The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination against Petitioner on the basis of handicap.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination arises out of her employment with Respondent Children's Home Society (CHS) and a series of medical leaves in the years 2000-2001, which ultimately resulted in loss of her position. Respondent CHS is a non-profit social service organization established over 100 years ago. It is the oldest private child welfare service in Florida. It provides a range of services for the benefit of children and families throughout the state, including but not limited to counseling and support services, adoption, residential care, and home-based services. Petitioner appeared at the November 7, 2003, disputed- fact hearing using a cane. The undersigned observed that she seemed to experience pain at movement of her back and one leg. She presented no supportive medical evidence that she is currently disabled/handicapped and little to explain the cause of her present mobility problems or when they first appeared, except that one of her explanations for her current condition is that she was held against her will in a psychiatric center, in June 2002, pursuant to a circuit court Order, and at that time she fell and broke her back and leg. This occurred a year after Respondent had declared Petitioner's position vacant. Petitioner also testified that on March 29, 1999, on her way to work with CHS, her back and legs were injured, her face was crushed, and her teeth were shattered in an automobile accident that totaled her car. There is no evidence that she was off work with CHS for any period of time in 1999 or that any workers' compensation claim was made by her to CHS at that time. Petitioner did request a wage statement from CHS in connection with some automobile insurance claims in 1999. Also, in 2001, Petitioner also made a claim to CHS's insurance company for long-term disability benefits on the basis of this automobile accident, as more fully described below.3/ It is significant that her September 29, 2001 Charge of Discrimination did not list her back and legs as her handicap. Her November 14, 2002 Petition for Relief mentions the 1999 automobile accident. In 2000-2001, Petitioner was Program Supervisor I for CHS's Healthy Families Program in the Lake County area of CHS's Mid-Florida Division. She was in charge of the North Lake area, which encompasses Fruitland Park, Tavares, Leesburg, Lady Lake, Mt. Dora, Astor, Paisley, Sorrento, and other unincorporated areas of North Lake County. The Healthy Families Program is a very demanding one. Its Program Supervisors I have multiple and complicated responsibilities. As a Program Supervisor I for the Healthy Families Program, it was Petitioner's job to provide hands-on supervision to six paraprofessional Family Support Workers (FSW); ensure that rigorous program standards were maintained by them and other paraprofessionals and interns through weekly (two-hour minimum) formal staffings of each case; conduct ongoing case file reviews for quality of documentation; conduct year-end performance evaluations of supervised staff through information gained during the weekly staffings, file reviews, data related to stated objectives, home visits, and telephone quality assurance contacts with all clients; coordinate activities among and between staff (such as Christmas food and toy drives); coordinate comprehensive training and orientation for staff; provide staff with ongoing coaching throughout program implementation; oversee new case staffing and assignments with Family Assessment Workers (FAW); provide professional intervention for difficult cases; conduct joint home visits with all case load families every quarter; generate and/or oversee the reporting of program data; provide monthly comprehensive regular reports to a Program Manager on the status of all program activity; provide home visits and documentation in the absence of an FSW; cross-train to be an FAW; and assume new case assessment and documentation in the absence of an FAW. Program supervisors, with peers, conduct six to eight weeks of intensive training for each new FSW. After the initial training, the Supervisor is responsible for an additional 40 hours of ongoing training. The weekly staffing on every case is mandatory. Healthy Families Florida allows no excuses for a missed staffing on even one case in one caseload in one week. The program either meets the standard or it does not. This is also true for program objectives in which seventeen measurable goals must be met for every case. Program supervisors are required to assure constant and accurate data entry of all program information. Accuracy and timeliness of the data provide a measure of the program's success or failure in achieving program objectives. Program supervisors must meet every new family within the first month of service and conduct joint home visits with each family each quarter. Quality assurance telephone calls must be conducted with each family every quarter. Case files must be reviewed constantly to assure that the required documentation is in place. Finally, program supervisors must meet with the Health Families Program Specialist each quarter for a file audit and program review. In June 2000, Petitioner took her first Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. She was out on FMLA leave for four weeks and two days, returning in July 2000. During this period of time, Petitioner gave birth to a live male infant. The child died while Petitioner was strapped to the table in the delivery room and hospital personnel dropped the infant. Quite naturally, this tragic event, over which she had no control, caused Petitioner psychological trauma and enormous grief. She also maintained that the lack of appropriate after-care at that time might have resulted in her subsequent need for FMLA leave and a hysterectomy, as more fully described below. CHS's FMLA policy was contained in its Employee Handbook. In 1995, Petitioner acknowledged, in writing, receipt of the Employee Handbook. In 1996, CHS's leave policies were amended, and a clear equal employment opportunity and anti- discrimination policy was added to the Handbook. Petitioner maintained that she had signed the receipt for the Handbook before the foregoing amendments. That testimony by Petitioner is credible, but it is also clear that Petitioner subsequently became aware of CHS's leave policy via explanations in a series of letters to her from CHS's Human Resources Department over the course of her second FMLA leave of absence, which began in November 2000. FMLA leave is calculated on a twelve-month rolling calendar period. Under the FMLA, Petitioner was guaranteed reinstatement to her former position as Program Supervisor I or an equivalent job with the same pay, benefits, terms, and conditions of employment as long as her total FMLA leave (including all leave periods) did not exceed twelve weeks in a twelve-month period. CHS characterizes all medical leave as FMLA leave if the employee is eligible for FMLA leave. CHS requires that accrued paid vacation and sick leave be utilized before utilizing unpaid FMLA leave. This allows the employee to draw full salary and continue to receive health insurance benefits as long as possible before having to resort to unpaid leave, but it means that FMLA leave, vacation leave, and sick leave are depleted simultaneously. CHS automatically offers any employee who is on FMLA leave for a serious health condition an opportunity to convert the leave to disability leave after his or her FMLA leave expires. Under this CHS leave policy, an employee does not have to be handicapped or disabled to qualify for disability leave. At all times material, Julie Ormond, Healthy Families Program Manager, was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Ms. Ormond reported to Glenna Osborne. Glenna Osborne was the Director of Program Operations for CHS's Mid-Florida Division. She supervised three programs: Family Builders, Healthy Families, and Responsible Fatherhood. Ms. Osborne was in charge of 77 employees and 10 supervisors. Ms. Osborne has a Master's Degree in Human Development and 25 years' experience in management. On or about October 11, 2000, Ms. Ormond wrote a memo to two Healthy Families supervisors, one of whom was Petitioner. The memo detailed certain problems with both supervisors' areas: supervision duties, data entry requirements, and report completions. Ms. Ormond requested that the problems be corrected and in place no later than October 30, 2000. On November 3, 2000 and November 7, 2000, Ms. Ormond copied Ms. Osborne with memos sent only to Petitioner on the same dates, detailing that some of Petitioner's programs had serious problems, now including complete absences of some data entry, late data entry, and both failure to classify and inaccuracy of classification of some clients. There also were problems in Petitioner's area with meeting State requirements and registering childhood immunizations. Petitioner was instructed to resolve the problems in her area as soon as possible. Ms. Ormond also copied Ms. Osborne with a memo along the same lines, dated November 7, 2000, from another CHS employee, Jean Plescow. When data entry is incomplete or late, it is not always possible to readily determine whether the problem is just a delayed data entry or if there also has been an actual failure to accomplish the act, plans, staffings, trainings, and immunizations for which the data was supposed to be entered. Over time, as related more fully below, it appeared that there were more problems with Petitioner's job performance, and the performance of the staff she supposedly had trained, than merely a failure to transpose information to a computer from other records. Before her work problems had been resolved, Petitioner went out a second time on leave associated with a medical problem. It was Petitioner's affirmative duty to apply for leave initially and to seek extensions, if necessary, of any leave granted. Although Petitioner testified that she filled out all the vacation and sick leave forms necessary before going out on "medical leave"; that she left in October 2000; and that when she left, she fully intended to be back at work before her accrued vacation and sick leave ran out, the following facts are found upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. At Petitioner's request dated November 21, 2000, CHS again placed her on FMLA leave as of that date. Petitioner's last day of work before this second period of FMLA leave was November 19, 2000. On November 21, 2000, Petitioner informed CHS that she expected to return to work on or about January 23, 2001. Ms. Osborne's testimony was credible to the effect that she believed that Petitioner was going out on leave in November 2000 for surgery related to the June 2000 birth of Petitioner's child and not for surgery related to any prior automobile accident. Ms. Osborne is also credible that although she knew that Petitioner had been in an automobile accident in 1999, she never knew the extent of Petitioner's injuries from that accident and had never received any doctors' reports or any requests for accommodation of a handicap from Petitioner. Ms. Osborne did not perceive Petitioner as handicapped for any reason at any time between 1999 and November 19, 2000. Petitioner claimed that she only took the Program Supervisor I job on the condition "that if it were too hard, I could have my old [CHS] job back." Petitioner testified about how excellent she believed she performed her Program Supervisor I job prior to November 19, 2000, and that her work was up to date and commendatory when she took her second medical leave. She further stated that, as of November 19, 2000, she had accrued enough vacation and sick leave to cover the time she expected to be out on her second medical leave. Upon the facts found in Findings of Fact 23 and 24, it is further found that Petitioner never requested or received from CHS any workplace accommodations for a handicap dealing with her back or legs prior to her absence beginning in November 2000. Furthermore, all the medical excuses Petitioner supplied to CHS after November 19, 2000, support a finding that iron deficiency anemia from a uterine fibroid and a surgical hysterectomy with resultant recovery time caused Petitioner's absence from work after November 19, 2000, even though Petitioner supplied a different explanation to CHS's long-term disability insurance company after her leave ran out, as more fully discussed below. As Director of CHS's Mid-Florida Division's Human Resources Department, Linda Barry was responsible, in 2000-2001 for implementing and interpreting CHS's policies and procedures; benefits administration; approving transfers and promotions; approving and administering FMLA leaves and other leaves of absence; making termination decisions; and keeping apprised of CHS's hiring needs. On November 28, 2000, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter advising that because of her June 2000 leave, only seven weeks and two days remained of Petitioner's FMLA leave and requesting that Petitioner complete and return the FMLA paperwork. In the meantime, Ms. Osborne assessed the North Lake staffing situation and documented her concerns in a November 30, 2000 memo to Ms. Ormand. Ms. Osborne noted some of Petitioner's program documentation was satisfactory and some was exemplary, but that there still existed serious problems with missing, incomplete, or inaccurate program documentation and inadequate training and supervision of Petitioner's team. Ms. Osborne requested that Ms. Ormand bring these deficiencies to Petitioner's attention as soon as Petitioner returned from FMLA leave, and that if Ms. Osborne's observations were confirmed by Ms. Ormand, the problems should be addressed at that time by Ms. Ormond in Petitioner's evaluation. During Petitioner's absence beginning November 19, 2000 and continuing into 2001, three other area supervisors performed their own full-time responsibilities and divided Petitioner's job responsibilities among themselves. Janie Counts, Sumter County Supervisor, traveled several times a week to provide fill-in supervision for two of Petitioner's FSWs. The South Lake Supervisor, Stephanie Ellis, provided fill-in supervision for two more of Petitioner's FSWs. Ms. Ormand traveled from Tavares to Leesburg to provide fill-in supervision for Petitioner's two remaining FSWs. If one of the three fill- in supervisors was ill or on leave, the remaining two fill-in supervisors oversaw Petitioner's two remaining FSWs, continued to cover their own teams, and covered the other absent supervisor's six FSWs. In the course of scrambling to carry on CHS's regular workload in Petitioner's absence, these three supervisors reported to Ormand and Osborne more problems they uncovered in Petitioner's operation. Ms. Counts sent Ormand and Osborne written reports. Her December 10, 2000 report reflected that Petitioner had left behind inadequate program documentation, had failed to prepare her supervision notes, had missing family support plan updates, had late data and missing data, and had failed to provide adequate training to her FSWs. Ms. Counts reported to Ormand and Osborne in a December 15, 2003 memo that she had uncovered even more problems that had existed in Petitioner's program before Petitioner went on leave. She also related that Petitioner had come to the office that day for the office's Christmas Lunch. CHS's FMLA leave policy required the existence of a "serious health condition." A doctor's certification supporting an FMLA leave is required. Physicians are provided an instruction sheet explaining the definition of "serious health condition", so they can categorize the patient's illness. Sometime in December 2000, Petitioner's doctor, Dr. Grousse, provided Ms. Barry with medical certifications to support Petitioner's then-current FMLA leave. Dr. Grousse listed Petitioner's condition as severe iron deficiency anemia and stated that she needed a hysterectomy soon. Dr. Grousse advised that Petitioner could not perform any work at that time. On December 20, 2000, Ms. Barry sent Petitioner a memo explaining her FMLA leave rights and requesting a medical certification from her surgeon. She also informed Petitioner of CHS's policy of applying vacation and sick leave concurrent with FMLA leave and stated the balance of Petitioner's FMLA leave remaining after her leave in June 2000 had been seven weeks and three days. She noted that as of CHS's December 15, 2000 payroll, Petitioner had 313.32 hours accrued vacation time and 124.22 hours accrued sick time. On December 27, 2000, Dr. Boggus provided Ms. Barry with medical certification to support Petitioner's FMLA leave. He indicated that Petitioner needed pelvic surgery, that she could not perform any work at that time, and that she would need six weeks off work after the surgery for recovery. He categorized Petitioner's condition as a "1" and "2", which meant that her condition required a stay in the hospital and a work absence plus treatment. He did not categorize her condition as "chronic" (requiring periodic treatment), nor did he categorize her condition as "permanent/long term" (requiring supervision). In the meantime, Petitioner's job duties still had to be covered and her team re-educated and brought up to grade if CHS's program objectives were to be met. Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter dated January 10, 2001, advising Petitioner that her FMLA leave would expire on January 12, 2001; extending her leave to January 22, 2001, as unpaid disability leave; advising her that she could continue to use any remaining accrued vacation time; and requesting that she submit a physician's statement for any leave she would require beyond January 22, 2001. The FMLA does not require that employees who are absent more than 12 weeks in a 12 month-period be returned to the same or a comparable position. Significantly, Ms. Barry's January 10, 2001 letter stated that although it was not guaranteed that Petitioner's Program Supervisor I position would be available when she was ready to return from leave, an effort would be made to place Petitioner in her previous position or a comparable one, or if no such position were available when Petitioner was ready to come back, she might be eligible for re- hire should a position later become available and her past work history warranted re-hire. The crucial point here is that CHS expressed no obligation to hold Petitioner's job for her after her FMLA leave ran out, but stated that it would try to give her a job in the same capacity when she returned. In fact, on January 12, 2001, Petitioner had her hysterectomy, which, according to Dr. Boggus's December 27, 2000 certification, meant that Petitioner would have then needed an additional six weeks, or until approximately February 23, 2001, before she could return to work in any capacity. However, Petitioner's FMLA leave expired on January 12, 2001. She did not contact CHS until after that date, and only then did she send in medical information about the date of her surgery. (See Finding of Fact 45.) By the time Petitioner's FMLA leave had expired on January 12, 2001, the fill-in supervisors had reported to Ms. Osborne that they were burned out with having to work their own full loads and also deal with the deficiencies left behind by Petitioner. One fill-in supervisor found it impossible to find the time to retrain the two FSWs assigned her from Petitioner's team while trying to maintain her own workload as a full-time supervisor. Another fill-in supervisor requested a transfer to a less demanding program and a demotion. By the middle of January 2001, Osborne and Barry had concluded that the undue hardship on the fill-in supervisors was so great that it was impossible to hold Petitioner's position open any longer. They felt to do so would seriously compromise the extent and quality of services that CHS could offer its clients and would jeopardize the well being of the other supervisors who were covering for Petitioner. Faced with Petitioner's not returning to work in any capacity for an indeterminate period of time, Barry and Osborne decided they had no choice but to replace Petitioner when her FMLA leave expired. According to Ms. Barry, Dr. Neil Finkler provided a medical certification update on behalf of Petitioner to her "toward the end of January 2001." Because Dr. Finkler's undated certification is referenced in her January 23, 2001 letter to Petitioner (see Finding of Fact 46), it is concluded that Ms. Barry received Dr. Finkler's certification before January 23, 2001, and probably received it by the January 22, 2001 date she had required in her January 10, 2001 letter for a reply from Petitioner. Dr. Finkler's certification advised that surgery had been performed on January 12, 2001, and that Petitioner would be incapacitated until February 23, 2001. Dr. Finkler categorized Petitioner as a "1", which is defined as requiring a stay in the hospital and a work absence plus subsequent treatment. Dr. Finkler did not categorize Petitioner's condition as chronic, requiring periodic treatment or as a permanent/long term condition requiring supervision. On January 23, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter confirming that CHS had received Dr. Finkler's certification; notifying Petitioner that CHS had extended her leave to February 23, 2001, as unpaid disability leave, but that Petitioner could continue to use any remaining accrued vacation time; notifying her that as of CHS's January 15, 2001 payroll, her vacation balance was 269.54 hours; and advising that when Petitioner was ready to return to work she would have to provide a fitness-for-duty certification. The letter also stated: Because the operations of CHS require that vacant positions be filled, a disability leave of absence does not guarantee that your job will be available when you return. An effort, however, will be made to place you in your previous position or a comparable one. If no such position is available, you may be eligible for re-hire should a position become available for which you are qualified and your work history warrants rehire. The representation that an effort would be made to return Petitioner to her former position was probably untrue, given that Ms. Barry already knew that a replacement had to be hired soon. However, comparable positions might be available. (See Findings of Fact 48 and 49.) On January 26, 2001, Ms. Counts submitted a report of her fill-in supervision for Petitioner to Ms. Ormand. She reported that Petitioner's subordinates had not been trained by Petitioner on charting requirements and had not even been given certain forms. Effective January 29, 2001, after the automatic extension to January 22, 2001, given Petitioner in Ms. Barry's January 10, 2001 letter, had expired, but before the February 23, 2001 extension specified in Ms. Barry's January 23, 2001 letter, had been reached, CHS selected Belinda Henson to replace Petitioner as the Program Supervisor I for the Healthy Families Program in Lake County. Ms. Hensen would be on probation for six months, but she was considered a permanent employee as of her date of hire, to the extent that she would not be ousted from Petitioner's old Program Supervisor I position even if Petitioner chose to return to work. Although Petitioner was replaced as Program Supervisor I in her area on January 29, 2001, CHS still considered Petitioner to be an employee on leave status. CHS did not foreclose the possibility that it could have other Program Supervisor I openings available when Petitioner was ready to return from her leave. On February 16, 2001, Ms. Ormand sent a memo to Ms. Barry and Ms. Osborne, stating the problems with Petitioner's past job performance as expressed by the fill-in supervisors. When Petitioner's extended leave expired on February 23, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter of that date, stating that CHS had not received any further medical certification to authorize leave beyond February 23, 2001, and that if Petitioner needed to continue her leave, she must provide an updated physician's statement showing such leave to be necessary. Ms. Barry's letter also informed Petitioner that her previous position had been filled, but Should you be able to return to work, an effort will be made to place you in a comparable position, should one be available. If no such position is available, you may be eligible for rehire as a new employee if you should apply for an available position in the future. On February 27, 2001, Petitioner faxed Ms. Barry a copy of a note from Dr. Boggus, advising, "No lifting over 5 lbs for one month. She may return 25 hours/wk for next one month." Dr. Finkler also provided a note stating that Petitioner could return to work on February 27, 2001, "but only work up to 25 hours/week with no heavy lifting for the next 1 month." There were no part-time openings in the Mid-Florida Division as of February 27, 2001. Petitioner's accrued paid vacation leave must have run out at about this time. Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter dated March 5, 2001, advising Petitioner that Ms. Barry had received the two doctors' notes restricting Petitioner to part-time work and that there were no part-time positions currently available in CHS's Mid-Florida Division. However, Ms. Barry extended Petitioner's leave for one month to March 27, 2001, the time period of her restriction to part-time work. Petitioner could have applied in other CHS divisions for any available part-time position for which she was qualified. The record is silent as to whether there were any such part-time positions available then, but it affirmatively appears that Petitioner did not inquire into, or apply for, any part-time positions that may have been available outside of the Mid-Florida Division. Petitioner testified that she drove to a CHS office in Orlando either to get copies of her records or to apply for a position (her purpose is not entirely clear from her testimony). Because the parking lot was undergoing excavation, she just drove away. This is not a reasonable explanation for not applying for a position.4/ As set out above, Petitioner had established a pattern of not taking affirmative action to timely supply the necessary medical information to Ms. Barry. Petitioner repeatedly had waited until her leave expired before submitting any medical documentation. Nonetheless, CHS still considered her an employee through March 27, 2001.5/ Petitioner testified that she made an unemployment compensation claim and CHS fought it. She further testified that she was denied her unemployment compensation benefits, but someone in the Governor's Office intervened and she was then paid one unemployment compensation check only. The testimony concerning the Governor's Office is uncorroborated and not credible. However, Exhibit P-7, shows that on January 3, 2002, an Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee entered a "Decision", which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Issues involved: SEPARATION: Whether the claimant [Petitioner] was discharged for misconduct connected with work or voluntarily left work without good cause (including cause attributable to the employing unit or illness or disability of the claimant requiring separation); pursuant to Sections 443.101(1), (9), (10), (11); 443.036(29), Florida Statutes; and Rule 38B- 3.020, Florida Administrative Code. LEAVE: Whether the claimant's unemployment is due to a leave of absence voluntarily initiated by the claimant, pursuant to Sections 443.036(28) and 443.101(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Findings of Fact: the claimant became employed by a children's home in August, 1994. Her last position was program supervisor. The employer was subject to the terms of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In June, 2000, the claimant used four weeks and two days of FMLA leave. That left a remaining balance of FMLA leave of seven weeks and three days to be used within 12 months. Effective November 21, 2000, the claimant again began FMLA leave which expired on January 12, 2001. At that time the claimant was unable to return to the full duties of her position because of a temporary disability. The employer had no part-time, light duty work for the claimant. The employer did not terminate her employment, but could no longer guarantee the claimant her position would be held open for her after the FMLA leave expired. The claimant underwent surgery on January 12, 2001. When she was released by her physician for full duty work, her position had been filled. The claimant filed an initial claim for unemployment benefits effective March 18, 2001. Conclusions of law: The law provides that a claimant shall be disqualified for benefits for any week of unemployment due to a leave of absence, if the leave of absence was voluntarily initiated by the claimant. A bona fide leave of absence exists only when the employer and claimant have agreed upon a specific term and the claimant is guaranteed reinstatement to the same or a substantially similar position upon expiration of the leave. The testimony in this case shows that the employer did not guarantee reinstatement to the clamant after her FMLA leave expired on January 12, 2001. Therefore, the claimant was not on a bona fide leave of absence after January 12, 2001, and she was not on a bona fide leave of absence when she filed her initial claim for unemployment benefits. When the claimant did not return to work upon the expiration of the bona fide leave of absence, she became separated from her employment. Because it was the claimant who did not return to her full duty position at that time, and not the employer preventing her from returning to her full duty position, the job separation is considered a voluntary leaving. The law provides that a claimant who has voluntarily left work without good cause as defined in the statute shall be disqualified from receiving benefits. "Good cause" includes only such cause as is attributable to the employing unit or which consists of an illness or a disability of the claimant requiring separation from the work. The term "work" means any work, whether full- time, part-time or temporary. The record and evidence in this case show that the claimant voluntarily separated from her employment on January 13, 2001, because she underwent surgery on January 12, 2001, and she was unable to return to work due to a temporary disability. Thus, the claimant became separated from her employment due to a disability requiring separation. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause consisting of a disability requiring separation, and she is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Decision: The determination of the claims adjudicator dated April 16, 2001, is MODIFIED to hold that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause consisting of a disability requiring separation. [Bracketed material and emphasis supplied] It is not certain from the record herein that the foregoing January 3, 2002, unemployment compensation decision ever became final, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Even if final, and therefore binding on the parties, the decision was made under statutory definitions and tests different from those found in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and therefore, the decision is not binding in this case. However, the decision remains instructive as to matters of timeline, such as when CHS knew that Petitioner was claiming to be handicapped and from what cause. (See, below.) Clearly, it appears that Petitioner was not acknowledging any back and leg trouble to the unemployment compensation forum at least as late April 16, 2001, and probably not as of January 3, 2002. Accordingly, it is found, on the basis of Exhibit P-7, that on March 18, 2001, Petitioner filed an initial claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Exhibit P-7 shows that the claim was apparently defended through CHS's Winter Park Office, and the record is unclear as to when Ms. Barry, whose office was located in Jacksonville, or Ms. Osborne, whose office was located in Tavares, found out about the claim. (However, see Findings of Fact 67 and 74.) Because Ms. Barry had not received any further medical certification from Petitioner before Petitioner's leave extension expired on March 27, 2001, she legitimately could have terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis that Petitioner had neither returned to work nor requested an extension of her leave. Instead, On April 3, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter advising that CHS had not received any further medical certification indicating Petitioner needed leave beyond March 27, 2001, and stating that Petitioner needed to provide medical certification if she had a continued medical need preventing her from returning to work or that required continued restrictions in the type of work she could perform. The letter further stated that if Petitioner were able to return to work, she must submit a fitness-for-duty certification. Ms. Barry requested that Petitioner submit any documentation regarding her medical status no later than April 16, 2001. On April 4, 2001, Ms. Barry received a telephone call from an attorney, Mr. Larry Colleton, requesting information on how Petitioner could apply for long-term disability insurance benefits. Ms. Barry did not believe Petitioner was eligible for long-term disability benefits because Petitioner had already been released for part-time work (see Finding of Fact 52), but she sent Petitioner an explanation of long-term disability benefits, including information that they applied to any employee who was disabled for six months or longer; an explanatory booklet; and forms to apply directly to the insurance company for that type of benefit. Ms. Barry copied Mr. Colleton with her explanatory cover letter to Petitioner. Exhibit P-7 shows Mr. Colleton as Petitioner's lawyer in the unemployment compensation case. The record is silent as to whether Ms. Barry knew, on April 4, 2001, that there was an unemployment compensation claim or of Mr. Colleton's involvement therein. Ms. Barry testified that she did not interpret Mr. Colleton's telephone request concerning long-term disability benefits to be notification of a handicap or a request for an accommodation for a handicap. On April 11, 2001, Petitioner faxed Ms. Barry a March 28, 2001 letter from Dr. Boggus advising that although Petitioner had been "completely and totally disabled from her usual occupation through March 23," she was now cleared to return to work. The fax also included a copy of Petitioner's completed application form for long-term disability benefits directed to CHS's insurance company. This form, signed by Petitioner, represented that she was disabled due to the 1999 automobile accident and the absence of any jobs within CHS that fit her limitations. Upon receiving the application for long-term disability benefits signed by Petitioner, Ms. Barry assumed that Petitioner would thereafter deal directly with CHS's insurance company to support her application for long-term disability benefits, including sending it a medical excuse dated after the March 28, 2001 release by Dr. Boggus, which Ms. Barry had received. Ms. Barry submitted the employer portion of the long- term disability paperwork to the insurance company on April 30, 2001. Exhibit P-7 shows that on April 16, 2001, an unemployment compensation claims adjudicator entered an order, which held Petitioner ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The undersigned is persuaded that this would be the last date reasonable to suppose that Ms. Barry did not know about the unemployment compensation claim. By letter dated May 9, 2001, the long-term disability insurance company sent Petitioner a letter requesting a statement from her doctor to support her long-term disability application. Ms. Barry received a copy of this letter. By letter dated June 4, 2001, the insurance company advised Petitioner that because Petitioner had previously been asked for proof of disability, and disability documentation had not been received, the insurance company was closing her file on long-term disability benefits. Ms. Barry received a copy of this letter, too. The last medical release that Ms. Barry ever received from Petitioner was Dr. Boggus's unrestricted return to work release, dated March 28, 2001, which Ms. Barry received on April 11, 2001. (See Finding of Fact 65.) By letter dated June 11, 2001, Ms. Barry notified Petitioner that she was being removed as an active CHS employee and that CHS was closing her personnel file because she had not submitted any doctor's certification indicating a medical need for a continued leave of absence and she also had not applied for any vacant open positions within CHS. This letter was the effective termination of Petitioner by Respondent. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by Ms. Barry and Ms. Osborne. There is no persuasive evidence that, between March 28, 2001, when she was medically released to return to work and June 11, 2001, when she was terminated, Petitioner had applied for any CHS positions. Barry and Osborne each credibly testified that they had no reason to believe at any time material that Petitioner was handicapped, because Petitioner's physician, Dr. Boggus, had released her as being fully able to perform the functions of her job on March 28, 2001, and as of the date of her termination, Petitioner had never complained to Barry or Osborne that she believed that she was being discriminated against on any basis. On June 19, 2001, after the first unemployment compensation decision which apparently went against her (see Finding of Fact 67), Petitioner wrote Heidi Burkett, an employee in the same Jacksonville CHS Human Resources Office as Ms. Barry. The letter referenced Petitioner's unemployment compensation claim number. By this letter, Petitioner requested reinstatement to the position of "Program Supervisor in the Lake County area or an elevated position." This letter mentioned nothing about any handicap. On June 19, 2001, there were no Program Supervisor I openings in CHS, and Petitioner was not qualified for a position above Program Supervisor I. Petitioner testified that she had a "Paralegal Master's," but in Ms. Osborne's view, that degree would not render Petitioner eligible for any open elevated position. Petitioner would have had to have an advanced degree in a field related to childcare or in social work in order to fit the qualifications of any higher position with CHS. Furthermore, Petitioner would not have been promoted to an elevated position until her supervisors had an opportunity to work with her to make sure she had resolved the performance issues which were uncovered in her Program Supervisor I position while she was on leave. There is no evidence that Petitioner made any further contacts after her June 19, 2001 letter in an attempt to return to CHS, or that she applied for, or expressed any interest in, any positions below Program Supervisor I inside or outside of Lake County. The September 29, 2001 Charge of Discrimination was the first notice Ms. Barry had that Petitioner was claiming discrimination. Petitioner claims that after June 2001, she was gainfully employed as a teacher "for a while" by the Lake County School Board and/or a technical institute. She did not demonstrate that any accommodation for handicap was necessary in these employments. The record is silent as to her earnings since her separation from CHS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 4th day of March, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Patricia Fountain, was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Direct Services Aide working with the District Four Children, Youth, and Families (CYF) Services. For some time prior to July 24, 1987, the Petitioner was under medical treatment and had been absent from work on one form or another of approved leave. On July 24, 1987, the Petitioner's physician released her from medical treatment to return to light duty. The physician's release was subsequently amended to effect the Petitioner's release to return to work on July 27, 1987. The Petitioner's supervisor, in consultation with the Petitioner's physician, arranged a schedule of light duty work for the Petitioner to perform during the week beginning July 27, 1987. On July 27, 1987, the Petitioner reported to work as scheduled and submitted a written statement from a physical therapist to the effect that it would be in the Petitioner's best interest to have a leave of absence from work. The Petitioner was advised that the statement from the physical therapist was insufficient, and that the Petitioner would be expected to perform her duties. On July 28, 1987, the Petitioner resubmitted the statement from the physical therapist with some additional information added to the statement. On that same day, the Petitioner left a written request for leave without pay on the program administrator's desk and, without anyone's knowledge, left work without authorization. The Petitioner did not thereafter return to work. Her request for leave without pay was never approved. The Petitioner's supervisor made several unsuccessful efforts to have the Petitioner attend a conference to discuss her unauthorized absence. On August 4, 1987, the Petitioner was contacted at home and served written notice that her absence was unauthorized and that she was expected to return to work on August 5, 1987. The Petitioner did not report to work on August 5, 6, or 7, 1987, nor did she report thereafter. The Petitioner did not contact her supervisor on August 5, 6, or 7, 1987, to explain her absence. A letter was mailed to the Petitioner advising her that by reason of her failure to report to work on August 5, 6, and 7, 1987, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service, effective 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 1987. During August of 1987, the Petitioner did not have any sick leave or annual leave balance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order concluding that the Petitioner, Patricia Fountain, was properly terminated for abandonment in accordance with Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 17th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Ms. Patricia Fountain 2533 Wilmot Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Pamela Miles, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Respondent resigned his position of employment with Petitioner and, if not, whether Respondent's position of employment with Petitioner should be terminated for cause, specifically, the Respondent's alleged absence without leave, his alleged abuse of sick leave, and his alleged theft of school property.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a painter pursuant to an annual contract from January 17, 1983, until January 29, 1993. Respondent was not a member of the instructional staff, a principal, or a supervisor. Respondent did not submit to the Petitioner a formal resignation of his employment, nor did he ever intend to do so. A School Board employee with an annual contract may be dismissed during the term of his contract for cause. Respondent had frequently taken leave during his term of employment with the Petitioner and he was aware of the School Board's policies pertaining to leave. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 1277, AFL-CIO (IBFO). The collective bargaining agreement between the IBFO and the School Board contains terms and conditions of employment pertinent to this proceeding. Article IV, Section F pertains to "Return from Leave" and provides as follows: Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered as absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. This section should be subject to extenuating circumstances preventing timely return, as determined by the Superintendent. Article IV, Section A of the collective bargaining agreement pertains to sick leave and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. Sick Leave Charged -- Sick leave shall be charged in no less than half-day segments. Each school or Department shall record absences on an hourly basis. When the appropriate half-day increment is reached, based upon the assigned employee workday, the employee shall have 1/2 day of accumulated sick leave deducted. . . . * * * 10. False Claim -- False claim for sick leave shall be grounds for dismissal by the School Board. Petitioner's Administrative Directive D-3.47(3) is a rule of the School Board and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3) District employees shall not convert School Board property, including any equipment and supplies, for personal business or activity. CONVERSION OF SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY In November 1992, Warren Haan, the paint supervisor for the Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Operations, was told by Jacques Brisson, Respondent's foreman, that it appeared to him that Respondent was taking school property for his own use. Mr. Haan investigated the allegations and went to the area in the maintenance department where the employees parked their vehicles. Mr. Haan looked into Respondent's personal vehicle and discovered that Respondent had placed inside of his vehicle property of the School Board. The evidence established that Respondent intended to convert this property to his own use. The property, which was taken from the Respondent before he could remove it from school grounds, consisted of an empty paint bucket, painter's rags, a small quantity of caulk, and a caulking gun. Mr. Haan referred this matter to the school security department on January 4, 1993. Respondent had not been disciplined at the time of his alleged resignation because the matter was still under investigation at that time. Respondent testified that other painters regularly took items such as empty paint buckets and paint rags. This self-serving testimony does not establish that Petitioner routinely permitted painters to violate the clear school policies pertaining to unauthorized use of school property. To the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Brisson established that theft had been a problem that he had tried to stop. ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE The Respondent occasionally was employed as a painter by individuals and entities other than the Petitioner. Such employment was permissible, but an employee was not permitted to perform services for private individuals while out on sick leave. The Respondent reported to work on December 3, 1992, and left his employment in the late morning using sick leave for the remainder of the day. That same day, Mr. Haan received information that led him to believe that Respondent had taken sick leave, but that he was working as a painter at a house under construction in an area referred to as Boca Grove in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Haan went with Dave Traill, another school board employee, to this private residence at approximately 2:30 p.m. on December 3, 1992, where he observed Respondent's automobile. He went to the residence under construction and asked to see the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter came out of the house and talked with Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill. Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill did not see what Respondent had been doing inside the residence. Respondent testified that he had seen his doctor for a brief appointment earlier that day and had gone from his doctor's office to the residence at Boca Grove. Respondent admitted at the formal hearing that he had agreed to paint the house for the owner, but asserted that he had gone to the house to tell the owner that he would not be working that day. Respondent testified that he had taken vacation leave when he actually worked on the private residence. Respondent admitted that he had spent approximately two hours on December 3, 1992, while on sick leave going over with the owner items of work that he was to perform. This meeting was a necessary part of the painting job he was to do for the owner. From the evidence presented, it is found that on December 3, 1992, the Respondent performed services unrelated to his duties as a school board employee for his personal gain at this house in Boca Grove while absent from his employment with the Petitioner pursuant to sick leave. Respondent abused Petitioner's sick leave policy. ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE In January 1993, Petitioner took time off from his work to attend to his wife, who continued to experience physical problems resulting from a heel fracture on August 28, 1992. Respondent contacted his foreman, Jacques Brisson, at approximately 7:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993, to request that he be allowed to take that week off as vacation time. Mr. Brisson approved that leave, but he informed Respondent that he would have to contact Warren Haan, the painting supervisor, if he wanted to take any additional time off. Respondent was absent from his employment without approved leave on Monday, February 1, 1993; Tuesday, February 2, 1993; Wednesday, February 3, 1993; and Thursday, February 4, 1993. Friday, February 5, 1993, was not a scheduled work day since the paint department was on a four day work week. Respondent testified that he contacted Mr. Haan during the last week of January 1993 and told him he may need to be off work for a week or longer. Respondent also testified that Mr. Haan authorized his leave during the last week of January 1993. Mr. Haan testified at the formal hearing, but he was not questioned about this conversation or whether he authorized leave for the Respondent during any part of February 1993. Mr. Haan testifed that Respondent's employment was terminated because he was absent without authorization for the days in February and that Respondent would have contacted Mr. Brisson to obtain authorization for leave. Respondent later testified that he did not know why he had not contacted anyone prior to being absent on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. The apparent conflicts in Respondent's testimony are resolved by finding that while Respondent may have told Mr. Haan at some time during January 1993 that he needed to take some time off, he did not seek and he was not given authorization to be absent from his employment on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. On February 5, 1993, Warren Page, Coordinator of Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Plant Operations, sent to Respondent by certified mailing a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: This is to confirm that you have not reported to work since January 29, 1993. You have not contacted this office as required to report your intended absences. You have not requested or received approval for a short term leave of absence. Therefore, you are currently absent without approved leave. In the absence of any correspondence from you, I can only assume that you have decided not to continue working as a Painter for the Palm Beach County School Board. Please be advised that your name will be submitted to the Palm Beach County School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for acceptance of your resignation from employment. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact this office. Respondent received the certified mailing on Saturday, February 6, 1993. On Monday, February 8, 1993, Respondent contacted Lawrence G. Zabik, the Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, and asked him what he should do about the certified mailing that he had received. Mr. Zabik told Respondent that he should meet with Mr. Page to see if he could work things out. Respondent did not contact Mr. Page, and he did not report to work. During a regularly scheduled meeting in February, 1993, the School Board voted to accept his resignation with an effective date of January 29, 1993. January 29, 1993, was the effective date of the acceptance of Respondent's "resignation" and the date his employment with the School Board was terminated because it was the last day Respondent was out on authorized leave. This action was taken pursuant to Petitioner's Administrative Directive D- 3.27(2)(c), which provides as follows: (c) When employees do not report for duty for three (3) consecutive days without notifying their supervisor, the principal/department head will initiate a certified letter to the employees stating that their resignations will be recommended to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. By notice dated March 2, 1993, Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted his resignation as a painter with an effective date of January 29, 1993. The notice dated March 2, 1993, contained an old address for the Respondent. Consequently, he did not receive a copy of the notice until May 24, 1993, when he was officially informed that his employment had been terminated effective January 29, 1993, the last day on which Respondent had been on approved leave. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest his termination, and this proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order which terminates the employment of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 May 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4233 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence established that the incident involving conversion of school board property occurred in November 1992, but that it was reported to Mr. Sapyta on January 4, 1993. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, and 10 are rejected as being unnecessary as findings of fact, but the proposed findings are adopted either as preliminary matters or as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since there is no contention that Respondent had exhausted his sick leave. The proposed findings in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected. Specifically, Mr. Haan's credibility was not eroded as asserted by Respondent. The other findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since this is a de novo proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Hazel Lucas, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 381 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1504 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire 3501 South Congress Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed a unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent initially hired Petitioner as a legal secretary in 1997. At that time, Petitioner worked in Respondent's office in Chipley, Florida. Petitioner suffered no continuing medical problems in 1997. In a memorandum dated April 17, 2001, Respondent's staff advised Petitioner that employees using more leave than they had earned would have to be place on "leave without pay" for the time used in excess of time earned. In a letter dated May 14, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that she intended to resign her position as a legal secretary effective May 25, 2001. Petitioner wrote the letter because she was moving to Apalachicola, Florida. Instead of accepting Petitioner's resignation, Respondent offered and Petitioner accepted a transfer as a legal secretary in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was able to continue working for Respondent without a break in service. In the summer of 2002, Petitioner began to suffer from an unexplained shortness of breath. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent knew the cause for the symptoms Petitioner was experiencing. By letter dated October 9, 2002, Respondent once again advised Petitioner that she could not use more leave time than the amount she earned. On at least one occasion, Petitioner's excessive time-off caused a reduction in her salary for "leave without pay." In a memorandum dated October 11, 2002, Respondent's staff documented concerns about Petitioner's attendance and performance. One of the concerns was Petitioner's chronic failure to file reports in a timely manner. Petitioner was late in filing the reports even though Respondent allowed her to prepare them at home and send them to Respondent by facsimile transmission from her husband's place of business. In February 2003, Petitioner still did not have a medical diagnosis to explain why she was sick and unable to work. On or about February 13, 2003, Petitioner and her supervisor agreed that Petitioner would take leave without pay pending an excuse from a doctor that she was unable to work. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent offered to let Petitioner have an indefinite leave of absence is not persuasive. On March 12, 2003, Petitioner provided Respondent medical documentation, excusing her from work due to unspecified illness through March 17, 2003. On or about March 14, 2003, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital. Subsequent medical tests revealed blood clots in Petitioner's lungs. Petitioner was eventually released from the hospital with prescriptions for blood thinning medication and oxygen. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor's note, dated March 18, 2003, excused Petitioner from work for two weeks. On or about April 2, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor stated that Petitioner had been hospitalized with a serious condition called pulmonary embolus and that she continued to have significant symptoms of shortness of breath and fatigue. The doctor's note stated that Petitioner would not be able to work for six weeks. On May 5, 2003, Jackie Pooser, Respondent's Administrative Director, talked to Petitioner by telephone. Ms. Pooser advised Petitioner that she needed to provide another doctor's excuse by May 8, 2003, if she was still under a doctor's care and unable to return to work. Otherwise, Respondent expected Petitioner to resume her duties in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was Respondent's only secretary in Port St. Joe, Florida. That office was in dire need of a performing secretary. However, apart from her illness, Petitioner was not anxious to return to work in the Port St. Joe office because she had a personality conflict with the only full-time attorney who worked there. During the May 5, 2003, telephone conversation, Petitioner did not tell Ms. Pooser that she was disabled or request any on-the-job accommodation. Instead, she led Ms. Pooser to believe that she intended to return to her job when authorized to do so by her doctor, hopefully in June 2003. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she never requested that Respondent provide her with any type of accommodation. In a letter dated May 6, 2003, Ms. Pooser confirmed the May 5, 2003, phone conversation. In the letter, Ms. Pooser further reminded Petitioner that her medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. The letter referred to the Public Defender Classification & Pay Plan requirements for a doctor's excuse without which an employee is considered to have abandoned his or her employment position. Petitioner's medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. Petitioner did not return to work or provide Respondent with further medical documentation. On May 16, 2003, Respondent verbally terminated Petitioner by telephone. A follow-up letter dated May 19, 2003, stated that Petitioner's work performance had not been satisfactory for some period of time. The letter also stated that Petitioner had abandoned her position by failing to provide Respondent with a doctor's excuse. Petitioner's testimony that she requested her physician to send the medical excuse directly to Respondent by facsimile transmission is not persuasive. Petitioner did not call Respondent to inquire whether Respondent received the excuse or to offer any other explanation for failing to send medical documentation to Respondent. Petitioner's doctor subsequently released her to return to work. Petitioner received unemployment compensation for at least one month. In August 2003, Petitioner began working for a real estate company, checking guests into resort rentals. She resigned that job after working for one month. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not disabled when she worked for Respondent. According to Petitioner, she was diagnosed as being disabled in October 2003, after experiencing further medical problems. However, Petitioner has provided no competent (non-hearsay) evidence of that diagnosis. Respondent's attendance and leave policy states as follows in relevant part: STATEMENTS OF POLICY * * * The granting of any leave of absence with or without pay shall be in writing and shall be approved by the proper authority within the Public Defender Office. An employee who is granted leave of absence with or without pay shall be an employee of the Public Defender while on such leave and shall be returned to the same position or a different position in the same class and same work location upon termination of the approved leave of absence, unless the Public Defender and the employee agree in writing to other conditions and terms under which such leave is to be granted. Any leave of absence with or without pay shall be approved prior to the leave being taken except in the case of an emergency where the employee must be absent prior to receiving approval from the proper authority for the absence. * * * (b) If an employee's request for leave of absence is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the Public Defender may place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays may consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Public Defender's Office. * * * 3.14 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE In accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor, eligible employees can receive up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the following reasons: . . . taking care of one's own serious health condition. Employees are not required to take all 12 weeks at once. The employee may request a few days or weeks off at a time (referred to as intermittent leave) or continue to work on a part-time basis (reduced leave). Unless written medical justification deems it necessary, the Public Defender is not required to grant intermittent or reduced leave. * * * (4) Employees must provide reasonable notice (30 days if possible) and make an effort to schedule their leave so as not to unduly disrupt agency operations. The Public Defender may request progress reports from the employees regarding leave status. * * * (7) The Public Defender may require certification from a healthcare provider regarding the need for medical leave, as well as certification of an employee's fitness to return to work. From August 1, 2002, through May 16, 2003, Respondent approved 518 hours or 12 weeks and 38 hours of leave without pay. During the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she received the leave without pay. Her testimony that she was not familiar with the above-referenced policies is not credible.
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 23rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 23rd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Public Defender, Fourteenth Circuit Jackson County Courthouse Post Office Box 636 Marianna, Florida 32447 Christian C. Griggs 130 25th Avenue Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue The issue in this case involves a consideration of whether the Petitioner has abandoned his job position with the Respondent as described in Rule 22A- 7.010, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact In the relevant time period which is associated with this case, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Revenue as an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville, Florida, office of the Northeast Region, Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax. He worked with the Respondent agency beginning April 1980 until his dismissal from the agency on December 17, 1986, based upon the theory that he had allegedly abandoned his job within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. During his employment Petitioner operated out of his home, which was in Palm Coast, Florida. Douglas Drozd, an employee of the Respondent agency, was sent to the Jacksonville office of the Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax to serve as a temporary Appraiser Supervisor for that office. This assignment occurred on October 6, 1986. On October 21, 1986, Albert Johnson, the former Appraiser Supervisor with the Jacksonville office, left that position. Following the departure of Johnson, Drozd became the permanent Appraiser Supervisor for the Jacksonville office. From October 6, 1986, through November 18, 1986, Drozd acted in the capacity as the immediate supervisor of the Petitioner. Beyond that date, Robert Worley, an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville office, took over the position of Appraiser Supervisor in the subject regional office. Worley served in the capacity of supervisor from November 19, 1986, until December 22, 1986, when he returned to his duties as Appraiser II. While Worley was serving as Appraiser Supervisor, Drozd took over the function of Property Appraiser, Duval County, Florida. On December 22, 1986, Drozd returned to his duties as Appraiser Supervisor for Respondent's Jacksonville office. On November 17, 1986, Petitioner asked the permission of his supervisor, Drozd, to take annual leave for days in December 1986. This request was not made in writing and was not responded to in writing. Although Rule 22A- 8.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, contemplates that leave shall be requested in writing, it gas the custom and practice of the Respondent agency for oral requests for annual leave to be made and approved orally. At the time of the conversation on November 17, 1986, between the Petitioner and Drozd concerning the request for annual leave, Drozd initially granted that request without any reservations or contingencies being applied to the permission given. Subsequently, on that same day, Drozd told Richards that he expected that all "field work" assigned to the Petitioner should be completed before leave was taken. This arrangement included work being done on vacant parcels of property as well as improved parcels. More particularly, "field work" includes: Completion of neighborhood analysis form Dr-549 Completion of structural elements form Dr-551 Measurements of all improvements Notes pertaining to subject property (condition of property, any unusual circumstances) Sketching and traversing (perimeter measurements for calculating square footage) Pictures Completion of factual change of physical characteristics forms. Worley was unaware on November 17, 1986, of the arrangement between Drozd and the Petitioner concerning conditions placed upon the permission for the Petitioner to take leave as set forth by Drozd. Petitioner's work assignment involved 180 parcels. Effective December 12, 1986, 27 parcels had "field work" which was incomplete, according to his flow chart of that date. Effective that date, Petitioner had turned in field folders for 88 of the 180 parcels. He kept 92 field folders for the remaining parcels. Thus, his supervisor was unable to verify whether Petitioner had completed his "field work" as summarized in his flow chart submitted on December 12, 1986. According to Petitioner's account set forth in his flow chart of December 12, 1986, which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit R submitted by the Respondent and admitted into evidence, the 27 parcels pertained to vacant land. Petitioner further conceded that other minor problems existed concerning the completeness of the "field work" pertaining to the improved parcels reported in his flow chart. Prior to Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office on December 12, 1986, Worley, who was then serving as the Appraiser Supervisor, did not have a detailed knowledge of the flow chart submitted by the Petitioner on that date. Worley had reviewed some of the Petitioner's files and noted shortcomings in the work; however, on balance, Worley took no issue with Petitioner's work progress. Worley acquiesced in the Petitioner's departure on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, as a prelude to the commencement of Petitioner's annual leave on December 15, 1986 This acquiescence was by a verbal expression to the effect that the Petitioner should have a nice holiday. By contrast, on December 12, 1986, Drozd became aware, upon examination of Petitioner's flow chart, that certain parcels had not been completed in terms of "field work." Drozd's observations about Petitioner's flow chart became significant when Worley and Drozd spoke to supervisors in Tallahassee, Florida, on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, in the person of Ben Faulk, Chief of the Bureau of Field Operations in the Respondent agency, and Eugene White, who was the Deputy Director of the Division of Ad Valorem Tax for that organization. In actuality, there were two conversations, and in the latter conversation Drozd participated in a discussion in which Faulk, White and Drozd determined that Petitioner should not be allowed to proceed with annual leave based upon his failure to comply with the contingency which Drozd had established on November 17, 1986, pertaining to Petitioner's wish to take annual leave, the contingency being completion of "field work." The latter conversation between Worley, Drozd, White and Faulk took place following Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office. At the time this conversation was held, Drozd was not a member of the Respondent agency. On the other hand, Faulk and White were appropriate officials within the Respondent agency with power to make determinations concerning the annual leave of a subordinate employee, in this instance, the Petitioner. Worley was also a proper source of policy in she management chain. It was decided that Worley should try to telephone the Petitioner and forestall the use of the annual leave by Petitioner. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that Faulk and White felt that this denial of Petitioner's annual leave based upon Petitioner's failure to meet a contingency concerning his "field work" was an appropriate disposition of the case. Around 6:00 p.m., Worley was able to reach Petitioner by telephone while Petitioner was at his daughter's home, preparing to leave for a trip to Washington, D.C. In placing the telephone call to Petitioner, Worley did not favor the revocation of leave opportunity. Nonetheless, he did revoke the leave while acting as supervisor for the Northeast Region, at the behest of Drozd and upon authority of Faulk and White. In the conversation with Petitioner on December 12, 1986, by telephone, Worley told Petitioner that his leave had been revoked and that Petitioner should report to his job assignment at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 15, 1986, or be considered on unauthorized leave. Further, it was explained to Petitioner that he would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he had not returned to work by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1986. These remarks by Worley were not equivocal, and Petitioner understood the significance of those instructions and the implications of his failure to attend his duties on the dates described. This understanding of the explanation of unauthorized leave and potential abandonment of his job position was held by the Petitioner at the point of the conversation at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 12, 1986. Instead of reporting to work on December 15, 1986, at 8:00 a.m., Respondent absented himself from his job assignment on that date and on December 16 and 17, 1986. For those three consecutive days in which Respondent did not attend his job, his nonattendance was without authorization to take any form of leave and in the face of having been advised that he was in the posture of unauthorized leave. The days that Petitioner was missing from his job were work days. Petitioner's choice to go forward with his vacation plans and ignore the instruction of his supervisor concerning returning to his job position was made knowingly, with volition, with intent and showed willful disregard of a legitimate order of a superior. Petitioner had decided that since he had longstanding plans for taking annual leave in Washington, D.C., and given the fact that his wife was already there awaiting the arrival of the Petitioner and his daughter, he would go forward with his plan on the expectation that someone in his employment system would not allow a conclusion to be drawn that he had abandoned his job position. In furtherance of the assertion that the Petitioner would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he didn't return before the conclusion of the work day on December 17, 1986, a memorandum was sent to the Petitioner at his residence on December 15, 1986. A copy of that memorandum may be found as Respondent's Exhibit Q admitted into evidence. Petitioner did not become aware of this memorandum until returning from his vacation. When he returned, he signed for service of correspondence of December 18, 1986, which constituted the Respondent agency's notice of claimed abandonment and notice of rights to administrative hearing to contest that claim. A copy of that notification may be found as part of the Respondent's Exhibit M admitted into evidence, together with the return receipt signed by the Petitioner on December 29, 1986. A timely petition requesting consideration of the agency's claims of abandonment was filed by the Petitioner on January 5, 1987.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner became an employee of an FRS employer within a calendar month after completing his participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) in violation of Subsection 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes (2006)1; whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an unadopted rule; and whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to several facts in this proceeding. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the FRS. Petitioner was employed as an equipment operator (street sweeper) by the City of Venice, Florida (the City), for more than 35 years until he completed his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. At that time Petitioner was earning approximately $38,000.00 annually. The City revoked its participation in the FRS effective January 1, 1996, and established a new City retirement plan. The new City retirement plan applies to all employees hired after January 1, 1996. However, the City continued its participation in the FRS for all employees who were members of the FRS prior to January 1, 1996. Petitioner elected to participate in DROP on March 31, 2002. At the conclusion of DROP, Petitioner received a lump-sum payment of approximately $84,279.00 and received monthly benefits until Respondent ceased paying benefits in accordance with the proposed agency action. Petitioner's efforts at reemployment were unsuccessful. On January 31, 2007, the City employed Petitioner to perform the same work he previously performed at a base salary as a "new hire."2 The City assured Petitioner that reemployment would not adversely affect Petitioner's FRS retirement benefits because the City does not consider itself an FRS employer. A member of the City's human resources department contacted a representative for Respondent to verify the City's statutory interpretation. The conversation eventually led to this proceeding. Petitioner was not employed by an employer under the FRS during the next calendar month after completing his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. Judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law hold that the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is a factual finding. When Petitioner began employment with the City on January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not a member of the FRS within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(12). He was not an employee covered under the FRS because he was hired after January 1, 1996, when the City revoked its participation in FRS. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(11). Petitioner was not employed in a covered group within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(34). Petitioner did not become a member under Chapter 121, and the City was not a "city for which coverage under this chapter" was applied for and approved for Petitioner. On January 11, 2007, Petitioner ceased all employment relationships with "employers under this system" within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(39). When Petitioner resumed employment on January 31, 2007, Petitioner did not fail to terminate employment with an employer under the FRS system. Petitioner's new employer was not an employer under the FRS system and had not been such an employer after January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City was not a covered employer for any employees employed after that date, including Petitioner. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee of an employer within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(10). The City did not participate in the FRS system for the benefit of Petitioner. The employment of Petitioner by the City on January 31, 2007, had no financial impact on the FRS, and Petitioner did not begin to accrue new benefits with the FRS. Respondent did not demonstrate in the record why the agency's proposed statutory interpretation requires special agency insight or expertise and did not articulate in the record any underlying technical reasons for deference to agency expertise. Nor did the agency explain in the record or its PRO why the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is not an issue of fact that is within the exclusive province of the fact-finder. Respondent proposes a literal interpretation of selected statutory terms without explaining legislative intent for the prohibition against reemployment within the next calendar month.3 Respondent's proposed statutory interpretation also fails to distinguish the economic impact in situations involving what may be fairly characterized as a dual-purpose employer; that is one like the City which is part covered employer and part non-covered employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order reinstating Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits, paying all past due amounts to Petitioner, with interest, and dismissing its request for reimbursement of past FRS benefits from Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Basil Glinton (Glinton), was employed full time by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) as a Public Assistance Specialist II. On September 14, 1984, as a result of a transfer, Glinton was scheduled to start work at the Department's Food Stamp Office, Unit 61, in Miami, Florida. At 9:15 a.m., September 14, 1984, a Friday, Glinton reported to Unit He requested and received his paycheck, and advised the acting supervisor that he had a doctor's appointment which would require his absence from the office for about one hour. Glinton did not return to the office that day. On Monday, September 17, 1984, Glinton reported to Unit 61 and worked from 8:12 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On that date, the office supervisor, Raquel Tima, met with Glinton and spoke with him about his absence of September 14, 1984. Ms. Lima advised Glinton that she needed a doctor's statement to authorize that absence. No doctor's statement has been produced. Glinton failed to report for work the remainder of that workweek-- September 18-21, 1984. On September 21, 1984, Ms. Lima sent a warning letter, certified mail, to Glinton. The postal claim check reflects that Glinton was notified of the letter on September 24, 1984, September 29, 1984, and October 9, 1984, but failed to claim it. Glinton likewise failed to report for work the following week-- September 24-28, 1984. He did, however, appear at the office on Friday, September 28, 1984, to request his paycheck. On October 1, 1984, Glinton was personally delivered a letter dated September 28, 1984, which advised him that his absence from work since September 18, 1984 was unauthorized and that, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2), F.A.C., he was deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. The letter further advised Glinton of his right to petition the Department of administration for a review of the facts and whether they constitute abandonment. By letter dated October 4, 1984, Glinton timely petitioned the Department of Administration for review. In his letter, and at final hearing, Glinton claimed he was ill and under a doctor's care for the period of September 18-28, 1984, and that he had routinely called, or had someone else call, the office to advise them of his illness. While professing "illness" for a two-week period, Glinton failed to offer any evidence of the nature of his illness. He further failed to offer the testimony of his physician, or any other evidence supportive of his claim. While Glinton acknowledges familiarity with the Department's rule which requires that the supervisor be notified of absence due to illness, he made no attempt to contact his supervisor. The only time the office was notified of his absence was on September 19, 1984 when an unknown female telephoned and advised the switchboard operator, without explanation, that Glinton would not be coming to work on that date. Glinton's testimony that his absence from work during the period of September 18-28, 1984 was due to illness, and that he telephoned the office every day during his absence, is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order that: Petitioner, Basil Glinton, abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective October 1, 1984. Dismisses the petition of Basil Glinton with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 8th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite 1070, 410 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Robert L. McKinney, Esquire Suite 1107 Jackson Medical Tower 1500 N.W. 12th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a career-service employee of Respondent. She served as a health service representative assigned to the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Her specific task was to investigate and follow up on contacts for sexually transmitted diseases. Petitioner's Employee Handbook, which Respondent received when she was hired, states: You may request annual leave for any purpose desired, but you must obtain Your supervisor's approval before taking annual leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask for verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work, complete the leave request form for your supervisor's signature. The Handbook also Provides that certain employees are entitled to one eight-hour personal holiday "at a time which is mutually agreeable to the individual and the immediate supervisor." The local policy of the Seminole County Public Health Unit required each employee to request leave by filling out the back of a timesheet. In this manner, the employee would show the type of leave requested, the date and time of the leave, the employee's initials. The form provided spaces for the signature of the supervisor and the date described in detail in the Paragraph 5 below. The back of the timesheet states: "All Leave and Overtime must be requested and approved in advance." The Handbook requires advance approval of annual leave. Although the blanket statement on the back of the timesheet requires advance approval of all leave and overtime, the Seminole County Public Health Unit routinely did not require advance approval for all types of leave. For instance, sick leave, overtime, and annual leave for less than a few hours were normally approved after the fact. On at least two occasions, including one involving Respondent, annual leave for an entire day was also approved after it had beef taken. However, the Seminole County Public Health Unit normally requires advance approval of annual leave for a Period of one day or more. The instructions on the timesheet direct that the date next to the supervisor's signature indicate the date of the request for leave. Consistent with the varying policies governing leave, the date beside the supervisor's signature on the timesheet was used to show the date of approval of a request for annual leave and the date of the request for sick leave and certain other types of leave. By negative implication, the Handbook also requires written approval of annual leave for nonemergencies because it expressly permits "verbal approval" for annual leave for emergencies. There are no requirements in the Handbook or the timesheets for written approval of requests for other forms of leave, and the Seminole County Public Health Unit did not maintain enforceable policies to that effect. Two persons were authorized to approve requests of Respondent for annual leave. The first person was Charlotte Blades, who was the coordinator of the sexually transmitted disease program of the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Ms. Blades was Respondent's immediate supervisor The other person authorized to approve requests for annual leave was Bernice Duncan, who was the senior community health nurse of the Seminole County Public Health Unit and Ms. Blades' supervisor. In practice, the written approval of Ms. Blades could be revoked by Ms. Duncan. On one occasion, Respondent requested eight hours' annual leave to attend her son's high school graduation on June 9, 1989. Ms. Blades signed the timesheet on May 23, 1989. Between that date and the date of the leave, Ms. Duncan told Respondent that, although Ms. Blades had signed the timesheet, the leave was not approved. Ultimately, Respondent received approval for leave through 2:30 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m., on the day of the graduation. In late July or early August, 1989, Respondent submitted a timesheet requesting 32 hours' annual leave from August 28-31, 1989. About one week later, before Ms. Blades or Ms. Duncan had acted on the request, Respondent changed the request to September 1, which was the Friday before Labor Day weekend, and September 13-14, 1989. In addition, she requested leave with pay for September 15, 1989, as her personal holiday. According to the timesheets, Ms. Blades approved the September 1 leave request on August 25, 1989, which was a Saturday. She assured Respondent that she would discuss with Ms. Duncan the remaining requests for leave. Respondent followed up with Ms. Blades several times, explaining that she wanted the leave to attend her son's graduation ceremonies from military basic training in South Carolina. Despite her assurances, Ms. Blades had not mentioned Respondent's request to Ms. Duncan before Ms. Blades became sick and missed work from September 6-9. On the second day of Ms. Blades' absence, Respondent took her request to Ms. Duncan, who said that she had not been aware of Respondent's request. Ms. Duncan told Respondent that Ms. Blades was on sick leave and did not respond further. The following day, Respondent spoke again with Ms. Duncan, who this time assured her that if Ms. Blades were not at work on Monday, September 11, Ms. Duncan would sign the timesheet approving the leave requested for September 13-15. Ms. Blades returned to work on Monday, September 11. When Respondent asked her in the morning to sign the timesheet, Ms. Blades refused to do so and told her that it had not yet been approved. Consistent with her prior conversations with Respondent, though, Ms. Blades did not say that the request had been disapproved. Respondent then left the office for much of the day. When she returned, Ms. Blades and Ms. Duncan were both out. The next day, Tuesday, September 12, Ms. Blades spoke with Respondent, but still declined to say whether the request was approved or rejected. She continued to say merely that the request had not yet been approved. Tuesday afternoon, Respondent told a coworker to tell Ms. Blades that Respondent was going to South Carolina and would be back the following Monday morning. While still in town, Respondent telephoned both supervisors shortly after 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, but they had not arrived at work yet. Respondent asked the receptionist to remind Ms. Blades that Respondent had gone to South Carolina and would return the following Monday morning. Both messages were delivered to Ms. Blades, who relayed them to Ms. Duncan. Respondent then departed for South Carolina, where she remained through at least September 15. At the time of her departure, Respondent knew that her request for annual leave had not been approved and that she was taking unauthorized annual leave. When she arrived back in the office on September 18, Respondent received a copy of a letter dated September 15 that had been mailed to her the prior Friday. The letter states that Respondent had been separated from State service for abandonment of position, effective at the close of business on September 15, 1989. The second paragraph of the letter contains material misstatements of fact. It states that Respondent had been advised that, due to the present work situation, her leave could not be approved. The letter also states that she did not contact her supervisor that she would be absent. No one ever advised Respondent that her leave could not be approved or in fact was rejected until after her return from South Carolina. Also, Respondent informed both supervisors, directly and through third parties, that she would be absent, where she was going, why, and when she would return. However, she did not contact them during the three-day absence. Concerning the request for leave for a personal holiday, neither Ms. Blades nor Ms. Duncan ever informed Respondent that the date was inconvenient. Under the circumstances, Respondent could reasonably infer that the date was agreeable with Ms. Blades. At no time did Respondent intend to abandon her career-service position. The facts do not support a reasonable inference that Respondent abandoned her job during the three days in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not abandoned her position in Career Service employment with the State of Florida. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. Parkinson Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 701 Orlando, FL 32801 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Alva J. Barfield 1010 Locust Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
Findings Of Fact On April 18, 1988, Respondent, Jack Schenkel, was employed as one of fifteen fire fighter/emergency medical technicians, (EMT), with the Tarpon Springs Fire Department. He was scheduled to work on C shift which was to start at 7 am and extend for 24 hours until 7 am, April 19, 1988. In accordance with normal procedure, he then would have been off for 48 hours before his next shift. At approximately 1:30 am on April 18, Lt. Dennis L. Jennings, B shift supervisor, was on duty at the main fire station, when he received a phone call from the Respondent who indicated he had had a serious quarrel with his girl friend. Respondent indicated she was drunk and had "trashed" his house and he needed to stay at home to insure his possessions were not ruined. Respondent's actual request was for a personal day off, and when Mr. Jennings indicated there was no such thing for City employees, Respondent asked for a vacation day. It is and has been, for as long as Respondent has worked with TSFD, Department policy that vacation pay can only be authorized by personnel above the grade of Lieutenant, and while the actual paper request may, at times, be signed after the fact, the authorization must be received prior to departure so that the Department has time to rearrange schedules to accommodate the absence. When Mr. Jennings advised Respondent of this, though evidence indicates he was aware of it, Respondent indicated he had had no sleep and as a result, Mr. Jennings suggested that Respondent take a day of sick leave. However, Mr. Jennings also reminded Respondent that in accordance with an order issued in writing by the Fire Chief in 1979 to the effect that requests for sick leave must be called in between 6 and 6:30 am of the day in question, prior to the start of the duty day, he would have to call in during the prescribed time to arrange for his sick leave. Though a Lieutenant can take the information, he does not have the authority to approve the leave. As a matter of fact, however, bona fide sick leave, called in in conjunction with the Chief's order, at an appropriate time, is never disapproved. Respondent did not call in between 6 and 6:30 am on April 18 to request sick leave as he had been instructed to do by Lt. Jennings. Mr. Lopes, also a fire fighter, who was scheduled to work on the same shift, arrived at approximately 6:50 that morning. When he spoke to Lt. Jennings to ask where he would be assigned, Jennings advised him that Respondent had not come in and Lopes would fill his slot. Jennings told Lopes what Respondent had told him concerning the house and like matters. At that point, Lopes advised Mr. Jennings that Respondent did not own the house where he was living nor was he the prime tenant. To verify this, Jennings telephoned Respondent at home at approximately 7:05 am. When Respondent answered the phone and Jennings asked why he had not reported for duty, Respondent indicated that he intended to take a sick day. Jennings reminded him that he had not called in properly and told him that if he took the time off, there would be repercussions. According to Jennings, Respondent did not seem concerned about that possibility, replying something like, "Oh well, whatever." Lt. Jennings logged this call in and reported the situation to his relief, Lt. Parker, the incoming shift lieutenant. He also discussed the matter the following morning with Assistant Chief Carr and at Carr's request, submitted a written statement of what had happened. According to the City regulations, sick leave, such as was requested by Respondent here, can be used for situations where the employee himself is sick or disabled; where the employee has an appointment with a physician or dentist; where the employee in under medical quarantine; and as a result of a death in the immediate family of the employee, in which case, only four days leave are authorized. Girl friends are not included within the definition of "immediate family." In the opinion of Mr. Carr, sick leave is not authorized for circumstances such as were described by Respondent in his reasons for not coming in. Under the terms of the City regulation, taking a sick day for a reason not within the above-described categories, constitutes grounds for discipline. When Respondent came to work on April 21, 1988, Chief Carr called him in and asked for an explanation of why Respondent had failed to report for duty on April 18. In response, Respondent told him the same story he had related to Lt. Jennings. In the course of their conversation, Carr advised Respondent that he, Respondent, knew from prior incidents that sick leave was not appropriate under these circumstances. Respondent replied that his girl friend was sick and he was concerned about her safety, and showed Carr a copy of the police report regarding the incident on April 18 which reflected that she was highly intoxicated. Carr advised Respondent that the circumstances did not justify or authorize sick leave, and that action would be taken to terminate him from employment. With that, Respondent left. After Respondent departed, Chief Carr reviewed his personnel records in detail and saw the number of sick days Respondent had taken since he began work with the Department, as well as his prior disciplinary record. Respondent's personnel record shows that in the years he has been an employee of the City, he has taken 44 sick days accounting for 1,056 hours of sick leave. He then prepared a memorandum outlining it which he forwarded to the City personnel director who concluded that termination was appropriate. Respondent's personnel records reflect the following actions: Memorandum 7/82 from Respondent's shift leader indicating he arrived 2 hours 9 minutes late for work. When questioned, he related his alarm did not go off due to a possible power failure. Memorandum 8/19/82 from Respondent's supervisor reflecting he was again late for work by 1 hour 45 minutes. On 2/7/83, Respondent called in for sick leave at 6:40 am, 10 minutes after the close of the call-in window. Respondent was given a written reprimand. On 3/23/83 Respondent reported for work at 7:11 am without calling in. He indicated he had a flat tire. He was ordered to take a one day suspension without pay. On 5/2/83 Respondent was found asleep on duty with earphones on his head, a violation of rule 5, Section 4, Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Tarpon Springs. For this offense, Respondent was given a warning. On October 27, 1983, Respondent was warned and counseled regarding the prior discrepancies in his job performance including the incident involving his sleeping on duty and his 17 incidents of sick leave within a relatively short period. On October 7, 1985, Respondent was again counseled on his excessive use of sick days which then amounted to 26 despite a counseling on the matter in December, 1984 and in October, 1983. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was disciplined for calling in at 6:48 am, on February 4, 1986, outside the window for sick leave call in. He was given a written warning and a one day suspension without pay. On August 7, 1987, Respondent called in sick at 6:17 am which was within the parameters of the Chief's order. As is the Department's policy, however, the Lieutenant on duty called back several minutes later to check on the employee, and found that Respondent was not sick. In fact, he had left to go to the store to pick up a part for the truck on which he was working. Since this constituted an abuse of sick leave, he was given a three shift suspension without pay. On January 28, 1988, Respondent was counseled for poor report writing and advised to take greater care in doing so. Even after two warnings to this effect, his reports were still incorrect and incomplete and he was given a written warning. Chief Carr is of the opinion that Respondent's improperly using sick days, and his failure to call in to request sick leave on time, demonstrates a disregard for the City's leave program and regulations. After the incident on April 18, Chief Carr had a report prepared analyzing Respondent's sick leave from the beginning of his employment with the Department in 1982. This report showed a pattern wherein Respondent would work one shift, do overtime and exchange days with other fire fighters so he could work two days in a row, and thereafter take several sick days in a row. It was apparent from this analysis that Respondent was manipulating the sick leave process for his own benefit and the testimony of Ms. Evans that he was moonlighting with Medic-One, an ambulance company in Pinellas County, on some of the days he had called in sick, tends to support this conclusion. Under the terms of the Personnel Rules of the City of Tarpon Springs, a fire fighter earns 15 days sick leave per year, which, if not used, can be carried over to succeeding years. Chief Carr has not had a sick leave analysis prepared on any other employee within the Department even though, to his understanding, there are others who have taken off an equivalent number of sick leave days. To the best of his understanding, however, the other employees utilized their sick leave in an appropriate manner. Respondent has been employed by the Department since May, 1982 as a paramedic. He admits the incident on April 18. He went to bed at approximately 10 pm on the evening of April 17, 1988 because he had to go to work the next morning. He was awakened around midnight by his girl friend who was hitting him, throwing things around, and screaming. She was very intoxicated. Respondent tried to avoid her and called the police who tried to quiet them both down. After the police left at about 12:30 am, Respondent went to sleep on the couch. At approximately 1:30 am she started fighting with him again and to avoid any further dispute, he took some of his things, left the apartment and made the first call to Lt. Jennings. In that conversation, according to Respondent, he advised Jennings he was tired and upset and needed the day off but to his recollection, did not request any specific type of time off. At the time in issue, Respondent admits to having both sick leave and vacation time adequate for the following day accrued. According to Respondent, Jennings did not say Respondent could not have the time off nor did he say how it would be recorded. He also did not tell him to call back or to do anything else in order to secure approval for his time off. However, in light of the fact that Respondent had obviously been aware of the requirement to call in for sick leave within a certain time window, and in light of the uncontroverted evidence that he failed to do so, whether Jennings advised him to call in or not is irrelevant. After talking to Lt. Jennings, Respondent intended to spend the night on his boat. However, he was too upset and was unable to sleep and he merely sat on the boat until just before dawn when he went back to his apartment. He did not sleep at all that night. Jennings called at about 6:30 am. During the conversation, Jennings talked to him about whose apartment it was and Respondent, tired and upset, told Jennings that since he'd already given him the time off, he could categorize it any way he wanted. Respondent had to find a place to stay and put his things in storage and he was quite tired. He did not feel he could go to work, and since Jennings did not direct him to come to work, he did not do so that day. Respondent reported to work the next shift he was scheduled for and was called in for an interview during which he was advised he was being terminated for abuse of sick leave. He attempted to tell the Chief he had not requested sick leave and explain what had happened, but Carr advised him he was nonetheless going to recommend Respondent be fired. Respondent does not dispute his prior disciplinary record but denies ever having called in on sick leave when he was not really sick in order to work someplace else. The testimony of Ms. Evans outlining several days on which Respondent worked for Medic-One when he appears to have called in on sick leave shows otherwise. Respondent would not object to a use of vacation time for the absence on April 18, 1988. It appears from the evidence that had Respondent not had so extensive a history of prior disciplinary actions, his absence here may well have been charged to vacation leave to protect him. Vacation time, when properly authorized, can be used for any purpose whatever. However, it must be properly approved in advance by someone higher than a Lieutenant. Chief Carr admits that had Respondent called and spoken to him that night, he might have been given vacation leave. However, in this case, no consideration was given to allowing Respondent to take vacation time for this absence because of his prior record. In making his decision to terminate the Respondent, Chief Carr considered not only the Respondent's disciplinary record, but also his commendations. Nonetheless, the good in Respondent's file did not justify overlooking the bad and his judgement in this case is not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Jack Schenkel, be discharged from employment with the Fire Department of the City of Tarpon Springs. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of October, 3988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 10th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. 16 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20 - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. Accepted. 23 - 36. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance but not in detail. 37. Accepted. 38 - 39. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. 40 - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: NICHOLAS J. SARGENT, ESQUIRE SARGENT, REPKA, AND COVERT, P.A. 2963 GULF-TO-BAY BLVD., SUITE 320 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34619 ROBERT F. MCKEE, ESQUIRE 1724 EAST 7TH AVENUE TAMPA, FLORIDA 33605
The Issue Whether Respondent committed violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began working at Apalachee Correctional Institute (ACI) in 1993. ACI had about 1,600 to 1,800 inmates during times pertinent to this case. The inmates assigned to ACI are those found to be mentally disturbed. ACI is divided into the East Unit and the West Unit. Petitioner was hired as a Clerk Typist Specialist. She worked in the health services area performing typing and filing in the East Unit. In time Petitioner developed carpal tunnel syndrome. She had three surgeries, two of which involved her wrists. These medical problems prevented her from working a normal schedule and she had to expend her leave in order to cover her absences. Because of the problems with her wrists, she had, from time to time, difficulty typing without experiencing pain. Ann Lashley was employed in the West Unit. In 1995, she had a disagreement with her co-workers and, as a result, she was transferred to the East Unit. Subsequently, Petitioner was moved to the West Unit. Much of the work accomplished by the clerk-typists was related to transcribing psychiatrists' notes. The psychiatrists in the East Unit often typed their own notes. The psychiatrists in the West Unit did not. Therefore, there was more typing for the clerk-typists in the West Unit. Petitioner had difficulty keeping up with this additional typing. John Frank Williams was the overall supervisor of the East and West Units. He does not know, or in any event does not recall, why Petitioner was transferred. Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim based on a date of accident of August 1, 1993. Petitioner's medical situation was coordinated with the Florida Division of Risk Management. A contract service, Compensation Rehabilitation Associates, was employed to audit Petitioner's work station and to determine what, if any, special equipment might assist Petitioner in accomplishing her employment duties without pain. A representative of Compensation Rehabilitation Associates opined that Petitioner required an ergonomically designed chair. Mr. Williams ordered one for her and Petitioner used it. Mr. Williams had work which had to be addressed. Nevertheless, he was aware of Petitioner's limitations and need to visit doctors and made diligent efforts to resolve the situation, including scheduling her work hours in a manner which would permit her to seek medical care. Petitioner related the following events which she contended constituted harassment: In 1994, when she first had problems with one of her wrists, she was told by Kenneth Swann to type with one hand. She was also told, at some time, by Dr. Cherry to type with one hand. She attended a meeting where Mr. Williams said, apparently in response to her continuing medical difficulties, that no one would want her. Joseph Thompson, at some point, told her she was not a team player. Dr. Loeb placed Petitioner at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on June 6, 1995 with no impairment or restrictions. Dr. Vogter placed the Petitioner at MMI on June 25, 1995, with an impairment rating of 17 percent, with restrictions of light duty and no continuous transcription work. Dr. Chason placed the Petitioner at MMI on April 7, 1998, with regard to psychological care, with a zero impairment rating. In a letter from Margaret Forehand dated August 12, 1996, a Personnel Technician II of ACI, Petitioner was informed that she was being placed on alternate duty. This letter outlined Petitioner's proposed work hours and took into consideration her need for reduced hours of typing and her need to visit her doctors. Petitioner, in response to this letter, declined to return to work. She had failed to report for work on August 15, 1996, and has been continuously absent since that date. Her sick leave was exhausted on October 4, 1996. Her Family Medical Leave Act benefits terminated on November 17, 1996. In a letter dated November 25, 1996, C. W. Sprouse, Superintendent of ACI, informed Petitioner that another position had been found for her and invited her to contact Ms. DeDe McMillian so that she could begin working. On or about December 10, 1996, Petitioner called Ms. McMillian and declined the offer. In a letter dated December 17, 1996, C.W. Sprouse informed Petitioner that a personnel action was being taken which could result in her dismissal. She was further informed that she was entitled to a predetermination conference. Petitioner did not request a predetermination conference and on January 3, 1997, her employment with ACI was terminated by Superintendent Sprouse. On May 26, 1998, a Judge of Compensation Claims entered an order adopting a stipulation between Petitioner, ACI, and the Florida Division of Risk Management whereby Petitioner received a lump sum of $50,000. The stipulation further recited that the stipulation resolved any and all issues regarding any aspect of the Petitioner's workers' compensation benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 13th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Bullard, Qualified Representative 805 Shelby Avenue Alford, Florida 32420 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
