The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black West-Indian male. Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of Florida responsible for operating the public schools in Broward County. Petitioner obtained a temporary teaching certificate from the Florida Department of Education in 2017. In October 2017, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a teacher at Walker Elementary School. As a new teacher, Petitioner was a contract employee subject to a probationary period of one school year. During the probationary period, Petitioner could be dismissed without cause or resign without breach of contract. Petitioner worked at Walker Elementary School, where he did not have his own classroom, but worked with special-needs children in different classrooms, until the end of the 2017-2018 school year. There were no teaching positions available at that school for the 2018-2019 school year. In August of 2018, Petitioner was transferred by Respondent to Mirror Lake, where he filled a first-grade teaching vacancy. Andrea Gresham was the team leader for first-grade teachers at Mirror Lake. As a new teacher, Petitioner was assigned a mentor to assist him in acclimating to the duties of his position. In addition to being the team leader for all first-grade teachers at Mirror Lake, Ms. Gresham was also Petitioner’s designated mentor. Petitioner reported for work at Mirror Lake on August 7, 2018. At that time, Ms. Gresham took Petitioner on a tour of the campus. She also provided Petitioner with sample lesson plans and homework for the students. Throughout the week, Petitioner prepared for the first day of school for students with Ms. Gresham’s help. These preparations included Ms. Gresham reviewing procedures related to beginning-of-year testing, student homework, teacher planning, and student dismissal at the end of the school day. It was Ms. Gresham’s habit to keep dated notes relevant to her duties as a mentor and team leader. As a best practice, she regularly met with Principal Veliz to discuss the progress of new teachers. Ms. Gresham kept contemporaneous notes of her interactions with Petitioner and kept Principal Veliz advised of her observations. Ms. Gresham observed that Petitioner was not engaged within the team of first-grade teachers and had a difficult time grasping school procedures despite her attempts to guide him. The typical first-grade student is six years old at the beginning of the school year. Given how young these students are, the protocol at Mirror Lake requires teachers to take extra care to ensure that the students are directed to the correct mode of transportation during dismissal. Ms. Gresham explained the dismissal procedures and emphasized their importance to Petitioner on more than one occasion leading up to the students’ first day of school. Each first-grade student is given a lanyard that is color-coded to correspond to that student’s teacher. Teachers are responsible for writing each child’s mode of transportation, as provided to the teacher by the child’s parents, on his or her lanyard every day. At the end of the school day, the children are sorted by their mode of transportation and escorted by a designated teacher or paraprofessional. The students are categorized as: car riders, bus riders, walkers, or attendees of the on-site after-school program. August 15, 2018, was the first day of the school year for students at Mirror Lake. At the end of the school day, Petitioner, along with all of the other first-grade teachers, was responsible for assisting his students in reporting to the appropriate location for their respective modes of transportation. On August 15, 2018, Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were both assigned to the car-rider group. While Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were in the car-rider pickup area, Ms. Gresham became aware that a student was missing when a visibly upset parent exited his vehicle having learned that his child was not present for pick-up. Ms. Gresham sought help from the school resource officer and other teachers in an effort to locate the missing student. Principal Veliz testified credibly that this was the first and last time a student was unaccounted for at dismissal at Mirror Lake. Ms. Gresham asked to see the transportation log that Petitioner had compiled for his students to determine how the child was supposed to go home and where the mistake may have occurred. In reviewing Petitioner’s transportation log, Ms. Gresham noticed that the log had some children’s names listed under two different modes of transportation for the same day. As a result, Petitioner’s transportation log did not add any clarity to the situation. Meanwhile, teachers continued to search the campus for the missing student and the school resource officer escorted the father of the missing student to the office to speak with Principal Veliz. Once the student dismissal process was complete for the day, Principal Veliz convened a faculty meeting. During the meeting, the faculty learned that a second student from Petitioner’s class was missing. Principal Veliz adjourned the faculty meeting and assembled the team leaders in the office to assist in locating the two missing students. Petitioner returned to his classroom and did not join the effort to locate the missing students. The team leaders proceeded to call private daycares to ask if the missing students may have been transported to such a facility by mistake. Through these phone calls, both of the missing students were located at the same daycare. Thereafter, the children were reunited with their parents. Principal Veliz met with the parents of the children who had been mistakenly sent to the wrong location on August 15, 2018. Principal Veliz personally paid for the daycare center’s charges with respect to one of the students who had been inadvertently sent there. Principal Veliz testified that the parents were upset that their children had been misplaced and that the parents of one of the children requested a transfer to another first-grade teacher. Ms. Gresham had the opportunity to examine the lanyard belonging to one of the students who had gone missing during dismissal. She observed that Petitioner had written on the lanyard that the student was to ride the bus that day, although the parents had previously informed Petitioner that the student was to be picked up by car. In conducting a routine observational visit to Petitioner’s classroom during the first week of school, Principal Veliz observed conditions that she considered of urgent concern with respect to Petitioner’s academic practices and overall classroom management. She observed a lack of structure, including students in Petitioner’s class wandering around the room and playing with pencils as though they were swords without any redirection. Principal Veliz also observed that Petitioner was using obsolete and ineffective teaching methods. Principal Veliz contacted the school district’s employee relations and talent acquisition office to discuss Petitioner’s employment status. Principal Veliz was notified that Petitioner was still within his one-year probationary term, and that his employment could be terminated without a formal hearing or progressive disciplinary measures. Principal Veliz made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment prior to the end of his probationary status based on his unsatisfactory performance. Principal Veliz obtained a form letter from the school district’s human resources department, which she modified to fit Petitioner’s circumstances. The letter was dated August 23, 2018. The letter stated that Petitioner’s name would be submitted to the next School Board meeting for termination of employment during a probationary period and that Petitioner could choose to resign in lieu of termination. Petitioner chose not to sign the document. Petitioner’s employment was terminated at the next meeting of the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER 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 16th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Rudyard Julius 19101 Northwest 11th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029 (eServed) Michael T. Burke, Esquire Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (eServed) Cheyenne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Miller is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to this case, Respondent has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 1914 21st Street, Vero Beach, Florida and which has twenty-four residents. James Valinoti is a program analyst employed by the Department. As a part of his job duties, Mr. Valinoti performs surveys to determine whether or not an ACLF is in compliance with Department regulations. On or about February 4, 1986, Mr. Valinoti visited the Miller ACLF to perform a survey. Mr. Valinoti went unannounced to the facility and asked to see the administrator in charge. The facility and its records were inspected. Mr. Valinoti asked to see the Respondent's Disaster Preparedness Plan. The administrator in charge was unable to readily locate it but did so eventually. The plan provided to Mr. Valinoti on February 4, 1986, dealt only with hurricane preparedness. As of February 4, 1986, Respondent's employee records did not have current written statements from physicians to verify the employees were free of communicable disease. The residential contracts utilized by Respondent on February 4, 1986, did not contain a refund policy in the event of the closure of the Miller ACLF. Respondent did not have a written policy and procedure for assisting residents in making appointments or providing transportation to medical, dental, nursing or mental health services on February 4, 1986. The Respondent has had an unwritten agreement with its residents to provide such assistance and transportation at no additional charge. Respondent uses a daily appointment book to schedule and to monitor the residents' services needs. Respondent did not maintain written policies, specific to the Miller ACLF, for providing proper nutritional care. Respondent utilized several general reference guides with regard to nutrition. The Miller ACLF employs a cook who is responsible for preparing food, and an administrator responsible for ordering food. Susan Miller and Ernest J. Miller, Jr. claimed that they were the ones responsible for total food service. The Millers attended a food service seminar conducted by the Indian River County Health Department. As of February 4, 1986, no Miller employee had attended the food service educational seminar conducted by the Department. The Department offers an in-service seminar which covers all aspects of food service from hygiene to nutrition. It is the Department's position that attendance of this course is required. The Miller ACLF offers therapeutic diets as may be ordered by a resident's physician. As may be appropriate, information regarding a resident's dietary restrictions are kept in the resident's file. The Miller ACLF offers a variety of foods. The foods are prepared by a cook who has considerable experience. Recipes are available in the kitchen area but whether or not they are used by the cook and whether they are appropriate was not established. There is no evidence in the record to determine whether the foods prepared are adapted to the habits, preferences and physical abilities of the residents. Menus are prepared and used in cycles. The menus are rotated and cross-referenced on a calendar to reflect which week a specific menu will be used. The southeast corner bedroom of the Miller ACLF has a window which opens into the dining room. On February 27, 1986, the Department wrote to Miller to cite deficiencies found during the survey conducted on February 4, 1986. This letter was received by Miller on or about March 15, 1986. Of the twenty-three deficiencies originally cited by the Department in this notice dated February 27, 1986, Miller corrected thirteen. On June 26, 1986, Mr. Valinoti revisited the Miller ACLF to perform a follow-up survey. The facts as set forth above correctly describe the facility and conditions material to this case as of the follow-up visit. Subsequent to the follow-up survey, Susan Miller and Ernest J. Miller, Jr. attended the food service educational program offered by the Department. Subsequent to the follow-up survey, the Miller ACLF required its employees to obtain letters from doctors stating the employee was free of communicable disease.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order finding the Respondent in violation of paragraphs (3)(a), (c), (e), and (h) of the Administrative Complaint, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $600 ($150 per violation), and dismissing all other claimed deficiencies. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 25th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4770 Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 is accepted as addressed in finding of fact paragraphs 4 and 17. Paragraph 2 is accepted to the facts set forth but is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a violation. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as commentary or argument without an appropriate factual basis. Paragraph 5 is accepted as to the facts. Paragraph 6 is accepted as to facts but, again, as a matter of law, is insufficient. Paragraph 7 is rejected for the reasons explained in the conclusions of law. Paragraph 8 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Paragraph 10 is accepted to the extent the parties agree the window exists. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence presented. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue North Tower Suite 526 Miami, Florida 33128 Charles E. Garris, Esquire 2205 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of premiums paid for life insurance coverage during the 2013 plan year.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state employee with over 30 years of public employment. Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance (Division), is the state agency charged with administering the state group insurance program. Pursuant to section 110.123(5), Florida Statutes, its duties include determining the benefits to be provided to state employees and the contributions to be required for the state group insurance program. The Department of Management Services is also authorized, pursuant to section 110.161, to administer a pre-tax benefits program that allows employees’ contributions to premiums be paid on a pre-tax basis, and to provide for the payment of such premiums through a pre-tax payroll procedure. Among the insurance products available to state employees are group health insurance, basic group term life insurance, and optional group term life insurance. At the crux of this case is the premium to be paid for group term life insurance. Basic insurance is noncontributory insurance (meaning the employer pays the premium) for full-time employees and is contributory insurance (meaning the employee pays the premium) for part-time employees. Optional insurance is contributory insurance for all employees. At the time relevant to this proceeding, career service, university system support staff, senior management, and select exempt service employees, as well as active state senators and representatives, were entitled to a basic group term life insurance benefit of $25,000. For retired vested legislators, the basic group term life benefit was $150,000, and for retirees who were not vested legislators, the benefit was either $2,500 or $10,000. Optional group term life insurance was also available to active employees enrolled in basic term life. This insurance coverage was available for purchase up to seven times an employee’s annual earnings, to a maximum of $1,000,000. Both basic and optional life insurance are provided through Minnesota Life. The opportunity to enroll in or make changes to insurance coverage occurs during open enrollment each year. During open enrollment in 2012, Petitioner made selections for the 2013 plan year, which corresponds with the calendar year. Among his selections, Petitioner opted to continue his optional life insurance coverage at four times his annual salary. To make his selection, Petitioner used the People First System. The Minnesota Life screen shot for determining the premium for coverage contains the following information: Determining the cost To determine the new monthly cost of changing your Optional Life coverage, please follow the example below: How is your monthly premium calculated? Your annual earnings = Basic amount Choose the salary multiple of one = to seven times your annual Optional multiple earnings Multiply your basic amount by your = optional multiple and round to the Coverage amount next higher thousand Divide your coverage amount by = 1,000 $1,000 increments Of coverage From the table on the right, find = the rate that corresponds with Rate from table your age X Answer from #4 = Your monthly Insurance premium The table referenced above provides the premium rates based on age bands, such as under age 30, 30-34, 35-39, etc. For ages 55-59, the rate is $0.335. From 60-64, the rate is $0.613. Below the rate/age table is the statement, “[r]ates increase with age and all rates subject to change.” However, nothing in the worksheet indicates that the rate changes during a plan year if the insured has a birthday that puts the employee in a different age band. Based upon his completion of the worksheet in People First, the monthly premium for the optional life insurance selected by Petitioner was $81.08. Petitioner received a document entitled “State of Florida Confirmation of Benefits for 2013 Plan Year.” The Confirmation of Benefits document confirmed that for the 2013 plan year, Petitioner’s monthly cost for optional life insurance would be $81.08. For the first two months of 2013, the expected amount of $81.08 was deducted from Petitioner’s salary. However, beginning in March 2013, for the coverage beginning in April 2013, the premium increased from $81.08 to $148.36, a difference of $67.28 per month.1/ Petitioner did not receive any specific notice regarding the change in policy premiums. He did not notice the difference in his net pay immediately because his salary is subject to additives, and it was not unusual for the net pay to vary from month to month. Employees do not automatically receive a copy of their pay stubs. They must affirmatively retrieve them electronically from a Department of Financial Services website. Petitioner first called the People First information line on August 27, 2013, to inquire regarding the increase in premiums. He followed up with a letter dated September 10, 2013, asking for a refund of the amount deducted from his salary in excess of $81.08 a month. On September 12, 2013, the People First Service Center responded to his request by stating that the increase was a “Significant Cost Increase Qualifying Status Change (QSC) event,” and that inasmuch as Petitioner did not request a decrease in coverage level within 60 days of the QSC event, any change to his benefits would have to wait until open enrollment. The letter referenced Florida Administrative Code Rule 60P-2.003, stating, We are charged with the responsibility of administering the State Group Insurance Program pursuant to these state regulations, as well as the federal regulations. The rules pertaining to changes in health plans are found in Chapter 60P-2.003 which states: “An employee may elect, change or cancel coverage within thirty-one (31) days of a Qualified Status Change (QSC) event if the change is consistent with the event pursuant to subsection 60P-2.003(7), F.A.C. or during the open enrollment period.” While the letter purports to quote the rule, rule 60P- 2.003, the language above does not actually appear as quoted in the rule. Rule 60P-2.003 states in relevant part: An employee enrolled in the Health Program may apply for a change to family coverage or individual coverage within thirty-one (31) calendar days of a QSC event if the change is consistent with the event or during the open enrollment period. * * * All applications for coverage changes must be approved by the Department, subject to the following: The Department shall approve a coverage change if the completed application is submitted to the employing agency within thirty-one (31) calendar days of and is consistent with the QSC event. Documentation substantiating a QSC event is as follows: If changing to family coverage, proof of family status change or proof of loss of other group coverage is required. If changing to individual coverage, proof of family status change or proof of change of employment status is required. If adding an eligible dependent to family coverage, proof of family status change is required. If terminating coverage, proof of family status change or proof of employment change is required. On September 23, 2013, Petitioner sought a Level-II appeal, forwarding all of his correspondence to the Division. On October 11, 2013, Barbara Crosier, Director of the Division, wrote to Petitioner and advised that his Level-II appeal was denied. The letter cited rule 60P-2, and stated that Petitioner needed to have acted within 31 days of the QSC event if the change was consistent with the event, or wait until the open enrollment period. The letter provided Petitioner with notice of his right to a hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and on November 6, 2013, Petitioner filed a request for hearing that resulted in these proceedings. Both the correspondence from People First and the letter from Ms. Crosier refer to a qualifying status change. However, the definition of a QSC event in rule 60P-1.003(17) does not include a change in age band. The events identified in the rule are “the change in employment status, for subscriber or spouse, family status or significant change in health coverage of the employee or spouse attributable to the spouse’s employment.” There is a table available somewhere through People First2/ entitled “State of Florida Qualifying Status Change Event Matrix.” The matrix identifies changes in status, the type of documentation required, and the options available to the employee. There was no evidence presented indicating that the matrix has been adopted by rule and in some instances, the matrix is inconsistent with both section 110.123 and rule 60P-1.003. Petitioner did not see this matrix when making his insurance selections during open enrollment. Included in the matrix as a category of QSC events is a category entitled “Significant Cost Changes.” Under this category, the grid identifies “[p]remium increase or decrease to subscriber of at least $20 per month as a result of a change in pay plan (e.g., Career Service to SES), FTE (e.g., part-time to full-time), LWOP, FMLA, legislative premium mandates, Optional Life age banding, etc.” The category “significant cost changes” is not identified as a QSC event in rule 60P-1.003(17). Footnote four of the matrix states, “[t]he period of time to make allowable changes to benefits, as defined by the IRS. All QSC windows are 60 days unless otherwise specified.” Footnote four is appended to text within the cell for information related to a change in marital status, which states “60-day QSC window4.” Petitioner credibly testified that he was not experiencing any change to marital status, so did not believe that the information identified in footnote four would necessarily relate to his circumstances. On December 19, 2008, the Division published the State of Florida Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan with a Premium Payment Feature, a Medical Reimbursement Component, and a Dependent Care Component (Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan), which Petitioner submitted without objection as Petitioner’s Exhibit 10. This document is available on the DMS website but has not been identified as a rule. However, it is consistent with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 125, which authorizes cafeteria plans, and 26 C.F.R. § 125-4, which identifies permitted election changes in cafeteria plans. The Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan states: Establishment of Plan The Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance established the State of Florida Flexible Benefits Plan effective July 1, 1989. The Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance hereby amends, restates and continues the State of Florida Flexible Benefits Plan, hereafter known as the State of Florida Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan (“the Plan”), effective December 19, 2008. This plan is designed to permit an Eligible Employee to pay on a pre-tax basis for his or her share of premiums under the Health Insurance Plan, the Life Insurance Plan and the Supplemental Insurance Plan, and to contribute to an account for pre-tax reimbursement of certain medical care expenses and dependent care expenses. Legal Status This Plan is intended to qualify as a “cafeteria plan” under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code 1986, as amended (“the Code”), and regulations issued there under. The Medical Reimbursement Component of this Plan is also intended to qualify as a “self- insured medical reimbursement plan” under Code 105(h), and the Medical Care Expenses reimbursed under that component are intended to be eligible for exclusion from participating Employees’ gross income under Code 105(b). The Dependent Care Component of the Plan is intended to meet the requirements of Code 129. The Life Insurance Plan is intended to meet the requirements of Code 79. The Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan contained definitions for a change in status. Those definitions are consistent with the definitions in rule 60P-1.003(17), although more detailed in terms of description. The definition does not include a change in cost due to age banding. Section 4.3 of the Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan provides: Each eligible Employee’s Salary Reduction Agreement shall remain in effect for the entire Plan Year to which it applies, shall be irrevocable (except as provided in Sections 5.6, 6.4, and 7.4) and shall set forth the amount of the Participant’s Compensation to be used to purchase or provide benefits and the benefits to be purchased or provided. Sections 6.4 and 7.4 deal with a participant’s election to participate in the medical reimbursement component and the dependent care components of the plan and have no bearing on this proceeding. Section 5.6 deals with the irrevocability of the election under the premium component of the plan. The section states in pertinent part: In other words, unless one of the exceptions applies, the Participant may not change any elections for the duration of the Plan Year regarding: Participation in this Plan; Salary Reduction Amounts; or Election of particular component plan benefits. The exceptions to the irrevocability requirement, which would permit a Participant to make a mid-year election change in benefits and/or Salary Reduction amounts for this Premium Payment Component, are as follows: Change in Status: A Participant may change or terminate his actual or deemed election under the Plan upon the occurrence of a change in status, but only if such change or termination is made on account of, and is consistent with, the change in status. The Administrator (in its sole discretion) shall determine whether a requested change is on account of, and is consistent with, a change in status. Special HIPAA Enrollment rights. . . . Certain judgments, decrees and orders. . . . Medicare and Medicaid. . . . Significant Change in Cost or Coverage. A Participant may revoke a prior election with respect to pre-tax contributions and, in lieu thereof, may receive, on a prospective basis, coverage under another plan with similar coverage if any independent, third-party provider of medical benefits previously elected by the Participant either significantly increases the premium for such coverage, or significantly curtails the coverage available under such plans, during the plan year coverage period. (Note: if any mid- year premium increase by the third-party provider is insignificant, the Participant’s Salary Reduction election will be automatically adjusted by the Administrator or its agent. Significant Change in Coverage Attributable to Spouse’s Employment. . . . (emphasis added). None of the exceptions to irrevocability identified above apply in this instance. Section 5.2 of the Agreement addresses the Participant’s contributions and is the provision upon which Petitioner relies. It states in pertinent part: If an employee elects to participate in the Premium Payment Component the Participant’s share (as determined by the employer) of the premium for the plan benefits elected by the Participant will be financed by salary reductions. The salary reduction for each pay period is an amount equal to the annual premium divided by the number of pay periods in the plan year, or an amount otherwise agreed upon. . . . (emphasis added). Petitioner did not experience a QSC event. The Confirmation of Benefits received by Petitioner identifies the amount of premium Petitioner has agreed to pay and the benefit he was to receive for that premium. He elected optional life insurance coverage in accordance with the information provided to him on the People First screen. The statement “rates increase with age” can be construed, as Petitioner did, to explain the differences in rates reflected in the table described in paragraph 10. Nothing placed Petitioner on notice that upon achieving his 60th birthday, his premium would automatically increase to the next premium category. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the method of premium calculation described in paragraph 5.2 of the Salary Reduction Cafeteria Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a Final Order authorizing the refund of excess premiums in the amount of $605.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2014.
Findings Of Fact During the 1982-1983 school year, Jorge Valdez is a seventh grade student. He was assigned to Lake Stevens Junior High School for this school year. In October 1982, pursuant to a request from his physical education teacher, Respondent was counseled and issued strokes for being repeatedly late and for refusing to "dress out" for class. On two occasions in November 1982, pursuant to requests from his art teacher, Respondent was counseled and issued strokes for being disruptive in art class by walking around the room during class and refusing to participate in class activities. In December 1982, Respondent was suspended from school for three days as a result of an incident at the bus stop. When Respondent returned to school after his suspension, he was wearing a linked chain approximately three feet long hidden under his shirt. On the third day, he was caught using the chain to threaten another student. Respondent was given a ten-day suspension, and a conference was held with his mother. The Student Code of Conduct provides for expulsion of any student possessing a concealed weapon. As a result of his conference with Grizel Valdez, Jorge's principal agreed he would request a waiver of expulsion with an alternative placement instead. As of November 5, 1982, Respondent's grades in his six classes at Lake Stevens Junior High School were one C, one D and four Fs. In conduct, his grades were one A, one C and four Fs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Jorge Valdez to Petitioner's opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School North. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1983, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Grizel Valdez 4901 NW 173rd Street Carol City, Florida 33055 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether the allegations of the Petition for Termination of Employment are correct, and, if so, whether the Lee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Valarie Strawder (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a food service worker at Riverdale High School. On May 16, 2008, the Respondent became involved in an altercation with a 15-year-old male student ("J.T.") enrolled in the Riverdale Middle School. At the time of the incident, the middle school and high school were co-located on the same campus. For several years prior to the altercation, the Respondent had been the girlfriend of the student's father. According to the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent, the situation became tense after the man fathered a child by another woman, but the Respondent remained involved with him. The Respondent testified also without contradiction that for various reasons involving the other woman, her boyfriend's school-aged children did not like the Respondent and engaged in routine harassment of the Respondent. There was evidence that both the Respondent and the children had complained about each other to school officials. J.T. was described by one of the school's teacher's as "mouthy." The Respondent also testified as to physical damage that had occurred to her automobile, but the evidence was insufficient to attribute the cause of the damage to the children. The Riverdale cafeteria was designed to separate the dining areas from the combined kitchen and food service areas ("kitchen"). Doors from the kitchen to the dining area were locked from inside the kitchen to prevent unauthorized entry by students. Food was served through openings between the dining and kitchen areas. The openings ("windows") could be securely covered by rolling metal shutters mounted above the windows. At approximately 12:30 p.m., on May 16, 2008, J.T. was in the dining area and, through a window, was engaged in a conversation with Ludine Waters, a food service worker who was located in the kitchen. The Respondent entered the dining area from the kitchen, walked to the open window, and pulled down the rolling metal shutter located above the window through which J.T. and Ms. Waters were talking. The Respondent testified that she saw J.T. standing at the window, but was not aware that he was talking with Ms. Waters at the time the Respondent closed the window. Immediately after the Respondent closed the window, J.T. spoke to the Respondent and called her a "rude bitch" and a "bald-headed bitch." As the Respondent re-entered the kitchen through the secured doors, she replied "your mammy" to the student, apparently intending to convey a derogatory remark about J.T.'s mother. After the Respondent re-entered the kitchen, J.T. threw a beverage bottle through a window that remained open between the dining area and the kitchen. The Respondent then observed J.T. taking off his coat and stating that he would "beat her ass," indicating to the Respondent that J.T. was preparing to fight with her. The Respondent testified that she said to J.T., "if you think you can beat me, bring it." The Respondent also testified at the hearing that she believed that J.T. was "just playing," but the Respondent's subsequent interaction with J.T. does not support the Respondent's testimony. After the Respondent told J.T. to "bring it," J.T. proceeded towards the door into the kitchen and so did the Respondent. At the time both arrived at the door, it opened and the two began to fight. The evidence fails to establish who opened the door, but given that the door locks were designed to prevent students entering from the dining area, it is reasonable to presume that the door was opened from inside the kitchen. The physical altercation between the Respondent and J.T. was brief. Both the Respondent and the student struck and hit each other, and the student pulled off the Respondent's wig. The Respondent and J.T. were separated by a physical education teacher who was in the cafeteria at the time of the incident and who, upon observing the commotion, rapidly moved to quell the disturbance by pulling the student away from the Respondent. The Respondent has asserted that she was acting in self-defense at the time of the altercation, but the evidence fails to support the assertion. In addition to the doorway where the altercation occurred, the kitchen had a second exit that connected to a staff dining room towards the rear of the kitchen. The Respondent made no effort to go to the staff dining room where she could have avoided further interaction with J.T. Additionally, there was a telephone in the staff dining room and another telephone in the cafeteria manager's office. The Respondent made no effort to call for assistance or security prior to engaging in the fight with the student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the Respondent's employment as a food service worker. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. James W. Browder, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Findings of Facts The Respondent is a Food and Nutrition Assistant I with the Hernando County School District (District). Respondent worked at Springstead High School (SHS). She was responsible, among other things, for preparing the meals for the nearby charter school, Gulf Coast Academy, and for transporting those meals to the school once they were prepared. Respondent used a District van to transport meals from SHS to Gulf Coast Academy. On November 22, 2010, Respondent prepared the meals for Gulf Coast Academy and before leaving on her delivery run informed her supervisor, Elizabeth Rios, that the delivery van needed fueling. Ms. Rios advised the Respondent she should fuel the van after her delivery and to ask the “lady” for help if needed. Respondent made her delivery to the charter school and before returning to SHS, stopped at the maintenance complex to fuel the van as discussed with Ms. Rios. Respondent attempted to fuel the van at a gas pump but discovered she could not do so without a “blue key” which was needed to run the pump. Respondent left the pump to get assistance but did not remove the hose before pulling away. As a result, the hose broke away from the pump and was left hanging onto the side of the van. Respondent returned to the pump and reattached the hose to the pump. Respondent then called her supervisor, Ms. Rios. Respondent stated Ms. Rios told her to see Lori Drenth, Director of Food and Nutrition Services, about getting a blue key. Ms. Rios stated that Respondent told her the “lady” who could help with the fueling was on lunch so she would have to wait for her to get back to get help. She furthermore stated that when asked if everything was “OK,” Respondent advised that “someone” had broken the pump. She said nothing to Ms. Rios about her involvement in breaking the hose. Respondent next went to Lori Drenth’s office in the building adjacent to the maintenance building to see about getting help. Ms. Drenth phoned Christine Harvey in Maintenance for assistance. Ms. Harvey was not available, so Ms. Drenth left a phone message. She then called a secretary in Maintenance who advised that Ms. Harvey was likely at lunch with Stephanie Wood, Ms. Harvey's backup. Ms. Drenth then advised Respondent she would simply have to go back to Maintenance and find Ms. Harvey or Ms. Wood. Respondent said nothing to Ms. Drenth about the fact that she broke the pump by pulling the hose off with the van. Respondent returned to the pump, entered the maintenance building, and eventually located Ms. Harvey and Ms. Wood who had by that time returned from lunch. Respondent and Ms. Wood proceeded to attempt to fuel the van. Ms. Wood showed Respondent how to use the “blue” and “white” keys to turn the pump on, and then handed Respondent the hose so that she could fuel the van. When Respondent attempted to place the fuel hose in the van, the hose detached from the pump which caused gasoline to spill on the ground and on Ms. Wood's hands. Ms. Wood immediately shut the pump off and then called Ms. Harvey. Ms. Wood stepped away from the pump to make the call as she was concerned about causing a spark around the spilled fuel. Respondent did not say anything to Ms. Wood or Ms. Harvey about the pump being broken or that she had pulled the hose off with the van. Rather, Respondent told Ms. Wood that the hose was like that when she got there. When confronted the next morning by Ms. Rios about the broken hose at the maintenance fuel pump, Respondent finally admitted that she broke off the hose with the van. The pump cost $142.00 to repair. A review of the matter was conducted by the Food Services Department and the Safe Driver Committee pursuant to the Board approved Safe Driver Plan. Respondent acknowledged receipt and/or review of the Safe Driver Plan on August 23, 2010, as part of the Annual Procedures Review required of all employees. The Safe Driver Committee met on November 30, 2010, and December 14, 2010, and found Respondent in violation of Safe Driver Plan Section #35 - failure to obey any other driving law, regulation, or District procedure. The Committee also noted in its written report that Respondent "was not as truthful (about the incident) as she could have been." On or about December 17, 2010, the matter was referred to the District office for further review. Respondent was offered an opportunity for a pre- determination meeting to discuss the incident. The meeting was scheduled for January 6, 2011. Respondent received a copy of a letter dated January 4, 2011, from Heather Martin, Executive Director of Business, inviting her to the conference. She signed for receipt of same on January 4, 2011. The letter included copies of the documentation collected as part of the District’s investigation. The pre-determination meeting was held on January 6, 2011. Respondent was in attendance. Based upon the evidence obtained during the investigation/review of the matter and Respondent’s statements during the pre-determination meeting, the Superintendent determined that there was probable cause to discipline the Respondent and that he would recommend Respondent's termination to the School Board. The Superintendent advised Respondent of his determination and recommendation through his designee, Heather Martin, via her letter to the Respondent dated January 10, 2011. Additional Findings of Fact There is no question that Respondent made a series of mistakes on November 22, 2010. According to Respondent's testimony at hearing she failed to report the incident at the fuel pump because she was scared and she panicked. There is no evidence in this record to suggest that Respondent intentionally damaged District property or engaged in a premeditated plan of dishonesty. The most serious aspect of Respondent's behavior on November 22, 2010, was the potential danger she exposed other District employees to at the fueling station by not disclosing the broken hose. Again, although this was a serious omission, by all appearances it was the product of Respondent's panic rather than of deliberate thought. Other than Respondent's lapse of judgment on the day of the incident, all indications are that Respondent has been a dependable, loyal, and competent employee. Dating from April 2005, Respondent's job evaluation forms reflect satisfactory performance of her duties, an "accident free" history, and a willingness and desire to help other employees. There are food service positions at SHS that do not require employees to drive vehicles.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order: Reinstating Respondent to her position as a food service employee with the restriction she not be required or permitted to drive School Board vehicles at any time in the future; days; Suspending Respondent without pay for a period of 60 Requiring Respondent to reimburse the School Board the $142.00 cost for the repair of the fuel pump. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 26th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire School Board of Broward County 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Bryan Blavatt, Superintendent of Schools 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in May 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Sharon L. Pennington, contends that in September 1994, Respondent, School Board of Lake County (School Board), failed to accommodate her handicap, and it then unlawfully terminated her from employment as a food service assistant on account of her hearing disability. The School Board denies the charges and contends instead that it offered Petitioner an alternative position in the school cafeteria, but when Petitioner never responded to that offer, and she failed to report to work, it terminated her from employment. After a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission), which regretably took more than three years to complete, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on April 27, 1998. Petitioner, who is now forty-six years of age, suffered from hearing loss due to an episode of the measles at age three. She has worn a hearing aid in her left ear since the fifth grade and hearing aids in both ears since 1976. In 1993, she was diagnosed as having profound hearing loss. As such, she is a handicapped person within the meaning of the law. However, she did not disclose this handicap to her employer until 1994. Petitioner began working part-time for the School Board in September 1984 as a food service assistant in the cafeteria at Fruitland Park Elementary School in Fruitland Park, Florida. She became a full-time employee in 1986 and continued working in that capacity until her termination on September 13, 1994. Although not specifically established at hearing, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that the School Board employed at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year and thus is an employer within the meaning of the law. On January 5, 1994, Petitioner was given a leave of absence from work due to a back injury suffered while lifting a box of vegetables. She filed a worker's compensation claim and remained out of work due to that injury until March 21, 1994. While investigating that injury, the School Board learned for the first time that Petitioner had a hearing disability. Although her treating physician authorized her to return to work on March 21, 1994, Petitioner requested a second medical leave of absence for the remainder of "this school year" due to "loss of hearing in both ears." She supplied a note from a doctor to this effect. On May 10, 1994, the principal of the school, Ted Wolf, authorized Petitioner to take unpaid leave from March 7 through May 31, 1994, or the remainder of the 1993-94 school year. Petitioner contends that the School Board misunderstood the note from her doctor, and that he intended that she be allowed to take a leave of absence for not only the remainder of school year 1993-94, but also for the entire school year 1994-95. There is nothing of evidence to support this contention, and the doctor's note stipulated into evidence suggests otherwise. On April 25, 1994, Petitioner sent the following letter to Craig Longacre, risk manager for the School Board: I am writing to you to let you know I do plan to return to work this fall. However, I am still interested in the Jack Rabbit Job. Should a position ever does [sic] come open, I do hope that you will keep me in mind as I do know I can do that job. I'm an honest person, perhaps too honest. I'm trustworthy, I do my job. I've been interviewed with Vocational Rehab. last Thurs, 4-20-94. Mrs. Bateman explained to me that whomever hires me regardless of my hearing disability and they give me a job, they would get a tax credit for employing me. I will remain at Fruitland Pk. Elem. Cafeteria until I hear from you. I do hope you will not pass this over me. I know I can do Jack Rabbit. Please keep me on your list for this. During this same period of time, Petitioner orally advised the School Board that the noise levels in the dish room of the cafeteria were too high and aggravated her tinnitus. Accordingly, she asked that the School Board place her in another position. In response to Petitioner's letter, and to satisfy her concern regarding noise levels in the cafeteria, Longacre directed that a Sound Measurements Study for the cafeteria be prepared by an ESE Program Specialist, MeShelda Mosley. Using a Quest Sound Meter to measure sound in decibels in various locations throughout the cafeteria area, Mosley determined that the noise levels in the serving line were lower than in the dishroom, where Petitioner had been working. This advice was memorialized in a report dated May 11, 1994. After receiving this report, James R. Polk, Jr., Director of Human Resources, conferred with Mosley and Dr. Ziegler, an audiologist, and all agreed that the noise levels in areas other than the dishroom of the cafeteria were low enough so that Petitioner could continue working in another area of the cafeteria. On May 14, 1994, Polk responded to Petitioner's letter with advice that "at no time [has the Board] considered terminating [Petitioner]," and that it was "very much aware of [her] problem and want[ed] to find a solution that will be satisfactory to both [her] and to the [School Board]." The letter added that because Petitioner had been satisfactorily employed in a food service position for a long time, the School Board's first option "[was] to find a position in food services that will work at that school." It reaffirmed the Board's prior offer to place her in a position which required her to prepare salads rather than working in the dish room. Polk went on to say that if that position did not work out, the School Board would look at "other options." Finally, in response to a request by Petitioner that she be reassigned to the position of Jack Rabbit mail courier, Polk stated that there was no current vacancy in that position, and he could not displace a current employee to accommodate her. If, however, a vacancy occurred in the future, he promised he would consider Petitioner for the position. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner sent a letter to the school superintendent, Dr. Thomas Sanders, concerning the status of her health insurance and the use of the Sick Leave Bank while on a leave of absence. In addition, she pointed out that she had asked for another position, "should anything come open" when she returned, because the "cafeteria noise is bad for me." In response to that letter, on May 24, 1994, Polk and Longacre jointly sent a letter to Petitioner by certified mail in which they again "assured [her] that at no time has the [School Board] considered terminating [Petitioner]" and that "other options [were being] considered." Petitioner contends that she returned to work in a volunteer capacity for several hours in May 1994 to determine if she could satisfactorily handle the noise levels of another cafeteria position. Based on that experience, she says she could not "handle it." However, there is no documentary evidence, such as sign-in sheets, to support this contention; the cafeteria supervisor and two co-workers denied that she returned to work as a volunteer during that time period; and it was established that it is contrary to school policy for a person on medical leave to return to work in any capacity. At hearing, Petitioner produced a copy of a letter dated "July 94" which she says was sent to Wolf's attention. In it, Petitioner advised him that she would "not be able to return to the lunchroom." She asked that he "look into" the possibility of her "doing the bookwork" in the lunchroom. If that was not possible, then until "anything else comes along," Petitioner asked that he "extend [her] leave of absent [sic] without pay, as it's listed in the School Board policy that if you work 3 yrs or more you can be granted up to 1 yr leave of absent [sic]." She added that if Wolf desired a doctor's note, he would have to go through her attorney in Ocala, who was then representing her on a worker's compensation claim. Wolf, however, never received the letter. On or about the same time, Petitioner says she sent a similar letter to the residence of Carla Lennon, the new cafeteria supervisor, in which she advised Lennon that she would not be able to accept the alternative position offered by the School Board due to a "fear for [her]self and others." She asked that consideration be given to allowing her to do the "manager's bookwork and all the inventories." She also advised that a doctor's note could be obtained "through [her] attorney" in Ocala. Like Wolf, Lennon never received the letter. On August 5, 1994, Wolf sent Petitioner the following letter: Greetings! It is that time of the year again. All Food Service Assistants are to report to work on August 12, 1994. Please plan on meeting with Carla Lennon, our new Food Service Manager at 7:00 a.m. I am looking forward to a great year. Hope your summer was restful. Petitioner received this letter on August 9, 1994. The following day, Petitioner sent a letter to Dr. James Hardy, an ear, nose, and throat physician, requesting that he prepare a note indicating her work restrictions. Dr. Hardy sent Petitioner a letter on August 12, 1994, stating that Petitioner "is capable of working at a job that does not require oral communication." There was no mention that Petitioner could not return to work during the following school year or that she could not tolerate the noise levels in the salad preparation area of the cafeteria. Petitioner did not provide a copy of this letter to the School Board. When Petitioner did not return to work on August 12 as directed by the school principal, on August 18, 1994, Wolf sent Petitioner the following letter: As of this date, August 18, 1994, you have not returned to work. I sent a letter on August 5, 1994 stating you were to return to work on August 12, 1994. When you failed to report, I called you to discuss your intent. You informed me you would have a doctor's statement on Monday, August 15, 1994. This has not been received as of this date. I attempted to provide an alternative work assignment in the lunchroom, such as making salads and working in the serving line. You once again informed me this would not be suitable. I have made every possible effort to accommodate you within the confines of your job responsibilities in the lunchroom. As a result, I am recommending to Dr. Sanders, your employment with the Lake County School System be terminated. This recommendation is based on School [B]oard [P]olicy: Absence Without Leave for Non- Instructional Personnel. A copy of this policy is attached. Petitioner acknowledges receiving this letter. On August 23, 1994, the superintendent sent Petitioner a letter by certified mail which advised her that he intended to accept the principal's recommendation and recommend Petitioner for dismissal at the next School Board meeting on September 13, 1994. Before such action was taken, however, Petitioner was offered the right to an informal hearing to refute the charges. Although Petitioner received both letters, she did not contact the School Board to see if her attorney had provided it with a copy of a doctor's note. She also did not exercise her right to have an informal hearing to refute the charges or seek a resolution of the controversy. Instead, she followed the advice of her worker's compensation attorney who surprisingly advised her to let the School Board terminate her. By action taken on September 13, 1994, the School Board terminated Petitioner's employment effective at the end of the workday on September 13, 1994, for violating School Board Policy GDBD - Absence Without Leave for Noninstructional Personnel. This action was taken on account of Petitioner's failure to comply with the foregoing policy and not because of any handicap. Although not pled in her Charge of Discrimination or Petition for Hearing, Petitioner has requested "payment for mental anguish of $200,000.00," "payment for loss of wages since her termination [of] $44,715.00," and "payment for loss of retirement of $100,000.00" and that the School Board "pay the taxes." Except for Social Security disability benefits, Petitioner has apparently been without income since her discharge in 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon L. Pennington 2512 Tecumseh Avenue Leesburg, Florida 34748 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire M. Catherine Wellman, Esquire Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
