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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, against Petitioner due to his age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an Employee Relations Specialist from July 30, 2007, to March 7, 2008. Petitioner’s position as an Employee Relations Specialist was a full-time salaried exempt position. Throughout Petitioner’s employment, Mary Campbell was the Director of Human Resources for Respondent, and William Davis was the Human Resources Manager for Respondent. Campbell was Petitioner and Davis’s direct supervisor. On March 6, 2008, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Campbell, effective Friday, March 7, 2008. Pursuant to Respondent’s termination policy, salaried exempt employees are expected to provide a minimum of four weeks’ notice of their resignation, and failure to do so could block their eligibility for rehire and payment of accrued paid time off (PTO). Petitioner failed to provide the required four weeks’ notice when he resigned his employment with Respondent. Petitioner understood that resigning with less than four weeks’ notice would block his eligibility for rehire, but, despite that understanding, he chose to resign on such short notice because he was starting a new job the next Monday. Petitioner expressed that understanding in his resignation letter, stating: “I understand the ramification of my early resignation but my future employer will not hold a position for thirty days.” (Resignation letter, Respondent’s Ex. 1). On March 7, 2008, Campbell signed a Personnel Action Notice relating to Petitioner’s resignation of employment, stating that “Dwayne Clark resigned his position for another opportunity without proper notice, accepting the consequences of losing PTO and rehire eligibility.” Campbell, without the involvement of Davis, classified Petitioner as ineligible for rehire on March 7, 2008. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged this action was not discriminatory. The Monday after his resignation, Petitioner began working for Citizens Property Insurance as a Human Resources Generalist, and was involuntarily terminated after six weeks of employment with Citizens. In July 2009, Davis was promoted to Director of Human Resources after Campbell resigned from her employment with Respondent. On April 15, 2011, Richard Rivera was hired by Respondent as the Human Resources Manager. Prior to that, Rivera was employed by University of Florida Shands Medical Center’s (UF Shands) Human Resources Department, which shares the same building with Respondent’s Human Resources Department. Rivera knew Petitioner as a human resources employee of Respondent in 2007/2008. However, they had never spoken prior to mediation of this matter in 2017. Since becoming Director of Human Resources, Davis has received several requests for an exception to the termination policy from former employees classified as ineligible for rehire. Though he has the authority to do so, Davis has never made an exception to the termination policy or rehired anyone who had been classified as ineligible for rehire. In July 2010 and early 2012, Petitioner asked Davis to make an exception to the termination policy and reclassify him as eligible for rehire. However, Davis did not reclassify Petitioner as eligible for rehire because “[w]hen you make an exception, you have problems enforcing the policy going forward, so that’s why I do not make exceptions.” Petitioner claims that while he was employed with Respondent, Campbell made two exceptions to the termination policy and allowed the rehire of two former employees who had been classified as ineligible for rehire. However, other than their gender and race, Petitioner could not name or otherwise identify the two former employees in a way that would allow Respondent to attempt to verify his claim. Petitioner asserted that a physician assistant (PA) had been rehired by Respondent after providing less than four weeks’ notice of her resignation. Respondent was able to identify that individual as Allison McFauls. Ms. McFauls has worked as a Senior PA since 1998 and has never been an employee of Respondent or subject to Respondent’s termination policy. Ms. McFauls has always been employed by UF Shands, which is a separate entity from UF Jacksonville Physicians, Inc., with a separate human resources department and separate personnel policies. Neither Davis nor Rivera is aware of any employee of Respondent receiving an exception to the termination policy. Davis classified Hubert Collins, an Employee Relations Manager, who is nearly 20 years younger than Petitioner, and Christy Wright, who is even younger than Collins, as ineligible for rehire due to their failures to comply with the required resignation notice period in the termination policy. During their conversation in July 2010, Petitioner asked Davis if Respondent would be interested in contracting with Petitioner’s consulting company to assist with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance review. Respondent did not contract with Petitioner because Respondent performed compliance review work and completed its Affirmative Action Plan in-house. Davis did not ask Petitioner questions regarding his age and does not recall having a conversation with Petitioner about retirement since Petitioner’s employment with Respondent. Even if such topics of conversation occurred, Petitioner agreed he may have been the one to raise them. On September 12, 2016, Petitioner applied online for a vacant Employee Relations Specialist position with Respondent. However, due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with Respondent’s four-week notice requirement, Petitioner was ineligible for rehire with Respondent in September 2016. On September 14, 2016, Rivera reviewed the applications and selected which applicants would be interviewed and considered for the open Employee Relations Specialist position. Because Petitioner was ineligible for rehire, Rivera removed Petitioner from further consideration. Rivera did not base his decision on Petitioner’s age, and there was no persuasive evidence of record that Rivera was biased against Petitioner because of his age. On September 14, 2016, Rivera rejected Petitioner’s application in the online application system and entered “ineligible for rehire” as the reason for rejecting Petitioner’s application. The same day, Petitioner was sent a form email notifying him that his application had been removed from consideration for the Employee Relations Specialist position. No one but Rivera was involved in the decision to remove Petitioner from consideration for the position. Rivera did not inform Davis or anyone else that Petitioner had applied for the Employee Relations Specialist position. Likewise, Davis never directed Rivera or anyone else to reject applications from Petitioner. Petitioner did not communicate with Davis, Rivera, or any other employee about his September 12, 2016, application. Nor did Petitioner request an exception to the termination policy from Davis or anyone else in 2016. Davis did not know that Petitioner had applied for the Employee Relations Specialist position until November 2016, when Respondent was notified by the Commission that Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination. After receiving Petitioner’s charge of discrimination in November 2016, Davis reviewed Petitioner’s September 2016 application, and noticed that Petitioner stated that he had resigned from his employment with Citizens Property Insurance, which Davis knew to be false. If Petitioner had been hired for the Employee Relations Specialist position, Davis would have terminated Petitioner’s employment for falsifying his application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Margaret P. Zabijaka, Esquire Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Suite 1700 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Jesse D. Bannon, Esquire Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Suite 1700 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Dwayne E. Clark, Sr. 11334 Bridges Road Jacksonville, Florida 32218 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned his career service position at Children, Youth, & Families Services.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner was employed as a counselor working with the District XI Children, Youth, & Families (CYS) Services. Petitioner was assigned to monitor approximately twenty-five foster care children. After some past employment disputes, Petitioner was reinstated by the Department effective March 31, 1987. Petitioner returned to work on April 17, 1987, however, he was not satisfied with the working environment. In a memorandum dated April 22, 1987, Petitioner alleged: The same pattern of capricious, arbitrary and discriminatory practices which led to my previous illegal dismissal from services at a time I was disable, as the result of an accident which had occurred while fulfilling my duties for this Department, are still present. All my fundamental rights have been thoroughly violated. Even workman compensation has been denied to me. With so painful experience and in light of outstanding losses I have consequently suffered, any idea of subsidizing HRS with my own car, car insurance, car repairs and advance funding for gasoline purchase as an obligatory condition for employment at CYF is being rejected as unfair practices; and violate the equal Employment Opportunity Laws. Various efforts made to have this abusive situation corrected have been met with the flagrant opposition of fierce administrators of this department, totally obstinated not to let fairness and logic prevail. In light of all these facts, it is my conclusion that my interests can be better preserved by my abstention from any involvement at HRS until these matters are properly attended by your diligence in the best of the delays, or by a court of law. In consequence effective Friday April 24, 1987 I have decided to temporarily not to be in attendance at Unit 462 Foster Care. In response, the District Program Manager for Social Services, Frank Manning, wrote to Petitioner on April 23, 1987, and advised him that failure to report to work as scheduled would be cause for action pursuant to Chapter 22A- 7.010(2). Petitioner failed to appear or to call in to work for hour consecutive work days, to wit: April 27-30, 1987. Petitioner was not authorized to take leave during the time in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a Final Order affirming the decision that Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned from the Career Service. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Unit 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33215 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louis C. Germaine 308 Northeast 117th Street Miami, Florida 33161 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as envisioned in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005), on the basis of the Petitioner's disability or handicap, and his age. It must also be determined whether the Respondent committed retaliation against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's alleged exercise of statutorily protected rights in complaining about health, or safety concerns, regarding his operation of a machine or device while an employee of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Jimmy D. Forehand was hired by the Department of Management Services or its predecessor on January 21, 1977. He was employed at that Agency for approximately 27 and one-half years through June 30, 2004. For the last 19 years of his tenure he was classed as an electrician. This is the entry level electrician trade position and has fewer complex duties and skills required for its performance, as opposed to the more complex position of master electrician, in terms of working with complex wiring, wiring problems, electrical devices, and so forth associated with that latter position. It has been stipulated that through his termination date of June 30, 2004, Mr. Forehand, was qualified to perform the duties and functions of his job. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing all state government agency resources, services, properties, benefits, and procurement. It manages state-owned facilities, handles state human resources or personnel matters, employee benefit matters, as well as procurement of such things as office space and office supplies. It maintains the physical integrity of all state-owned properties. The Petitioner was employed for the Respondent by the Division of Facilities Management and Building Construction (Division of Facilities) which is responsible for managing and maintaining office complexes and other properties owned by the state. The Petitioner specifically worked for the electrician unit of that Division. The Disability Claim The Petitioner experienced several purported medical conditions which resulted in workers' compensation claims during his tenure as an employee. The ones relevant to this case commenced in approximately 1992. In 1992 the Petitioner was engaged in a repair work assignment at a DMS-administered office building in downtown Tallahassee. He allegedly became exposed to asbestos during that job. The Petitioner and the employer, DMS, initiated a First Report of Injury and a workers' compensation claim ensued regarding the asbestos incident. The progress of that workers' compensation claim and its disposition are not relevant to this case, aside from the diagnosis concerning that claim as a part of the predicate for showing a disability for purposes of the case at bar. In any event, in 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by a physician with asbestosis. Because of that diagnosis, through the workers' compensation process, the employer and carrier have authorized the Petitioner, in all the years since, to have an annual medical examination and chest X-ray under the auspices of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Financial Services. This is for the purpose of monitoring the status of the asbestosis. The Respondent has stipulated that it was aware of the diagnosis of asbestosis. It does not agree that the asbestosis constitutes a disability for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (i.e. handicap). The Petitioner was released from the physician with regard to the asbestosis situation without work limitations or restrictions due to that diagnosis. Sometime in 1999 the Petitioner injured his left knee on the job, apparently a severe sprain. A workers' compensation notice of injury was filed and a workers' compensation claim process ensued whereby he received treatment for his knee problem. When he reached maximum medical improvement he returned to work with a light duty recommendation from his treating physician, on a temporary basis. In fact, the Respondent accorded him a temporary light duty assignment after he returned to work from the knee injury. The Respondent, through the Petitioner's supervisors, particularly Joe Jacobson, generally made an effort to try to find the Petitioner a light duty assignment when he returned from illness or injury, based upon a doctor's recommendation and/or the Petitioner's own request for light duty. His supervisor, Mr. Jacobson, would customarily call other building managers, the "OP/CON Center" and other agencies in an effort to find a light duty post Mr. Forehand could perform in until he was ready for the full duties of his regular position. Thus, on several occasions Mr. Forehand was placed in light duty as a janitor or answering phones. It was not always possible to find temporary light duty for Mr. Forehand when he requested it or when a doctor recommended it. Apparently Mr. Forehand was on leave without pay for a number of months on at least one occasion when no light duty was available for him. In this connection, however, the Respondent, throughout Mr. Forehand's tenure as an employee or at least since his 1992 asbestosis diagnosis, has shown a penchant for allowing Mr. Forehand to occupy and perform his duties in his regular position of electrician by working at his own pace, without regard to any time limit for performing his duties, without prohibition on his taking frequent rest breaks, and with tolerance for his late arrival at work, if tardiness was related to his physical condition. Thus, in a defacto fashion, the Respondent accommodated what it knew of Mr. Forehand's impairments, as he related them to the Respondent, or as they learned of them from reports from his physicians and from the workers' compensation process (i.e., breathing difficulties and to some extent left knee impairment after 1999). In any event, the preponderant evidence establishes that when the Petitioner requested light duty and/or his physician recommended it, the Respondent would provide him with light duty if it was available, although it was not always available. It accommodated what it knew of his impairments when he worked in his regular position, performing his regular duties, by the means described above; even though the Petitioner did not for the most part request rest periods, frequent breaks from his duties, additional time to complete his assignments, or for permission to trade assignments with another worker who might have a less physically taxing job. In fact, when the matter of his physical difficulties came up, or was raised by the Petitioner in a conversation with his supervisor on at least one occasion, his supervisor told him in effect to "do the best you can." The implication thus clearly was that if the Petitioner needed rest breaks, needed additional time to do assignments, that the Respondent would accommodate him by not holding him to a strict standard as to when his job duties got performed. Since approximately the year 2000 or the fiscal year 2000-2001 the Respondent, like other state agencies, have been under a mandate from the Legislature and the Office of the Governor to save on costs and to become more efficient in its operations. One of the primary means of accomplishing this has been to require a reduction in the Agency's workforce. The Respondent has thus experienced a loss of employment positions since that fiscal year in each budget year and session of the Legislature. It has thus lost approximately 635 full-time positions over a four-year period ending with the 2005 Legislature and Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Petitioner's position was identified by the year 2000 Florida Legislature to be eliminated, by making it "non-recurring," such that his position would be cut or eliminated effective July 1, 2001. The Respondent's supervisors did not want him to be laid off. Therefore, they avoided his lay-off in that fiscal year by re- classifying him or his position into a vacant position within the Division of Facilities. They made the decision to retain him even with knowledge of his past workers' compensation claims, his asbestosis diagnosis and his knee injury of 1999 with related occasional light duty and time off from work. When the 2000 Legislature identified his position as being one which would be non-recurring or deleted after July 1, 2001, the Respondent held a meeting with the Petitioner and all other employees whose positions had been deemed non-critical and subject to deletion in the job force reduction. What had occurred was explained and their options and procedures to remain employed or become re-employed were explained. Because his supervisors wanted to save him from lay-off, and re- classified a different position to place him in, he was protected when the 2001 Legislature carried through with its previous year alteration of his position to non-recurring funding by withdrawing all funding and rate supporting his original position. In continuation of its mandate to reduce the work force, the 2003 Legislature made 20 positions non-recurring, including the Petitioner's. This meant that the funding was determined to be non-recurring, meaning that the positions would be funded one more year, but at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, 2004, these positions would no longer be funded and would be abolished. In the Governor's and agency's budget preparation process thereafter, in 2003 and early 2004, the Legislatively- mandated reduction of 20 positions was incorporated. The Agency, however, in late 2003 or early 2004, arrived at the conclusion that it needed 15 of those 20 positions to be re- classified as critical positions necessary to its mission. Therefore, in the Legislative budget-making process, beginning in February and early March 2004, it sought to convince the Legislature's Appropriations staff and members that 15 of the positions were critical. It was successful in doing that during the Legislative session. The Petitioner's position was not re-established as a recurring, critical position. This was because his position had previously been determined to be non-critical in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and, since his job duties and responsibilities had not changed since that time, his position was again deemed to be no longer critical to continued division operation. It was determined by the Respondent that the functions of his position could be performed by including them in the duties of other positions, to be performed by persons who qualified for and occupied those positions (such as master electricians). Although Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, wanted to find a vacant position to place the Petitioner in as he had done in the 2000-2001 fiscal year job force reduction, there were no vacant positions available in which to place the Petitioner. Mr. Jacobson's testimony establishes this, as does that of Clint Sibille and Cherri Linn (Mr. Jacobson's supervisors). The fact that Mr. Jacobson had a desire to try to find a way to retain the Petitioner is somewhat corroborated by the statement or message from Ms. Linn to Mr. Jacobson to the effect that "you can't save him this time." This meant that, unlike the situation in 2000-2001, there were no vacant positions which could be converted to a position in which to place the Petitioner. Moreover, the testimony of the supervisory lead worker, Bill Kerr, corroborated that of Joe Jacobson and Clint Sibille that there were no vacant positions to place the Petitioner in or to convert to a position suitable for his qualifications. Their testimony shows that the Petitioner's position was not a critical one in the division, especially because it did not involve duties concerned with intricate electrical wiring, wiring repairs, working on complex electrical devices and other complex electrical work. This testimony established that it made no sense to convert a master electrician position into one which met Mr. Forehand's lesser qualifications because a qualified person in a master electrician position, can perform the Petitioner's duties and many more duties in terms of complexity and critical importance than can a person with the Petitioner's lesser qualifications in an entry-level electrician position. Mr. Forehand is not a licensed electrician. The Respondent thus determined that there were no positions which were vacant and sufficiently less critical to its operation as to justify it in converting such to one which met the Petitioner's qualifications (in a managerial context). The Petitioner was not told of his lay-off until June 14, 2004. In fact, Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, did not know that it was certain to occur until immediately before Mr. Forehand was told, several days before at the most. Clint Sibille had told Mr. Jacobson before the Legislative session convened that Mr. Forehand's position might be eliminated but he was not certain at that time (approximately in December 2003 or January 2004). It is not clear which supervisor or manager made the initial decision that the Petitioner's position was not critical. It apparently was the recommendation of Clint Sibille, in concert with Cherri Linn, and with the final approval of the Division Director, then LeeAnn Korst. Mr. Jacobson, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, did not request that his position be deleted. During most of 2003, the Petitioner's job duties included operation of a florescent bulb or lamp crushing system. This was a device known as a VRS Bulb Crusher also known as the "bulb eater." It had apparently been purchased by the Agency sometime in 2002. The device consists of a large drum with a vertical tube through which burned-out florescent light bulbs are inserted so that they fall into the large drum where a mechanical device is operated which crushes the bulbs for disposal. The Petitioner performed a large portion of the bulb crusher's operation. This was particularly true during early 2004, when the Petitioner used the machine at a more intense level. Sometime in February 2004, the exhaust or filtration system of the machine sustained damage, or a break, so that dust and particulate matter and any gaseous or chemical contents of the broken bulbs had the opportunity to leak out of the area of the break into the ambient air. A temporary repair was made and a permanent replacement part was ordered from the manufacturer. The machine continued to malfunction, however, and the repair did not hold. The Petitioner complained to Bill Kerr, his lead worker, concerning the dust and particulate matter the machine apparently sprayed into the air. He also complained to his supervisor, Joe Jacobson. The Petitioner stated that he believed that the dust and particulate matter and other unknown contents of the broken florescent bulbs might aggravate the breathing problems he professed to have, which he related to his original asbestosis diagnosis. These complaints began in early March 2004. The Petitioner also complained to Dave Wiggins, the Respondent's Environmental Supervisor in March of 2004. When the complaints were made and the temporary repair was not successful, the Respondent stopped all use of the bulb machine in early March 2004. This was contemporaneous with the time or occasion when the Petitioner refused to use the machine any longer. The complaints about the bulb crushing machine were reported up the "chain of command" so that on March 16, 2004, Glen Abbott, the Employee Relations Specialist of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services, made a written "medical report" (according to the Petitioner's testimony) concerning the Petitioner's reported exposure to "poisonous chemicals" in the fluorescent bulbs being crushed through operation of the machine. This report was apparently required for workers' compensation purposes. The Petitioner also told Clint Sibille, Mr. Jacobson's supervisor, of the machine's purported malfunction. Mr. Sibille asked Dave Wiggins, the Environmental Specialist, to investigate the machine to determine if the machine was malfunctioning or if the problem reported by the Petitioner was caused by operator error. Mr. Wiggins and Joe Jacobson, after investigating the matter, believed it to be caused by operator error in the manner in which the bulbs were inserted into the vertical tube of the machine. The Petitioner maintains that he asked Clint Sibille to send him to a doctor concerning his fears of heath problems related to the machine and states that Clint Sibille told him to "see his own doctor." Mr. Sibille did confer with Cherri Linn about the Petitioner's request and Cherri Linn informed him that the Petitioner would have to engage in the workers' compensation report and claim process in order to see a doctor concerning his health-related fears about the bulb crushing machine. Mr. Sibille then told the Petitioner's supervisor Joe Jacobson to tell the Petitioner of this. Thereafter, at some point during the period of March through June 2004, after the Petitioner reported his complaints concerning the use of the bulb crusher, Glenn Abbott told all the electricians and carpenters who had worked with the machine to obtain medical examinations under the normal workers' compensation procedure, to try to ascertain if there are any deleterious effects caused by these persons' operation of the machine. Sometime in early May of 2004, the Petitioner called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and spoke to someone there and made a verbal report of his belief concerning unsafe conditions regarding operation of the bulb crushing machine. After the Petitioner left employment with the Respondent Agency in July of 2004, the machine and the warehouse space where it was located was examined by a representative of the DEP and samples were taken, in an effort to ascertain if any hazardous materials had been produced by the machine or were present in that working area. On May 18, 2004, the Petitioner re-injured the same knee which he had injured in 1999. A Notice of Injury concerning this knee injury was filed to trigger the workers' compensation process and the Petitioner saw a doctor through the workers' compensation procedure who examined and treated his knee problem (severe sprain). He was off work for a few days and then was sent back to work by the physician with a prescription of "light duty." He thus became available for work with light duty, at the doctor's recommendation, on or about June 1, 2004. At about this time he told his lead worker Bill Kerr, of his blood clot and showed him the doctor's report concerning leg swelling. He also informed Joe Jacobson of this. He sought light duty and indeed Joe Jacobson made substantial efforts to find light duty available for him by calling the various building managers and the "opcon" center to see if any light duty was available. Mr. Jacobson went so far as to try to ascertain if there were any office filing duties that the Petitioner could perform. He was unable to locate any light duty work for the Petitioner at this time. Joe Jacobson took annual leave in early June and while he was on annual leave, he received a call from his employer, (apparently Cherri Linn) around June 10th or 11, 2004, requiring him to come back to work because the job force reduction lay-off was going to be imposed on the Petitioner and his presence as his supervisor was apparently needed. On June 11, 2004, the Petitioner was called and told to report to work on Monday morning, June 14, 2004. On Monday the Petitioner was called in to a meeting with Joe Jacobson and Tim Carlisle and told of his lay-off. He was immediately required by the Department's Inspector General, Tim Carlisle, to take boxes and pack up his belongings and to leave the premises. Carlisle helped him pack his belongings and ushered him off the Respondent's premises. The Petitioner maintains that he did not know of his lay-off until that same day, which happened to be his fifty-fifth birthday. He was placed on leave with pay until June 30, 2004, his actual termination date. In July of 2004, apparently on or about July 2, 2004, he filed a formal written complaint to the Chief Inspector General regarding his concerns and feared health consequences of the operation of the bulb crushing machine. On or about July 20, 2004, Mr. Forehand visited a walk-in medical facility because he contends he was experiencing shortness of breath, chest pains, and tightness in his chest. He attributed these symptoms to use of the bulb crusher back in March and earlier. He testified that he was diagnosed with silicosis and that he physician determined that he could not tolerate walking 30 to 60 minutes at a time or lifting more than 15 or 20 pounds. Neither this physician nor any other testified, nor was non-hearing medical information admitted into evidence in this regard. Interestingly, Mr. Forehand's testimony indicates he was diagnosed with a heart condition, apparently based on these symptoms, and in late 2004 underwent insertion of an arterial stint. The Petitioner thus complained to his supervisors beginning in about early March 2004, concerning the fears he had about the results of the machine operations. He complained verbally to DEP in early May of 2004, but made no written formal complaint, to any agency or person, until after his termination in July 2004. The Petitioner was not asked to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry concerning the operation of the bulb crushing machine and made no written complaint to any supervisory officials of the Respondent, who could then themselves submit a complaint to the Inspector General or to the Human Relations Commission. In fact, in his own testimony the Petitioner admits that he made a written complaint in July of 2004. In an apparent effort to show that the Respondent's proffered non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual, the Petitioner advanced testimony from a number of witnesses, including himself, which he maintains shows a pattern and practice by the Respondent of retaliating against, and, if necessary, effectively firing older, disabled employees or employees who complain of safety hazards. In this regard, of the five positions selected to be eliminated in the job force reduction of 2004, four had incumbents when the decision was made. All four of those incumbents were over 40 years of age. Two of those four positions, however, became vacant before they were eliminated by the job force reduction. Ms. Ashraf Achtchi was fired by the Respondent before her position became officially eliminated in the job force reduction and Preston Booth voluntarily resigned from his position for unknown reasons. Ms. Achtchi testified to the general effect that she felt she had been discriminated against because of being ill and under medical treatment, yet she was still singled out (in her view) for being absent or tardy. Although the record may establish that she is over 40 years of age, there is no persuasive evidence that she suffered from a legally cognizable disability as that condition or term is defined below, even if she was under a doctor's care, was ill, and had frequent tardiness or absentness due to illness or a doctor's visit during her employment tenure. In any event, other than her own subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's speculations based upon hearsay, there is no persuasive, competent evidence to show that she was terminated for any reasons based upon an unproven disability, her age or due to any retaliation regarding any protected status within the purview of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner maintains that both he and Mr. Feizi were over 40 and disabled. Whether or not the Petitioner established proof of disability will be dealt with in the conclusions of law below. Mr. Feizi apparently suffered from a disease of the nervous system (AMS) and was confined to a wheel chair much of the time. It may thus be inferred that, for purposes of the legal elements of disability referenced below, that Mr. Feizi was disabled. Other than his subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's subjective testimonial speculation, based upon hearsay, however, there is no competent, persuasive evidence concerning the reasons Mr. Feizi was terminated, other than that his position was simply eliminated through a job force reduction in the manner described in the above findings of fact. There is no persuasive, credible evidence to show that he was dismissed from employment based upon his age or due to his disability or as retaliation, nor was that proven with regard to Ms Achtchi. Other employees testified concerning alleged retaliatory conduct on the part of the Respondent. Sid Palladino and John Corbin opined that they had been retaliated against for making safety complaints of various kinds, as well as for testifying on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Ralph Cleaver testified that he left the Department to work for the Department of Agriculture because he had filed a "whistle blower" claim and that the Respondent, in his view, would use retaliation for his taking such an action. Barry McDaniel was 60 years old when hired and, abruptly soon thereafter, was asked to resign, according to his testimony, without any given reason. He testified that Mr. Sibille had him read a book purportedly advocating hard work and the hiring of young workers. The book was entitled "The Go Getter." According to Mr. McDaniel's testimony, the book was required to be read by all employees under Mr. Sibille's supervision. There was no evidence, however, that although Mr. McDaniel was asked to resign, that any other employee was so treated. The book was not in evidence and the undersigned has only Mr. McDaniel's subjective testimony concerning his thoughts regarding the theme and content of the book, in relation to his subjective belief that his age was the reason he was asked to resign. He testified that his immediate superior, who was also 60 years of age, was "gone" shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of any circumstances or facts concerning why Mr. McDaniel or his supervisor were actually asked to resign or in the case of his supervisor, may have voluntarily resigned. There are insufficient facts and circumstances established by the evidence to show any discriminatory motive related to age or otherwise with regard to the terminations of either of these men. Sid Palladino testified that he was reprimanded for not wearing his uniform and that other employees were not reprimanded when they had not worn uniforms either. He also testified that he felt he was retaliated against for making safety complaints as well as for testifying in support of the Petitioner in this proceeding. In fact, his reprimand was rescinded shortly after it was given him when it was learned that he had not worn his uniform or worn it properly because the uniform supplied him did not fit. Additionally, other than their anecdotal comments in their testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Palladino or Mr. Corbin were retaliated against for complaining of safety issues and the same is true of Ralph Cleaver opining that he was about to be retaliated against for being a whistle blower, and Barry McDaniel as well. There is simply no definitive, credible proof, other than these employees' own subjective opinions, upon which to base a finding that there was any pattern and practice of retaliation against employees for complaining about safety hazards, for supporting other employees' discrimination claims, for making whistle blower claims, for being disabled or on account of their age, which could be persuasively probative of the discrimination and retaliation claims of the Petitioner.1/ In this connection, it is also found that there are a number of remaining employees in the Petitioner's division, who were his age or older. Indeed, Mr. Robert Smith had retired and then was later re-hired by the Department and the Division after suffering at least one episode of injury and medically prescribed light duty. Likewise, there are an unknown number of disabled or physically impaired persons remaining employed by the Department, after the dates and circumstances occurred with regard to the Petitioner's discriminatory claims. At least two of them testified in this proceeding. These facts belie the existence of a systematic policy or practice of eliminating employees over age 40 or of Mr. Forehand's age or older, or those who might be disabled or suffering from physical or medical impairments.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On July 9, 1986 Petitioner, a Clerk Typist Specialist employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, signed a receipt acknowledging that she had received a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains the information that an employee who is absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization may be considered to have abandoned his or her position and thereby to have resigned. On September 3, 1987 Petitioner telephoned her supervisor to advise him that she had an interview scheduled and that she would be at work by 9:30 a.m. She, however, thereafter failed to appear at work and failed to make any further contact with her supervisor on September 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1987. On September 11, 1987 by certified letter the Department advised Petitioner that, as of the close of business on September 9, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service due to her unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, i.e., September 3, 4, and 8, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered deeming Petitioner to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of November, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Holloway-Jenkins 649 West 4th Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 K. C. Collette, Esquire District IX Legal Counsel 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2013.
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 The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner has a disability (back injury) for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and whether her termination was because of her race (Black) or due to excessive absenteeism and tardiness.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner first worked for Mold-Ex Rubber Company (Mold-Ex) in November 1998. Her duties were in the extrusion department where she worked bonding rubber strips together on a "hot plate machine," hanging them to dry and then transferring them to be stored in a box for shipping. Nick Bores, Human Resources Coordinator at Mold-Ex, explained that she was responsible for transferring completed, bonded rubber strips and was responsible for moving four to five strips at a time. The weight of those strips was approximately one pound per strip. The Petitioner remained a probationary employee throughout her tenure. The probationary period for new employees at Mold-Ex is ninety days. She was never entitled to benefits and never received any because she remained on probationary status. Several weeks after she first began employment at Mold- Ex the Petitioner was in a car accident, which was unrelated to her employment. The accident occurred on December 4, 1998. Mr. Bores was unaware of the length of time required for her recovery from her car accident, but in any event her initial employment with Mold-Ex ended at some point after the car accident in December 1998. She did not return to work after that accident. In May 1999, the Petitioner submitted a doctor's note to Mr. Bores, which released her to return to work without any restrictions as of May 17, 1999. Mr. Bores was under the belief that he was under no obligation to re-hire the Petitioner because she had left her employment after the accident while still a probationary employee. Nevertheless, he re-hired her as a probationary employee in May 1999, and was given to understand by the Petitioner that, as of May 17, 1999, she was under no medical restrictions and could return to regular duties. Mr. Bores hired Ms. Prather to work at the rate of $6.00 per hour and she averaged $960.00 per month in pay. The Petitioner maintained that she was "averaging $288.00" per month in overtime. She did not present any evidence to corroborate her testimony to demonstrate her average overtime pay or that she even earned any overtime pay. Considering her short service with Mold-Ex, which was only a month in 1998 and less than two weeks in 1999, it cannot be concluded what she would have averaged in overtime pay nor can it be concluded, because there is not credible evidence, that she actually worked overtime. In any event, she worked in a department where her job duties including trimming the edges of square pieces of rubber with a sharp knife. During her second week of employment in 1999, the Petitioner left work early on May 28, 1999, to see her physician. She did not return to her job, but her next scheduled day at work was May 31, 1999. She visited her doctor again on June 2, 1999, when she obtained a physician's note (Petitioner's Exhibit A) and on June 2, 1999, gave the note to Mr. Bores. The Petitioner did not present evidence of any other doctor's note regarding medical restrictions or advice. The Petitioner had earlier submitted a note that released her to full duty as of May 17, 1999. Despite her return to health according to her doctor's note, she was unable to be at her work station on time and sometimes failed to appear for work at all. Respondent's Exhibit five reflects the Petitioner's actual "time punches" between May 17, 1999, and May 28, 1999. This exhibit reflects a pattern of tardiness and absenteeism. Mold-Ex has an attendance policy in force, shown by Respondent's Exhibit three. That policy requires its employees to be at their work stations ready to work at their scheduled time every day that their work is scheduled. Additionally, employees are expected not to leave their work stations early. Absences, tardiness and leaving early are not excused unless the supervisor has approved the time off in advance. An employee cannot be excused from absence or tardiness by calling in at the start of his or her shift. Depending on the business needs of each department, a supervisor can accept as little as 24-hours advance notice of an occurrence in order for it to be excused. The proper policy for having an excused absence or time off requires pre-approval by the employee's supervisor. Violations of this policy can lead to termination. Mold-Ex has terminated both white and black employees for attendance violations. Ms. Prather admitted that she was aware of the attendance policy contained in Respondent's Exhibit three and that she had received a copy of that policy. She agreed that if she was not at her work station at her scheduled time that was an "occurrence" or violation of the policy. Ms. Prather agreed that leaving work early also was a violation of the policy. She agreed that her shift began at 7:00 a.m., and ended at 3:30 p.m., and that she was scheduled to work five and sometimes six days per week. She agreed that to be in compliance with the attendance policy she was required to clock- in at 7:00 a.m., and clock-out at 3:30 p.m., each day when she was scheduled to work. She also agreed that unless an employee contacted the company prior to the absence or tardy occurrence that the occurrence would be unexcused and a violation of the policy. The Petitioner agreed that if she had absences or tardiness during the period that lasted from May 17, 1999 through June 4, 1999, then those occurrences would count against her under the Respondent's attendance policy. She also admitted that the company could terminate her for having too many occurrences in violation of the attendance policy. The Petitioner's absences or instances of being tardy are depicted on Respondent's Exhibit five. She was absent on May 18, 1999; late to work on May 19, 1999 and May 20, 1999. On Saturday, May 22, 1999, she was "technically absent" because she clocked in for only one minute. The next scheduled work day was May 24, 1999, and she was absent. She was also absent on the following day, May 25, 1999. She was late to her work station the next three days of that week: May 26 - May 28, 1999. She clocked out early on May 28, 1999, and would have been scheduled to be at work on May 31, 1999, and June 1, 1999, but she failed to come to work on those days. This is a total of 13 occurrences or violations of the attendance policy, which she effectively did not dispute. The Petitioner did not present evidence of any occurrence being excused under the policy. Mr. Bores did not recall the Petitioner calling in for advance approval regarding any of these occurrences. Ms. Prather suggested that she may have informed Mr. Bores that she would miss a few days after May 28, 1999, but she did not testify that she informed him prior to the shifts for which she was scheduled to work. On rebuttal she claimed that she had called the receptionist on May 28, 1999, to inform the Respondent that she would be taking a few days off and would bring in a doctor's note when she could return to work. However, she admitted that she did not speak to her own supervisor about her need for time off, which was required under the policy for time off to be excused. She had no explanation for any of her other violations of the attendance policy. She claimed that the note, Petitioner's Exhibit A, released her from work for two days. The note, however, does not reflect that any days off were advised by the physician. Rather the note merely states that "Ms. Prather has been advised to avoid repetitive overhead work, lifting over 15-20 pounds and repetitive bending." This note did not inform Mold-Ex of any necessary absences or request any excuse for missed work. The Petitioner admitted that she did not provide the note to the company until June 2, 1999, after the scheduled shifts of May 31, 1999 and June 1, 1999. Accordingly, she did not follow the policy for obtaining excused absences. The note itself, as well as Ms. Prather's admission of her failure to follow policy, shows that her contention that the note released her from work for two days is without merit. After reviewing Ms. Prather's time records on June 1, 1999, Mr. Bores decided on that day to terminate her because of her violations of the attendance policy. He identified at least nine violations of the attendance policy in less than two weeks. Mold-Ex has terminated employees with fewer attendance occurrences than Ms. Prather had accumulated at the time Mr. Bores decided to terminate her. A continuing pattern of being late, even as little as two to four minutes, is sufficient for termination under the attendance policy adopted by Mold-Ex. Her poor attendance was the only reason for her termination. Mr. Bores discussed the termination with Ms. Prather on June 2, 1999. She testified that she presented him with her doctor's note (Petitioner's Exhibit A) on June 2, 1999. Nevertheless, by June 2, 1999, Mr. Bores had already decided to terminate her for poor attendance based upon her record to that point. Mr. Bores never considered that the Petitioner had a disability. If she had not violated the attendance policy with so many occurrences of absenteeism and tardiness he would have considered her for any available work at Mold-Ex within her doctor's restrictions. Mr. Bores completed a termination form for the Petitioner on June 4, 1999. Because the form was not completed until June 4, 1999, which may have been the date she signed the form, her termination was considered effective on that date, although Mr. Bores had decided to terminate her on June 1, 1999. When terminating employees for failure of their probationary period, detailed forms are not required under Mold-Ex's regularly adopted personnel policy. The termination form that is Respondent's Exhibit four is consistent with the company policy and practice for terminating probationary employees. The company form reflects one comment describing a reason for termination: "probation." This signifies that the employee violated her probationary status and, in this case, that she failed her probationary period because of attendance violations. Failure to pass the probationary period is an issue that falls within "category 5" of the termination form. The only work restrictions placed on the Petitioner by her physician were represented by Petitioner's Exhibit A. The Petitioner agreed that she could have performed many different jobs under those restrictions. In fact, she testified that Petitioner's Exhibit A reflects restrictions that would have prevented her from working only in a "very narrow" range of jobs. Nevertheless, after being terminated from Mold-Ex, effective June 4, 1999, the Petitioner did not obtain employment until January 26, 2000, when her doctor gave her a full release to return to work. She admitted that she did not seek other employment during that period of time when she was without work. Additionally, she admitted that she could have obtained a full release to return to work prior to January 2000 if she had requested such from her doctor. Thus, it has not been proven that she acted to mitigate any damages caused by her loss of employment with the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petitioner's charge of discrimination, with prejudice, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Nick Bores Mold-Ex Rubber Company 8052 Armstrong Road Milton, Florida 32583 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Maldrick E. Bright, Esquire Bright Law Office, P.A. 5189 Stewart Street Milton, Florida 32570 Heather F. Lindsay, Esquire Johnston, Barton, Proctor & Powell 1901 Sixth Avenue, North, Suite 2900 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's position was properly reclassified from Career Service status to Selected Exempt status.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 1, 2001, Petitioner, Cooper was employed in the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as a quality control analyst in a Career Service Employment Position classified and titled Administrative Assistant II Career Service. At the time, Petitioner held permanent Career Service status. The Administrative Assistant II position was certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) as within the Career Service Administrative-Clerical collective bargaining unit, represented by the Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME. In her position, Petitioner performed clerical functions. She did not supervise other employees, perform any managerial functions, or perform any confidential duties. She had no role in labor relations, collective bargaining, the adjustment of grievances filed by employees, or the imposition of discipline upon other employees for breaches of conduct. Similarly, Petitioner had no role in the preparation of agency budgets for collective bargaining, or for other purposes. Sometime around June 15, 2001, Petitioner was notified by DCFS that her position as an Administrative Assistant II would be reclassified as a position within the Selected Exempt Service (SES). The reclassification was effective July 1, 2001. No input from the Petitioner regarding the duties of her position was sought by the Department in its decision to reclassify Petitioner's position. Indeed, the Department reclassified the position based on the fact that Petitioner assisted or aided managerial employees and allegedly had access to confidential material. However, there was no evidence in the record that Petitioner's position involved any confidential matters. Petitioner was terminated from employment with DCFS, without explanation, on June 28, 2002. In terminating her employment as an Administrative Assistant II, DCFS represented that Petitioner had no appeal rights either to PERC or under the bargaining agreement between AFSCME and the State of Florida because her position had been reclassified. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that Petitioner's position was managerial, confidential or supervisory. Therefore, Petitioner's position should not have been reclassified to SES and she is entitled to her rights as a Career Service employee.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner for the reasons stated in the Charge Of Discrimination and Petition For Relief.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling cement and concrete. Respondent operates throughout the state and employs a substantial number of people. Respondent maintains an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (the "policy"). Respondent promulgates the policy to all employees in its various facilities throughout the state. Respondent encourages the employment of disabled but qualified individuals. Respondent routinely makes reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. Respondent first employed Petitioner on June 29, 1981, but terminated that employment. Respondent subsequently rehired Petitioner in February, 1983, as a ready-mix driver and front end loader, and also as an occasional batcher. Respondent employed Petitioner in various positions until Petitioner resigned his last position on October 5, 1993. During his employment, Petitioner suffered physical injuries that resulted in both temporary and permanent impairment. All of the injuries occurred from work-related accidents. Petitioner suffered no other physical impairment. Petitioner is not physically disabled as a result of the physical injuries he suffered from his work-related accidents. The injuries Petitioner suffered did not substantially limit his ability to perform his duties and responsibilities. Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's physical impairment. Respondent provided Petitioner with reasonable accommodations. The first injury to Petitioner occurred on August 5, 1986. While driving a cement truck for Respondent, Petitioner drove his truck off of the road to avoid hitting a car that was stopped in front of him. Petitioner was thrown into the steering wheel and injured his stomach. Petitioner also injured his back and was treated by a chiropractor. On October 6, 1987, Petitioner reached maximum medical improvement under Workers' Compensation guidelines. His back injury left him with a total permanent impairment of seven percent. Petitioner returned to work on March 5, 1987. Respondent offered both light duty and regular work to Petitioner from October 6 through March 27, 1987. However, Petitioner refused to return to work prior to March, 1987, due to a labor dispute involving Teamsters Local 769. When the labor dispute was resolved, Petitioner returned to work as a batcher. The position was not defined specifically as a light duty job. However, it did accommodate the work restrictions prescribed after his previous accident. Petitioner subsequently resumed driving a truck for the Respondent. Petitioner was able to drive without restrictions. On March 17, 1988, Petitioner had the latest in a series of accidents as a truck driver for Respondent. On March 21, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had exceeded the number of accidents permitted under Respondent's "Accident Classification Policy" and prohibited Petitioner from operating any company vehicle for Respondent until further notice. On January 29, 1990, Petitioner passed a physical examination to be recertified as physically qualified to drive a truck. The examining physician certified Petitioner as physically able to drive a truck. Petitioner verified on the examination form that he did not suffer from any permanent defects resulting from illness, disease, or injury. Petitioner continued treatment for chronic discomfort caused by the back injury he sustained in August 1986. Petitioner's chiropractor intermittently prescribed light duty to alleviate Petitioner's discomfort. On September 6, 1991, Respondent attempted to accommodate Petitioner's chronic discomfort. Respondent offered Petitioner a position as a dispatcher in Respondent's Cocoa facility. The dispatcher position was not a light duty job. However, it did accommodate Petitioner's intermittent need for light duty work to alleviate his discomfort. Petitioner declined the dispatcher position. Petitioner elected to replace a junior truck driver in another location. Petitioner's chronic back discomfort continued to cause absences from work and frequent need for light duty work. However, no permanent light duty positions existed. Respondent repeatedly created temporary light duty work for Petitioner in attempts to provide Petitioner with employment. Respondent experienced increasing difficulty finding suitable work for Petitioner. The vast majority of positions involved a greater degree of manual labor than Petitioner was able to perform under his work restrictions. On August 13, 1992, Respondent's Worker's Compensation carrier had Petitioner examined by an orthopedic surgeon. At the time, Petitioner was being treated once a week by his chiropractor. Petitioner had a full range of motion in his cervical region, shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers. X-rays showed no fracture, dislocation, or congenital abnormality. The orthopedic surgeon diagnosed Petitioner as suffering from a cervical sprain or strain which had become somewhat chronic in nature. He found that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement with a total permanent impairment of four percent according to Workers' Compensation guidelines. The orthopedic surgeon determined that Petitioner was able to work on a regular basis without restrictions. He concluded that Petitioner's permanent impairment did not interfere with the performance of his occupation. Petitioner aggravated his back injury while driving a truck. Petitioner's chiropractor excused him from work from September 28 through September 30, 1992, and placed him on light duty from December 10, 1992 through January 14, 1993. On December 17, 1992, the chiropractor sent a letter to Respondent's Risk Management Director discussing Petitioner's work restrictions. The letter designated Petitioner's work restrictions as: no prolonged sitting; no lifting over 30 pounds; no repetitive bending or twisting; and no climbing ladders. Climbing stairs was permitted. Petitioner's work restrictions continued in effect during the remainder of Petitioner's employment. In December, 1992, Respondent was unable to create temporary light duty work for Petitioner. Respondent had no other work available that accommodated Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner applied for Worker's Compensation benefits and apparently sought other employment for approximately two weeks. On January 5, 1993, Respondent located a suitable temporary position as a batcher at the Tarmac plant in Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner temporarily replaced the permanent batcher who was out on an extended illness. The batcher position was not a light duty position. However, it did accommodate Petitioner's work restrictions. After the permanent batcher returned, Respondent continued to find work Petitioner could perform. Respondent found temporary light duty work at the Melbourne plant. Respondent created a temporary position for an "aggregate dispatcher." Two employees performed the functions of the aggregate dispatcher in addition to their other regular job duties. The aggregate dispatcher position was not a position for which Respondent had a need. Respondent created the position for Petitioner in an attempt to accommodate his work restrictions and to keep him working. Respondent never represented the position as a permanent solution to Petitioner's need for light duty work. In July 1993, the permanent dispatcher at the Melbourne plant asked to move to another position. Respondent offered the full-time position to Petitioner. The dispatcher position was not a light duty position. However, it did accommodate Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner accepted the dispatcher position at the Melbourne plant. On August 1, 1993, Respondent promoted Petitioner to dispatcher and increased Petitioner's salary accordingly. Petitioner complained that he was unable to do the work by himself. Petitioner requested help to perform the job. The dispatcher job at the Melbourne plant had always been performed by one person and was routinely performed by one person at other locations. However, Respondent instructed Petitioner's supervisors to give him assistance when needed. In late August 1993, Petitioner stated to his supervisors that he could not perform the duties of dispatcher because he could not cope with the stress. Petitioner asked to be relieved of his responsibilities and resigned as dispatcher. No other suitable work was available. Petitioner agreed to remain in the dispatcher position until a replacement was hired and trained. A dispatcher from another plant, a 42 year-old female, transferred and took over the job. Petitioner's last day of employment was October 5, 1993. Unknown to Respondent, Petitioner was suffering from a severe major depression when he resigned from Respondent's employment. Sometime after August 13, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge for the U.S. Social Security Administration found that Petitioner had been disabled, within the meaning of the Social Security Act, since October 5, 1993. Petitioner suffered from a dysthymic disorder. He had a history involving a depressed mood. Petitioner did not respond to treatment. Petitioner lost his appetite, suffered insomnia, lethargy, inability to modulate anger in an effective manner, and disinterest in almost all activities. Petitioner was disabled. He was substantially limited in his ability to perform a major life activity such as work. Petitioner was significantly restricted, when compared with the average person having similar qualifications, from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Petitioner entertained thoughts of suicide. He did not have the ability to follow instructions or to function independently. He had very limited concentration. His memory was impaired. Petitioner had marked deficiencies in concentration, persistence, pace, daily living skills, and socialization. Petitioner's disability prevented him from completing tasks in a timely manner. He suffered episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work resulting in withdrawal from the situation or exacerbation of his symptoms. Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's disability. Petitioner's disability existed for some time before Petitioner resigned from Respondent's employment. During that time, Respondent repeatedly provided Petitioner with reasonable accommodations to enable Petitioner to continue his employment with Respondent. Petitioner performed the duties of dispatcher satisfactorily prior to his resignation. There were no complaints about his work. Respondent had no reason to terminate Petitioner from the position. Petitioner did not express an interest in the possibility of alternative employment with Respondent. Petitioner did not request any further accommodations to enable him to continue working for Respondent. Petitioner's physical impairment did not prevent him from performing the dispatcher job. The dispatcher job at the Melbourne plant no longer exists because Respondent has undergone major restructuring. The functions of the dispatcher are presently divided among different individuals. Some of the functions are no longer performed at individual plants but are performed at centralized locations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of discriminating against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission On Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jack L. Shoemaker, pro se 106 Cameron Street, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Charles S. Caulkins, Esquire Wendy J. Smith, Esquire Fisher and Phillips 2300 Nations Bank Tower One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
