The Issue Proposed transfer of Bernice Ino, as specified in letter of Anthony Ninos, Director of Division of Hotels and Restaurants, dated July 27, 1976. This is an appeal of a career service employee pursuant to Section 110.061, Florida Statutes. The appeal was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Career Service Commission on November 24, 1976.
Findings Of Fact By the General Appropriations act emanating from the 1976 state legislative session, 38 employee positions of the Respondent's Division of Hotel and Restaurants were abolished. Although the specific positions were not identified in the appropriations act, the Division director was informed by a staff representative of the legislative committee on appropriations that 25 Hotel and Restaurant Inspector I positions and six Inspector II positions should be among those eliminated. The Division previously had 103 Inspectors of the two classes. Respondent identified the positions statewide to be eliminated and requested the Secretary, Department of Administration, to approve the concept that the competitive area for layoff of employees be statewide within the Division. Approval of this plan was secured and Respondent proceeded to abolish the positions and to layoff Inspectors in its various districts throughout the state. Since the Division at the time had eight vacancies for Inspector positions only 23 employees were actually eliminated. Layoffs were carried out under a retention point system based on length of service and performance evaluations, computed and applied under the provisions of Department of Administration Emergency Rule 22AER76-1, Subject "Emergency Rule Governing Layoff of Career Service Employees". As to Inspectors I, the 83 such positions in the state were placed on a numerical list, according to total number of retention points of each employee, and those with the lowest numbers were selected for layoff. Seven employees were terminated in District I (Jacksonville) and one in District IV (Ft. Lauderdale). (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Exhibits 1, 9-12) As a result of the abolishment of Inspector positions, there was an imbalance in manning levels in the various state districts. In Jacksonville, there had been eight inspector positions. The abolishment of three of these left five vacancies that had to be filled. On the other hand, there were negative vacancies in the Ft. Lauderdale district. The Division director therefore instructed the Respondents' personnel officer, Lee Dorn, to reapportion the state to effectively cover all inspection areas. Specifically, he directed that five Inspector I positions be transferred to Jacksonville, 3 of them to come from the Ft. Lauderdale district. In a Memorandum to Dorn, dated July 15, 1976, the director identified the three positions in Ft. Lauderdale for transfer as those held by A. V. Maloni, Bernice N. Ino, and J. F. Friedman. The retention points of these employees had been calculated respectively at 210, 169, and 165. These three employees, and two others to be transferred to Jacksonville from District V, were those Inspectors who had the lowest number of retention points after those having less retention points had been laid off. It was stipulated by the parties that the number of retention joints calculated for Petitioner is correct based on the criteria set forth in the Department of Administration's Emergency Rule. (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Exhibit 2) It thereafter developed that of the three Ft. Lauderdale employees, Petitioner was the only one who would actually have had to take an involuntary transfer to Jacksonville. Mr. Friedman, who had less retention points, secured a new position with another agency. Maloni, who had more retention points than Petitioner, was reassigned to a position in the Ft. Lauderdale district that was vacated when the incumbent, in turn, was reassigned to another position made vacant by the illness and eventual separation of its incumbent, John W. Murray. The person replacing Murray, A. J. Pergament, had 792 retention points. (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Smith, Exhibits 4, 6-8, 14-21) Petitioner was orally informed in late June of her proposed transfer by her District Supervisor, Chauncey D. Smith. This was followed by a letter, dated July 27, 1976, from the Division director that formally advised her of the transfer of her position to the Jacksonville district, effective August 1, 1976. The letter gave as a basis for the transfer the fact that legislative abolishment of positions made it necessary for the Division to reapportion its staffing to effectively cover all inspection areas and that the proposed changes were being made to obtain "equity, effectiveness, and efficiency within our districts". The letter further advised Petitioner of her right to appeal the transfer to the Career Service Commission. Although this letter did not reach Petitioner through the mail due to an incorrect address, a copy was personally served on her on July 29. Petitioner acknowledges that the incorrect address was due to her negligence in advising Respondent correctly as to the same. In a memo to Petitioner, dated July 28, Smith had conveyed Division instructions for her to report to Jacksonville on August 2. Petitioner declined to accept the transfer. She filed her appeal by letter of July 31, 1976 and thereafter resigned, effective August 2, 1976. Her appeal letter stated that she had not been given sufficient notice to relocate and that the transfer would be a great financial hardship due to the fact that she had purchased a home in the area recently. (Testimony of Dorn, Smith, Ino, Exhibits 3, 13, 22-23) At a meeting with Smith and the Division's Chief of Enforcement, B. E. Fernandez, in early August, Petitioner was informed that she would be given the next opening in Ft. Lauderdale. In fact, Inspector Murray was not separated until November but his job had been filled on a temporary basis by Maloni. When Murray was finally separated, Maloni stayed in the position. Petitioner had been told by Smith that it would be a hardship for Maloni to suffer a transfer because of family considerations, but would not be so difficult for her because she could obtain unemployment compensation and she need not be concerned because her husband was working. When Murray finally departed, Petitioner called the Division director regarding the promise that she would have the next opening and he wrote her in December, 1976, that, although she was next in line for any vacancy, Maloni had received Murray's job because he had more retention points. Also, during this period, Fernandez and Smith offered Petitioner openings in Gainesville and Daytona Beach, but she declined to accept them because she wished to stay in Broward County. Smith also suggested that she get a job as a hostess or cocktail waitress because she was cute and petite. (Testimony of Ino, Smith, Fernandez, Exhibit 4) Petitioner testified that she was of the opinion her sex was a factor in the matter because nothing was done for her by Division personnel and because of the comments made by Smith concerning her eligibility for unemployment compensation and his comments concerning the possibility of her becoming a cocktail waitress. (Testimony of Ino) Petitioner was employed by Respondent from June 1, 1973 to August 2, 1977. She had performed her duties in an exemplary manner. (Testimony of McCulley)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Career Service Commission deny the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roger D. Haagenson 800 E. Broward Building Suite 610 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact On July 7, 1978, Petitioner, Amelia M. Park (Park), was hired as District VI Legal Counsel of Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department). The position was included in the Florida Career Service System, and Park obtained permanent status in the position in January 1979. The Legislature exempted the position from the Career Service System and made it a Senior Management Service position on November 12, 1981. On the morning of November 9, 1984, Park was in Bradenton to attend a hearing for the Department in Manatee County Court. She had scheduled a meeting with Bill Presmeyer at the Manatee Health Department, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute. Because Park had pre-approved annual leave for the afternoon, she went to her vacation home located in Holmes Beach on Anna Maria Island. Late in the morning, Park received a telephone call from her secretary, Muriel Pages, who informed Park that Assistant District Legal Counsel, Dennis Palso, who had been on the job only one week, and District Program Manager, Stephanie Watson Judd, wanted to talk to her. Park knew or should have known that the matter to be discussed was considered important by the Department staff or they would not have telephoned her at her home. Judd told Park that the Department had received a court order committing a juvenile to the Department but that they were not sure what the Department properly should do in response to the Order. Palso, who only had been on the job for one week, pointed out internal inconsistencies in the Order. The Order found the juvenile both incompetent to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity. The Order also cited the rules of criminal procedure instead of the rules of juvenile procedure. At the request of Carl Neill, the Department's District Administrator, Park's immediate supervisor, Judd and Palso relayed this information to Park and sought her advice on several questions: (1) whether the Order was legal; (2) whether the juvenile could be placed in a mental health facility based on the Order alone without bringing a Baker Act proceeding; and (3) whether and how the Department should take the child into custody. Park responded that the Order was sufficient for the Department to take the juvenile into custody and place him in a mental health facility. Notwithstanding the questions Park was being asked, she assumed that the juvenile was in custody because she would not have expected the judge to release such a juvenile into the community. Park told Palso that he or she would be able to clear up the internal inconsistencies and problems in the Order the following week by filing a motion in court. Park recommended that the Department's staff telephone "central admissions" in Tallahassee since Park believed that office of the Department had experience with similar orders and would know how to proceed. After talking to Park, Judd telephoned Sam Ashdown in Tallahassee to discuss the case and receive advice on how to proceed. In the course of their discussion, Judd read the Order to Ashdown over the telephone and, to her surprise, Ashdown took the position that the Order was illegal and that the Department could not act upon it. Judd informed Ashdown that Park, as District VI's legal counsel, had given the District VI staff a contrary opinion and suggested that Ashdown talk directly with Park, giving him the telephone number at Park's vacation house. Later in the afternoon of November 9, Judd telephoned Park again to inform her about Judd's conversation with Ashdown and to prepare her to receive a telephone call from Ashdown. Park became angry at Judd for having given Ashdown her telephone number. She denied ever having given a legal opinion that the Order was legal, but told Judd that there was nothing that could be done about it by the end of Friday afternoon. Park told Judd to call Ashdown back and tell him not to telephone Park about the matter. In the face of Park's tirade, Judd informed Carl Neill of what Park had said and telephoned Ashdown to relay Park's message and tell him not to call Park. Neill became very concerned about the manner in which Park handled the matter earlier in the afternoon of November 9, 1984. Although Park was a knowledgeable lawyer and able advocate for the Department, she had a history of difficulty working, relating, and communicating with certain members of the Department's District VI staff. This history included several occasions in which Park's personal relationships with Department staff deteriorated to the point of affecting Park's ability to work with or even talk to staff. Neill suspected that a recent deterioration in the personal relationship between Judd and Park may have been partially responsible for the manner in which Park handled the juvenile matter on November 9. Park's work relationship with each of the two assistant attorneys working under her before Palso had deteriorated to the point that Park could communicate with them only in writing and not very well. Park's personality and deficient interpersonal skills was at least partially responsible for those problems in District VI's legal office. Park also had a deserved reputation among District VI's staff for being unpredictable. For no apparent reason, Park would sometimes be unreasonably irritable and rude. For example: Park has chastised Joseph Tagliarini in front of other staff for operational (not legal) difficulties in dealing with the local Sheriff's Office. This rebuff was hostile and angry, inappropriate and unwarranted. On another occasion, Park refused to dis- cuss a personnel matter with Allen Mundy and William Stanley, became rude and directed them to leave her office. Personnel officer, David Stoops, had asked Mundy and Stanley to discuss the matter with Park. At a training session she was giving on child support enforcement, Park became angered by questions being asked by one of the partici- pants, became progressively more hostile and angry, and ended up yelling at the employee from the podium in the middle of the training session. James Freyfogel, one of Park's own wit- nesses, was unfairly accused by Park with having concealed information material to a real estate transaction entered into by the Depart- ment. Because of Park's conduct, Freyfogel tried to avoid any contact with her for about a year and a half. Another of Park's witnesses, Judy Wichter- man, testified that Park was "a nasty person" and that she and other counselors avoided con- tact with Park whenever possible. Park was not even aware of the effect of her personality on Freyfogel and Wichterman. The strained work relationships described in paragraph 9 above (and others) do not typify all of Park's relationships with members of the staff of the Department's District VI. Park had many good days and many positive working relationships. However, Neill was aware that Park's personality had caused several problems in work relationships at District VI and that it was not a matter of one or two isolated incidents. At least part of the blame for these problems rests with Park's personality. Problems caused by Park's personality were not limited to lower staff members whom Park intimidated. For example: Neill also was aware that Park had unknow- ingly offended Larry Overton, then Deputy As- sistant Secretary For Operations for the De- partment in Tallahassee. Overton related to Neill that Park had become hysterical during a meeting he had with her concerning problems with a nursing home in District VI. In the fall of 1984, Park insisted on be- ginning a letter to a private attorney with whom she was dealing on behalf of the Depart- ment by stating that she was "outraged" at some of the attorney's tactics and conduct. Neill had specifically requested that Park, as representative of a State agency, not express "outrage." Neill told Park that he thought this form of expression was inappropriate, and he directed that the letter be reworded. Despite Neill's direct request, Park sent the letter as originally written with the justifi- cation that she was indeed "outraged." Park also angered two judges before whom she appeared as attorney for the Department, a Judge Pope and a Judge Calhoun. In compliance with Neill's suggestion and request, Park wrote a letter of apology to Judge Pope. When Park returned to work after the weekend and Monday holiday on Tuesday, November 13, 1984, Neill asked her into his office to discuss the events of November 9. During the discussion, Neill referred to the events of November 9 as an emergency, and Park attempted without success to learn from Neill why it was an emergency. Neill explained his position that it is unacceptable for senior managers on leave to refuse to permit HRS staff to contact them to discuss matters staff believes need to be discussed. Neill stated that senior managers must be available in such circumstances. Park became very angry and upset at having been accused of less than satisfactory performance. She lost her temper in front of Neill. She stated that she was incensed that Judd had given her home telephone number to Ashdown and stated that, in the future, she would avoid this situation by not leaving a telephone number where she could be reached. Park then stormed out of Neill's office. As a result of all of the events referred to in these Findings of Fact, including Neill's meeting with Park on November 13, 1984, Neill's confidence and trust in Park was shaken. Neill did not believe he could continue to function with Park as his legal counsel. Neill did not think he could count on Park to make herself available to Neill and his staff when needed. Neill also believed he could retain competent legal counsel who would be able to get along better with a larger part of Neill's staff so that Neill's staff could function more smoothly and effectively as a whole. Neill telephoned HRS supervisors in Tallahassee for advice and was told that he had authority to terminate Park in his discretion. After spending the rest of the day and evening of November 13 making up his mind, Neill decided to terminate Park as his legal counsel. On November 14, 1984, Neill again met with Park and informed her that he intended to make a change in the position of legal counsel and asked for Park's assistance in making the transition smooth. Park interpreted Neill's comment as a request for Park's resignation, and Park responded that she could not agree to resign without giving the matter further thought and discussing it with her husband, Park's counsel in this case. Because of Park's work schedule she requested until Monday, November 19, 1984, to give Neill an answer, and Neill agreed. On November 19, 1984, Park and her husband met with Neill as scheduled at 8:30 in the morning. Neill handed Mr. Park a letter informing Park of Neill's intent to terminate Park's employment effective November 27, 1984. Mr. Park asked if the meeting was a pre-termination conference. Neill stated that he did not believe a pre-termination conference was required for senior management but that he was willing to treat the meeting as a pre-termination conference and would consider anything Mr. or Mrs. Park had to say about the matter. Mr. Park suggested to Neill that Neill was exposing himself to possible personal liability by terminating Mrs. Park but had nothing else to say about the matter. The Parks stated that they had all they needed and left Neill's office. Towards the end of the final hearing, Park stipulated that she was not dismissed for political reasons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a Final Order consistent with the previous exercise of its discretion to terminate Petitioner, Amelia M. Park, from her Senior Management Service position. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4443 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted. See Finding 1. Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and subordinate. As reflected in the Conclusions Of Law, the ultimate issues of fact are narrower than Petitioner perceives. Unless the subordinate facts in proposed Finding 2 persuade the finder of fact that the alleged legitimate reasons for termination of Petitioner's employment were mere fabrications, they are unnecessary and irrelevant. In any event, they are subordinate. Covered by Findings 2 through 6. Covered by Finding 12. Covered by Finding 14. Covered by Finding 15. See Paragraph 1 above. See Paragraph 1 above. Also covered in part by Findings 9 and 10. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. Also covered in part by Finding 8. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. See Paragraph 9 above. Also covered in part by Finding 8. Covered by Findings 2 through 4. See Paragraph 8 above. Also covered in part by Findings 2 through 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact Covered by Finding 1. Rejected in part as being subordinate. Also covered in part by Finding 11(a). Covered by Finding 9(a).* Covered by Finding 9(b). Covered by Finding 9(c). Rejected in part as subordinate or cumulative. Covered in part by Finding 8. See Paragraph 6 above. See Paragraph 6 above. Covered by Finding 11(b). Rejected in part as subordinate, cumulative, and argumentative. Covered in part by Finding 9. Covered by Finding 8. Rejected in part as subordinate, cumulative, and argumentative. Covered in part by Finding 8. See Paragraph 12 above. See Paragraph 12 above. See Paragraph 12 above. See Paragraph 12 above. See Paragraph 12 above. See Paragraph 12 above. Also covered in part by Finding 7. Rejected in part as subordinate. Covered in part by Finding 11(c). Rejected in part as subordinate, cumulative, and argumentative. Covered in part by Findings 8 thorough 11. See Paragraph 20 above. Covered by Finding 9(d). Rejected in part as subordinate and cumulative. Covered in part by Finding 9. See Paragraph 23 above. Covered by Finding 9(e). Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and argumentative. Rejected in part as subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, and argumentative. Covered in part by Finding 10. Covered by Findings 7 through 10. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 30-35 Covered b Findings 2 through 6. Covered by Finding 12. Rejected in part because Rule SM-1.09, Florida Administrative Code, is a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected in part because there was no evidence of HRS Regulation 60-49. In part covered by the Findings 2 through 6. Covered by Finding 14. Covered by Finding 15. Covered by Finding 15. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Finding 16. *It should be noted that parts of this proposed finding of fact and many others have been rejected to the extent that they contain excessive argument. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Park, Esquire Building 501, Suite A 8001 N. Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33614 Jay Adams, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner was formerly employed as an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Adjudicator in Respondent's Miami UC office. In this capacity, he interviewed claimants seeking unemployment compensation and made initial determinations regarding the validity of their claims. Petitioner was often absent because of illness. When he was at work, however, he performed his duties competently. Petitioner and his fellow employees at the Miami UC Office were required to notify supervisory personnel no later than the beginning of the workday if they were going to be absent that day. Petitioner was made aware of this requirement on various occasions prior to the absences that led to the termination of his employment with Respondent. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, Petitioner telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be absent that day because of an ankle injury he had sustained. He did not indicate during the conversation whether he would be at work the following day. On Wednesday, September 6, 1989, and Thursday, September 7, 1989, Petitioner neither reported to work nor contacted his supervisor at any time during the day to give notification of his absence. On Friday, September 8, 1989, Petitioner again failed to report to work. He did, however, telephone his supervisor concerning his absence, but he did not do so until 4:50 p.m., 20 minutes after the shift to which he was assigned had ended. By letter dated September 11, 1989, Respondent notified Petitioner that it had determined that Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective the close of business September 8, 1989, in view of his unauthorized absence from work on September 6, 7, and 8, 1989. It is this determination that is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his UC Adjudicator position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1990. STUART H. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his letter that he contacted his supervisor on September 5, 1989, and again on September 8, 1989, his proposed findings of fact have been accepted and incorporated in substance in this Recommended Order. To the extent that he claims that he "did not have 3 consecutive days of unauthorized absences," his proposed factual findings have been rejected because they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact First Sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second Sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First and second sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Cooper 1601 Northwest 17th Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33125 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, 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 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact The Respondent YWCA is a nonprofit corporation that sponsors educational, social, and recreational programs. The YWCA's purpose states that it is a "movement rooted in the Christian faith"; however, expressed belief in Christianity is not required for membership in the YWCA or for employment by the YWCA. Its membership is comprised of adult women seventeen years of age and older. The personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action will be applied in recruitment, hiring, compensation, fringe benefits, staff development, and training, promotion, and any other condition of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, national origin, or any other nonperformance factors." (Emphasis added.) Regarding termination, the personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Reasons for staff termination must be carefully documented. They should be based upon objective performance appraisals, which in turn are based upon job descriptions, work plans, and performance standards. Except in cases of reorganization/retrenchment or termination for cause, a probationary period for work improvement must be provided, followed by another performance appraisal." The YWCA of West Palm Beach operates three facilities: Central and Residence, the Mamie Adair Branch, and the Recreation Center. The Mamie Adair Branch primarily serves the black community in West Palm Beach and includes a day-care facility. The Petitioner, Davis, was hired as the Branch Executive of the Mamie Adair Branch of the YWCA, effective July 21, 1980, at a starting salary of $12,000.00. The Petitioner was given copies of the YWCA's personnel policy, affirmative action plan, and job description. She was not given notice of particular standards of behavior to which she was required to conform away from the job. As branch Executive she was supervised by the Executive Director, Jo Prout. The Petitioner successfully completed her initial 90-day probationary period, and her annual salary was increased by five percent to $12,600.00. In October 1981, however, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation and was again placed on three months probations due primarily to an unsatisfactory working relationship with the Branch Committee. The Petitioner had a bad attitude and was antagonistic. The Petitioner became pregnant but did not immediately disclose the fact of her pregnancy. In approximately December, 1981, the Petitioner confided to a coworker that she was pregnant and the coworker, in turn, told the YWCA's Executive Director, Jo Prout, that the Petitioner was pregnant. The YWCA's Executive Director was concerned that the Petitioner's relationship with the Branch Committee would be severely adversely affected if the Committee found out the Petitioner was pregnant and unmarried. Because of this concern, the Executive Director removed the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, effective December 31, 1981. The Petitioner would not have been removed from her position on December 31, 1981, but for the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Prior to removing the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, the Executive Director did not attempt less drastic alternatives such as asking the Petitioner not to discuss or disclose her marital status or asking the Petitioner to take a leave of absence. Prior to her removal, the Petitioner had not discussed the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried with members of the Branch Committee or with the YWCA membership in general. At no time had the Petitioner advocated unwed motherhood as an alternative life- style or otherwise advocated or espoused principles contrary to her understanding of Christianity. In the past, certain employees of the YWCA whose on-the-job behavior was contrary to Christian principles received job discipline but were not removed from their positions. A desk clerk at the YWCA's residence, for example, who was found to have stolen property from residence guests was not discharged. The removal of the Petitioner from her position by the YWCA because she was pregnant and unmarried was not justified by the business necessity rule because: A requirement to conduct one's life, including one's off-the-job activities, according to Christian principles, was not disclosed to the Petitioner or to other employees; The YWCA did not discipline or discharge other employees for conduct which conflicted with the YWCA's alleged requirement to conduct one's life by Christian principles; and The YWCA did not show that a requirement of all employees to conduct their lives by Christian principles has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Then the Petitioner was removed from the Branch Executive position, she was transferred to the position of center consultant for gymnastics. The position of the center consultant for gymnastics to which the Petitioner was transferred was a demotion in that the Petitioner went from an administrative to a non-administrative position. The transfer also changed the Petitioner's employment status from full-time employee to part-time employee with a 25 percent decrease in earned income and a lunch "hour" reduced to 30 minutes. The petitioner's new position as center consultant was a temporary one designated to last no longer than five months. Petitioner was removed from probationary status as a result of the transfer. The position of center consultant to which the Petitioner was transferred was not a legitimate position. The position did not exist prior to December 31, 1981, the date the Petitioner was transferred. No job description was ever written for this position, despite the fact that the YWCA personnel policy required job descriptions. The Petitioner was verbally assigned job tasks inconsistent with her title of center consultant, including cleaning toilets at the gymnastics center. The position was eliminated on February 16, 1982, approximately six weeks after it was created, allegedly due to financial streamlining. The YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, discriminating against her on the basis of sex and marital status by removing her from her position as Branch Executive because she was pregnant and unmarried. Moreover, this transfer was not justified by business necessity. Because the YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, the Petitioner could be entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to a comparable position and could also be entitled to recover lost wages and fringe benefits, plus interest thereon, from the date of the wrongful act, December 31, 1981, to November 31, 1982, the date she was hired by the Lutheran Ministries, set off by any interim earnings and reduced by the Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits plus her reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Regarding reinstatement, the Petitioner has been and is now willing and able to be reinstated to her former position as Branch Executive or to a comparable administrative position. The employer's argument that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement because she was an unsatisfactory employee is rejected for the following reasons: The employer's allegations that the Petitioner will not satisfactorily perform her job if reinstated are too speculative and any doubts about the Petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement should be resolved in favor of the victim of discrimination; and In the event that the Petitioner's job performance upon reinstatement is not satisfactory, the employer may avail itself of the procedures set forth in its personnel policy to improve the Petitioner's performance or discharge her for unsatisfactory job performance. However, reinstatement may not be feasible in this case due to the fact that another employee has been placed in the Petitioner's former position. If the Petitioner is not reinstated to a comparable administrative position, then she should be compensated by the award of six months front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner is entitled to damages in the amount of $13,551, which represents a back pay award of $11,000 plus 10 percent interest, six months front pay in the amount of $6,000, minus $1,575 for salary paid from January 1, 1982 - February 16, 1982, including two weeks severance pay and $2,974 in unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner is also entitled to costs of $232.65 and attorneys fees totaling $5,000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employs petitioner as a youth counselor II in Ft. Pierce, Florida. Petitioner attained permanent career service status in May of 1972. In addition to "carrying a normal caseload," i.e., supervising 85 to 88 youngsters in the customary fashion, petitioner met four times weekly with children who had been referred by courts or school authorities for intensive counseling. These groups counseling sessions began at six o'clock in the evening and lasted from one to one and a half hours. John B. Romano became petitioner's immediate supervisor on March 18, 1977. With the acquiescence of Mr. Romano's immediate predecessor, Ben Robinson, petitioner ordinarily reported for work between half past nine and half past ten in the morning. The week Mr. Romano started as petitioner's supervisor, he noticed that petitioner arrived for work between half past nine and ten in the morning. When he spoke to petitioner about this, petitioner told him of an accommodation that had been reached with Mr. Robinson, on account of petitioner's staying at work late to conduct group counseling. Mr. Romano told petitioner that he should report for work at half past eight in the morning, until a youth counselor's vacancy that then existed in the office could be filled. Subsequently, on at least one occasion before May 31, 1977, Mr. Romano spoke to petitioner about being late for work. On May 31, 1977, by which time another counselor had been hired, petitioner reported for work at approximately half past ten. On June 7, 1977, after petitioner had been suspended, Mr. Romano issued a written reprimand to petitioner, characterizing petitioner's arrival at half past ten on May 31, 1977, as "an insubordinate offense." Respondent's exhibit No. 5. One Harry Greene told Earl Stout, a service network manager for respondent and Mr. Romano's superior, that a boy whom petitioner had supervised had accused petitioner in open court of selling drugs and smoking marijuana. Messrs. Greene, Stout and Romano visited the facility at which petitioner's accuser was incarcerated and interrogated him. On May 13, 1977, a Friday, Mr. Romano told petitioner to meet him at nine o'clock the following Monday, but did not explain why. Present at the meeting on May 16, 1977, were petitioner, Mr. Romano, Mr. Greene and Mr. Stout. Petitioner was told of the accusations against him, but the accuser's identity was withheld. Mr. Stout gave petitioner the choice of resigning his position or taking annual leave for the duration of a formal investigation. Petitioner refused to resign. Mr. Stout instructed petitioner to tell no one that he had been asked to take leave or that he would be the subject of an investigation. When petitioner left this meeting he promptly told his fellow youth counselors that the had been suspended. For this petitioner received a written reprimand dated June 7, 1977. Respondent's exhibit No. 6. Petitioner subsequently availed himself of grievance procedures to raise the question whether he should have been permitted to take administrative leave instead of annual leave; and it was decided that he was entitled to take administrative leave. On June 8, 1977, Earl Stout wrote petitioner a letter which began "On June 1, you were advised by me that effective June 2, you were being suspended for insubordinate acts . . . ." This letter was sent to petitioner by certified mail. Mr. Stout testified without contradiction that blanket authority had been delegated to him to suspend employees under him.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the suspension be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. J. Wayne Jennings, Esq. 2871 Forth-Fifth Street Gifford, Florida 32960 Mr. K.C. Collette, Esquire Forum 3, Suite 800 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Whether Petitioner was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondent in violation of the Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70 (“Chapter 70"). Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a bus operator by Respondent because of his disability in violation of Chapter 70.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard Mastromarino, is a resident of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, is publicly funded transit agency and is an employer under Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from May 7, 1979, until June 10, 1997, as a bus operator. The position of bus operator requires a commercial driver’s license. After experiencing vision problems, Petitioner visited his primary physician in February 1997. The primary physician diagnosed Petitioner with diabetic retinopathy and referred him to an ophthalmologist. After his diagnosis, Petitioner informed his immediate supervisor of his condition and availability to do light-duty work, and requested a medical leave form to take with him to his appointment with the ophthalmologist. On March 3, 1997, Petitioner visited ophthalmologist Dr. William T. Cobb, who confirmed the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, a condition that causes the blood vessels in the retina of the eye to excrete liquid and blood, thus impairing vision. Dr. Cobb informed Petitioner that as a result of his diabetic retinopathy, his vision was insufficient to drive any vehicle, including PSTA buses. In a Progress Report dated March 3, 1997, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner “works as a bus driver and his occupation is threatened by his ocular disease.” Dr. Cobb also completed Petitioner’s medical leave form entitled Certification of Health Care Provider. On the form, Dr. Cobb described Petitioner’s vision as “limited to less than required for driving a bus.” The form also inquired whether Petitioner was able to perform any one or more of the essential functions of his job. In response, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner was “unable to see to drive.” With regard to the probable duration of Petitioner’s incapacity, Dr. Cobb stated that the duration was “unknown.” Petitioner was referred by Dr. Cobb to Dr. W. Sanderson Grizzard for laser surgery. The first of several surgeries were performed in May and June of 1997. During this time, Petitioner was extremely concerned about the outcome of the surgeries. He understood from his physicians that there was a chance that his visual limitations could worsen and that there was a possibility that he might lose his eyesight altogether. Therefore, his immediate goal was to obtain medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in order to have the surgeries performed. He also desired light-duty work in order to stay employed while he scheduled the surgeries. He was hoping that when his surgeries were complete, he could discuss his future with PSTA as far as which other jobs he could perform. He estimated that he would be able to discuss future work with PSTA in August or September of 1997. This information, however, was not conveyed to PSTA. Petitioner’s inquiries to his immediate supervisor regarding light-duty were referred to Gail Bilbrey, Benefits Specialist. Bilbrey administers a program instituted by Respondent, although not in writing, that assigns eligible employees on workers’ compensation leave to available temporary, part-time light-duty positions that accommodate their physical restrictions. In administering the program, Bilbrey reviews the medical documentation of an employee on workers’ compensation leave and determines if an existing position is vacant within one of several PSTA departments that the employee may be able to perform given the employee’s physical limitations. Because the positions available under this program are existing positions and are part of a bargaining unit of a labor union, light-duty assignments are not created for individual employees. Light- duty positions are extremely limited in number and are often not available for all employees injured on the job. The purpose of PSTA's light-duty program is to save costs of workers' compensation injuries by utilizing employees on workers' compensation leave, whom PSTA is required to pay, in vacant light-duty positions. Temporary light-duty positions, thus, are given to employees on workers' compensation by PSTA. The intent of the program is for the employee to occupy the position only on a temporary basis; thus, light-duty assignments are only granted to employees who are expected to return to work in their regular job. Since Petitioner was not on workers' compensation leave and was not expected to return to his bus-driving job, Petitioner was not eligible for a light-duty assignment. Even if Petitioner had qualified for light-duty, no light-duty positions were available at PSTA at the time of his request. Petitioner was informed of the lack of light-duty work during several conversations with Bilbrey. In response to his request, Bilbrey also prepared a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, indicating that no light-duty was available at that time. The main light-duty positions available at PSTA involved money-counting and ride surveying. Petitioner’s vision impairment prevented him from performing the functions of ride surveying, which includes observing passengers boarding and exiting PSTA buses at each bus stop and recording the results in writing. The money-counting light-duty position required the use of money-counting machines, checking bills, handling coins, and delivering/picking up tickets and money at Respondent’s remote terminals. Despite his vision limitations, Petitioner claims to have been aware of several full-time positions that he alleges he would have been able to perform in June 1997. First, Petitioner claims to have been able to perform the position of fueler/cleaner, which requires a valid Florida Class “B” Commercial Driver’s license, with passenger endorsement and air brakes, the ability to clean buses, and the ability to check coolant and oil levels. However, Petitioner had relinquished his commercial driver’s license in 1997, his physicians had stated he could not drive a bus, and, as observed by Bilbrey, his vision was insufficient to perform the job duty of checking coolant and oil levels. Two other positions became available at PSTA during the time in question which Petitioner now contends he would have been able to perform with adaptive equipment. First, the position of Customer Service Representative was posted by PSTA in early March 1997. This position involves selling tickets and passes, giving route and scheduling information to the public, and delivering supplies to three of Respondent’s remote locations. In 1997, maps and route schedules were not computerized and involved reading very small print. In addition, if Petitioner had qualified for and had been awarded the position, as the least senior Customer Service Representative, Petitioner likely would have been assigned as a “floater,” requiring Petitioner to be able to “float” between different remote terminals at different times to relieve other Customer Service Representatives. The shift of Customer Service Representatives begins at 6:00 a.m., prior to regular bus service. Given the fact that Petitioner was unable to read the fine print of the maps and schedules in a timely fashion and because transportation to deliver supplies, to float between terminals, and to report to work at 6:00 a.m. prior to bus service would have been a significant issue, Petitioner would not have been able to perform the job of Customer Service Representative. Also, in June 1997, the position of Clerk Risk Management became available. Petitioner had limited computer and clerical experience. Therefore, because this position requires extensive typing, computer work, and proofreading, Petitioner did not qualify for the position due to his limited vision and lack of computer experience. Petitioner was unable to perform these functions. After several surgeries, Petitioner's vision has stabilized but he is still legally blind by Social Security disability standards. Regardless of whether Petitioner would have been qualified, Petitioner did not apply for a request consideration for any of these positions or provide any documentation to Respondent indicating his ability to perform these jobs. Instead, in May 1997, Petitioner applied for long-term disability benefits. He completed the application in Bilbrey’s office with the aid of a magnifying glass. Attached to the application for long-term disability benefits was an Attending Physician’s Statement dated April 30, 1997, which was also provided to Respondent by Petitioner. On the form, Dr. Cobb indicated that the approximate date Petitioner would be able to resume any work was “indefinite” and that his prognosis for work was secondary to vision. Petitioner was granted and accepted long-term disability benefits. Pursuant to the long-term disability policy, Petitioner was found totally disabled and could not work. In addition, in April 1997, Petitioner requested an extended leave of absence beyond his FMLA leave that was due to expire in June 1997. However, when applying for the extended leave of absence, Petitioner was unable to specify a time frame in which he would be able to return to work. In fact, in a letter dated May 28, 1997, provided to Bilbrey on June 9, 1997, in support of Petitioner’s request for extended leave, Dr. Grizzard indicated that he “would expect [Petitioner] to not be able to work for at least 3 months.” Because Petitioner’s physicians were not able to provide a specific date when he could return to work, Petitioner’s request for extended leave was denied in accordance with Respondent’s policy. Thereafter, since Petitioner had exhausted all FMLA leave, was unable to perform the essential functions of his job as a bus operator, even with reasonable accommodations, and was unable to provide a definite date of return, Petitioner was terminated from his position as a bus operator on June 10, 1997, in accordance with PSTA policy. After his termination, Petitioner filed a grievance wherein he again requested an extended leave of absence until September 9, 1997, so that he could concentrate on his surgeries and to determine if he would be able to return to work at PSTA. A grievance hearing before Executive Director Roger Sweeney was held on June 30, 1997. At that hearing, Petitioner did not request light-duty assignment or reassignment to a new permanent position. Petitioner’s grievance was denied since Petitioner was unable to perform the duties for which he was hired, had been absent from employment with PSTA in excess of three months, had exhausted all FMLA leave, and was unable to provide a definite date of return. Following the grievance hearing, Petitioner was referred by the Division of Blind Services to Abilities of Florida for vocational rehabilitation training in January 1998. An assessment of his abilities indicated that Petitioner had limited keyboarding, computer, and clerical experience and was unable to score high enough on the 10-key calculator test to qualify for clerical training. Approximately three years after his termination, Petitioner also requested an evaluation to determine whether he could count money. In an informal test, Petitioner counted $55 in petty cash. However, no vocational report was ever provided to PSTA by Petitioner. The evidence fails to prove that Respondent’s employment decisions toward Petitioner were based upon or influenced by his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig L. Berman, Esquire Berman Law Firm, P. A. 360 Central Avenue Suite 1260 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stephanie N. Rugg City of St. Petersburg 175 Fifth Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman & Feldman, P.A. Two Prestige Place 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33759
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was formerly employed by Respondent as a Human Services Worker assigned to the Landmark Learning Center, a residential facility located in Dade County. She began her employment on May 10, 1985. On January 13, 1989, Petitioner received the following memorandum from the Residential Services Director of Facility I at Landmark: In reviewing your time and attendance record from August, 1988, I have observed that you are exhibiting excessive absences and/or tardiness. These frequent absences place an unfair burden on your coworkers and interfere with the operations of this center. Therefore they will no longer be tolerated. Effective on the date you receive this communication, the following restrictions will be in effect: As always, you are expected to have all leave time approved in advance by your immediate supervisor. You are expected to submit a doctor's statement justifying your absence prior to the approval of any sick leave, annual-sick leave, or family-sick leave. You will not be allowed to substitute any other type of leave for these absences. Failure to comply with the above restrictions will result in disapproved leave without pay for the dates in question, and a recommendation for disciplinary action based on absence without authorized leave. In addition a continued pattern of excessive absence could result in disciplinary action for excessive absence/tardiness. All disciplinary [action] will be in accordance with HRS-P-60-1, Employee's handbook. I am confident that you will correct this situation in a satisfactory manner. At no time prior to the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent were the "restrictions" imposed by this memorandum lifted. In early 1990, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. As a result of the injury, Petitioner was on authorized leave from February 25, 1990, until April 4, 1990. When she returned to work on April 5, 1990, Petitioner was assigned to "light duty" in the field office of which Sylvia Davis, a Senior Residential Unit Supervisor, was in charge. Petitioner's working hours were 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Petitioner was advised that Roberta Barnes would be her immediate supervisor during her "light duty" assignment. On April 5, 1990, Petitioner worked six and a half hours. She was on authorized leave the remainder of her shift. On April 6 and 7, 1990, she worked her full shift. On April 8 and 9, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work. She telephoned the field office before the beginning of her shift on each of these days and left word that she would not be at work because she was experiencing pain in her lower back and right leg; however, she never received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on these days. April 10 and 11, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 11, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office and gave notice that, inasmuch as her physical condition remained unchanged, she would not be at work the following day. Petitioner did not report to work on April 12, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office the night before to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on April 12, 1990. On April 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work because she was still not feeling well. She neither telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absences, nor obtained supervisory authorization to be absent on these days. April 17 and 18, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. Prior to the scheduled commencement of her shift on April 19, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office to indicate that she would not be at work that day because she had a doctor's appointment, but that she hoped to return to work on April 20, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work on April 19, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on that day. On April 19, 1990, Petitioner was sent the following letter by the Superintendent of Landmark: You have not called in or reported to work since April 12, 1990 and therefore you have abandoned your position as a Human Services Worker II and are deemed to have resigned from the Career Service according to Chapter 22A-7.010(2)(a) of Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Your resignation will be effective on the date that you receive this letter or on the date we receive the undelivered letter advising you of your abandonment. You have the right to petition the State Personnel Director, 530 Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 for review of the facts. Such petition must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days after receipt of this letter. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on Friday, April 20, 1990, unaware that she had been deemed to have resigned her position, Petitioner telephoned the field office to give notice that she would be out of work until after her doctor's appointment on Monday, April 23, 1990. On April 23, 1990, Petitioner again telephoned the field office to advise that she had to undergo further medical testing and therefore would remain out of work until the required tests were performed. Petitioner's call was transferred to Elaine Olsen, a Personnel Technician II at Landmark, who told Petitioner about the letter the Superintendent had sent to Petitioner the previous Thursday. Petitioner received the letter on April 30, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work during the period referenced in the Superintendent's letter because she was not feeling well. She did not intend, by not reporting to work on these days, to resign or abandon her position. It was her intention to return to work when she felt well enough to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order (1) finding that Petitioner did not abandon her career service position, and (2) directing Respondent to reinstate Petitioner with back pay. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Validity of Emergency Rule 22 AER 76-1, Department of Administration. This case concerns Petitioner's challenge of the validity of Emergency Rule 22 AER 76-1, Department of Administration, State of Florida, on the ground that promulgation of the rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The petition specifically alleges that Respondent failed to make an adequate finding that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare warranted an emergency rule, and that there existed no such immediate danger which might have necessitated enacting an emergency rule. The petition further alleges that the procedure adopted by Respondent in promulgating the emergency rule was unfair and contrary to law. The petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 23, 1977, and thereafter assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer. Prior to final hearing herein, Petitioner propounded written interrogatories and requests for admission from Respondent. The Respondent filed a "Notice of Objection" to the said interrogatories on grounds that judicial review is exclusive as to the agency's findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness, as provided under subsection 120.54(9)(a)3, F.S., and that therefore the Hearing Officer has no jurisdiction over the matter. The parties stipulated that if Respondent's objection was resolved in favor of Petitioner, the interrogatories and answers submitted by Respondent thereto, together with supporting documents, would be admissible in evidence for all relevant purposes. For the reasons stated hereinafter in Conclusions of Law, it is determined that the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction in this case and, accordingly, the stipulated matters are accepted, as set forth below.
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1976, the procedures for layoff of state career service employees contained in certain memoranda of the Department of Administration (DOA) and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were determined to be invalid rules by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. (J. Richard Stevens v. DHRS and DOA, DOAH Case No. 75-2024R). The specific documents held to be invalid rules were Personnel, Policy and Procedure Memorandum No. 74-7, Subject: Guidelines for Preparing Layoff Procedures, issued by the DOA, and Directive No. 8.07, Dept. of HRS, Subject "Layoff and Reemployment of Personnel." The DOA procedures were effective on July 1, 1974, and implemented Rule 22A-7.10(H)(3), Florida Administrative Code. On May 25, 1976, the First District Court of Appeal denied a motion of the DOA for a stay of the Hearing Officer's Final Order (Case No. CC-101). However, the Hearing Officer granted a stay of his Final Order until June 21, 1976. On April 6, 1977, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Final Order of the Hearing Officer in the Stevens case (Case No. CC-101,156.) A 1976 amendment of subsection 110.061(2)(a), required specified layoff procedures to be developed by Respondent. (Chapter 76-116, Laws of Florida) Federal standards for a merit system of personnel administration affecting all state agencies receiving federal grant-in-aid funds that were in effect in 1976 require the establishment of certain procedures for layoff of permanent state employees. (Testimony of Dean, Attachment 5 to Respondent's memorandum) Respondent's personnel officers were aware that there was impending legislation to abolish some 2,000 state employee positions, effective June 30, 1976, that would require the existence of layoff criteria and procedures for orderly and fair implementation (Testimony of Dean). In view of the foregoing, DOA,during the latter part of May and early June, 1976, began the process of formulating and adopting an emergency rule to cover layoff procedures. Although consideration was given to the possibility of following normal rule-making procedures, it was determined that there was insufficient time available to promulgate a rule in that manner. (Testimony of Dean) Notice of the proposed emergency rule was prepared and published in the June 11, 1976, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice stated that the rule would become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State, and that a copy could be obtained by writing to the state personnel director. It provided in part as follows: "SPECIFIC REASONS FOR FINDING AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE: Recent changes in law have cast doubt upon the proper current Career Service layoff procedure. Because numerous layoffs may be required before a permanent rule could become effective, it is essential to the welfare of the State that all doubt be removed by adoption of a definite procedure, both for the benefit of the State as employer and of the affected employees. REASONS WHY PROCEDURE USED IS FAIR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES: The emergency rule is based on the recommendations of the Career Service Commission contained in its report of November 7, 1975, following public hearings October 23 and 24, 1975, incorporating any applicable guidelines approved by the Secretary of Administration." The proposed emergency rule was placed on the agenda of the Administration Commission for June 15, 1976, and, after discussion, the rule was amended and adopted by that body. On the same date, the emergency rule was filed with the Department of State. (Composite Exhibit 1a-d, Exhibit 2) By letter of June 16, 1976, Petitioner was informed by the personnel officer of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that his position of Agriculture Investigator Supervisor in the Division of Animal Industry had been abolished, effective June 30, 1976, and that, in accordance with Department of Administration Emergency Rule No. 22 AER 76-1, he was being notified of the proposed action. Pursuant to that notification, Petitioner was laid off as of June 30, 1976. He thereafter filed an appeal with the Career Service Commission on July 7, 1976. (Testimony of Shelby, Exhibits 3, 4)
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners' layoffs from employment by the Respondent were lawful and if not, what remedies should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that their positions were recommended for transfer from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. On July 1, 2001, the Petitioners' positions were transferred from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. Prior to Special Legislative Session C of 2001, the Department's Office of Prevention and Victim Services consisted of 94 positions, organized into four bureaus: the Office of Victim Services; the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services; the Prevention Office; and the Intensive Learning Alternative Program. During Special Legislative Session C, the Florida Legislature passed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2-C, which reduced appropriations for state government for fiscal year 2001-2002. This special appropriations bill was approved by the Governor on December 13, 2001, and was published as Chapter 2001- 367, Laws of Florida. As a result of Chapter 2001-367, 77 positions were cut from the Office of Prevention and Victim Services budget entity. The appropriations detail for the reduction from the legislative appropriations system database showed that the reduction of positions was to be accomplished by eliminating the Intensive Learning Alternative Program, which consisted of 19 positions; eliminating the Office of Victim Services, which consisted of 15 positions; eliminating the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services, which consisted of 23 positions; and by cutting 20 positions from the Office of Prevention. Seventeen positions remained. Immediately after conclusion of the Special Session, the Department began the process of identifying which positions would be cut. A workforce transition team was named and a workforce transition plan developed to implement the workforce reduction. The workforce reduction plan included a communications plan for dealing with employees; an assessment of the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the residual program; a plan for assessment of employees, in terms of comparative merit; and a placement strategy for affected employees. Gloria Preston, Stephen Reid and Carol Wells were Operations and Management Consultant II's and worked in the Partnership and Volunteer Services Division. According to the budget detail from Special Session C, all of the positions in this unit were eliminated. Titus Tillman was an Operations and Management Consultant II and worked in the Prevention and Monitoring division. According to the budget detail provided from Special Session C, 20 of the positions in this unit were eliminated. On December 7, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that effective January 4, 2002, each of their positions were eliminated due to the Florida Legislature's reduction of staffing in a number of Department program areas during the special session. Petitioners were provided with information regarding what type of assistance the Department would provide. Specifically, the notices stated that the employees would be entitled to the right of a first interview with any state agency for a vacancy to which they may apply, provided they are qualified for the position; and that they could seek placement through the Agency for Workforce Innovation. The notice also provided information regarding leave and insurance benefits, and identified resources for affected employees to seek more clarification or assistance. At the time Petitioners were notified that their positions were being eliminated, Florida Administrative Code Rules 60K-17.001 through 60K-17.004 remained in effect. These rules required agencies to determine the order of layoff by calculating retention points, based upon the number of months of continuous employment in a career service position, with some identified modifications. However, by the express terms of the "Service First" Legislation passed in the regular session of 2001, the career service rules identified above were to be repealed January 1, 2002, unless otherwise readopted. § 42, Ch. 2001-43, Laws of Fla. Consistent with the legislative directive new rules had been noticed and were in the adoption process. On January 4, 2002, each of the Petitioners were laid off due to the elimination of their positions. At the time the layoff became effective, new rules regarding workforce reductions had been adopted. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60K-33, effective January 2, 2002, did not allow for the "bumping" procedure outlined in Rule 60K-17.004. Instead, it required the Department to appoint a workforce transition team for overseeing and administering the workforce reduction; assess the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the remaining program after the deletion of positions; identify the employees and programs or services that would be affected by the workforce reduction and identify the knowledge, skills and abilities that employees would need to carry out the remaining program. The workforce transition team was required under one of the new rules to consider the comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience of each employee, and consider which employees would best enable the agency to advance its mission. Although the Department created a workforce reduction plan and Career Service Comparative Merit Checklist, it did not complete a checklist for any of the Petitioners because it had previously reclassified their positions as Selected Exempt Service. No checklist is expressly required under Rule 60L-33. While no checklist was completed on the Selected Exempt Service employees, each employee in the Office of Prevention and Victim Services was assessed based on the positions remaining and the mission of the Department in order to determine which employees to keep and which to lay off. Of the 17 remaining positions, the Department considered the legislative intent with respect to the elimination of programs and the individuals currently performing the job duties that were left. It also evaluated the responsibilities remaining, which included overseeing the funding of statewide contracts and grants. The Department also considered which employees should be retained based upon their ability to absorb the workload, their geographic location, and their skill set. The Department determined that the employees selected for the remaining positions were the strongest in their field, had fiscal management and programmatic experience, and were best equipped to undertake the workload. At the time of the layoff, Petitioners were each long- serving, well-qualified and highly rated employees of the State of Florida. Each was prepared to move in order to retain employment. In April 2002, AFSCME Florida Public Employees 79, AFL- CIO (AFSCME), filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) against the Departments of Management Services and Juvenile Justice. AFSCME alleged that the Department failed to bargain in good faith over the layoff of Department employees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, effective June 28, 2002. The settlement agreement required the Department to provide timely notice to AFSCME of impending layoffs, bargain over the impact of workforce reductions, and provide assistance for employees who were laid off between December 31, 2001, and January 4, 2002, but who had not attained other full-time Career Service employment. There is no evidence the Petitioners in this case were members of AFSCME. Nor is there any evidence that the Department failed to assist Petitioners in seeking new employment. In July of 2003, the First District Court of Appeal decided the case of Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), wherein the court held that employees whose employee classifications were changed from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service must be afforded a clear point of entry to challenge the reclassification of their positions. The Department notified those persons, including Petitioners, whose Career Service positions had been reclassified to Selected Exempt Service, that they had a right to challenge the reclassification. Each of the Petitioners filed a request for hearing regarding their reclassifications, which was filed with the Agency Clerk in August of 2003. However, the petitions were not forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings until May 2007. All four cases were settled with an agreement that their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt Service positions in error, and that they should have been considered Career Service employees at the time their positions were eliminated. Petitioners and the Department also agreed that any challenge by Petitioners to the layoffs would be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Gloria Preston began work for the State of Florida in 1975. Her evaluations showed that she continuously exceeded performance standards, and she had training and experience in managing and monitoring grants and contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, and it is unclear whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Stephen Reid began work for the State of Florida in 1977. He left state government for a short time and returned in 1984. With the exception of his initial evaluation with the Department of Corrections, he has received "outstanding" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Reid has experience in contract creation and management. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Carol Wells began employment with the State of Florida in 1975. Similar to Mr. Reid, all of her evaluations save her first one were at the "exceeds" performance level, and she has experience in writing and managing contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Titus Tillman began employment with the State of Florida in 1993. He was subject to a Corrective Action Plan in May 2000, but received "above average" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Like the other Petitioners, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Likewise, no evidence was presented regarding the retention points that were earned by any of the people who were retained by the Department to fill the remaining positions. No evidence was presented regarding the qualifications of those retained employees, in terms of their comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience in the program areas the Department would continue to implement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the petitions for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100 Lezlie A. Griffin, Esquire Melissa Ann Horwitz, Esquire AFSCME Council 79 3064 Highland Oaks Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District on January 15, 1990, as a Secretary III, Classified. She was assigned as secretary to Margaret Lewis, Director of Vocational Education. Classified employees are distinguished from certified employees who are teachers or administrators who hold teaching certificates. Respondent's duties included typing, handling and filing documents and correspondence, keeping budget and payroll records, copying and receiving incoming phone calls to the Department of Vocational Education. For approximately six months, Respondent and her supervisor had a good working relationship. Both were new to the Brevard County School District, and Margaret Lewis felt that together they could make positive changes in the unit. Respondent's personnel evaluation dated March 15, 1990, rates her in the "exceptional high" range in every category, with the highest possible rating being given in the categories, "work attitude," "cooperativeness," "personal appearance" and "tardiness." Something happened in the summer of 1990 around the time that the unit was moving from its office in Rockledge to the new district building in the Brevard County Governmental Center at Viera. The relationship between the two women rapidly deteriorated, a phenomenon observed by co-workers and the assistant superintendents, including Margaret Lewis' supervisor, Daniel Scheuerer. The circumstances were confusing, even to Jerry Copeland, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services. None could pinpoint the cause of the rift, although both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Lewis offered their own theories. Ms. Cooper described her supervisor arriving at work one morning crying and upset over some domestic situation. She went into Ms. Lewis' office with her and urged her to go home. Ms. Lewis eventually did leave and was gone for several days. Upon her return, Ms. Cooper felt that Ms. Lewis was very cool toward her and began communicating with her through notes or through messages to other staff. Ms. Lewis believes Ms. Cooper's work attitude changed radically after she was passed over for a secretarial position in the School Board attorney's office. On two occasions, Ms. Cooper approached Abraham Collinsworth, the Superintendent, with concerns she had about Margaret Lewis. Mr. Collinsworth referred the matter back to Dr. Scheuerer, Ms. Lewis' supervisor and the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services. Dr. Scheuerer told the superintendent that he had a very disruptive situation with loud conversations and people not feeling good about each other. During the several months period, July through September 1990, Dr. Scheuerer met with the women individually and together. Ms. Cooper complained that Ms. Lewis required her to make too many copies of things, that she communicated with her through yellow stickers, "post-it" notes, and that she, Ms. Lewis, would not tell her where she was going. Dr. Scheuerer counselled Ms. Cooper to adapt to her supervisor's way of doing things and also made suggestions to Ms. Lewis of ways to improve communications, for example, allowing her secretary to keep the calendar. The meeting he had with both women together was very unpleasant. It was obvious that there was a lot of hostility and animosity, tension and stress between the two. Generally, however, Ms. Lewis conducted herself in a professional manner. Ms. Cooper kept a tape recorder that she used to play subliminal tapes. Ms. Lewis felt that she was using the tape recorder to tape their conversations. Ms. Lewis felt that Ms. Cooper spent an inordinate amount of time away from her desk and abused break periods. Ms. Cooper said that she was making deliveries or copying. Ms. Lewis begin writing notes of their confrontations in order to avoid getting emotionally involved. This seemed to inflame Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper's reaction to direction was often either a sullen shrug or a verbal retort. Ms. Cooper felt Ms. Lewis gave her conflicting or serial requests. She also kept notes of their interactions. Early on the morning of October 8, 1990, several employees in the area of Ms. Cooper's and Ms. Lewis' office overheard a verbal confrontation between the two. Ms. Cooper had her voice raised and when Ms. Lewis asked her not to talk so loud, she replied she wanted everyone to hear. It was obvious to Daniel Scheuerer, who also overheard part of the confrontation, that Ms. Cooper was the one doing the yelling. On October 9, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Ms. Cooper the following written reprimand: This is a formal letter of reprimand as a result of your unacceptable behavior on the morning of October 8, 1990. It is being issued as a result of your intentional (you stated that you wanted to be heard by everyone when I asked you to lower your voice) vociferous and disruptive shouting at me in your work area and the disrespect which you displayed toward me as your supervisor after I had made reasonable requests. This type of behavior is unacceptable, disturbing and disruptive to the work effort of the department and the entire area. This is to inform you that any similar outburst of this matter will result in your immediate termination. CC: Personnel File (Petitioner's exhibit No. 5) Sometime around the end of September, or early October, Karen Denbo, the district Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, had a secretarial position open that would have been a lateral transfer (same level, same pay) for Janice Cooper. She applied, and Dr. Scheuerer asked Ms. Denbo to interview Ms. Cooper. Ms. Denbo asked if he was telling her to hire Ms. Cooper. Dr. Scheuerer was given the impression by both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Denbo that they had misgivings about Ms. Cooper performing in a position requiring a lot of technical filings for which there would be no training. Ms. Cooper was not offered the transfer and no other efforts were made to find Ms. Cooper alternative employment. On October 26, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Janice Cooper a memorandum titled "Job Expectations." It informed her that her supervisor had concerns regarding job performance, relationships with other employees, work attitude and failure to follow administrative directives. It directed her to take specified times for break and it stated she must be accurate, careful, effective and courteous. It stated that her performance was not satisfactory and warned that "failure to make necessary adjustments will result in additional disciplinary action." (Petitioner's exhibit No. 6) On November 1, 1990, near the end of the work week, Ms. Lewis needed some coping done and could not find Janice Cooper. She filled out a copy request form and put Ms. Cooper's name as the contact person. Ms. Cooper returned and Ms. Lewis asked if the form was completed properly. Ms. Cooper looked at it and then replied, "It if says what you want it to say, then its alright." After Ms. Lewis returned to her office, Ms. Cooper followed her in and said if she was going to use her name she needed to get her permission first. As Ms. Lewis began writing down Ms. Cooper's comments, Ms. Cooper reached across the desk, knocking off pencils and paper, and tore the paper out of her hand. Ms. Lewis reached for the phone and asked Dr. Scheuerer to come immediately. Ms. Cooper left and did not return until November 5th, after the weekend. In the meantime, Ms. Lewis met with Dr. Scheuerer; the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Jerry Copeland; and the Labor Relations Director, Bob Barrett. Upon Ms. Cooper's return to work, Ms. Lewis called her in to her office. Bob Barrett was also present. She was given this letter: November 5, 1990 Ms. Janice Cooper, Secretary Vocational Education Department Dear Ms. Cooper: This is to inform you that your employment with the School Board of Brevard County is terminated effective immediately, November 5, 1990. The reason for this termination is your unsatisfactory performance. You have been counseled and warned on several occasions regarding the need to improve your performance. On October 26, 1990, you were provided a memorandum which outlined your responsibilities and gave you direction for improving your performance. You were notified that your performance was unsatisfactory and that your failure to make the necessary adjustments would bring additional disciplinary action. Since October 26, 1990, your performance has continued to deteriorate to the point that your unwillingness to make the effort required to function as a Secretary III necessitates this action. Prior to your departure from the work site today, you should turn in any keys or other such School Board material which was issued to you to uses in your job. Sincerely, Margaret Lewis Director, Vocational Education (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) (emphasis in original) When asked if she had anything to say, Ms. Cooper made no response and refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter. She was directed to collect her personal items and to leave the office. With guidance from the State Department of Education, the Brevard County School District has a policy of discipline of all employees which it calls, "NEAT." The acronym stands for the right to "Notice," followed by "Explanation," followed by "Assistance," within a reasonable "Time." If the deficiencies are not corrected at the end of this process, the employee may be terminated. The School Board's adopted rule 6Gx5-7.05, provides in pertinent part: Suspension/Dismissal. A certificated employee may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the work year pursuant to provisions set forth in Florida Statute 230.33(7)(h), 231.36(4)(6) and the Rules of the Educational Practices Commission. A classified employee may be dismissed for cause. The immediate supervisor shall suspend the employee and notify him/her in writing of the recommendation for dismissal, stating the cause. Termination Date. The effective date of any termination of employment or suspension shall be the last day on which the employee works. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) In addition to the above, the School Board's administrative staff acknowledge an employee's right to a pre-termination process that gives her an opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. The record in this proceeding establishes that Janice Cooper was insubordinate on several occasions. She yelled at her supervisor, disrupting the workplace; she refused to follow instructions or was insolent; and finally, she virtually assaulted her supervisor when she grabbed the paper and tore it up. There is little specific evidence, however, of her poor job performance. Her only evaluation during the ten months of her employment was exceptionally positive. The "Job Expectations" memorandum was provided four days before the incident leading to Ms. Cooper's separation, which incident was plainly insubordination or misconduct, but not "poor job performance." The administrative staff make no apparent distinction between "termination" and "suspension" as both are separations from employment; and they do not view Ms. Lewis' letter, therefore, as a violation of the policy described in paragraph 18 above. Practically, there is no distinction, as no separation is final until the Board takes its action. In the meantime, the employee is no longer on the payroll. In Ms. Cooper's case, the time off of the payroll has been two years, most of which time has been the result of circumstances beyond the control of the School Board. Neither before, nor immediately after her termination by Margaret Lewis, was Janice Cooper offered reasonable opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. She was given the letter and asked if she had a response. The letter states that termination is a fait accompli. She did not respond, and was told to leave. No evidence was presented as to the need to take immediate action. Both the district and Ms. Cooper could have benefited from a brief cooling off period; the district, by taking the time to draft a letter reflecting the proper cause for its action; and Ms. Cooper, by having an opportunity to reflect on her employment jeopardy and to prepare a response. The district presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of cause to terminate Ms. Cooper. It did not, however, prove that the cause was "poor performance." For that reason, and because the employee was not offered a reasonable opportunity to respond, the termination procedure was fatally flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Brevard County enter its final order reinstating Janice Cooper to full back pay and benefits from November 9, 1990, until and including October 7, 1992, and approving her termination effective October 7, 1992. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January 1993. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 11. With the exception of the October 26, 1990 memo, the facts proposed here are rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Poor performance was not proven, nor was it proven that Respondent was taping conversations, rather than playing her own "subliminal tapes." Adopted in substance in Paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Moreover, there was some mention of a grievance, but no evidence of what this process was or whether it was actually filed and withdrawn. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to unsatisfactory job performance, which is distinguished, according to the School Board's witness, from "insubordination" or misconduct. (Transcript, p. 70-71) Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Adopted in Paragraph 18. 4-8. Rejected as argument or conclusions, or summary of testimony rather than discrete findings of fact. Some of those arguments and conclusions have been adopted in the conclusions of law herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building E 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 F. Michael Driscoll, Esquire Suite 58 3815 North Highway One Cocoa, Florida 32926 Abraham L. Collinsworth, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940-6699 Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
