he and Ms. Reilly were entitled to the Severance Payments following a change of administration. Therefore, they became concerned whether the new Clerk of Courts would be legally bound to honor the Severance Payments should he or she decide not to retain their services. Respondent, without seeking legal guidance or consulting with outside counsel for the Clerk’s Office, concluded that the Employment Agreements would terminate upon Ms. Gardner’s death. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he considered his employment to be tied specifically to Ms. Gardner and not the Clerk's Office. Therefore, Respondent reasoned that because both he and Ms. Reilly were hired by and worked directly for Ms. Gardner, her death would terminate their contracts. This termination, of course, would also entitle Respondent (and Ms. Reilly) to the Severance Payment because his employment would have ended for a reason other than his voluntary resignation. Respondent and Ms. Reilly also discussed their plans once their Employment Agreements were terminated. Respondent informed Ms. Reilly that he believed that after the Employment Agreement was terminated, they could continue to work for the Clerk’s Office as “at-will” employees without employment contracts. Respondent encouraged Ms. Reilly to take her Severance Payment then stay in her position with the Clerk’s Office. He intended to do the same. Late in April 2013, Ms. Reilly informed Respondent that she was planning to visit Ms. Gardner, who was on convalescent leave at her home, to ask her to formally terminate the Employment Agreements and make them at-will employees of the Clerk’s Office. Respondent encouraged Ms. Reilly’s endeavor. Respondent then drafted two versions of a memorandum Ms. Gardner could sign to effectuate the termination of their contracts. Ms. Gardner, however, did not agree to terminate the Employment Agreements or sign the paperwork Respondent had prepared. Consequently, the Employment Agreements remained in effect. When Ms. Reilly was not able to obtain Ms. Gardner’s consent to terminate the Employment Agreements, Respondent began to consider Ms. Reilly’s authority to terminate his Employment Agreement. Respondent determined that Ms. Reilly could terminate his contract under section 28.09, Florida Statutes, and they could still receive the Severance Payments. Section 28.09 describes the appointment of a clerk ad interim in the case of a vacancy occurring in the office of a clerk by death. Section 28.09 states that the clerk ad interim “shall assume all the responsibilities [and] perform all the duties” of the clerk. Therefore, because Ms. Reilly would assume all the powers of Ms. Gardner, she would be authorized the terminate his Employment Agreement. Ms. Gardner passed away on May 8, 2013. On May 9, 2013, Ms. Reilly was officially appointed as Clerk Ad Interim for the Clerk’s Office. Also on May 9, 2013, Respondent and Ms. Reilly immediately took steps to obtain their respective Severance Payments. To effectuate their plan, Ms. Reilly promptly terminated both their Employment Agreements using her newfound authority as the interim Clerk. Respondent hoped that this step would remove any questions of their entitlement to the Severance Payment that might be raised by the new Clerk of Courts. Respondent then went directly to the Clerk’s Payroll office. There, he approached Tracy Gasinski, the payroll administrator for the Clerk’s Office. Respondent informed her that Ms. Reilly had approved him to receive a payout. Respondent declared that his payout was authorized because his Employment Agreement was terminated. Respondent also instructed Ms. Gasinski to pay Ms. Reilly’s payout under her Employment Agreement. Respondent stressed that he wanted both payouts processed immediately. Finally, Respondent advised Ms. Gasinski that nobody needed to know about the payout. Ms. Gasinski felt pressured by Respondent. However, based on his representation that Ms. Reilly had approved the payout, she immediately processed a final paycheck for Respondent (and Ms. Reilly), which included the Severance Payment provided in his Employment Agreement. Ms. Gasinski calculated a payout for Respondent in the gross amount of $110,290.61. This figure included a Severance Payment of $76,844.00. In addition, per his request, Respondent was also paid $27,822.10 for all his unused vacation leave (405.57 hours times a rate of $68.60), as well as $5,624.51 for his unused sick leave (327.96 hours times a rate of $17.15). Ms. Gasinski paid 25 percent of Respondent’s sick leave per Clerk’s Office policy. The next day, on May 10, 2013, Ms. Gasinski issued Respondent a check in the amount of $58,400.00 which was deposited directly into Respondent's personal bank account. Ms. Gasinski also deposited a final paycheck into Ms. Reilly's bank account. On or about May 20, 2013, however, Respondent returned to see Ms. Gasinski. He was not happy with his payout. Respondent told Ms. Gasinski that the amount she deposited was incorrect, and he was due more money. Respondent demanded several adjustments which would maximize his Severance Payment. First, referencing the February 5, 2013, amendment to his Employment Agreement, Respondent wanted the $11,000 he received as deferred compensation to be incorporated into his base salary thereby increasing his rate of pay. Second, Ms. Gasinski, in calculating Respondent’s Severance Payment, computed the final payout based on six month’s salary in accordance with the standard practice of the Clerk's Office. Respondent, however, insisted that his Severance Payment be calculated based on “180 days” as specifically stated in his Employment Agreement at paragraph 6. This mathematical adjustment increased Respondent's payout by including payment for all Saturdays and Sundays.3/ Third, Respondent demanded that he receive 100 percent payout for his remaining sick leave instead of just 25 percent as was the Clerk’s Office policy. Fourth, Respondent requested that 56 hours (7 days) be reserved in his vacation leave account and not paid out.4/ Following their meeting, Ms. Gasinski voided the initial payout check. However, she was not comfortable with Respondent’s request based on her understanding of employment contracts. Respondent's and Ms. Reilly's transactions were out of the ordinary course of business for the Clerk's Office. In her experience, final paychecks to Clerk’s Office employees were always accompanied by paperwork from the Clerk’s Office’s Talent Management division. This paperwork came in the form of an Employee Change Notice (“ECN”). However, Respondent did not produce, nor had Ms. Gasinski received, an ECN supporting Respondent’s payout. In Clerk’s Office accounting practices, Talent Management and the Payroll office act as a check and balance for each other. Typically, Talent Management initiates the paperwork, and then Payroll issues the checks. The normal process for a payout when a Clerk's Office employee leaves employment is for Talent Management to notify Ms. Gasinski who then processes the final payout. Respondent did not have the authority to direct Ms. Gasinski to issue the checks. Similarly, Ms. Gasinski did not have the authority to write checks to either Respondent or Ms. Reilly. Furthermore, a final payout upon termination is always via a paper check. Direct deposit to a personal bank account is never an option. The terminated employee picks up the paper check from Talent Management who verifies that the employee's garage pass and badge have been returned. Because of her discomfort with issuing Respondent’s payout check, Ms. Gasinski sought advice from her supervisor, Mike Murphy, the Chief Financial Officer for the Clerk’s Office. Mr. Murphy suggested that Ms. Gasinski contact Talent Management. On May 21, 2013, Ms. Gasinski spoke to Joann Gammichia, the Director of Talent Management, about Respondent’s request for a payout. When Ms. Gammichia learned of the situation, she had immediate concerns. First, Ms. Gammichia wondered why Payroll was issuing a check without any documentation from Talent Management such as an ECN. Ms. Gammichia testified that each employment activity requires completion of an ECN which acts as a recordkeeping system for the Clerk's Office. Because Respondent approached Ms. Gasinski in the Payroll office directly, no ECN or other written record was generated explaining why the Clerk’s Office was issuing the payout to Respondent. Ms. Gammichia explained that the policy of the Clerk’s Office is that payouts, severance checks, termination, or any kind of position change should only occur with an ECN in order to maintain and track the complete history of an employee's tenure with the Clerk's office. Ms. Gammichia also wondered why Respondent went directly to Ms. Gasinski with his demands. The normal starting point for employee changes begins with Talent Management, and the end of the line is financial services and Payroll. The fact that Respondent was attempting to verbally change his employment status in the Payroll office was “highly irregular.” Ms. Gammichia was also puzzled why the Clerk’s Office was issuing a severance payout on an employment contract when the employment was not ending. Consequently, Ms. Gammichia told Ms. Gasinski not to issue the adjusted payout check. Ms. Gasinski then notified Respondent via e-mail dated May 21, 2013, that she could not process the final payout until she received the proper documentation from Ms. Gammichia in Talent Management. Shortly thereafter, Respondent visited Ms. Gammichia’s office to inquire why she was involved in his payout matter. According to Ms. Gammichia, Respondent became “pretty aggressive.” Respondent told Ms. Gammichia that she had no authority or business being involved. It was a personal matter. Respondent warned Ms. Gammichia that she was directly violating an order from Ms. Reilly to make the Severance Payments. Ms. Gammichia informed Respondent that not only was she involved, but she was not authorizing the payout check to go through. Ms. Gammichia further advised Respondent not to contact Ms. Gasinski regarding the payout. Later that day, Ms. Gammichia contacted her supervisor, Cathi Balboa, the Director of Administrative Services for the Clerk’s Office, to discuss Respondent’s payout request. Ms. Gammichia relayed to Ms. Balboa that Ms. Gasinski was upset because she was being asked to prepare a large payout based only on verbal instructions without any supporting paperwork. At the final hearing, Ms. Balboa recalled that Respondent’s urgent request for a payout was highly irregular. Ms. Balboa relayed that the Clerk’s Office should not issue a final payout unless an employee was truly terminated from his or her position. Based on their concerns, Ms. Gammichia and Ms. Balboa called Ms. Reilly, who was sick at home, to confirm whether Ms. Reilly was aware of the payouts that Respondent said she had authorized. Ms. Gammichia also wanted to report the fact that Ms. Gasinski felt that she was being coerced and harassed by Respondent. Ms. Gammichia described Ms. Reilly’s reaction as hostile and negative. Ms. Reilly did not seem happy that others were involved. Ms. Reilly asked Ms. Balboa, “How did you get involved in this?" The next morning, on May 22, 2013, Ms. Reilly returned to the Clerk’s Office and called a meeting with Mr. Murphy, Ms. Balboa, and Respondent. Ms. Reilly opened the meeting by asking Mr. Murphy and Ms. Balboa "what do you think your role is in this organization," and "where do your loyalties lay?" Ms. Reilly then announced that “it was a private matter, it was their personal business, [and] to stay out of it." Ms. Balboa testified at the final hearing that Ms. Reilly intimidated her in their meeting. Mr. Murphy conveyed that he understood that they were not to get involved in the severance payout matter. After the meeting, Ms. Gasinski was told to proceed with the payouts for Respondent and Ms. Reilly. On May 23, 2013, Ms. Gasinski processed a second severance payout check for Respondent and Ms. Reilly. Ms. Gasinski prepared for Respondent a revised final paycheck in the total amount of $156,443.11. This amount included a Severance Payment of $106,387.20. Respondent was also paid $25,826.23 for his vacation leave (349.57 hours times a rate of $73.88), as well as $24,229.68 for all his unused sick leave (327.96 hours times a rate of $73.88). A check in the net amount of $99,125.45 was deposited in Respondent’s personal bank account. On May 23, 2013, Respondent repaid the initial payout of $58,400.00 to the Clerk’s Office by personal check. After Ms. Reilly terminated his Employment Agreement on May 9, 2013, Respondent never left his position with the Clerk’s Office. Respondent considered himself an at-will employee and continued to report to work as General Counsel. There was never any break in his employment. At no time did Respondent (or the Clerk’s Office) initiate or complete any paperwork to rehire Respondent after either Ms. Gardner’s death or Ms. Reilly terminated his Employment Agreement. No documentation was prepared transitioning Respondent from a contract employee to an at-will employee. Respondent continued to perform the same duties under the same terms, conditions, and compensation contained in the Employment Agreement as if he never left office.5/ At the final hearing, Respondent testified why his interpretation of his Employment Agreement justified his actions and motives. Respondent first remarked that his Employment Agreement was not typical for a Clerk’s Office employee. It contained certain provisions which were not to be “exposed generally,” such as the termination clause and the contact termination fee. Therefore, he desired to keep his employment terms quiet. Respondent further disclosed that he did not initiate an ECN because his Severance Payment was not a human resources issue, it was a matter of contract. Respondent also explained that at the end of 2008, when his Employment Agreement was nearing its initial termination date, Respondent became concerned with his future at the Clerk’s Office. He began to wonder what would happen if Ms. Gardner left her position as Clerk. Therefore, he prepared, then executed, the 2009 amendment to the Employment Agreement extending it “indefinitely.” In 2013, Respondent prepared, then executed, the second amendment clarifying the term “termination.” Regarding collecting his Severance Payment without leaving his position with the Clerk’s Office, Respondent contended that just because his Employment Agreement was terminated (thus, entitling him to the Severance Payment) did not mean he had to leave employment with the Clerk’s Office. Respondent characterized the payment as a “contract termination fee.” Therefore, he asserted that the Clerk could terminate his Employment Agreement without actually terminating him from his position as General Counsel. Consequently, nothing prevented him from becoming an at-will employee. Accordingly, when Ms. Reilly terminated the Employment Agreements on May 9, 2013, by exercising her prerogative as the interim Clerk, she also decided that both Respondent and she would stay on with the Clerk’s Office as at-will employees until the new Clerk of Courts determined what to do with them. In February 2014, the new Clerk of Courts, Eddie Fernandez, determined to initiate an investigation to review the propriety of the 2013 Severance Payments to Respondent and Ms. Reilly. On March 28, 2014, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay. On April 1, 2014, after the investigation recommended that Respondent’s employment be terminated, Respondent resigned from his position with the Clerk’s Office. As a condition of his resignation, Respondent was not eligible for rehire by the Clerk’s Office. Respondent reimbursed the full amount of the money that he received as the Severance Payment from the Clerk’s Office. Commenting on the circumstances of his resignation and restitution, at the final hearing, Respondent urged that he did not act dishonestly, but, maybe he exercised bad judgment. Respondent also proclaimed that he received his Severance Payment because the interim Clerk ordered it, not by reason of his actions or conduct. Therefore, he personally never violated any duty of his office. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, the competent substantial evidence in the record establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent acted corruptly, with a wrongful intent, in seeking and obtaining the Severance Payment when he never intended to leave his public employment with the Clerk’s Office. Accordingly, the Advocate proved that Respondent violated section 112.313(6).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent, Steven Carter, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes; and that Respondent be subject to public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 3rd day of January, 2017.
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was formerly employed as a Tax Auditor II in Respondent's Fort Lauderdale office. In May, 1987, Petitioner filed a charge against Respondent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charge was docketed as Charge No. 150871115. Eleven months later, Petitioner filed a second charge against Respondent with the EEOC. This second charge was docketed as Charge No. 150881243. By letter dated May 3, 1988, Petitioner requested that he be granted leave without pay "until both EEOC investigations [were) over." Petitioner's request resulted in a memorandum of understanding and agreement between Petitioner and the Acting Director of Respondent's Division of Audits, Glenn Bedonie. The memorandum was signed by Bedonie on May 9, 1988, and by Petitioner the following day. It provided in pertinent part as follows: This memorandum will confirm our agreement that the Department is granting your request for leave without pay until such time as the two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations are completed and the findings or conclusions are rendered and final. This action is based upon your voluntary request dated May 3, 1988 attached herein. You will remain on approved leave without pay commencing at 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, 1988 for (12) twelve calendar months or until a finding or conclusion has been rendered and becomes final by the EEOC in both of the above EEOC investigations. If a finding is not so rendered in both investigations within (12) calendar months, and if you make a timely request to this office the Department agrees to request an extension from the Department of Administration of your leave of absence without pay under Rule 22A- 8.016(2), F.A.C. Such extension is to last until such time as an investigative finding or conclusion is rendered and becomes final in both investigations. On May 10, 1988, the same day he signed the foregoing memorandum of understanding and agreement, Petitioner advised his supervisor in writing that the following were "two addresses where mail will reach me:" P.O. Box 22-2825, Hollywood, Florida 33022 and 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33016. Petitioner did not indicate any other manner in which he could be contacted. By letter dated August 31, 1988, Petitioner and Respondent were informed that the EEOC's Miami District Director had determined, with respect to Charge No. 150871115, that the evidence obtained during the investigation [did] not establish a violation of the statute." The letter also contained the following advisement: This determination does not conclude the processing of this charge. If the charging Party wishes to have this determination reviewed, he must submit a signed letter to the Determination Review Program which clearly sets forth the reasons for requesting the review and which lists the Charge Number and Respondent's name. Charging Party must also attach a copy of this Determination to his letter. These documents must be personally delivered or mailed (postmarked) on or before 09-14-88 to the Determinations Review Program, Office of Program Operations, EEOC, 2401 E. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507. It is recommended that some proof of mailing, such as certified mail receipt, be secured. If the Charging Party submits a request by the date shown above, the Commission will review the determination. Upon completion of the review, the Charging Party and Respondent will be issued a final determination which will contain the results of the review and what further action, if any, the Commission may take. The final determination will also give notice, as appropriate, of the Charging Party's right to sue. Petitioner requested review of the Miami District Director's determination in Case No. 150871115. By letter dated April 28, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent were notified of the results of that review. The body of the letter read as follows: The Commission has reviewed the investigation of this charge of employment discrimination and all supplemental information furnished. Based upon this review, we agree with the determination issued by our field office and hereby issue a final determination that the evidence obtained during the investigation does not establish a violation of the statute. Therefore, the Commission dismisses and terminates its administrative processing of this charge. As the charge alleged a Title VII violation, this is notice that if the Charging Party wishes to pursue this matter further, (s)he may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court against the Respondent(s) named above within 90 days of receipt of this Determination. IF CHARGING PARTY DECIDES TO SUE, CHARGING PARTY MUST DO SO WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS DETERMINATION; OTHERWISE THE RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. By letter dated March 8, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent were informed that the EEOC's Miami District Director had determined, with respect to Charge No, 150881243, that the "evidence obtained during the investigation [did) not establish a violation of the statute," The letter further advised: If the Charging Party does not request a review of this determination by March 22, 1989 this determination will become final the following day, the processing of this charge will be complete, and the charge will be dismissed. (This letter will be the only letter of dismissal and the only notice of the Charging Party's right to sue sent by the Commission.) FOLLOWING DISMISSAL, THE CHARGING PARTY MAY ONLY PURSUE THIS MATTER FURTHER BY FILING SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT(S) NAMED IN THE CHARGE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DISMISSAL. Therefore, in the event a request for review is not made, if a suit is not filed by June 21, 1989 the Charging Party's right to sue will be lost. Petitioner did not request review of the District Director's determination in Case No. 150881243. Therefore, this determination became final on March 23, 1989. On May 5, 1989, Respondent's Personnel Officer, William P. Fritchman, sent Petitioner a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, directing Petitioner to report to work immediately. The letter was mailed to P.O. Box 22- 2825, Hollywood, Florida 33022. The body of the letter provided as follows: This letter is to notify you that your tax auditor II position in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is ready for you to return to work. Your return to work will be effective immediately upon your receipt of this letter. The Department of Revenue agreed to your request for a leave of absence without pay for 12 months or until EEOC in Miami had concluded its investigation of your EEOC charges, numbers 150-88-1234 [sic] and 150-87-1115. As you know, EEOC has now concluded its investigations and issued its findings in both cases. The Department considers the reason for granting the leave of absence to be expired. Please contact Mr. Bill Hammock, Chief of Audit Activity or Mr. Howard Maxwell, Field Audit Supervisor, immediately upon receipt of this letter concerning your intentions regarding your actual reporting to work in Fort Lauderdale. Their phone number is (904) 488-0310. Your immediate supervisor will be Ms. Mary Jane Myscich. Please report to her concerning any necessary details surrounding your reporting to work. If you do not contact either of the above individuals as instructed in this letter within three workdays from the date you receive this letter, the Department will consider that you have been on unauthorized leave without pay for that three workday period. Such unauthorized leave will be considered to be abandonment of position and a resignation from the Department of Revenue as outlined under Rules 22A- 7.010(2) and 22A-8.002(5). Please contact me at (904) 488-2635 if you have any questions concerning this matter. Efforts to deliver the letter to Petitioner were unsuccessful. It therefore was subsequently returned to Fritchman as "unclaimed." By letter dated May 7, 1989, but not mailed until May 10, 1989, Petitioner requested "an extension of leave without pay status for six additional months."/1 In support of his request, Petitioner erroneously stated the following in the letter: Findings and conclusions of both EEOC Charge Nos.:150871115 dated 5/13/87 and 150881243 are as EEOC has informed you are rendered but not final. The former charge is still under appeal. Petitioner's May 7, 1989, letter, as well as the envelope in which it had been sent, reflected that Petitioner's current mailing address was 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33316. Accordingly, on May 12, 1989, utilizing a next- day delivery service, Fritchman sent to that address the following letter informing Petitioner of the denial of his leave request: I am in receipt of your letter sent May 10, 1989 to Mr. Bedonie. In your letter you request the Department to seek an extension of your leave without pay for an additional six months. For the reasons expressed in my letter to you dated May 5, 1989, copy attached, your approved leave of absence is concluded. Under the written agreement between you and the Department the two EEOC investigations have concluded; therefore the reason for your leave no longer exists. A copy of my letter to you dated May 5, 1989 is attached to this letter and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. If you have already received a copy of that letter, then your return to work is effective on that date of your receipt. You are expected to resume your duties as a Tax Auditor II. Please contact me at (904) 488-2635 if you have any questions concerning this matter. The next-day delivery service unsuccessfully sought to deliver this letter and attachment to Petitioner at 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33316. On May 18, 1989, the letter and attachment were returned to Fritchman. Later that same day, Fritchman attempted to contact Petitioner by telephone, but was unable to reach him. As of May 18, 1989, Petitioner had not yet returned to work, notwithstanding that he had not received authorization to be absent at any time subsequent to the expiration of the leave he had been granted pursuant to the May, 1988, memorandum of understanding and agreement. In view of Petitioner's failure to report to work, Fritchman sent to Petitioner's Hollywood post office box a letter dated May 19, 1989, informing Petitioner that, because he had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays, he was deemed to have abandoned his Tax Auditor II position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. Fritchman further explained in the letter as follows: You did not report to work on May 11, 1989 under the terms of your agreement with the Department. You were therefore on unauthorized leave without pay effective May 11, 1989 or on receipt of the May 5, 1989 letter, whichever occurred first. You have not reported to work as agreed in the May 11, 1988 agreement. You are not entitled to rely on a unilateral request for an extension of leave without reporting to work. Rule 22A-8.002(5)(b), F.A.C. states: "If an employee's request for leave is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the agency head shall place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Career Service." You did not report to work on May 11, 1989 nor any day after that. The Department considers you have been on unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays. The Department considers that effective certainly no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, May 18, 1989 you have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. The Department's records will indicate that this is a voluntary resignation from employment with the Department. It is this determination that Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service which is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his Tax Auditor II position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted properly in refusing to post a job order for Petitioner's business, an "adult maid service."
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Walker is a sole proprietor doing business under the name Babe-A-Maid, which advertises as an "adult maid service." Babe-A-Maid's advertising makes plain that it is in the business of adult entertainment. A customer may browse Babe-A-Maid's web site and select a "maid" who will be transported to the customer's location to perform topless or nude dancing. No evidence was presented that Babe-A-Maid's services go beyond dancing to acts of prostitution. Mr. Walker personally screens potential customers, and pays to provide security to dancers who are sent to perform for groups of people. Babe-A-Maid's "Subcontractor Agreement" with its dancers provides that it is not an escort agency. Babe-A-Maid has operated in Mr. Walker's native Kenosha, Wisconsin for a number of years. Babe-A-Maid has been accepted for listing by the Wisconsin equivalent of AWI. On April 26, 2001, Mr. Walker submitted a job order to the Florida job service office in St. Petersburg, announcing the availability of positions with Babe-A-Maid. By letter dated July 25, 2001, AWI's complaint specialist Jim Cadwallader informed Mr. Walker that his job order would not be accepted for posting. Mr. Cadwallader's letter stated: I have found that the activities described in your job order include conduct, e.g., nude dancing, which has detrimental secondary effects that are harmful to the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, it has been determined that it is not in the best interest of the State or its citizens to assist in promoting your industry. Mr. Walker requested clarification as to the meaning of "detrimental secondary effects." By letter dated July 31, 2001, Mr. Cadwallader responded as follows: The job order that you wish to place would secondarily impact and threatens to impact the public health, safety and welfare by providing an atmosphere conducive to, among other things, violence, sexual harassment, public intoxication, prostitution and the attendant health risks. As previously stated, this decision is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest while allowing for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. The decision not to place your job order on the job services web-site does not adversely affect other reasonable alternative avenues of advertisement that are available. Mr. Walker conceded that the placement of advertisements in newspapers and other sources yielded approximately 800 responses from prospective dancers in the St. Petersburg area. However, he testified that his experience in Wisconsin showed him that the state job service listings provide an even-flow of employees, lessening the need for paid advertising. Robert Bradner, the AWI employee who actually made the decision to reject Mr. Walker's job order, testified that the state was not attempting to regulate Mr. Walker's admittedly legal business. Rather, the problem was a perceived linkage that a job listing would create between the state and Babe-A-Maid. Mr. Bradner did not want to establish a public perception that the state was endorsing Babe-A-Maid. Mr. Bradner conceded that Babe-A-Maid's was the only rejection of which he was aware since AWI's creation in 2000. Mr. Bradner also conceded that his decision was not based on any written statute, rule or guideline. AWI provided a second reason for its rejection of Mr. Walker's job order: that he is not an "employer" as contemplated by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing rules. Mr. Walker conceded that the dancers who work for him are independent contractors who are paid only for the hours they are actually out on a dancing job. Babe-A-Maid applicants must sign a "Subcontractor Agreement" that states, in relevant part: I, [name of Subcontractor], hereinafter referred to as the Subcontractor, enter into an agreement, with Babe-A-Maid. We do hereby agree that for good and valuable consideration, the Subcontractor shall provide services to Babe-A-Maid as outlined below, pursuant to the terms and conditions contained herein. Babe-A-Maid is a referral agency for persons seeking cleaning/entertainment services, hereinafter referred to as Clients. * * * The parties agree that the Subcontractor shall be treated as a Subcontractor, responsible for all Federal, state, and local law purposes [sic]. The terms of this agreement shall not be deemed to be an employment contract, nor shall the Subcontractor be deemed an employee of Babe-A-Maid for any purpose. The Subcontractor shall be responsible for paying all Federal, State and local taxes, and acquiring all licenses or other permits in the locale associated with providing services and receiving compensation for the provision of entertainment services. * * * The Subcontractor shall have neither actual nor apparent authority to bind Babe-A-Maid in contract nor shall Babe-A-Maid assume any responsibility for the acts of the Subcontractor. The Subcontractor agrees to indemnify Babe-A-Maid for all damages, fines, attorney fees, and cost imposed upon it for acts committed by the Subcontractor. The Subcontractor hereby warrants the information he or she has provided to Babe- A-Maid regarding his or her identification is true and current. The Subcontractor also warrants that the tax identification number provided at the bottom of this agreement is the number that the United States government has properly assigned to the Subcontractor. The evidence established that Babe-A-Maid does not employ its dancers. The dancers are subcontractors who inform Babe-A-Maid of the days and times they are available to go out on calls. Aside from general instructions by Babe-A-Maid, such as dressing appropriately and not using illegal drugs or drinking "excessive" amounts of alcohol during their shows, the dancers control the manner of their performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting the job service order submitted by Oliver Walker on behalf of his business, Babe-A-Maid. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 31st day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Oliver Walker Babe-A-Maid Post Office Box 1933 Kenosha, Wisconsin 53141 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Agency for Workforce Innovation Atkins Building, Third Floor 1320 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2250 Michelle M. Austin, General Counsel Agency for Workforce Innovation Office of the General Counsel Atkins Building, Suite 330 1320 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2250 Veronica Moss Agency for Workforce Innovation Office of the General Counsel Atkins Building, Suite 330 1320 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2250
Findings Of Fact Ivan Rosario, the Petitioner, was at all relevant times an employee of Orange County, Florida, as an equipment operator (EO III) in the highway maintenance department and assigned to the landscape crew. Mr. Rosario's national origin, Puerto Rican, is uncontroverted. William Baxter is also an employee of Orange County and in 1989 was manager of highway maintenance. On or about October 10, 1989 he received a memo from Ivan Rosario's foreman recommending that Mr. Rosario be terminated for failing to meet the minimum qualifications for equipment operator. Mr. Rosario had been in that position since approximately September 27, 1989. In accordance with established due process requirements and Orange County policy, and after notice to Mr. Rosario and to other relevant parties, William Baxter conducted a pretermination hearing on October 20, 1989. The outcome of the hearing was Mr. Baxter's determination that Mr. Rosario was exonerated of any of the accusations or charges. Mr. Rosario was not terminated. It is Mr. Baxter's usual practice after such proceedings to write a letter stating the outcome and to provide a copy to the employee and to the personnel file. However, several years after the 1989 hearing, Mr. Rosario informed Mr. Baxter that the letter was not in his personnel file. After verifying this fact, Mr. Baxter agreed to write a statement and to put it in his personnel file. Mr. Baxter or someone in the county administrative staff had also inquired of the legal staff whether the original written charges could be removed from Mr. Rosario's personnel file. The response from the county attorney's staff was that the personnel files were public records and could not be destroyed or expunged without violating Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. In a memo dated August 1, 1994, William Baxter directed Mark Massaro, the manager of traffic engineering, to place this statement in Mr. Rosario's file: On October 20, 1989, a hearing was held concerning the allegations that Mr. Rosario was hired by Orange County and on the appli- cation form he had stated he was qualified to operate equipment, however, it has been alleged that he was not capable of operating this equipment nor had he ever operated this equipment. After conducting the hearing, I made a determination and I can find no faults with the qualifications of Mr. Rosario and that the allegations against him were false. This was the result of the hearing. (Respondent's exhibit no. 3, William Baxter deposition) There is no explanation of record for the absence of some written confirmation of Mr. Baxter's decision between 1989, when the hearing was held, and 1994, when the above-described memorandum was prepared. Mr. Baxter usually provides that written decision within approximately ten (10) days and he has no recollection of failing to write the letter earlier. Mr. Rosario contends that the unexplained charges in his file prevented his being promoted and kept him from a union stewardship. He also contends that the charges hurt his reputation. No evidence was presented regarding any specific promotional opportunities or any reasons why such opportunities might have been denied to Mr. Rosario. "Stewardship," a union appointment, is a matter within the jurisdiction of the union and its bargaining unit members. The county has no control over union stewardship appointments. Mr. Rosario presented two witnesses who were also displeased with their employment experiences at Orange County. Miguel Ortiz is a computer program analyst who was with the county for five years and left in October 1994 because he felt that he was denied equal employment opportunities. He filed many grievances during his tenure and was removed from stewardship due, he believes, to his pointing out problems. He concedes that union stewardship is a union matter and not a management prerogative. Jason Stroud is an equipment operator with the Orange County Highway Department. He only contends that he has a case "along the same lines" as Mr. Rosario's case. He claims that the county "makes the rules," and breaks them or makes up new rules. Orange County has an Equal Employment Opportunity program and compliance officer. That officer, Bernard Ouellette, investigates when there are internal charges and compiles responses to send to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations. Mr. Ouellette has, in the past, found county supervisors who violate equal employment laws and they are dealt with and disciplined appropriately. A recent example is a county employee who made racially derogatory remarks and was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the complaint and petition for relief by Ivan Rosario be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Rosario 16268 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32820 Jeffrey J. Newton Assistant County Attorney Orange County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1393 Orlando, Florida 32802-1393 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Katrina Morgan, is a female who was employed by Respondent as a probationary Correctional Officer at the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner first worked for the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office from January 2001, through April 1, 2001, as a Correctional Officer. At the time, Petitioner was aware that the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office had a policy that required a Correctional Officer to personally call his or her immediate supervisor at least one hour before the scheduled start of the shift if he or she is unable to report for duty. The policy requires the officer to personally call so that inquiry can be made into how sick he or she is and when the officer might return. The information is necessary so that appropriate numbers of staff can be scheduled and planned for. Unfortunately, Petitioner’s son was involved in a serious traffic accident that resulted in serious injuries to him. As a result of her son’s injuries, Petitioner had many days of absence from her employment. She frequently failed to notify her supervisor when she was unable to report for duty. Such failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding notification in such circumstances. As a result of the policy violations by Petitioner, she received several written warnings from her shift supervisor, then Sergeant Donald Little. In addition to written warnings, Sergeant Little spoke with Petitioner on the telephone about the proper utilization of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call- in policy. Eventually, after several such absences, Lieutenant Johnson contacted Petitioner to tell her that he could not permit Petitioner to stay employed with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and offered her an opportunity to resign. Petitioner verbally resigned her position with the Sheriff’s Office on March 21, 2001, and later faxed her written resignation to the Sheriff’s Office on March 22, 2001. After she left Columbia County, Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections where she had, also, been previously employed. She worked for a period of approximately five to six months with the Department of Corrections and decided to return to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office because it would give her better working hours for her family needs. On April 28, 2003, Petitioner reapplied for employment as a Corrections Officer with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Knowing her past performance would be an issue and that attendance was an important issue at the jail, Petitioner stated on her April 28. 2003, application as follows: Was forced to give up my position with the Columbia County Jail back in 2001. If given the opportunity I will do whatever it takes to be sure the Columbia County Jail can depend on me. I will make sure I will report to my shift on time, no matter what the circumstances are, I hope you will give me a second chance to prove you can count on me. In the process of reviewing Petitioner’s background summary the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office became aware of some serious areas of concern in her employment history. Specifically, that she had been terminated from the Department of Corrections (DOC) New River Correctional Institute for attendance problems, and that she had poor work performance and problems with calling in at S&S Food Store. This history caused an initial recommendation against rehiring Petitioner. However, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office was experiencing a severe staff shortage and as a result was desperately in need of new Correctional Officer. Because of the shortage, Petitioner was offered employment with the Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner was sworn in by the Sheriff as a Correctional Officer on November 6, 2003, and given a second chance to prove she was dependable. At this ceremony, the Sheriff personally spoke with Petitioner about attendance issues and that she was being given a second chance. In response, Petitioner gave the Sheriff assurances that this time she would comply with policies. The Sheriff told Petitioner that any further attendance problems would be cause for termination. On November 7, 2003, Petitioner began working in the Respondent’s field training program under the direction of Field Training Officer Howard. Beginning on November 19, she was placed on the night shift and assigned Officer Siraq as her field training officer. The field training program uses daily observation reports (DORs) to evaluate new officers through the field training process. The program is a multi-week training program that trains a new officer while on the job. Eventually, the new officer will work all three shifts at the prison. On November 19, 2003, Officer Siraq was not at work due to illness. Therefore, Petitioner was assigned Officer Chad Sessions as her field training officer. Petitioner was working in the control room at the Columbia County Jail with Officer Sessions, who engaged in a series of very explicit phone calls in Petitioner’s presence. In his telephone conversations he made a number of sexually explict statements, including stating he was going to fuck the girl he was speaking about; that he was “the candy man” and that he was coming to have sex with the girl and that he would do so from behind. Petitioner told Officer Sessions several times that she did not want to hear the sexual comments, but he nonetheless continued in his conversation. Officer Sessions engaged in three such phone calls lasting about 20 minutes. After repeating that she did not wish to have to deal with these types of comments, Petitioner left the control room approximately four times so that she did not have to listen to Officer Sessions conversations. On the daily observation report completed by Officer Sessions for that date, Officer Sessions wrote that Petitioner had engaged in several phone calls and breaks and that she needed to improve on staying at her assigned post without as many distractions. Petitioner spoke to Officer Sessions about his comments on the Daily Observation Report and told him that she did not agree with his statements and refused to sign the document because of her disagreement with him. Officer Sessions took the DOR to Corporal Barcia and informed Barcia that Petitioner would not sign the agreement. He thereafter came back to Petitioner and told her that Barcia had ordered the Petitioner to sign the DOR. Petitioner signed the DOR, but did not put any comments on the DOR in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section regarding her disagreement with Officer Sessions or the reason she left her post in the control room. At the end of the shift on the morning of November 20, 2003, Petitioner drafted a memorandum to now Lieutenant Little requesting time off from work. Petitioner did not mention the incidents with Officer Sessions that had occurred on her shift. In the memorandum, Petitioner stated that she had spoken with Beverly Jackson during her swearing-in ceremony regarding specific days off, and that Ms. Jackson had approved the time off. Also, Petitioner spoke to Officer Howard about the incident on the morning after her shift that ended on November 20, 2003. Petitioner told Officer Howard about Officer Sessions’ remarks and the fact that she initially refused to sign the DOR and Corporal Barcia’s orders to sign the DOR. Officer Howard was concerned when Petitioner gave him this information and told her that he would speak with Lieutenant Little. Officer Howard contacted Lieutenant Little to report the information given to him by Petitioner. Lieutenant Little was on vacation and received the call at home. Officer Howard stated that he needed to report this complaint because Petitioner stated she was uncomfortable with the language used by Officer Sessions in the control room. Lieutenant Little advised Officer Howard that the issue would be addressed upon his return from vacation. Upon returning to work on November 24, 2003, Lieutenant Little called a meeting to discuss Petitioner’s complaints about Officer Sessions’ DOR and phone calls. Petitioner attended the meeting, along with Officer Howard and Corporal Barcia. At this meeting, Petitioner stated that she disagreed with the DOR that Officer Sessions had issued her for November 19, 2003. Specifically, she disagreed with the ratings she received on the DOR. Petitioner was asked why she had not included her disagreements in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section of the DOR. After receiving no reply, Lieutenant Little instructed her that she could make those comments on the DOR, but that they would need to be initialed and dated accordingly. In the comments Section, Petitioner wrote: I had three phone calls, each one was no longer than three-four minutes. The phone calls were in regards to my children. (Staying in assigned post) Ofc[.] Sessions had me escorting I/M’s back and forth and taking paperwork to Ms. Morgan and other sections. When Ofc[.] Sessions was on the phone I would exit the main control room because I didn’t want to hear about his personal business. [Initialed: KM and dated 11-24-03] With regard to her complaints regarding Officer Sessions’ personal phone conversations, Petitioner was very vague in her recount at the meeting. Lieutenant Little asked Petitioner to state with particularity her complaint. She was asked to reduce her complaints to writing and to be as factual and detailed as she could so that Lieutenat Little could properly investigate the matter. Petitioner claims that Lieutenant Little instructed her not to be detailed about the incident. However, Petitioner’s recollection is not given any weight. He instructed her to write the incident report at a sergeant’s desk that was available to write her report. Corporal Barcia sat in the room with Petitioner while she wrote the report since the office was also used by him. Petitioner claimed she felt intimidated by the presence of Corporal Barcia. However, Corporal Barcia did nothing to intimidate her. He did not ask questions about her report or read her report. Petitioner’s testimony regarding her feelings of intimidation is not credible. Lieutenant Little forwarded the report up the chain of command to Captain Smithey. Officer Sessions was disciplined for his conduct and reprimanded in writing regarding his unprofessional phone conversations of November 19, 2003. Officer Sessions was also required to write a letter of apology to Petitioner. The letter of apology was also placed in Officer Sessions’ personnel file. Petitioner testified she never received Officer Sessions’ letter of apology. At some point after his return from vacation, Lieutenant Little received Petitioner’s memo requesting leave from work. After he reviewed the memo and noted Petitioner’s statements regarding Ms. Jackson’s approval, Lieutenant Little contacted Ms. Jackson regarding Petitioner’s claim. Ms. Jackson told Lieutenant Little that she had not given any such approval and would not have done so since she did not have the authority to grant leave. Based on the information from Ms. Jackson and the fact that Ms. Jackson has no authority to approve leave requests for any Columbia County Sheriff’s Office employees, Lieutenant Little concluded that Petitioner was untruthful in her statements in the memorandum about time off. Such untruthfulness was a serious matter regarding Petitioner’s appropriateness to remain employed with the Sheriff’s Office. Lieutenant Little was also very concerned with the fact that Petitioner was already requesting time off since her attendance had been an issue in the past and she was being given a second chance for employment. In the meantime, as part of the field training program, Petitioner was assigned Officer Harris as her field training officer for a different shift. On November 28, 2003, only eight working days after being sworn in by the Sheriff, Petitioner became ill with a flu- type illness. There was no credible evidence that she was incapacitated by this illness to the point that she could not personally call her supervisor as the policy required. As in the past, Petitioner failed to report for duty and failed to properly call-in to her supervisor. This failure violated the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy for such absences. On November 29, 2003, Officer Harris, noted on Petitioner’s DOR that she exhibited unacceptable performance with regard to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures; namely, Petitioner needed to utilize the proper chain of command when calling-in. Petitioner wished to explain why she did not follow the call-in policy. Below Officer Howard’s comments, Petitioner inserted comments in a section of the DOR designated for field training officers’ use. Because her comments were in the inappropriate Section Petitioner was instructed to white-out the comments and to place them in the proper section titled, “Trainee’s Comments.” The original, whited-out statement read: The morning I called in Officer Howard was contacted first when I called main control. Mrs. Harris wasn't in yet and didn't have her number. When I called back at the main control, I was directed to speak with Corporal Green. The comments that Petitioner rewrote in the “Trainee’s Comments” Section on the same date were significantly changed by Petitioner to read as follows: The morning I was unable to come to work my husband contacted Ofc[.] Howard [and] was instructed to call Mrs. Harris[.] [W}hen he called Mrs. Harris wasn’t in yet so he was instructed to call back in 20 min[utes]. He was told to relay the message to me, for me to call Cpl. Green. I did so at 1:30 p.m. According to this account by Petitioner, she only made one phone call at 1:30 p.m. to her supervisor well-after the start of her shift and in violation of the Sheriff’s Office policy. Petitioner’s phone records reveal that five telephone calls were made on November 28, 2003, with four of them to the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Jail. Petitioner testified that her husband, Ralph Morgan, made the first three telephone calls, between the times of 5:39 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. Contray to her comments written on her November 29, 2003, DOR, the Petitioner testified that she telephoned the Jail two times that day, once at 6:24 a.m. and again at 1:20 p.m. However, Petitioner’s memory of the calls she made is not credible, given the more credible written statement she made on the DOR shortly after her absence occurred. Petitioner admits that none of the phone calls, either from Petitioner’s husband or herself complied with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy regarding sick leave. On December 2, 2003, Lieutenant Little sent a memorandum to Captain Smithey recommending that the Petitioner be considered for termination. Lieutenant Little formulated his opinion based upon: Petitioner’s past attendance problems with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office; her most recent failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy with regard to calling-in and attendance; and her untruthfulness with regard to her request for days off. As a result, and based upon the Sheriff’s recent imposition of strict probationary guidelines on Petitioner’s recent hiring Captain Smithey concurred in the recommendation. There was no evidence that either Little’s or Smithey’s actions were related to any complaint Petitioner had made regarding Officer Sessions. Captain Smithey forwarded the recommendation to the Sheriff. The Sheriff consulted with members of his command staff and reviewed Petitioner’s performance during her probationary period. The Sheriff determined that Petitioner had not satisfied the agency’s standards for the probationary period and had failed in the second chance he had given her. On December 3, 2003, the Sheriff withdrew the Petitioner’s appointment as a probationary Corrections Officer. At hearing, Petitioner admitted that the Sheriff’s decision to terminate her had nothing to do with her complaints to Lieutenant Little about Officer Sessions, but was rather based upon Petitioner’s failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedure. She felt that it was Lieutenant Little and other Officers who had conspired against her to get her terminated. However, there was no credible evidence to demonstrate that such a conspiracy existed. After Petitioner’s termination she contacted the Sheriff to schedule a meeting to discuss her termination. At that meeting, Petitioner spoke with the Sheriff about her complaints regarding Officer Sessions and the issues she had with her DORs. The Sheriff was unaware of the issues she had with Sessions. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that her DOR had been altered or whited-out because she had made complaints to her supervisor in it. Petitioner brought with her to the meeting correct DORs from Officer Sirak as well as the November 29, 2003, DORs. Petitioner told the Sheriff that she believed her DORs were altered in retaliation for a complaint she had made to one of her supervisors. The Sheriff testified that Petitioner did not talk to him about anything with regard to Officer Sessions or sexual harassment during the post-termination meeting. The Sheriff explained to Petitioner that his decision to terminate her was based upon her failure to follow Columbia County Sheriff’s Office procedures. With regard to Petitioner’s DORs, the Sheriff made copies and told her that he would look into her concerns. The Sheriff investigated Petitioner’s concerns, but discovered that all of the DORs that had been changed were changed in order to correct errors made on them. There was no credible evidence to the contrary regarding these DORs. The Sheriff did not discover any reason to change his decision regarding Petitioner’s termination. During discovery, Petitioner originally claimed that it was her November 19, 2003, DOR that had been whited-out, and that she had physically witnessed Officer Howard white it out in his office. Petitioner later recanted her testimony and stated that it was in fact her November 29, 2003, DOR which had been whited-out. With regard to her November 29, 2003, DOR being whited-out, Petitioner changed her testimony to reflect that she witnessed Officer Howard white-out the DOR on November 29, 2003. Despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to explain her version of the facts with regard to who did what and when to her DORs, even her modified testimony is inconsistent with the facts on record. The record reflects that Officer Howard was not on duty on November 29, 2003. He was off for the holiday beginning on November 27, 2003. His time card reflects that he was on annual leave for the Thanksgiving holiday starting on November 27, 2003, and that he did not return to work until the following, Monday, December 1, 2003. The 29th was a Saturday and Officer Howard worked weekdays and did not go to the jail on the 29th. Regardless of the fact that Petitioner could not have seen Officer Howard white-out her DOR because he was not at work on the day she specified, Petitioner’s testimony with regard to the DORs themselves also proved to be inconsistent with the facts. Petitioner asserted that the reason her DOR was whited- out was that she had included comments regarding sexual language she had overheard Officer Sessions use on the night of November 19th. However, upon examination of the November 29th DOR in question, it was discovered that Petitioner did not mention anything at all with regard to sexual comments or Officer Sessions, but that the comments she had inserted were actually her attempts at justifying why she had failed to properly call-in to her supervisor the day before. As indicated earlier, the reason the comments were whited-out was that Petitioner had inserted them in a Section designated for field training officer use only. As a result, Petitioner was required to move them to the appropriate Section designated as “Trainee’s Comments.” At hearing, Petitioner produced, after her deposition had already been taken, a new DOR allegedly drafted on November 28, 2003, by Officer Harris. This DOR was not contained in Petitioner’s personnel file and it is not known where the newly discovered DOR came from. There is no record evidence, other than Petitioner’s own assertions, that Petitioner’s November 28th DOR is authentic. Suspiciously, Petitioner did not produce this document in response to Respondent’s Request for Production. Nor did Petitioner mention it in her Answers to Interrogatories. She testified that she did not find it in all her papers until after her deposition. Petitioner’s testimony regarding this newly discovered DOR is not credible. Finally, Petitioner offered evidence regarding purportedly similary-situated employees. These employees were Charles Bailey, Thomas Daughtrey and Chad Sessions. Officer Charles Bailey had been employed with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office two times in his career. During his first employment, Officer Bailey was terminated for attendance problems similar to the problems Petitioner experienced in her employment with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. When Officer Bailey was hired back, he was given strict probationary terms to abide by, including that he: be on time for all scheduled tours of duty; follow all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in procedures; and to generally abide by all Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures. During his second- chance employment Officer Bailey abided by all of the conditions set out for him. He did not abuse sick leave and he called-in properly pursuant to Columbia County Sheriff’s Office policy when he needed to take leave. Officer Bailey left the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office on good terms after his second employment. Officer Bailey is not similarly situated in any relevant aspects to Petitioner. Unlike Petitioner, Officer Bailey abided by all of his conditions upon rehire and properly followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy when he missed time. Officer Thomas Daughtry was a new employee and in the field officer training program. He was not a second-chance employee. During his training he missed several days, however, despite the fact that Officer Daughtrey missed some days during his training, Officer Daughtrey followed Columbia County Sheriff’s Office call-in policy every time he requested time off. Nevertheless, because he did in fact miss days during his training, Officer Daughtrey was given unsatisfactory reviews and was required to re-do part of his training. Because he properly called in and he was not a second-chance employee, Officer Daughtrey is not similarly situated to Petitioner in any relevant aspects. Officer Chad Sessions was employed two times with Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Both times Officer Sessions resigned under good terms. Petitioner has attempted to compare his second employment with that of her second, probationary employment, specifically with regard to a written reprimand Officer Sessions received for failure to follow call-in policy on September 10, 2004. When Officer Chad Sessions was given a reprimand for failing to call-in properly on September 10, 2004, he was not a probationary trainee. Rather, Officer Sessions was a Field Training Officer, and the reason he was unable to phone the jail was due to the phone outages caused by Hurricane Frances. Officer Sessions could not phone the jail and he could not be reached because of the high winds and heavy rain produced by Hurricane Frances. Because Officer Sessions was not a probationary employee, and taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances surrounding the incident, Lieutenant Little decided to issue him a written reprimand. Furthermore, there is no record evidence that Officer Sessions came to the Sheriff’s Office with a prior termination and a poor employment history similar to that of Petitioner. As a result, Officer Sessions is not similarly situated to Petitioner in all relevant aspects.
Recommendation Based on upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition For Relief should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2005, 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 8th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Katrina R. Morgan 4777 Shavesbluff Road Macclenny, Florida 32063 T.A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's statements as set forth in a letter dated April 30, 2001, are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida. At all times relevant here, the Florida Capitol Police was a division within Respondent's Facilities Program. The Florida Capitol Police is an accredited law enforcement agency. Its purpose is to provide building security and other law enforcement services. The State of Florida employs individuals in one of four distinct, statutorily defined services: Senior Management Service, Selected Exempt Service, Career Service, or Other Personal Services. At all times relevant here, the Director of Florida Capitol Police was an employment position that was classified within the Senior Management Service. Petitioner is a sworn law enforcement officer. On February 24, 1998, Respondent offered Petitioner an appointment to the position of Director of Florida Capitol Police. At that time, Petitioner understood that the appointment was to a position classified within the Senior Management Service. To the extent possible, Petitioner negotiated the terms of his employment. However, he understood that his position as Director of Florida Capitol Police included all of the benefits and all of the terms of employment of a position established within the Senior Management Service. He knew that he would serve at the pleasure of Respondent's Secretary, as the agency head, if he accepted the job. On February 25, 1998, Petitioner accepted the appointment to Director of Florida Capitol Police. He executed a document acknowledging that he was relinquishing his career service rights. From that time forward, Petitioner was compensated and evaluated as a Senior Management Service employee. He enjoyed all the benefits of his new position. Petitioner was the highest-ranking sworn law enforcement officer in the Florida Capitol Police, holding the "rank" of colonel. He did not report to any higher sworn law enforcement officer. As Director of Florida Capitol Police, Petitioner was responsible for leading and directing the operation of a statewide law enforcement organization, including the administration and oversight of a $6.2 million-dollar budget. Part of Petitioner's duties required him to maintain appropriate relationships with the Sheriff of Leon County and the Chief of the Tallahassee Police Department for support in joint operations when necessary. Petitioner was a member of the Florida Police Chiefs' Association, the State Law Enforcement Chiefs' Association, and the National Police Chiefs' Association. In 1999, a former employee of the Florida Capitol Police commenced a legal action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Respondent. The former employee alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment by the Florida Capitol Police, specifically by Petitioner. A trial was conducted in the lawsuit, Goldwich v. Department of Management Services, USDC ND Fla., Case No. 99-CV-512 (1999) in early February 2001. Petitioner testified as a defense witness at the trial. Several other Florida Capitol Police officers were interviewed as potential witnesses or called to testify at the trial. Respondent prevailed in the district court action. On February 2, 2001, Respondent's Secretary transferred the internal affairs investigation function of the Florida Capitol Police from the Florida Capitol Police to Respondent's Office of Inspector General. Thereafter, the Chief Investigator, Captain Joe Wallace, worked out of the Inspector General's office. On February 15, 2001, Petitioner and Respondent's Inspector General entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the "credentialing" of Chief Investigator Wallace. The purpose of the memorandum was to formulate and establish a commitment between the Office of the Inspector General and the Florida Capitol Police to support the training and educational requirements for sworn law enforcement personnel assigned to each entity. On March 2, 2001, Respondent's Office of the Inspector General received an internal complaint from Sergeant Edwin Maxwell, a subordinate officer of the Florida Capitol Police. Said complaint alleged that Petitioner had retaliated against Sergeant Maxwell for testifying at the Goldwich trial. Sergeant Maxwell's allegations also implicated Petitioner's subordinate, Major Robert G. Tippett, as having participated in the alleged retaliation. On or about March 7, 2001, Respondent's Inspector General instructed Petitioner to report to the Florida Capitol Building, specifically to the offices of the Governor's Chief Inspector General. Respondent's Inspector General, Chief Investigator Wallace, and an Assistant Florida Inspector General from the Governor's Office of Inspector General were present when Petitioner arrived at the Capitol. At that time, Petitioner was presented with a memorandum advising that he was the subject of a formal investigation. The March 7, 2001, memorandum stated that Respondent's Inspector General initiated the investigation pursuant to a complaint. According to the memorandum, the principal allegation that formed the basis of the investigation was that Petitioner had engaged in one or more of the following: retaliation, conduct unbecoming, and/or violation of law. Sergeant Maxwell's complaint and a copy of Section 112.532, Florida Statutes, was attached to the memorandum. During the March 7, 2001, meeting at the Capitol, Respondent's Inspector General advised Petitioner that he had a right to representation by counsel. After a brief discussion, Petitioner elected to seek private counsel. Later on March 7, 2001, Petitioner and his attorney returned to the Governor's suite at the Capitol. Upon their arrival, Petitioner was advised again of his rights under the law enforcement officers' and correctional officers' rights, which are codified at Section 112.532, Florida Statutes. Respondent's Inspector General and Chief Investigator Wallace then proceeded to interview Petitioner. Respondent's Inspector General inquired into the complaint against Major Tippett, performed an investigation, and issued an Executive Summary of the investigation dated March 22, 2001. This report concluded that Major Tippett's alleged violations related to conduct unbecoming, retaliation, and violation of law were unfounded. Respondent's Inspector General inquired into the complaint against Petitioner, performed an investigation, and prepared a draft report of the investigation. After consulting with the Chief Inspector General in the Office of the Governor, Respondent's Inspector General issued an Executive Summary of the investigation dated March 26, 2001. This report concluded that Petitioner had engaged in conduct unbecoming. The report also concluded that other alleged violations by Petitioner, including retaliation and violation of law, were unfounded. According to the March 26, 2001, Executive Summary, Respondent's Inspector General recommended that Petitioner be removed from his position as Director of Florida Capitol Police. The report states as follows in relevant part: This recommendation is made after carefully considering the following factors and informed by the fact that the Director serves entirely at the discretion of the secretary: The previous OIG report related to Capitol Police and the issues raised therein. (See attached) The finding of the jury in the US District Court case, filed by Officer Lisa Goldwich, that her working conditions were made so intolerable, by the defendant, that she was forced to resign. (See attached) The finding of "conduct unbecoming an employee/officer" contained in the report above. The likelihood that future retaliation will be attempted against those individuals who participated in the Goldwich trial and against those who testified in the OIG investigation reported above. The ongoing morale problem within the Florida Capitol Police. Subsequently, Respondent's Inspector General prepared a Memorandum of Investigation dated April 2, 2001. This memorandum states again that allegations against Petitioner relative to retaliation and violation of law were unfounded but that allegations relative to conduct unbecoming were founded. The April 2, 2001, memorandum cites Respondent's Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 3.27, Discipline of Career Service Employees, as it relates to conduct unbecoming a public employee. It also cites to Section 110.403(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for the proposition that Respondent's Secretary had discretion to discipline Senior Management Service employees. On or about April 3, 2001, Petitioner and Major Tippett filed a civil suit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Case No. 01-821. This suit included an Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. It alleged violations of Sections 112.532, 112.533, and 112.534, Florida Statutes. Petitioner subsequently voluntarily dismissed this civil action. On or about April 3, 2001, the General Counsel in the Office of the Governor, requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to review and complete Respondent's internal investigation. Thereafter, FDLE's Inspector General performed an investigation into the complaint against Petitioner and Major Tippett. FDLE's Inspector General eventually prepared an undated report of its review and investigation. The FDLE report states as follows in relevant part: As mentioned previously, the OIG report concludes that the alleged violations against Major Tippett were all unfounded. The alleged violations against Colonel Meek for (1) Retaliation and (2) Violation of Law were unfounded. The violation against Colonel Meek for Conduct Unbecoming was founded. Conduct Unbecoming a public employee is a violation of DMS Policy, Section 3.27(C)(2)(e). There is no definition of "Conduct Unbecoming" in DMS' policies or administrative rules. Based upon the interview of the subordinate supervisors regarding the statements made by Colonel Meek, the conclusions rendered by OIG are reasonable. Near the completion of the OIG investigation, IG Varnado prepared a draft report and discussed it with the Chief Inspector General, Marcia Cooke. The draft report did not contain any recommendation regarding a recommended action for the founded violation of Conduct Unbecoming. CIG Cooke instructed IG Varnado to include such a recommendation. IG Varnado recommended that Colonel Meek be removed from his position and discussed the recommendation with Secretary Cynthia Henderson. This RECOMMENDATION was included in the INVESTIGATIVE REPORT dated April 2, 2001. The RECOMMENDATION contained five cited reasons to support Colonel Meek's removal. The OIG investigative report does not specifically support reasons (1), (4), and (5). However, based upon the below recommendation, further discussion of these items is rendered moot. Generally, an investigation regarding possible administrative misconduct is handled independently from the determination to impose action following a sustained finding of a violation. IG Varnado acknowledged that he does not routinely recommend action following an administrative violation. However, according to IG Varnado, the rank of the person involved led him to seek assistance from the Chief Inspector General's Office. It is recommended that the RECOMMENDATION regarding the proposed administrative action be removed from the investigative report. The determination of any action resulting from the OIG investigation should be left solely to the discretion of the Secretary for the Department of Management Services. The FDLE report also addresses Respondent's violations of Sections 112.532(1)(b), 112.532(1)(g), and 112.533, Florida Statutes, which were the subject of the civil suit filed by Petitioner and Major Tippett. The report concludes that these statutory provisions were applicable to Major Tippet but that the question whether they were applicable to Petitioner, as the head of the Florida Capitol Police, was also the subject of the civil suit. By letter dated April 30, 2001, Respondent's Secretary advised Petitioner that the investigation of Sergeant Maxwell's complaint was complete. The letter states as follows in relevant part: [B]ased on the investigation conducted by the DMS Inspector General, as reviewed and completed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Inspector General, it has been determined that allegations against you relating to retaliation and violation of law are unfounded, and that allegations against you relating to conduct unbecoming a public employee are founded. Attached hereto for your reference is a copy of the pertinent report of the FDLE Inspector General's Office. As set forth in the attached report (page three), the basis for the conclusions that you are guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee is that you made statements in the days or weeks following the trial of the civil suit filed by former officer Lisa Goldwich to subordinate officers regarding the removal of duties involving Sgt. Maxwell--who testified for the plaintiff at the trial--and possible adverse action for him and others who testified. Because of this conduct unbecoming a public employee, you are hereby suspended without pay for a period of fourteen (14) days, after which you will return to your post. You are also hereby required to participate in supervisor training with (sic) ninety (90) days. Respondent's agency head, in the exercise of her discretion, made the ultimate decision to suspend Petitioner. In taking the disciplinary action, the agency head did not reference or assert any reliance on career service rules to support Petitioner's discipline. The April 30, 2001, letter was not disseminated to other agencies or to other Senior Management Service employees. The agency head's April 30, 2001, letter was an action taken exclusively regarding Petitioner. It did not affect or impact any other agency, employee, or class of employee. The administration of personnel matters regarding Respondent's Senior Management Service employees did not change following Petitioner's April 30, 2001, discipline. Respondent has not promulgated rules regarding the discipline, suspension, or termination of Senior Management Service employees because such rules are not required. Petitioner resigned his appointment as Director of Florida Capitol Police on July 31, 2001. He is no longer employed by the State of Florida.
