The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's request for exemption should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks an exemption for employment in a position for which a security background check is required pursuant to Sections 435.03 and 435.04, Florida Statutes. 1/ Petitioner seeks employment in a position caring for children. On September 1, 1987, Petitioner pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine, a first degree felony under Section 893.135(1)(b)(1). Petitioner also pled guilty to possession of cocaine, within the meaning of Section 893.03(2)(a)(4). The court fined Petitioner $50,000, imposed court costs of $2,500, and sentenced Petitioner to 15 years imprisonment. The sentence was to be served by three years imprisonment and by 12 years probation. Petitioner served three years imprisonment, is currently completing her probation, and is paying the fine and court costs over time. The terms of probation, in relevant part, require Petitioner to submit to drug testing and to remain free of all drugs. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner tested positive for marijuana. Petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she is no longer a threat to those with whom she would interact if exempted. Petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she has been rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein DENY Petitioner's request for exemption. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 3rd day of June, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent (“Douglas Wiseman”) violated Petitioner, the School Board of Hernando County’s (“the Board”),1 drug-free workplace policy; and, if so, whether his employment with the Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the entire record in this proceeding, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Section 381.986, Florida Statutes (2019)2, pertains to the medical use of marijuana and allows patients suffering from chronic, nonmalignant pain to receive marijuana if they have been added to the medical marijuana use registry by a qualified physician. However, section 381.986(15)(a), provides that “[t]his section does not limit the ability of an employer to establish, continue, or enforce a drug-free workplace program or policy.” Also, 2 All statutory references shall be to the 2019 version of the Florida Statutes. section 381.986(15)(b), states that “[t]his section does not require an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marijuana.” The Board operates 24 schools, employs over 3,000 people, and has approximately 24,000 students. The Board maintains a drug-free workplace. On August 27, 2019, the Board revised its drug-free workplace policy in order to explicitly prohibit medical marijuana. The revised policy states, in pertinent part, that: [m]arijuana is considered a controlled substance under the Federal Controlled Substance Act. The Board does not distinguish between marijuana and medical marijuana for its policies. Use of marijuana in any form is prohibited. If a drug test result is positive for marijuana, the employee will be subject to disciplinary action per Board Policy 4139.01. The Board adopted the above-quoted revision in order to resolve any ambiguity regarding its position on medical marijuana following the passage of section 381.986. The Board’s revised policy mandates that employees who perform “safety-sensitive functions with Board-owned and/or operated . . . vehicles must be mentally and physically alert at all times while on duty.” Accordingly, the Board requires “the Superintendent to establish a drug and alcohol testing program whereby each regular and substitute bus driver, and any other staff member who holds a CDL license, as well as any staff member performing safety-sensitive functions, is tested for the presence of” alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, and PCP. (emphasis added). The revised policy further provides that drug tests can be conducted prior to employment, for reasonable cause, upon return to duty after drug or alcohol rehabilitation, after an accident, on a random basis, and on a follow-up basis. The revised policy states that “[t]he term safety-sensitive functions includes all tasks associated with the operation and maintenance of Board- owned vehicles.” The revised policy is silent as to whether maintenance employees or those operating power tools perform safety-sensitive functions. The Board also revised its disciplinary policy on August 27, 2019, to classify a positive drug test as a “Group IV” offense punishable by termination. However, that same policy also provides that [t]he Superintendent and the School Board retain the right to treat each incident of employee misconduct or performance deficiency on an individual basis without creating a precedent for other similar incident cases which may arise and to determine the appropriate disciplinary [measure] on a case-by-case-basis. The Board has a department responsible for maintaining its buildings and its fleet of approximately 50 vehicles. Mr. Wiseman has been employed with the Board for nearly 14 years as a Carpenter III. Mr. Wiseman is the Board’s head roofer and thus used ladders up to 36 feet in height on an almost daily basis. In addition, he performed carpentry work such as putting up drywall, installing ceiling tiles, and repairing doors and shelves. In the course of his duties, Mr. Wiseman regularly used power tools such as electric drills, circular saws, and nail guns that have the potential to cause injury if not properly handled. The Board assigned one of its fleet vehicles to Mr. Wiseman, and it was stocked with equipment and tools. He drove that vehicle every workday. While Mr. Wiseman had no responsibilities relating directly to students, the Board considered him to be in a safety-sensitive position due to the nature of his duties and because he drove a Board vehicle. Mr. Wiseman injured his back approximately two years ago, and the incident resulted in a workers’ compensation claim. Mr. Wiseman initially used muscle relaxers and pain medication to deal with the pain associated with his injury, but he could not tolerate the side effects. As a result, he became certified to receive medical marijuana in 2018. Mr. Wiseman has benefited greatly from this treatment and plans to continue using medical marijuana until he can live without pain. Mr. Wiseman only uses medical marijuana to treat his pain and did not use it during school/work hours. The Board convened a meeting of the maintenance staff on the morning of September 19, 2019, in order to discuss the revisions to the Board’s drug-free workplace policy. Because the Board considers maintenance to be a safety-sensitive function, the maintenance staff was put on notice that they would be subject to random drug testing and that random testing would start in 60 to 70 days. The Board did not impose immediate random testing because it wanted to give employees taking medical marijuana an opportunity to confer with their physicians and make arrangements to bring themselves into compliance with the revised policy. Mr. Wiseman attended the September 19, 2019, meeting, and he was required to give a urine sample on November 20, 2019. The Board received the positive test result on December 2, 2019, and immediately prohibited Mr. Wiseman from working on roofs and driving the Board-owned vehicle that had been assigned to him. The Board leveled several allegations against Mr. Wiseman and proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the following polices: (a) Policy 4124 which prohibits the use of any controlled substance by any staff member at any time while on Board property or while engaged in Board-related activities; (b) Policy 4139.01 Group II (6) which prohibits violations of known safety rules or practices; (c) Policy 4139.01 Group IV (2) which subjects a Board employee to termination for a positive drug or alcohol test; and (d) Policy 4162 which prohibits any Board employee with a positive drug test from driving any school vehicle or using Board-owned equipment.” The Board failed to prove the remaining allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Wiseman worked for the Board in a safety-sensitive position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hernando County issue a written reprimand to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 2nd day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. Suite 2700 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 3299-0400 (eServed) John Stratton, Superintendent The Hernando County School District 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601-2397
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida having been issued certificate # 84145 on April 23, 1991. Respondent was employed as a correctional officer with the Metro-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department ("M-D CR") beginning in April 1991. Prior to obtaining her certification as a correctional officer, Respondent worked for the State Corrections Department for approximately seven (7) years as a clerk and later as a technician. No evidence has been presented in this case as to any prior disciplinary action taken against Respondent or any other job related problems. By memorandum dated July 9, 1993, Respondent was notified of her biannual physical which was to include a drug/alcohol screening. The scheduled date for the physical and screening was August 5, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. On August 5, 1993, Respondent presented at Mount Sinai Medical Center for her physical. She filled out and signed a Consent & Release Form and a Specimen Collection Checklist & Chain of Custody Form. She then submitted a urine sample for testing. Respondent's urine sample was handled in accordance with a standard set of procedures for dividing, labelling and sealing the specimen. Respondent had an opportunity to observe the splitting of the sample and she initialed the containers after they were sealed. Respondent's urine specimens were transported by courier to Toxicology Testing Service ("TTS") for routine screening. The evidence established that TTS has adopted adequate procedures to track the chain of custody of the urine samples it receives and protect the integrity of the samples. There is no evidence in this case that there are any gaps or breaks in the chain of custody for Respondent's samples, that the integrity of the samples was ever compromised, that the testing procedures were not followed and/or that the equipment was contaminated or not working properly. After Respondent's samples were received at TTS, an immunoassay screening test was performed on a portion of one of the samples. That screening test was positive for the presence of cocaine at a level that was barely over the minimum threshold level of 50 Nanograms per milliliter. 1/ After the initial screening test was determined to be positive, Respondent's sample was analyzed with a confirmatory testing procedure which utilized gas chromatography/mass spectrometry ("GCMS"). 2/ On or about August 10, 1993, Dr. Terry Hall, Director of TTS, issued a final report indicating that Respondent's urine had tested positive for cocaine. Specifically, the Report stated that, upon analysis, the urine sample provided by Respondent tested positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, in a concentration of 71 Nanograms per milliliter. The TTS test results of Respondent's urine are consistent with the ingestion of cocaine because cocaine is the only drug commonly available that, when ingested into the human body, produces the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. While the testing by TTS demonstrated the presence of cocaine metabolite in Respondent's system, it does not establish how ingestion occurred. Absent proof that the drug was possessed or administered under the authority of a prescription issued by a physician or that the presence of cocaine metabolite could otherwise be lawfully explained, unlawful ingestion is a reasonable inference. However, it is also possible that the ingestion was involuntary and/or unknowing. 3/ M-D CR and Respondent were notified on August 11, 1993 that the urine sample Respondent provided on August 5, 1993 tested positive for cocaine. Respondent has not worked as a correctional officer since that date. Upon notification of the test results, Respondent vehemently denied using drugs. She took immediate steps to try to prove her innocence. Respondent contacted the Dade County Police Benevolent Association (the "PBA") which arranged for Consulab of Cedars of Lebanon Hospital to do a drug screen at the 50 Nanogram per milliliter level on a urine sample provided by Respondent. On August 12, 1993, Respondent provided a urine sample to Consulab. Respondent claims that the results of that test did not reveal the presence of cocaine or cocaine metabolite in her urine. 4/ The Consulab test result reported by Respondent is not necessarily inconsistent with the results reported by TTS because the levels detected by TTS were relatively small and any cocaine in Respondent's system could have been fully metabolized during the time between the two tests. On September 2, 1993, the PBA, on behalf of Respondent, requested a retest of Respondent's August 5, 1995 urine sample. Prior to the retest, Respondent was present and able to inspect the seal on the container from the split sample of her August 5, 1993 urine specimen. On or about September 9, 1993, Dr. Terry Hall issued a final report on the retest of Respondent's August 5 urine sample. The retest was positive for cocaine metabolite at a level of 67 Nanograms per milliliter. This result is consistent with the earlier GC/MS test result. On or about August 19, 1993, Respondent's employer, the M-D CR, issued a Disciplinary Action Report to Respondent based on the TTS reports. The Report advised Respondent that proceedings were being initiated to dismiss her from employment. On or about November 5, 1993, Director Charles A. Felton of the M-D CR dismissed Respondent from her employment with the M-D CR. By letter dated November 9, 1993, Commander Miriam Carames, Employee Discipline Coordinator for the M-D CR advised the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") of Respondent's termination. On or about November 22, 1993, Respondent wrote a personal letter to Director Felton explaining her side of the events leading to her termination and proclaiming her innocence. In accordance with the PBA's collective bargaining agreement, Respondent requested an arbitration hearing on her dismissal. The arbitration hearing on Respondent's termination was conducted on December 21, 1993. The decision of Arbitrator Charles A. Hall of the American Arbitration Association was rendered on February 1, 1994 and issued by letter dated February 9, 1994. That decision found that Respondent should be returned to full duty, without loss of pay, providing she agreed to six months of random drug testing. By letter dated May 3, 1994, Metro-Dade County Manager Joaquin Avino overturned the decision of Arbitrator Charles A. Hall and ordered Respondent dismissed from her employment with the M-D CR. That decision is currently being appealed. There is no evidence that Respondent has had any problems or difficulties in carrying out her responsibilities as a correctional officer. From Respondent's initial employment as a clerk with the state corrections department through her employment as a correctional officer beginning in 1991, Respondent has consistently been recognized as a professional, loyal and dedicated employee. Her job evaluations have always been satisfactory or better. Respondent received the State of Florida Department of Corrections, Circuit 11, Employee of the Year Award for 1988. She has further demonstrated dedication to her profession through continued training in the law enforcement field. Respondent's coworkers and supervisors testified that Respondent has a reputation for integrity, honesty and fairness in the treatment of inmates and coworkers. They also testified that she respects the rights of others, respects the law and has a reputation for overall good moral character and has never been observed to be impaired, or known to use drugs. Respondent is the mother of 3 teenage girls and has been very active in her Church. She has devoted substantial personal time and resources to community service. Respondent strongly denies taking or ingesting cocaine. Respondent provided no explanations at hearing for the positive test results. She was at a loss to provide a plausible explanation for what she perceives to be an aberration. Respondent presented the testimony of a number of witnesses who know her well to lend credence to her denial. Those witnesses testified credibly that Respondent is a person of good moral character who, among other qualities, has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and the character to observe the difference, has respect for the rights of others, has respect for the law, and can be relied upon in a position of trust and confidence. Those witnesses, who have known Respondent for an extended period of time commencing well before the incident in question, believe it is the antithesis of Respondent's character to have ingested or used cocaine. In summary, the results of the urinalysis create a suspicion of unlawful drug use. However, the test results alone do not conclusively establish unlawful use. The results could have been due to some unknown test failure or inadvertent ingestion. After considering the nominal amount of cocaine metabolite disclosed by testing, the evidence presented regarding Respondent's character, as well as her employment record, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent has unlawfully ingested cocaine. While no conclusion can be reached, with any degree of certainty, as to the reason for the positive test results, the test results cannot and should not be ignored. Without a plausible explanation for the test results, those results do raise some unanswered questions and doubts as to Respondent's character which do provide a basis for action by the Commission under its rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that there are some doubts regarding Respondent's moral fitness for continued service in accordance with Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c)4. In view of this finding, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years subject to random drug testing. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1995.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Valderrama was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida by the Commission on September 29, 2004, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 243605. From September 27, 2004, to November 9, 2007, Ms. Valderrama was employed by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. On or about October 17, 2007, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Ms. Valderrama reported to the Osceola County Sheriff's Office Administration Building for random drug testing pursuant to the terms of her employment and provided a urine sample under controlled conditions. A lab technician was the only other person in the restroom with Ms. Valderrama during the collection process. Ms. Valderrama provided the specimen by urinating in a sterile, previously unused specimen cup, which she subsequently provided to a lab technician who immediately sealed the sample. Neither the sample cup, nor the urine sample it contained, had been tampered with, altered, or adulterated since the initial collection of the urine sample and had remained sealed and maintained in the chain of custody until unsealed by a qualified laboratory personnel at Total Compliance Network, a licensed drug testing laboratory contracted by Florida Hospital Centra Care to conduct random employee drug screens for the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. The laboratory analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen was found by qualified Quest Diagnostic's laboratory personnel and a Total Compliance Network medical review officer to be positive for Cocaine metabolites in a concentration of 2046 nanograms per milliliter. The minimum level of detection for Cocaine is 150 nanograms per milliliter. On October 27, 2007, Ms. Valderrama discussed her test results with Dr. Seth Portnoy, the licensed medical review officer for Total Compliance Network. Ms. Valderrama could not provide Dr. Portnoy with any medical reason for the positive test result and did not challenge the positive test results. The procedures and methods employed in the handling and analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen provided reliable safeguards against contamination, a reliable chain-of-custody, and produced, through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, a reliable, scientifically-accepted measure of the concentration of Cocaine metabolite in the body. The laboratory standards and practices observed in conjunction with the collection, preservation, shipment, handling and analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen, for the purpose of testing for drugs, were in conformance with the applicable provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59A-24 and consistent with the requirements for reliability and integrity of the testing process pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.00225. Cocaine is rapidly metabolized by the body and can be usually detected for two to three days after ingestion. Because the minimum detection level for Cocaine is 150 nanograms per milliliter and Ms. Valderrama's test results showed a level of 2046 nanograms per milliliter, it was Dr. Portnoy's expert opinion that the tests results were indicative of ingestion of Cocaine. Dr. Portnoy's opinion is credited. Ms. Valderrama had drunk some herbal tea prior to giving her urine sample. She feels that the ingestion of the herbal tea could have resulted in the positive test for Cocaine. There was no expert testimony to establish that the ingestion of the herbal tea would result in the positive drug test. Additionally, based on Dr. Portnoy's credible expert opinion, the metabolite detected in Ms. Valderama's urine could only result from Cocaine. Cocaine is listed as a Schedule II controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Vivian Valderrama violated Subsections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and revoking her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of Alachua County School Board (School Board), should be dismissed for the reasons stated in the notification letter of November 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governing body of the School District of Alachua County, Florida. It operates 43 public schools and centers in Alachua County and employs approximately 4,000 persons. At all times material, Respondent was employed by Petitioner in the position of maintenance helper. He is a member of Petitioner's career service bargaining unit. Petitioner has a "drug free workplace policy" which is part of the collective bargaining agreement with a non- instructional bargaining unit. The policy was implemented in June 1993. Before that time, Petitioner gave notice to its employees of the drug-free workplace policy. Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy requires that, as a condition of continued employment, employees submit to drug screening when there is reasonable suspicion of substance abuse. Following a positive drug screening, the employee is given an opportunity to participate in a treatment program. The policy also provides that, after completion of the treatment program, the employee may return to work, but if there is a second positive drug test, the employee may be disciplined up to and including termination of employment. Petitioner's Human Resources Division has attempted to be consistent in administering the drug-free workplace policy. Any employee having a second positive drug test has been recommended for termination. Pertinent to this case, Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy provides: It is the intent of the Board to provide a drug-free Workplace. Drug-Free Workplace Guidelines The purpose of these guidelines is to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 34 CFR Part 85, Subpart F, which requires grantees to certify that they will maintain a drug-free workplace. When a reasonable suspicion exists, the Director of Employee Relations shall be contacted. The employee, if a member of a bargaining unit, shall be afforded the opportunity to have ACEA representation. The employee will be provided an opportunity to explain his/her condition. The employee will be provided with information regarding available drug counseling, rehabilitation, assistance program, and leave options. A rehabilitation contract including drug testing may be agreed upon. Failure to participate in a treatment program following a positive drug screening will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Due process will be followed. * * * 12. Employees who return to work after completion of a rehabilitation program shall be subject to follow-up drug testing with twenty-four (24) hour notification. Any employee who refuses the drug test or subsequently tests positive may be disciplined up to and including termination. (Emphasis supplied) Respondent's drug test reported on September 2, 1998, was positive for cannabinoids-THS and cocaine metabolites. Respondent entered into a rehabilitation contract with Petitioner on September 3, 1998. Respondent's entry into a rehabilitation program was not "voluntary," in that Respondent was required to enter a rehabilitation program in order to retain his public employment. The contract Respondent signed provided, in pertinent part, as follows. 2. Following release from the rehabilitation clinic/counselor and for a period of one year from that release, the employee agrees to random breath analysis or blood alcohol test upon notification and/or urine analysis within 24 hours of notification from the Director of Employee Relations. Positive results indicating alcohol and/or illegal mind-altering substances, following the initiation of this contract, is prima facie evidence of violation of this contract. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of this contract may result in termination of my employment with the School Board of Alachua County. (Emphasis supplied) In order to enter the agreed residential drug treatment program, Respondent twice applied for leave, which Petitioner granted. The last date that his leave would run out was October 30, 1998. Ms. Pamela Love-Knerr conducted an initial evaluation/screening of Respondent in September 1998, in preparation for his admission to the residential treatment program at Bridge House, a residential treatment program operated by Meridian Behavioral Health Care, Inc. She was a counselor at Bridge House until November 1998. However, she did not conduct group sessions at Bridge House after January 1998, when, due to her health problems, she was assigned to the night shift. In August 1998, she was assigned to the evening shift. Respondent entered the Sid Martin Bridge House on October 2, 1998, and was discharged or transferred from the residential program on Friday, October 23, 1998. Also on Friday October 23, 1998, Respondent telephoned the office of Catherine L. Birdsong, Petitioner's personnel supervisor, and her secretary made him an appointment to see Ms. Birdsong the following Monday about returning to work. On October 23, 1998, Respondent's Bridge House counselor of record was Larry Faulkner, not Ms. Love-Knerr. However, since the time of her initial evaluation/screening of Respondent, Ms. Love-Knerr had been the only counselor at Bridge House who maintained regular contact with Ms. Birdsong. On October 23, 1998, Ms. Birdsong believed that Ms. Love-Knerr was the counselor assigned to Respondent. While at Bridge House, Respondent had attended therapy meetings every day, and his urine tests had been drug-free. On October 18, 1998, Respondent and his counselor, Larry Faulkner, had agreed upon an "after care" program, to begin on November 1, 1998, consisting of a schedule of meetings of a men's group, an anger management group, Narcotics Anonymous, and Alcoholics Anonymous. It was planned that Respondent would not return to work until a week or two had passed, so that he could "get [himself] together." The period from October 23, 1998, to November 1, 1998, was intended by Respondent and his counselor, Larry Faulkner, as an interim between residential treatment and "after care." Normally, a client of Bridge House would participate in an "after care" program even after he returned to work. On October 23, 1998, after learning that Respondent wanted to return to work, Ms. Birdsong telephoned Bridge House and spoke to Pamela Love-Knerr. Ms. Love-Knerr told Ms. Birdsong that Respondent had completed the Bridge House residential program; that she was recommending an "after care" program for him; and that she was releasing him for work. Mr. Faulkner may not have been aware that Ms. Love- Knerr and Ms. Birdsong had spoken by telephone on October 23, 1998. Ms. Love-Knerr shared office space with Mr. Faulkner at that time, and because Bridge House was under-staffed, Ms. Love- Knerr was assisting him in getting caught up on his paperwork. Ms. Birdsong considered the written continuing care contract for Respondent, together with her October 23, 1998, telephone conversation with Ms. Love-Knerr, and determined that Respondent had completed the residential part of his rehabilitation; that he was in or would be in a "after care" program; and that he would be able to return to work immediately. Petitioner's decision to return an employee to work is normally made by the Petitioner's District Drug Free Workplace Coordinator after discussing it with the returning employee's drug/alcohol counselor. On Monday, October 26, 1998, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Respondent met, in person, with Ms. Birdsong at her office. They discussed his impressions of the Bridge House program and his desire to return to work. Because his leave was only approved through the end of that work-week, October 30, 1998, it was arranged, through a speaker-phone conversation with Respondent's immediate supervisor, that Respondent would return to work on Monday, November 2, 1998. Ms. Birdsong then sent Respondent for a follow-up drug test for return to duty. Ms. Birdsong informed Respondent that he should report for a drug test by 10:00 a.m., that morning, October 26, 1998. It is Petitioner's normal practice to require employees who are returning from a rehabilitation program to take a drug test prior to returning to work. Respondent went to Doctor's Laboratory of Gainesville as instructed, and provided a urine specimen for drug testing at 10:00 a.m. on October 26, 1998. Respondent's specimen was transported by courier to Doctor's Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia, where it was tested and confirmed positive for cocaine metabolites as benzozlecgonine. Doctor's Laboratory reported the test result to MRO Services, Inc., in Brunswick, Georgia. After a review of the test results and a telephone consultation with Respondent, the Medical Review Officer, Robert H. Miller, M.D., reported to Petitioner that Respondent's drug test was positive for cocaine metabolites.1 On November 2, 1998, Respondent met again with Ms. Birdsong. She explained to him that because of the positive result of his October 26, 1998, drug test, he might be recommended for termination. She gave him written notice to schedule a pre-termination conference within five days. On November 5, 1998, Respondent and his mother met with Synester P. Jones, Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, in a pre-termination conference. Ms. Jones explained the procedure for drug testing. She also informed Respondent in writing that, based on his second positive drug test, she would recommend suspension and termination. At its regular meeting on November 17, 1998, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent without pay, effective November 18, 1998, pending disposition of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Alachua County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent for violating its drug-free workplace policy and his rehabilitation contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011)1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(d), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Commission is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the certification, and the revocation of certification, of officers and instructors in the criminal justice disciplines. Ms. Lorrie Gerdon was certified as a Correctional Officer in the State of Florida by the Commission on June 8, 2009, and issued Correctional Certification #284320. Ms. Gerdon was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections from October 17, 2008, to January 19, 2011. Although originally employed as a Correctional Officer, Ms. Gerdon took a step down in assignment to a Clerk Typist due to a back injury sometime early in 2010. It was too hard for her to continue to wear all of the equipment that Correctional Officers must wear. She is still receiving payments from workers’ compensation and is under treatment for her back injuries. Lieutenant Georgiana Hand is employed at the Apalachee Correctional Institute in Sneads, Florida, where she has worked since about 1988. It is Lt. Hand’s responsibility to supervise the Corrections Officers, listen to Disciplinary Reports, and fill in for the shift supervisors when one of them is on leave. On January 14, 2011, Lt. Hand was the Officer in Charge, fulfilling the duties of a Shift Supervisor, insuring that Officers were posted at their assigned locations. Ms. Gerdon was assigned to a non-sworn position as a Clerk Typist in the Classifications Department. As Lt. Hand was posting the shift, Ms. Gerdon stated, “Me and Jarvis will go work for you in P-Dorm.” (Officer Jarvis was a Classification Officer.) Lt. Hand thought that this was an odd comment because P-Dorm had been closed down for a couple of years. Lt. Hand asked Ms. Gerdon to repeat what she said. Ms. Gerdon again volunteered to work with Officer Jarvis in P-Dorm. Lt. Hand observed that Ms. Gerdon was “real jovial” and that her speech was slurred. Ms. Gerdon’s eyes appeared to be glassy. Ms. Gerdon’s appearance and behavior concerned Lt. Hand. Ms. Gerdon was not behaving normally and Lt. Hand thought Ms. Gerdon might be on medication or “something else.” Lt. Hand notified Assistant Warden Tommy Barfield. Shortly after, Lt. Hand was asked to report to the Warden’s Office. When Warden John Palmer received the reports about Ms. Gerdon’s unusual behavior, he had asked to talk to her so that he could observe her appearance and behaviors himself. Warden Palmer has been employed in various capacities in the corrections system for over 20 years, and based upon his training and experience is able to determine whether or not there is reasonable suspicion that someone is under the influence of a controlled substance. Warden Palmer testified that he observed that Ms. Gerdon had “glassed over” eyes and slurred speech. The Warden reasonably concluded that she was under the influence of some type of substance. Lt. Hand was present in Warden John Palmer’s office as he questioned Ms. Gerdon about what was going on. Lt. Hand recalled that Ms. Gerdon was upset and crying. Lt. Hand remembered that after Warden Palmer told Ms. Gerdon that he was going to send her for a reasonable suspicion drug test, Ms. Gerdon told the Warden that she knew she would test positive and that her son had put drugs in her coffee. Warden Palmer also testified that Ms. Gerdon had told him that she had tested herself previously and had tested positive for marijuana. She told the Warden that her son had “poisoned” her coffee with marijuana. As a result of the behavioral and physical changes noted in Ms. Gerdon, on January 14, 2011, Regional Director R. Bryant approved an order requiring Ms. Gerdon to submit to a Reasonable Suspicion Drug Test. Ms. Gerdon, in compliance with the order issued to her by her employer, the Florida Department of Corrections, reported to the Marianna Family Care Center in Marianna, Florida, on January 14, 2011, at approximately 8:45 a.m., and gave a specimen of her urine, by urinating in a sterile, previously unused specimen cup provided to her by personnel at the Marianna Family Care Center. After Ms. Gerdon urinated into the specimen cup provided to her, she delivered the cup containing her urine specimen to a Marianna Family Care Center employee who immediately capped and sealed the specimen container, assigned the specimen ID# 0288508894, and labeled it in a manner making it uniquely identifiable as Ms. Gerdon’s January 14, 2011, urine sample. Ms. April Sadousky is employed as a Medical Assistant in the Marianna Family Care Center and in the office of Dr. Rodriguez, where she is responsible for operating the laboratory and conducting drug screenings. After having Ms. Gerdon sign the chain of custody form indicating that she had provided the specimen, Ms. Sadousky placed the urine sample in a bag, sealed that bag, and placed it in the refrigerated LabCorp drawer, where it was picked up that day by LabCorp personnel. Specimen ID# 0288508894 was received in LabCorp’s accession laboratory by Ms. Catherine Hess, who took the paperwork and the specimen out of the sealed chain-of-custody bag. No one had tampered with or altered the specimen since it was initially collected, as evidenced by the intact seals and the chain-of-custody records. Ms. Phyllis Chandler is a Responsible Person and Lab Manager who works in the Occupational Testing Division of LabCorp. LabCorp holds a Florida Laboratory Permit with Certificate number 052, which was in effect in January of 2011. LabCorp is also licensed by SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. LabCorp participates in proficiency testing of samples with known concentrations submitted by regulatory agencies to insure accurate testing. LabCorp conducts initial testing of urine samples by immunoassay, and confirmation testing by “GC-MS” or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. It is the regular practice of LabCorp to make reports of the results of its testing. A marijuana metabolite is produced by the body of a person who consumes marijuana either by ingestion or by smoking it. The marijuana is absorbed into the body and it is broken down by the liver, producing the marijuana metabolite, which is excreted though the kidneys, hair, or saliva. As Dr. Dash testified, the only substance other than marijuana that produces a marijuana metabolite is the prescription medication marketed under the name “Marinol” or its generic equivalent “dronabinol.” These prescription drugs have active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in them, as does marijuana. LabCorp conducted immunoassay and confirmation testing on Specimen ID# 0288508894. As is their usual practice, records of the testing on Specimen ID# 0288508894 were made at or near the time of the tests and were made by a person with knowledge of the information that was recorded, as was testified to by Ms. Chandler, who is a custodian of these records. In initial screening, the THC cut-off was 50. Specimen ID# 0288508894 tested at 555. In confirmation testing, Specimen ID# 0288508894 tested at 171 nanograms per milliliter of marijuana metabolites. The confirmation cut-off was 15 nanograms per milliliter. All test batches at LabCorp contain blind controls that are run within the batch to assure that the testing process is accurate. The blind controls within the batch containing Specimen ID# 0288508894 were tested correctly. The drug analysis conducted by LabCorp indicated that urine Specimen ID# 0288508894 contained marijuana metabolites. A secure chain of custody was maintained from the time the urine sample was collected until the test results were produced. The Department of Corrections has contracted with Doctors Review Service to receive test results from the laboratory and to contact the specimen donor on all non-negative results to determine if there is any medical documentation that would explain the test results. Dr. Neil Dash is employed by Doctor Review Services and received the test results from Ms. Gerdon’s sample. After Doctors Review Service obtained the laboratory results on Ms. Gerdon’s sample, Ms. Gerdon called them on January 19, 2011. In response to questioning, Ms. Gerdon did not provide Doctor’s Review Service with information on prescriptions or any medical explanation for the finding reported by the laboratory that her sample contained marijuana metabolites. Dr. Dash prepared a Controlled Substance Test Results report indicating that specimen 0288508894 had tested positive for marijuana metabolites. These results were sent to the Department of Corrections. The drug test was conducted in accordance with sections 112.0455 and 440.102, Florida Statutes, and evidenced the introduction of a controlled substance into Ms. Gerdon’s body. Ms. Gerdon testified that her ex-husband abused her. Ms. Gerdon had three children, two girls and a boy. Her ex- husband would threaten the daughters to control Ms. Gerdon. He would not allow her to be around her parents, except when they came over to see her at the house. If she left the house, he would destroy something. Several walls and doors were damaged by her ex-husband. Ms. Gerdon’s son has been diagnosed as manic bipolar through the North Florida Therapy Center. Ms. Gerdon was experiencing a high level of domestic stress at the time of the incident. Ms. Gerdon testified that she had numerous medical problems and was on the following prescriptions at the time of the January 14, 2011, incident: Seroquel, Buspar, Cymbalta, Zoloft, Triazadone, Synthroid, Hydrocodone, Topomax, Fioricet, Nexium, Peridium, Macrodanton, Flomax, Cipro, Indocin, Skelaxin, Zofran, Medrol, Klonopin, Rstrace, Levothroxine, Atarax, Ativan, Reglan, Effexor, and Prozac. Ms. Gerdon testified that she took these medications for anxiety and depression, and that she has a thyroid disease, a kidney disease, and suffers from cluster migraine headaches. She testified that now she is down to only three or four of these medications since she is no longer in an abusive relationship. The drug Fioricet is a prescription medication that contains butalbital, often prescribed to treat migraine headaches. Butalbital is a barbiturate. Ms. Gerdon testified that she takes the Fioricet every day for migraine headaches. Ms. Gerdon testified that prior to the incident of January 14, 2011, with the help of her parents, who own the house, Ms. Gerdon was repairing walls and doors that had been destroyed by her abusive husband. Ms. Gerdon testified that her mother was making coffee and noticed that something was wrong with the coffee: . . . when my mother had noticed that there was something weird about it, she called me and I said, I’m not quite sure what that is, I said, I believe that that is marijuana, and I actually went down and I did get a test, I got a home test. It tested me for marijuana, it tested me for barbiturate and I flipped out. Ms. Gerdon testified that she had not noticed anything before, because “90 percent of the time” she did not even turn on the lights when she scooped out her coffee. Ms. Gerdon testified that she went over her list of medications and was confused about why she tested positive for marijuana. None of the drugs that Ms. Gerdon testified she was taking at the time of the incident would have resulted in a positive test for marijuana metabolites. Ms. Gerdon has been tested almost every other month since the January 14, 2011, incident, and she has not had any test that was positive for marijuana. She testified that she also has not tested positive for barbiturates, although it is not clear why her use of Fioricet would not result in a positive test. Ms. Gerdon was under the influence of marijuana on the morning of January 14, 2011, as evidenced by her physical symptoms, her statement that she knew she would test positive for marijuana, and her drug test results. As both Dr. Dash and Ms. Chandler testified in response to Ms. Gerdon’s questions, it would be possible for persons to ingest marijuana without knowing that they were doing so. It was not clear why LabCorp’s testing of the January 14, 2011, urine sample would not have tested positive for barbiturates as a result of the Fioricet. Dr. Dash testified that if a person was taking Fioricet it would show up in the drug testing if the test was screening for barbiturates and the amount taken exceeded the cut-off set at the laboratory. He did not know what cut-off amount was set by the laboratory. Ms. Gerdon’s ex-husband was incarcerated shortly after their divorce was final. Her son is also now incarcerated. Stress on Ms. Gerdon was reduced after she divorced her husband. Ms. Gerdon is no longer taking many of the medications she was taking earlier. Ms. Gerdon unlawfully injected, ingested, inhaled, or otherwise introduced marijuana into her body. Ms. Gerdon has failed to maintain good moral character. The position of Correctional Officer is one of great public trust. No evidence of any prior disciplinary history was introduced for Ms. Gerdon.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Lorrie Gerdon in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in Florida Administrative Law Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d). It is further recommended that Respondent's certification as a Corrections Officer be suspended for a period of two years, followed by probation for a period of two years. As condition of probation, it is recommended that the Commission require random or scheduled drug testing and substance abuse counseling, as provided for in Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.005(7)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 28th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was certified as a correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Certificate No. 301820. Respondent has been employed by the Jefferson County Correctional Institution for the past year and a half. During that time, he has submitted to periodic random urinalysis testing as part of his employment. While at work on February 21, 2013, Respondent was informed that he had been selected for a random drug test. He and several other correctional officers were transported by van to LabCorp, located on Blountstown Highway in Tallahassee, to provide a urine sample. Tairra Wolfe is a certified phlebotomist who is employed by LabCorp at the Blountstown Highway location. In addition to being a phlebotomist, she performs DNA and drug testing, as well as processing. Ms. Wolfe described the process that is used at LabCorp when a person comes in for drug testing. First, the person being tested (the donor) brings in a consent form from his or her employer, and signs the consent form. The donor is then taken to the back, where the donor is given a cup for the urine specimen and is then instructed to go into the bathroom to provide a urine specimen in the cup. The tester is not in the bathroom when the specimen is given. After coming out of the bathroom, the donor hands the cup containing the urine specimen to Ms. Wolfe. She then tells the donor to use hand sanitizer, and to wait there. In the presence of the donor, she pours the urine specimen into another container, seals that container, and puts labels over the container. The container is sealed in front of the donor with tape that prevents the specimen from being opened without breaking the seal. Ms. Wolfe then labels the specimen and has the donor initial and date it in front of her. The seal contains a bar code. Respondent’s specimen was assigned a specimen ID of 0582899940. Ms. Wolfe then places the sealed container in a bag, which is also sealed and labeled with the specimen number and bar code, and which is also tamper resistant. The bag containing the specimen is placed in a large box in the processing room. This box is sealed at the end of each day and is picked up by a LabCorp courier. Lastly, the donor signs the chain of custody form in the section entitled “Completed by Donor.” Ms. Wolfe also signs the chain of custody form in the section entitled “Completed by Collector.” The section of the chain of custody form entitled “Completed by Donor” states in part: I certify that I provided my urine specimen to the collector; that I have not adulterated it in any manner; each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tamper-evident seal in my presence; and that the information provided on this form and on the label affixed to each specimen is correct. The chain of custody form for the urine specimen which is at issue in this proceeding is signed by both Ms. Wolfe and Respondent. Respondent’s specimen was transported to a LabCorp forensic drug testing laboratory in Southhaven, Mississippi. Ajai Saini is the lab manager at the Southhaven laboratory. He is responsible for all of the administrative and technical decisions to ensure the quality and timeliness of the laboratory results. He has extensive professional experience in the field of toxicology. The specimen was assigned a unique specimen ID or accession number used to identify that specimen for all processes within the laboratory. The specimen ID labeled as Respondent’s was assigned a specimen ID number of 0582899940. When received by the Southhaven lab, the primary specimen bottle seal was intact. The lab accessioned the bottle into their storage and aliquoted a sample of that bottle for testing. The urine sample was analyzed by LabCorp and a report was generated. The specimen was screened and confirmed positive for both marijuana and cocaine. This result was reviewed and certified. The initial test performed by LabCorp is an immunoassay test used to screen all samples. Any sample that is a presumptive positive by that screening method is then tested by a confirmatory method, i.e., gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. In examining the test results for the sample identified as Respondent’s, Mr. Saini concluded that it tested positive for cocaine and marijuana metabolite. Respondent does not dispute the test results but rather asserts that the samples were mixed up in the Tallahassee LabCorp facility. Respondent testified at hearing that he had been tested several times before but that his experience on February 21, 2013, was different from previous testing days. In particular, there were many more correctional officers being tested that day than on previous occasions, and the process varied from those previous occasions. Typically, the officers signed in at the front counter, and did not sign anything else until later. Respondent asserts that because of the greater number of officers being tested, the officers were given the labels to sign at the front counter before going back to be tested. “I didn’t sign my label because I have already previously signed it out front.” Respondent believes that the urine which tested positive is not his. On cross examination, Ms. Wolfe continued to maintain that the process she described in her testimony is the process she uses every day. She did not recall any variation in this process on any day, and stressed the importance of the donor watching her pour the sample and seal it, and of her watching the donor sign the label and chain of custody form in front of her. While the undersigned found Respondent’s testimony to be credible, it alone was not enough to overcome the clear and convincing evidence presented by Petitioner. That is, that the sample identified as Respondent’s tested positive for illegal substances. Respondent asserts that all previous random drug tests he has taken have been negative, and that he has a good employment record. No evidence was presented to indicate otherwise.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards Commission enter a final order finding Respondent in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d). It is further recommended that Respondent’s certification be suspended for a period of 120 days, followed by probation for a period of two years. As condition of probation, it is recommended that the Commission require random drug testing and substance abuse counseling, as contemplated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.005(7)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 27th day of January, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Curtis R. Brungardt (Address of record) Jennifer Cook Pritt, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's corrections officer license is subject to suspension, revocation or other discipline.
Findings Of Fact On August 29, 1996, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent's corrections officer license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to maintain good moral character by testing positive for a controlled substance, marijuana, which was indicative of the illegal ingestion of a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On September 5, 1996, Respondent filed an Election of Rights in which he disputed the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and requested an administrative hearing. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on June 23, 1999. The Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at Volusia Correctional Institution (VCI) in early 1991. A corrections officer is a special risk employee in a safety sensitive position. At the time of licensure Respondent passed his drug screen. In 1996, the month of February had 29 days. In February 1996, Warden Bruce Scherer received allegations of possible drug abuse by Respondent from Connie Beach, Respondent's (then) wife. Respondent's wife was also a corrections officer. Ms. Beach had been in the Warden's office asking for a day off to retrieve her belongings from the marital home due to personal problems with Respondent. Upon inquiry of the Warden, the Warden learned that Ms. Beach's brother Carroll Bradshaw had smoked marijuana with Respondent. The Warden called the brother by telephone. The brother confirmed he had smoked marijuana with Respondent several occasions. In response, the Warden asked Respondent to submit to a drug test. Respondent was cooperative and agreed to submit to the drug test. Volusia Correctional Institution does not conduct random drug testing. At no time did Respondent question why he was being asked to submit to a drug test. Bolton accompanied Respondent to the Halifax Hospital facility to submit a urine specimen for drug testing. In testing specimens for marijuana, two tests are conducted; the first of these is an immunoassay screen, and the second is a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) test. The GCMS test is the more definitive test which specifically identifies THC, the major metabolite of marijuana. THC is also the part of marijuana which gives it its psycho-active properties. Cut-off levels are used in the testing process in order to exclude positive test results for persons who may have had accidental (or second-hand) exposure to marijuana. Respondent submitted his first urine sample for drug testing on February 28, 1996. On March 4, 1996, the results on the immunoassay screen came back positive for cannabinoid (marijuana). The sample first tested positive. It then tested about 300 nanograms of THC in the GCMS test. On March 19, 1996, a second test was conducted on Respondent's original urine sample. On March 20, 1996, the results of that test were received and reviewed by Dr. Hung Doan. The GCMS test showed 259 nanograms of THC. The result was confirmatory of the first as positive for marijuana. Dr. Hung Doan is a certified Medical Review Officer (MRO). He is certified as to his knowledge of drugs, their medical usage and ingestion. Dr. Doan is an expert in the field. Dr. Doan was the MRO who reviewed and certified the results of Respondent's two positive drug tests in 1996. The high levels of marijuana detected in the two positive tests of Respondent's urine sample conclusively establish that the results could not have been caused by accidental or passive inhalation of marijuana. The results did not rule out ingestion of marijuana since the evidence showed that about two cigarette sized amounts of marijuana would produce results similar to those found on Respondent's tests. However, the evidence did not show that Respondent had eaten any marijuana. Only multiple "accidental" exposures to, in conjunction with "accidental" ingestion of marijuana could possibly have resulted in the nanogram levels detected in Respondent's urine without his knowledge. Respondent did not produce any evidence beyond speculation to suggest that this might have occurred in his case. Mr. Beach was notified of the first positive test on March 4, 1996, by Mary Yochum, Dr. Doan's assistant. Respondent's response to being told that he tested positive for marijuana was "okay." He was concerned with the result but could not go into detail over the phone because other officers were present. On March 6, 1996, Respondent submitted a separate urine sample for the purposes of having an independent drug test. The results of that test were negative for marijuana. However, this second test occurred seven days after the first urine sample was given. The test only shows Respondent's level of cannabinoid on the latter date had decreased or diluted sufficiently to fall below the cut-off point for such tests. Marijuana can clear the human body's system within days. However, a chronic user of marijuana may take up to 75 days before the drug clears the persons system. It depends on the persons individual metabolism. Carroll Bradshaw is the ex-brother-in-law of Respondent. Mr. Bradshaw is a known drug user and convicted felon. He was last released from incarceration in 1998 after serving time for a cocaine charge. He continues to use drugs to date. Mr. Bradshaw regularly socialized, and smoked marijuana with Respondent. However, he had not smoked marijuana for quite a while before receiving the telephone call from the Warden. Respondent admittedly was familiar with the smell and appearance of marijuana. Respondent would typically supply and prepare the marijuana which he and his brother-in-law smoked while socializing. Respondent kept his stash of marijuana on a "paraphernalia" tray underneath his couch in his home. Respondent's former mother-in-law, who was also familiar with the look and smell of marijuana because of her son's problems, witnessed Respondent smoking marijuana with her son and others. She confirmed the testimony of her son and her daughter as to Respondent's use of marijuana. Given these facts Petitioner has shown clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Chapter 943, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 25th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 John Stanton, Esquire 121 1/2 North Woodland Boulevard Suite 3 Deland, Florida 32720 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue The issues in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful sexual harassment by Respondent and whether Petitioner was subjected to unlawful retaliation for participation in an activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Julie Hembrough, was a female employee of Respondent, Sikorsky Support Services. She was employed as a senior calibration technician at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (Pensacola NAS). As part of her duties she was in charge of monitoring the quality of the work her section performed and the employees who performed that work. Petitioner came to work at Pensacola NAS with Sikorsky’s predecessor, Lear Siegler (LSI). Sikorsky is a “drug free” workplace and has a written policy, entitled "Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. Strike Pensacola, Florida Drug-Free Work Force and Work Place Manual,” as part of its collective bargaining agreement. The drug free workplace policy requires periodic random drug testing of employees. The policy states: An employee who refuses to take a drug test under Section . . .V.5 Random Testing will be terminated for violation of this policy. Petitioner went through an initial drug test when Sikorsky took over the Pensacola NAS maintenance contract and hired the LSI workers. Petitioner was aware that random drug testing occurred and was required by Respondent. She knew that there had been previous random drug tests at the Pensacola NAS. Petitioner was considered a hard worker and competent technical leader of her calibration section. However, there were personality conflicts throughout the section in which Petitioner worked. The problems in the section stemmed from a weak supervisor, who was eventually terminated, who did not hold employees to the performance standards for the section, and who did not support the technical leaders, like Petitioner, when they tried to enforce those performance standards. The supervisory problems resulted in various factions in the work place. The factions were comprised of both male and female employees. Petitioner had particular conflicts with two employees, Roger York and Leon Mills. Petitioner herself testified that her conflicts with Roger York stemmed from a work disagreement regarding the repair of certain Navy radios. Mr. Mills did not want to perform certain tests on Navy radios that Petitioner thought were required for thorough testing of the radios. Petitioner also felt, with some factual basis, that Mr. Mills was not honest with her when he represented to her that he had performed such tests. Petitioner’s problems with Leon Mills were of a similar nature to those with Mr. York. However, Mr. Mills accused Petitioner of fraud in relation to trying to get rid of him. The evidence did not demonstrate that any of the difficulties with these men were related to Petitioner’s gender, but what little unspecified name-calling or derogatory statements there were was the result of animosity toward Petitioner and her supervisory role. Some workers considered Petitioner a “spy” for the Respondent. Other workers accused Petitioner of trying to “get rid of” Leon Mills through fraudulent means. Indeed Mr. Mills complained to the union about Petitioner and that he thought she was trying to get rid of him. Feelings against Petitioner were so strong that, even though she was a member of the union, she was asked by the union shop steward to not attend a union meeting. Respondent had no input or control over the union’s request to Petitioner. In September 2000, Petitioner orally complained to her manager, Joe Diehl, that another male worker used the word "bitch" and talked about his sex life and that someone else told her to put on some makeup. The details of the facts surrounding these comments were not introduced into evidence. Therefore, it is unclear if they were harassing in nature. Petitioner was never physically grabbed or groped by anyone at Sikorsky, was not sexually propositioned, and no one ever threatened her with adverse action if she refused to perform any type of sexual activity. She did not see open pornography in the workplace. Moreover, such sporadic comments do not constitute sexual harassment. She again complained in August 2001. The actual written complaints were not introduced into evidence. In essence, the bulk of the oral complaints revolved around the work problems in the section and the multi-gender employee animosity toward Petitioner. Sikorsky took Petitioner’s complaints seriously and investigated the complaints. During the investigation, people from the “upper echelon” of the company were brought in to investigate. However, the investigators could not corroborate Petitioner’s claims of sexual harassment. They did find that the section had various problems as described above. Nevertheless, to make sure that everyone understood the seriousness of sexual harassment issues, the site manager held a training session on Sikorsky’s sexual harassment policies. Petitioner attended the training session. The site manager also personally delivered the findings of the investigators to Petitioner, to show he was involved and to make Petitioner understand that Sikorsky was taking the issue seriously. Petitioner was invited to come forward with any complaints she may have at any time. After advising Petitioner of the results of the investigation, the site manager spoke to her several times encouraging her to come forward with any issues. He stopped by Petitioner’s work area in the section and asked if she was having any problems. Petitioner told him things were going okay and that she was not having any problems. Petitioner testified that sometime in May, she advised her supervisors that she intended to file another internal complaint because of actions by the union and because she had found “hot sauce” on her vehicle. Petitioner complained that the union accused her of committing fraud and that she was excluded from a union meeting. However, as indicated above, it was the union steward, not Sikorsky, that asked Petitioner not to attend the union meeting. Sikorsky was not involved in the union meeting or any accusations of fraud by the union against Petitioner. These facts do not support a finding of sexual harassment by Sikorsky. The “hot sauce” incident occurred while her vehicle was parked in an open, unfenced parking lot owned by the U.S. Navy. The Navy was responsible for security in the parking lot. Petitioner discovered that someone had poured hot sauce over her vehicle. Upon seeing the substance, Petitioner got in her vehicle and drove home. She called her manager from her vehicle to inform him about the incident. He advised her it was probably “too late” to do anything since she had left the scene. Petitioner did not see anyone put the substance on her vehicle, and does not know who did it, although she strongly suspects it was a particular coworker. Petitioner never reported the incident to Navy security. Without more detail and given the animosity in the workplace with allegations of spying and fraud, the incident does not support any finding that Petitioner was sexually harassed or that Sikorsky was responsible for such alleged harassment. On May 6, 2002, seventeen Sikorsky employees were selected for random urinalysis at Sikorsky; five employees were selected as alternates. Petitioner was one of the employees selected. Sikorsky employs a third-party contractor, Professional Health Examiners (PHE), to select the individuals to be drug tested and to administer the drug test. PHE and Sikorsky use a “name blind” system to select individuals for testing. Before a test day, Sikorsky’s administrative manager sends a list of partial social security numbers to PHE. Sikorsky does not give names to PHE, but only partial social security numbers. PHE then inputs the partial social security numbers into a computer program, which randomly selects a percentage of the numbers. Once the numbers are selected, PHE sends the list of numbers to Sikorsky. The administrative manager then matches the selected numbers with an employee list to determine the employees named. On the day of the test, those selected are called to take the test at a specific time and location. Petitioner was notified of her selection at approximately 7:15 a.m. and told to immediately report to the test site to take the test. She did not go to the drug test site, but went directly to the office of her manager, Joseph Diehl. Petitioner refused to take the drug test at the time the test was scheduled. At the time, Petitioner had no knowledge of the drug testing selection procedures and did not ask what the procedures were; she also wanted to speak with her attorney. Joseph Diehl called the administrative manager. At approximately 7:30 a.m., the administrative manager went to Diehl’s office. Since neither had been confronted with a situation similar to this one, Diehl and the manager allowed Petitioner to call her lawyer. However, her lawyer was unavailable. The morning of the drug test, the site manager and Diehl’s supervisor, Joe Colbert, had jury duty and had not arrived. Therefore, Mr. Diehl called Dan Pennington, the program manager, for guidance. Mr. Pennington stated in more colloquial language, that Petitioner must either immediately submit to the drug test per corporate policy or be terminated. Mr. Diehl, again in more colloquial language, passed the direct order to Petitioner to take the test or face termination. Petitioner said she would not take the test without calling her lawyer. Later in the morning, Petitioner spoke with Michael Neri, her supervisor, and told him she was quitting. Mr Neri had been hired only three weeks earlier and was familiar with the drug test policy. Mr. Neri told Petitioner to take the test, and that if she did not take the test, she would be terminated. Petitioner met with the site manager, Joe Colbert, after 9:00 a.m. He told her to take the test or she would be terminated. He told her that once she took the test, her lawyer could take whatever steps she wanted to take, but that she needed to take the test. All of Petitioner’s supervisors wanted Petitioner to take the test because she was a good employee whom they did not want to terminate. Petitioner did not take the test. Mr. Colbert then suspended Petitioner and gave her a letter of suspension, pending termination. The letter stated that the reason for the suspension was her refusal to take the drug test at the appointed time. Because Petitioner suggested that she had been targeted for selection for the drug test, Mr. Colbert assigned one of his managers, Frank Eggleton, to conduct an investigation of the procedures. Mr. Colbert told Petitioner that if the investigation came back clean, she would be terminated. Later in the morning, at approximately 11:00 a.m., on May 6, 2002, Petitioner called Joe Diehl and informed him that she had spoken to her lawyer and was willing to participate in the random drug testing. However, it was too late. Mr. Colbert refused to allow Petitioner to take the test at that time because she had already been suspended. Mr. Colbert testified that Petitioner had had her opportunity more than once to participate. He was concerned that if he made exceptions to the mandatory random drug testing policy, then it would open the door for everyone to seek to defer taking a random drug test. This rationale was reasonable and not pretextual. Mr. Colbert told Mr. Eggleton to investigate how individual employees were selected for the random drug test and to determine if Petitioner had somehow been targeted. Mr. Colbert did not pressure Mr. Eggleton to reach any particular conclusion and told him to conduct a thorough, open investigation. Mr. Eggleton visited the facilities of PHE to determine how individuals were selected. After conducting his investigation, Mr. Eggleton reported to Mr. Colbert that the drug-testing contractor used a name-blind system for selection and that there was no indication that Petitioner had been targeted. PHE had nothing to do with the decision to terminate Petitioner and Sikorsky did not pressure PHE to select Petitioner for the drug test. In fact, there was no evidence at the hearing that Petitioner was targeted for drug testing. After receiving the investigation report, Mr. Colbert decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment based on her refusal to take the drug test at the appointed time. He obtained the approval of the necessary authorities at Sikorsky. On May 10, 2002, Petitioner’s employment was terminated. In April 2002, employee Brian McHenry was selected for random drug testing. Mr. McHenry, prior to discovering he was going to be drug tested, used the restroom just before he was told of the drug test. As a result, Mr. McHenry was unable to produce a sufficient urine sample to allow PHE to perform a the test. He took part, tried to produce a sample, and actually produced a urine sample, but it was not enough for testing purposes. After a few hours of drinking fluids Mr. McHenry still could not produce a sufficient urine sample. Mr. Colbert wanted Mr. McHenry to stay late until he could provide a sample, but Mr. McHenry had a serious child care problem that day and needed to pick up his child in Alabama. Because Mr. McHenry had tried to complete the drug test, and because of the child care problem, Mr. Colbert told Mr. McHenry to go to the test facility in the morning. Unlike Petitioner, McHenry did not refuse the drug test; he could not provide a sufficient urine sample. The McHenry case is not similar to Petitioner’s situation. Moreover, Mr. Colbert testified that if Mr. McHenry had refused to take the test, he would have been fired. Likewise, there was no evidence at the hearing that Petitioner was terminated because of her previous internal complaints. There was no evidence Petitioner was selected for drug testing because of her previous complaints. In fact Mr. Colbert did not have knowledge of Petitioner’s two complaints, since both complaints were handled by the previous site manager. Mr. Colbert was aware of Petitioner's complaint about hot sauce thrown on her car, but said he did not even consider it a sexual harassment issue. Petitioner did not put forth sufficient evidence to prove a claim of sexual harassment. She did not introduce evidence that any conduct she complained of was severe or pervasive, or that the allegedly harassing conduct was because of her gender, as opposed to some other reason such as thinking she was a spy. Likewise, Petitioner failed to establish that she was terminated for any complaints she had made to Respondent. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. Phillips Point, East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Debra Cooper, Esquire Law Offices of Debra Cooper 1008 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
