The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner's suspension of Respondent on March 6, 1979, 1/ from his employment duties without pay based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence introduced, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein the following relevant facts are found. Otha Reddick, Respondent, was employed by the Leon County School Board, Petitioner, as a Systems Analyst during November of 1974, a position he held until his suspension on March 6. His rate of pay at the time of his suspension was $1,326.00 per month. On April 11, Petitioner's superintendent, Dr. N.E. (Ed) Fenn, filed a Notice of Charges against Respondent. At its meeting of April 17, the School Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Charges alleged in pertinent part that: Respondent, Otha Reddick, was absent from work for the period February 15 through March 2, during which period he willfully neglected his duties at the Data Processing Center. On or about March 1, Respondent committed misconduct in office in that he represented to his supervisor, Ott Carraway, that because of medical reasons he was unable to return to work when, in fact, he was operating a private business, Top Bookkeeping Services, during regular school work hours. The Respondent, Otha R. Reddick, is guilty of willful neglect of duties and misconduct in office in that he operated a private business, Top Bookkeeping Services, during regular school work hours. Based on these charges, the Petitioner seeks to convert its suspension of Respondent into a permanent termination of his employment. Respondent's duties as a Systems Analyst with Petitioner included supervising programmers in the Data Processing Center. His work hours consisted of a normal eight hour day. In addition to his employment by Petitioner, Respondent owned two businesses: Top Bookkeeping Services, a business engaged primarily in the preparation of tax returns and related bookkeeping functions; and Twin Oaks Production, a company involved in the promotion of bands and live burials. Respondent's operation of and duties connected with his ownership of Top Bookkeeping Services occurred after his regular hours of employment by Petitioner. Respondent used what is commonly referred to as seasonal or casual employees on an as needed basis for the operation of Top Bookkeeping Services. According to Respondent, the bookkeeping service has been operating at a loss since its inception. Respondent utilizes a similar employment arrangement in his operation of Twin Oaks Productions. On the morning of February 13, Respondent, while at work, became visibly upset when he was advised by his supervisor, Ott Carraway, that the payroll function of the Data Processing Center would be contracted out to a private agency. Respondent disagreed with this decision and made known his disagreement, since in his opinion, the Data Processing Systems Division was capable of and had in fact been properly carrying out the payroll functions for the School Board. Before leaving for his lunch break on February 13, Respondent Reddick inquired of the production control and leave clerk, Janet Guthrie, the amount of accrued sick and annual leave he had. During his lunch break, Respondent went home, took two Valium pills (one more than his prescribed dosage), laid across his bed and went to sleep. Before doing so, Respondent summoned to his apartment for medical assistance Theresa Fountain, his secretarial assistant at Top Bookkeeping Services. Then Ms. Fountain arrived at Respondent's apartment, she noticed that he was visibly upset, was red in the face, appeared stressed and his speech was slurred. Ms. Fountain, a former hospital employee assigned to a psychiatric ward, related that Respondent exhibited symptoms of a person suffering a nervous breakdown (TR. 208-210). After a few minutes, Ms. Fountain was able to get Respondent calm and they discussed the problem relating to the letting of the payroll function to a private entity. She suggested that the Respondent get some rest. Ms. Fountain was aware of Respondent's ulcer disease and stomach problems and phoned Respondent's daughter-in-law in Bonifay. Ms. Fountain asked Respondent's sons to come to Tallahassee (from Bonifay) to get medical attention for their father. Ms. Fountain phoned Respondent's supervisor, Ott Carraway, and informed him that in view of Respondent's nervous condition, she was of the opinion that he needed medical attention and, therefore, would be unable to return to work. Respondent's sons, Douglas and Ronald Elvin Reddick, drove to Tallahassee the evening of February 13 to pick up their father. Respondent's sons drove to Tallahassee in a van which has a sofa bed in the rear that Respondent used to lie down on for the trip to Bonifay. Upon arrival at Respondent's apartment, his sons assisted him out of the bed to the van. Respondent slept most of the entire trip from Tallahassee to Bonifay. Respondent spent the following day, February 14, lounging around his house in Bonifay, where he remained until approximately 10:00 p.m. the following day. He then drove to the Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas, area accompanied by Country Bill White, the person used in the live burials. While in the Dalla-Ft. Worth area, Respondent spent the next two evenings enlisting support in the form of pledges from local tavern owners and selling magazine subscriptions and newspaper ads to finance the live burial act. During the next few days, Respondent drove to Houston, Texas, to visit his brother. He remained in Houston two days and returned to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. The live burial which was then scheduled to take place in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area was postponed due to inclement weather. In this regard, the evidence revealed, and Respondent admitted, that he had planted to request leave to attend the live burial act in Texas on the scheduled dates of February 22 and 23, 1979. Respondent credibly testified that he had no planned (active) role in the scheduling of the live burial act. (Testimony of Respondent and his sons, Douglas and Elvin Reddick. TR. 172-176.) When the live burial act took place, Respondent was not present in Texas. On Sunday, February 25, Respondent drove to New Orleans where he briefly frequented several bars. He later drove to Bonifay, where he arrived at his home at approximately 9:00 p.m. He remained in Bonifay until the following morning, when he returned to Tallahassee. On Monday, February 27, Respondent phoned his supervisor, Cecil "Ott" Carraway, to inquire if he could pick up his paycheck. A lengthy telephone conversation ensued between Respondent and Supervisor Carraway during which conversation Respondent was advised by Carraway that in view of his protracted absence, he (Carraway) would be requiring Respondent to secure a doctor's excuse to substantiate his illness before his paycheck would be released. Chapter 6 GX 37-2, Rule 2.14(7), Florida Administrative Code, Leon County Rules and Regulations. Respondent explained to supervisor Carraway that it was necessary for Respondent to receive his paycheck inasmuch as he had requested and was granted leave by Centel, through the close of business on February 27, to pay his telephone bill or his service would be interrupted. Supervisor Carraway stood fast on his insistence that a doctor's excuse be submitted before releasing Respondent's paycheck. it was not until the following day, February 28, that Respondent was able to obtain a doctor's excuse from his regular physician, Dr. Norbert J. Wegmann, of Chipley, Florida. Respondent's residence phone service was interrupted by Centel on February 27 and was not restored until March 3. During the period when Respondent's phone service was interrupted, he used his office phone at Top Bookkeeping Services. During the conversation between Respondent and Supervisor Carraway on February 28, Respondent requested an additional two days leave. There is a dispute with regard to the type of leave Respondent requested and supervisor Carraway granted February 28. Respondent's version is that he simply requested time off, whereas supervisor Carraway's version is that he explained to Respondent that he had exhausted his sick leave and, therefore, it was necessary for him to use one day of annual leave which he had recently been credited with as of March 1. On February 27, Respondent spent most of the day lounging around his apartment. The next day Respondent went to his office at Top Bookkeeping Services (located at Park Twenty West) to have access to a phone and to begin work on his personal income tax return. On March 1, Respondent, while on what he considered to be annual leave status, prepared an income tax return for Mr. and Mrs. Ward, employees of Petitioner's key punch operations. The return was completed approximately 8:00 p.m. On the afternoon of March 1, Respondent received a telephone call from Charles Johnson and Linda Jordan, employees and agents of Petitioner, who scheduled an appointment to get their tax returns prepared at Top Bookkeeping Services during the afternoon of March 2. Employees Jordan and Johnson used the fictitious name of "Susie Jones" to secure the appointment. On March 2 Linda Jordan, Director of Personnel, and Charles Johnson, the then Director of Employee Relations, for the Leon School District, visited the offices of Top Bookkeeping Services at the agreed upon time. Another employee of Respondent's at Top Bookkeeping Services had been assigned to prepare the tax returns for "Susie Jones", who later turned out to be Petitioner's employees, Jordan and Johnson. The most that can be said about Respondent's presence at Top Bookkeeping Services is that he was in fact present. There were no customers at Top Bookkeeping Services at the time, nor did attorney Johnson, who testified, indicate that the Respondent even appeared to have been preparing tax returns when he and Director Jordan visited the Top Bookkeeping Services office (TR. 117). Attorney Johnson did not see what Respondent was in fact doing other than the fact that he was simply present. Attorney Johnson explained to Respondent that he thought that his job might well be in jeopardy by his presence at Top Bookkeeping Services while he was on leave. Attorney Johnson suggested that Respondent talk to Dr. Fenn about his presence at Top Bookkeeping Services. Respondent, being concerned about his job security expressed reluctance to visit the Superintendent with attorney Johnson and the Personnel Director present without the advice and assistance of his attorney. Respondent, attorney Johnson and Personnel Director Jordan could not come to an acceptable procedure to counsel with Dr. Fenn and Respondent remained at Top Bookkeeping Services. Attorney Johnson discussed the matter with Dr. Fenn and they jointly decided that Respondent should be suspended inasmuch as there was a "breach in Respondent's obligation to the School Board since he was working on other duties during school hours." Respondent was not given a copy of the Notice of Charges prior to the March 6 School Board hearing. The Board suspended Respondent at its March 6 meeting, which suspension remains effective. Norbert Wegmann, M.D., is a General Practitioner in Chipley, Florida, and was received as an expert in medicine for this proceeding. Dr. Wegmann has been treating Respondent for anxiety, tension, fatigue and irritability since approximately 1968. During this period, Respondent has undergone family and marital stresses and Dr. Wegmann has prescribed tranquilizers and analgesics for his (Respondent's) ulcer and stomach disorders. Dr. Wegmann suggested that Respondent work at a slow pace; take time off and generally do things which permit him to put his mind at ease and to remain in a relaxed condition at the onset of anxiety and stress (TR. 149). Dr. Wegmann considered that Respondent's taking time off from work would have been consistent with his prescribed treatment for Respondent. Although Dr. Wegmann last examined Respondent physically (during times material) approximately November of 1977, he sent Petitioner a written excuse to substantiate his authorization of Respondent's absence during the period involved herein based on his knowledge of Respondent's medical condition. (Testimony of Dr. Wegmann, TR 142, 143.) Janet Guthrie, Petitioner's production control clerk, is in charge of maintaining leave records and answering incoming phone calls. Ms. Guthrie reviewed Respondent's leave record before lunch on the morning of February 13, 1979, and advised Respondent that he had approximately ten (10) days of sick leave accrued at that time. At the beginning of March, 1979, Respondent earned an additional day of vacation and sick leave. Employees are permitted to call in to request sick leave. (Testimony of Janet Guthrie and Supervisor Carraway.) Dr. Ed Fenn, Petitioner's Superintendent of Schools, is the administrator and manager of the Leon County School District. He became familiar with Respondent based on conversations with supervisor Ott Carraway, to the effect that Respondent was taking sick leave to take care of his private bookkeeping services. Dr. Fenn considered that Respondent was absent without leave based on information gathered through Ott Carraway and the visits by attorney Johnson and Personnel Director Linda Jordan's visit to Respondent's bookkeeping service. Supervisor Carraway recommended that Respondent be suspended effective Monday with pay until a recommendation could be made to the School Board for a suspension without pay. Attorney Johnson delivered the suspension letter to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Dr. Fenn acknowledged that Petitioner has no rule which prevents its employees from conducting personal business during non-working hours. Nor is there a rule which prevents employees from doing personal work during their vacation time. Dr. Fenn also made clear that the Board does not concern itself with the activities of its employees while they are on vacation leave. 2/ He also pointed out that when an employee exhausts all accrued sick leave, the leave category is switched to either vacation leave or leave without pay. In this regard, Respondent was not paid for leave taken on March 2, 1979. (Testimony of Dr. Fenn and Supervisor Ott Carraway.) Ott Carraway, Petitioner's Data Processing Director, is in charge of operating the computer center and supervising employees of the computer center. Carraway has known Respondent professionally approximately eight years and recommended that he be hired. Supervisor Carraway, in explaining Petitioner's leave procedures, related that leave requests must be approved in advance, with the exception of sick leave. On February 13 at approximately noon, Theresa Fountain phoned supervisor Carraway and explained that Respondent was suffering from a nervous condition and, therefore, needed time off. This was, of course, the date that supervisor Carraway advised Respondent that the payroll function of the computer center was being transferred to an outside agency. Supervisor Carraway considered the request by Ms. Fountain to be a request from Respondent for sick leave, and the request was granted. According to Carraway, when Respondent, much like other employees, are absent, their work loads are distributed among other employees. Supervisor Carraway received confirmation of Respondent's illness from Dr. Wegmann on March 1, at which time his check was released. Supervisor Carraway considered Respondent's leave request for two additional days on February 28 to be a request for sick leave based on Respondent's discussion of his nervous condition. Respondent, in the usual situation, would have been placed on annual leave when his sick leave was exhausted. Supervisor Carraway surmised that Respondent was abusing his sick leave when he heard that Respondent had filed tax returns for two employees who worked in the Data Processing Center during the evening of March l. At supervisor Carraway's instigation employees Charles Johnson and Linda Jordan made an appointment through a fictitious name to get their tax returns prepared at Top Bookkeeping Services during the afternoon of March 2. After the visit by employees Johnson and Jordan to Respondent's offices at Top Bookkeeping Services, supervisor Carraway was made aware of Respondent's presence at the offices at Top Bookkeeping Services and recommended that he be suspended for misuse of sick leave. This recommendation was acted upon by Superintendent Fenn, which resulted in formal action by the School Board on March 6, 1979. Prior to this incident, supervisor Carraway has never requested employees to bring in a medical excuse to document their sick leave. Supervisor Carraway knew of no rule or regulation promulgated by Petitioner which required that an employee on sick leave be confined to bed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Leon County School Board reinstate Respondent, Otha Reddick, to his former position as Systems Analyst (or a substantially equivalent position) effective March 2, 1979. That the Respondent be made whole for all losses of earnings he suffered as a result of the suspension less interim earnings, plus interest at the rate of eight (8 percent) percent per annum. 5/ That Respondent's leave records be credited with the appropriate amounts reflective of the leave and other employee benefits he would have earned but for his suspension of March 2, 1979. That Respondent's personnel folder be expunged of all records relative to the suspension. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Respondent has been a permanent full-time employee of petitioner's for over 22 years and at the time of the alleged abandonment was employed as a Engineer Technician III in petitioner's Second District and is subject to the Career Service rules of Chapter 22A, Florida Administrative Code. Walter Henry Skinner, III, is the District Engineer, Second District, with offices in Lake City, Florida, covering a 16 county area over northeast Florida. In this instance, directly below Mr. Skinner in the chain of command is Raymond O. Humphreys, Resident Construction Engineer. His is a supervising position as contract administrator for road and bridge contracts let by the petitioner to private contracting firms for construction of roads and bridges within 9 counties of the second district. Respondent has worked within Mr. Humphreys' jurisdiction since March, 1976. The record is not clear, but apparently there is at least one other supervisor between Mr. Humphreys and respondent, the position of survey crew chief. Respondent was granted leave of absence without pay on Humphreys' recommendation on May 1, 1983 through July 12, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9); October 3, 1983 through April 2, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8); and again on April 3, 1984 for 6 months (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). Respondent returned to work before the end of this 6 months leave of absence without pay. The record does not reflect when respondent returned to work but apparently he returned to work sometime after his release from the Hamilton County Jail on July 9, 1984. The record shows that respondent was working on September 21, 1984 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). Respondent was granted 4 hours annual leave on September 24, 1984, 8 hours of annual leave on September 25, 1984 and 8 hours annual leave on September 26, 1984. On September 27, 1984 petitioner placed respondent on unauthorized leave of absence without pay. On September 27, 1984 petitioner was advised by Roger Tanner, respondent's probation officer, that respondent had bean incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail on September 26, 1984. Petitioner knew that respondent had 78.2 hours of accrued annual leave and 524.0 hours of accrued sick leave. Petitioner did not notify respondent that he had been placed on unauthorized leave without pay on September 27, 1984 until October 4, 1984 when petitioner delivered to respondent a letter from Skinner advising him that he had abandoned his position with the petitioner. Respondent had been incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail on: (1) April 22, 1983 to July 5, 1983; (2) July 23, 1983; (3) August 11, 1983 to August 12, 1983; (4) September 22, 1983 to July 9, 1984; and (5) September 26, 1984 to October 6, 1984. The evidence reflects that respondent had a "drinking problem" of which petitioner was aware but did very little "counseling" with respondent in this regard. On October 1, 1984 Mr. Markham, Humphreys Resident Office Manager, contacted Judge John Peach's office and was informed by his secretary, after she discussed the matter with Judge Peach, that respondent's "problem would be resolved in a few days" or at least "by the weekend." Respondent worked with a survey crew taking final measurements and checking work in the field completed by the contractors. Respondent was assigned to this survey crew by Humphreys because respondent did not have a valid driver's license. Walter H. Skinner had been delegated authority to take this type action against respondent by Mr. Pappas, Secretary of the Department of Transportation and such delegation was in effect at all times material herein.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that it be found that respondent did not abandon his position and resign from the Career Service as contemplated under Rules 22A-7.1O(2)(a) and 22A-8.O2, Florida Administrative Code and that respondent be reinstated to his position of Engineer Technician III as of September 27, 1984. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald K. Hudson, Esquire Post Office Box 948 Jasper, Florida 32052 Daniel C. Brown Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel 562 Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Prior to February 25, 1986, the Petitioner, Tommie Miller, was employed by the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) at the Brevard Regional Juvenile Detention Center as a detention child care worker I. During the time relevant to this case, June and July, 1987, Ms. Miller's supervisor was Michele McKinley, detention center superintendent. On February 25, 1986, Ms. Miller injured her lower back, injuring two nerves. The injury was job connected, and Ms. Miller was eligible for and received workers compensation benefits. Ms. Miller was receiving workers compensation benefits during the period relevant to this case, July 10 through 27, 1987. With the exception of a brief time during the period of June 22 through 24, 1987, Ms. Miller was absent from work from February 1986 through August 10, 1987, and thereafter, for that matter. On June 24, 1987, she reinjured her back at work. During the months she was out of work, Ms. Miller was treated in various rehabilitation programs. In June and July, 1987, she was receiving treatment from Woods Rehabilitation Services, Inc., and the rehabilitation nurse assigned to her case was Joan Patterson. R. Ex. 5. Ms. Miller lives 25 miles from the detention center, and testified that in June and July of 1987, her back hurt too much to allow her to drive to work at the detention center. Ms. Miller had exhausted her sick leave by July 22, 1987. It is inferred that she was on approved leave without pay by July 22, 1987. This inference is based on the fact that nearly a year and a half had elapsed from the date of the injury, and normal sick, annual, and compensatory leave would have been exhausted. This inference is also based upon the rules concerning the proper way to characterize the absence of an employee due to a job connected disability discussed in the conclusions of law. It is inferred that on July 22, 1987, the period of approved leave without pay was indefinite. This inference is based on the findings of fact which follow and the lack of evidence of a definite period of approved leave without pay. On June 22, 1987, Dr. Stanley Kaplan provided a written statement excusing Ms. Miller from work. On June 29, 1987, Ms. Miller was again seen by Dr. Kaplan for evaluation. Dr. Kaplan performed the normal therapy he was then performing for Ms. Miller, but did not tell her she could return to work. This finding of fact is limited to what Ms. Miller in fact did not hear, and is not a finding concerning Dr. Kaplan's opinion on June 29, 1987. On July 17, 1987, Ms. Miller visited Dr. Stanley Kaplan for rehabilitative treatment. Dr. Kaplan did not tell Ms. Miller at that time that she could go back to work. This finding of fact is limited to what Ms. Miller in fact did not hear, and is not a finding concerning Dr. Kaplan's opinion on July 17, 1987. On July 22, 1987, Ms. McKinley wrote a certified letter to the Petitioner, Tommie Miller. R. Ex. I. The letter in its entirety stated: I've been informed by Ms. Patterson of Woods rehabilitation that Dr. Kaplan released you to return to work as of 7/10/87. She further reported that you stated you didn't understand that you could return to work. In addition, we have had no further contact from you since 6/24/87. I am now going to have to require you to report back to work on 7/27/87, by 9:00 a.m. If you do not report back to work on this date or provide the appropriate medical documentation as to your absence, we will have to assume that you have abandoned your position with HRS. Thus, the letter of July 22, 1987, explicitly gave Ms. Miller two options: report to work at 9:00 a.m. on July 27, 1987, or "provide the appropriate medical documentation as to your absence." From the contents of the letter, it is concluded that when the letter was written, Ms. McKinley thought that Dr. Kaplan had released Ms. Miller to return to work on July 10, 1987. It is also concluded from the contents of the letter and from R. Ex. 5, which Ms. McKinley testified she had in her possession and was aware of when she wrote the July 22, 1987, letter, that Ms. McKinley was aware on July 22, 1987, that Ms. Patterson had said that Ms. Miller had said that she (Ms. Miller) did not understand that Dr. Kaplan had said she could return to work. On July 22, 1987, Ms. Miller was examined by Richard P. Newman, M.D. On July 24, 1987, Ms. Miller received the letter of July 22, 1987. As soon as she received the letter, Ms. Miller called Ms. McKinley on the telephone. Ms. Miller told Ms. McKinley that her current medical problem was an inability to drive to work, but that she could work if she was able to travel to work. Ms. McKinley told Ms. Miller that she had not received a written report from a physician concerning Ms. Miller's condition since June 24, 1987. Ms. McKinley told Ms. Miller that she (Ms. McKinley) still needed medical documentation, and that she could not authorize leave based on her oral report without medical documentation. Ms. Miller then told Ms. McKinley that Ms. Patterson at the Woods Rehabilitation Services was supposed to send the doctor's report to Ms. McKinley. During the telephone call, Ms. McKinley did not ask her (Ms. Miller) to personally deliver the doctor's report, and did not tell Ms. Miller that reliance upon Ms. Patterson was inappropriate. Moreover, Ms. McKinley did not warn Ms. Miller that if Ms. Patterson fi1ed to deliver the report by July 27, 1987, that Ms. Miller would automatically forfeit her job. At the time of the phone call from Ms. Miller, Ms. McKinley was in possession of R. Ex. 5. The top of page two of that document advised Ms. McKinley that Ms. Miller was scheduled for an evaluation by Dr. Newman on July 22, 1987. In the fourth paragraph of page two of R. Ex. 5, Ms. McKinley was advised that Ms. Miller would attend the appointment with Dr. Newman. In the seventh paragraph of page two of R. Ex. 5, Ms. McKinley was advised that Nurse Patterson felt that Dr. Newman's evaluation was important to an assessment of the current status of Ms. Miller's medical condition. These findings are based upon what is in fact stated in R. Ex. 5 and known to Ms. McKinley as what Ms. Patterson had written. No finding is made as to whether what is stated in R. Ex. 5 is true. It is concluded that during the telephone conversation with Ms. Miller on July 24, 1987, Ms. McKinley knew that Ms. Miller was to have been evaluated by Dr. Newman on July 22, 1987. At the time of the phone call on June 24, 1987, Ms. McKinley did not ask Ms. Miller to tell her what Dr. Newman had determined concerning Ms. Miller's medical condition, and did not ask Ms. Miller about Dr. Newman's evaluation two days earlier. As a result, during the July 24, 1987, telephone conversation, inexplicably neither Ms. McKinley nor Ms. Miller mentioned anything about Dr. Newman's evaluation on July 22, 1987. R. Ex. 2A is the report of Dr. Newman with respect to the visit of July 22, 1987. The report indicates on its face that Woods Rehab Services and Ms. Tommie Miller are listed as recipients of the "cc." The report of Dr. Newman of July 22, 1987, R. Ex. 2A, states in part: At this time, my feeling would be that the drive to and from Titusville is causing her more harm than good. Since she works for the state, it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned to move her to a position in the Rockledge area because she will be able to commute a very short drive and would be quite capable of performing this type of sedentary work. On July 24, 1987, Ms. Miller called Dr. Newman to get another written report, and asked Dr. Newman to send that report to Ms. Patterson at Woods Rehabilitation Center. R. Ex. 2B is that report. The report of July 24, 1987, shows that Woods Rehabilitation Services, Inc., but not Ms. Miller, was the recipient of a "cc." The report of July 24, 1987, R. Ex. 2A states in part: It is not the act of driving itself, but it is the riding in the car that is bothering her back and I do not think that she should be having to travel by car 25 miles in either direction to work when she could be doing a similar job virtually around the corner from her house. It is concluded that the report of Dr. Newman, in written form, supported Ms. Miller's oral statement to Ms. McKinley that she was physically unable to drive to the detention center due to the distance. These findings of fact are based upon what in fact is printed on the face of the reports, and is not a finding that the statements contained in the reports are true. Ms. Patterson told Ms. Miller that she would send the report to Ms. McKinley. Ms. Patterson told Ms. Miller that she did communicate with HRS. No finding is made as to the truth of Ms. Patterson's statement, but only that Ms. Miller in fact heard Ms. Patterson make this statement to her. Ms. Miller thought Ms. Patterson would and did send the medical report of July 22, 1987, to Ms. McKinley. Ms. Patterson did not send Dr. Newman's medical report to Ms. McKinley. There was a prior pattern of dealing between the parties such that Ms. Patterson, with reasonable frequency, though not routinely, communicated to Ms. McKinley concerning the current medical status of Ms. Miller with respect to her ability to resume her job with HRS. This finding of fact is based upon the testimony of Ms. Miller, who stated that she relied upon Ms. Patterson to keep Ms. McKinley informed, and the testimony of Ms. Miller that on July 24, 1987, she told Ms. McKinley by telephone that Ms. Patterson would send the medical documentation. It is also based upon the testimony of Ms. McKinley, who testified that Ms. Patterson did, from time to time discuss with her Ms. Miller's medical condition and job alternatives. But most important, this finding is based on the letter of July 22, 1987, itself. The first sentence of that letter stated: "I've been informed by Ms. Patterson of Woods rehabilitation that Dr. Kaplan released you to return to work as of 7/10/87." It is noted that R. Ex. 5, which Ms. McKinley testified was the only information she had on July 22, 1987, was an extensive report prepared by Nurse Patterson, and shows Michele McKinley in the "cc" list, from which it is inferred that Ms. Patterson routinely sent these medical evaluations to Ms. McKinley. In the year between August, 1986, and July, 1987, there is no evidence that Ms. Miller had failed to provide HRS with medical documentation concerning her injury as may have been required by HRS, or that HRS had not been satisfied with the reports received from Nurse Patterson and her predecessors. In particular, there is no evidence that during this twelve month period HRS had discussed with Ms. Miller any problem of receipt of medical documentation, or had occasion to warn her that it was her personal responsibility to provide medical documentation, and that her failure to do so would result in loss of her job. Such a warning, it is inferred, would have been appropriate if Nurse Patterson had failed to send medical documentation that had been previously demanded by HRS. In short, during the period from July, 1986, to July, 1987, it must be concluded that whatever system of medical documentation was then required by HRS, if any, was complied with satisfactorily. On July 28, 1986, Ms. Miller was warned by her supervisor that she had a personal responsibility to keep HRS informed concerning her medical condition. The warning on this date was prompted by the fact that HRS was then not receiving medical documentation that it needed. The relevance of this warning with respect to the period of June and July, 1987, is diminished for several reasons. First, this warning occurred a year before, and there is no evidence of any failure in the intervening 12 months by Ms. Miller to satisfy HRS's needs for medical documentation. Further, the July, 1986, incident occurred because Ms. Miller then did not have a rehabilitation nurse assigned to her case, and thus had no medical representative to send medical information to HRS for her. But more important, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, when Nurse Patterson and her predecessors were assigned to Ms. Miller, Ms. Miller relied upon them to send medical information. The system apparently worked, since there is no evidence of a dissatisfaction by HRS with medical documentation after July, 1986, until the letter of July 22, 1987. The medical documentation was still not received by Ms. McKinley on August 10, 1987. Ms. Miller did not report to work in the period from July 22, 1987, to August 10, 1987. On August 10, 1987, HRS by letter notified Ms. Miller that HRS concluded that Ms. Miller had abandoned her position. Ms. Miller did not learn that Ms. McKinley had not received the medical documentation until she received the letter of August 10, 1987. On August 18, 1987, Ms. Miller requested a formal administrative hearing concerning the conclusion that she had abandoned her position.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Administration enter its final order finding that the Petitioner, Tommie Miller, did not abandon her position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services by being absent from her job for three consecutive workdays without authorized leave. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX To Recommended Order in Case No. 87-4136 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used designate the unnumbered paragraphs used by the Petitioner, in sequence. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: Fourth sentence, there is no transcript, and the Hearing Officer's notes do not record the testimony that the medical excuse "indicated that the estimated Date of Return to Duty as unknown." The Hearing Officer has no independent memory of such testimony sufficient to conclude that this proposed finding of fact is true. The same is true with respect to the sentence: "Ms. Miller advised McKinley that she had been to see Dr. Richard P. Newman, M.D. on July 22, 1987." If the record reflected that Ms. Miller so testified, the Hearing Officer would make this finding of fact, since there was no reason to disbelieve Ms. Miller's testimony, and Ms. McKinley testified that she could not remember. Ms. Miller's testimony, as well as Ms. McKinley's testimony, appeared to be honest and straightforward, testifying to the truth both remembered at the time of testifying. The last sentence is not relevant. The first and third sentences are rejected since no one from Woods Rehabilitation Services testified. There is no evidence in the record that Ms. Patterson in writing told Ms. Miller that she advised Ms. McKinley of Ms. Miller's continued disability, and thus that portion of the sixth sentence is rejected. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: None. COPIES FURNISHED: Linoria Anthony AFSCME Council 79 345 South Magnolia Drive Suite F-21 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District VII Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections as a full-time career service employee. On July 13, 1984, he was ranked as a Correctional Officer I at Florida State Prison (FSP). On March 2, 1990, Petitioner had been placed on workers' compensation due to a back injury. On Thursday, April 5, 1990, Dr. W. David Sikes of the Bradford Chiropractic Center signed a medical release permitting Petitioner to return to light duty on Monday, April 9, 1990. Dr. Sikes was apparently the authorized treating physician to whom the agency had currently obligated itself pursuant to Chapter 440 F.S. [The Florida Workers' Compensation Act]. A previous physician had released Petitioner for full-duty work on April 3, 1990. Petitioner was present in the office of Personnel Manager Marion Bronson on Friday, April 6, 1990. At that time, Mr. Bronson told Petitioner to report for work on the first shift (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) on Monday, April 9, 1990. This meant Petitioner would be doing mail room duty during the day instead of his regular duties on his regular shift of midnight to 8:00 a.m. Petitioner told Mr. Bronson he could not work the first shift due to his needing to be home to take of his invalid wife. To this, Mr. Bronson replied that the first shift was the only light duty available. On Friday, April 6, 1990 Petitioner did not refuse to come in to work the first shift on Monday, April 9, and he did not tell Mr. Bronson that he was already signed out on annual leave for that date. Nonetheless, Mr. Bronson was left with the impression at the end of their meeting that Petitioner would not come back to light-duty work on Monday. Petitioner did not report for work on the first shift on April 9, 10, or 11, 1990 (Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday). On Wednesday, April 11, 1990, Mr. Bronson mailed Petitioner a letter that read, in pertinent part: You have been carried in unauthorized leave without pay status since April 9, 1990. You were also carried on unauthorized leave without pay on April 3, 1990. You are hereby instructed to return to duty at 8:00 a.m. the day after you receive this letter. If you do not return to duty on that date it will be deemed that you have abandoned your position at Florida State Prison and you will be dismissed. In the past, the FSP personnel office usually made further efforts to contact missing employees after such a letter had been sent, but no such attempts were made in this instance. Normally, FSP gives employees an opportunity to call in and rectify absentee problems but deems it abandonment if the employee does not respond. At no time subsequent to April 6, 1990 did Petitioner contact anyone at FSP regarding his absence. Petitioner did not actually receive the April 11 letter until Friday, April 13. Petitioner did not report for work on Saturday, April 14, Sunday, April 15, or Monday, April 16. Saturday would have been a regular workday for Petitioner. However, Petitioner's usual days off were Sunday and Monday, and nothing had been said by Mr. Bronson about altering Petitioner's workdays. On Monday, April 16, Mr. Bronson mailed Petitioner a letter that read, in pertinent part: This is to inform you that in accordance with Section 22A-7.010(2), F.A.C., you have been deemed to have abandoned your position as Correctional Officer I and resigned from the Career Service System effective April 14, 1990. A copy of Section 22A-7.010(2) is enclosed for your information. You have been absent from duty for at least three consecutive workdays without authorized leave as follows: April 10, 11, and 12, 1990. Please be advised that you have been dropped from the payroll effective the close of business April 14, 1990. Unbeknownst to Mr. Bronson, Petitioner had exercised preapproved annual leave for the period of April 10-14, 1990. None of Petitioner's superiors advised Mr. Bronson of this fact. There was no notation to this effect in Petitioner's personnel file in Mr. Bronson's office. It was Mr. Bronson's testimony that it was better personnel management and he would have preferred to have Petitioner drawing annual leave during this period than to be paying him full pay for makeshift light duty. If Petitioner had requested annual leave on April 6, 1990, Mr. Bronson would have granted it. As of April 14, 1990, Petitioner had "banked" 119.75 hours of annual leave time which would have been sufficient to cover his April 10-14, 1990 vacation or "no show" days. Additionally, he also had available 26.5 hours of sick leave but this sick leave was subject to certain deductions and adjustments which had allowed the agency to keep Petitioner on at full pay the previous week while technically he was only eligible for a reduced amount based on workers' compensation. In accord with standard FSP policy, Petitioner had previously submitted an annual leave request form on October 16, 1989 to request leave for the week of April 10 through April 14, 1990. This form had been approved by his immediate superior, who at that time was his shift supervisor, Officer Gaskin. Officer Gaskin was the correct superior to make such approval. Mr. Bronson has nothing to do with the approval of leave under such circumstances. Harry Tison, who became Petitioner's shift supervisor in April 1990 while Petitioner was still out on workers' compensation leave, was not aware of Petitioner's preapproved annual leave until Mr. Bronson's office began making inquiries after the April 16 letter, but at that time, Tison was able to refer to a leave calendar posted in his area which showed that Petitioner was expected to be out on annual leave on those days. From that information, Officer Tison, by reason of his familiarity with the FSP system and hierarchy, could infer that Petitioner's leave had been approved by FSP's highest command figure, "the Colonel." Some witnesses alluded to FSP policy that even preapproved annual leave requests constituted only tentative approval unless the employee checked with his supervisor a week before actually exercising his leave so as to be sure that the preapproved leave had not been revoked due to an employee crunch, but there is no such rule or printed policy of the Department of Corrections or FSP, and the evidence is insufficient to establish such a vague policy as uniform or binding on Petitioner. Also, in this instance, the week before, Petitioner was away from work most of that week on workers' compensation disability, and there is no evidence of any employee crunch which would have altered the prior annual leave approval.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner has not abandoned his position and returning him to the appropriate position with back pay and emoluments, subject to any appropriate setoffs under the Workers' Compensation Act and any mitigation from other employment. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 19th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner has filed only a "Final Argument" and that is essentially legal argument and proposed conclusions of law as opposed to proposed findings of fact which are entitled to a ruling pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. Moreover, the format does not lend itself to intelligible rulings since no sentence is numbered. Respondent's PFOF: 1-6 Accepted. Accepted except for the last sentence, which does not comport with the testimony heard. Accepted. Rejected in FOF 13, which reflects the greater weight of the credible evidence. Accepted but subordinate. - 15 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Perri M. King Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Gloria W. Fletcher, Esquire 515 North Main Street, Suite 300 Post Office Box 1208 Gainesville, Florida 32602 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of a perceived disability, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),2 the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Seiden's Relevant Employment. Petitioner Jane Seiden is an individual who was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections at Broward Correctional Institute (hereinafter referred to as "BCI") from December 1988 until the end of March 1999 as a licensed practical nurse. From April 1, 1999, until October 7, 2001, Ms. Seiden continued to work at BCI, but was employed by a private business, Prison Health Services. On October 8, 2001, Respondent Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Wexford") took over responsibility for providing medical services at BCI. Ms. Seiden became an employee of Wexford as of that date, after having received a letter dated June 20, 2001, signed by Wendy Mildner, as Wexford's Director of Human Resources/Risk Management, offering her employment with Wexford effective October 8th. Ms. Seiden accepted the offer of employment on June 25, 2001. Wexford is a provider of health care services to correctional facilities, including BCI. Throughout Ms. Seiden's employment at BCI, she received excellent work performance reviews. Wexford's Leave Policies. Wexford's policies concerning employee "Family and Medical Leave" at the time of Ms. Seiden's initial employment with Wexford were contained in the Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Employee Handbook (Respondent's Exhibit 9) (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee Handbook"). The Family and Medical Leave policy was, in relevant part, as follows: Employees who are eligible for Family and Medical Leave may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave. Employees are eligible if they have worked for at least one year, and for 1,256 hours over the previous 12 months. Reasons for taking unpaid leave are: . . . . ? for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the employee's job. . . . . The Wexford Employee Handbook, Revised 09/01/04 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Employee Handbook"), established policies governing "Time Off" in Section 5. Pursuant to Policy 5.3, all employees are allowed to apply for a leave of absence for medical reasons. The period of the absence is limited, however, to 12 weeks, consistent with the Family and Medical Leave Act (hereinafter referred to as the "FMLA"), unless the employee is eligible for "income replacement benefits," for example for a short-term disability pursuant to Section 4.5, which provides the following: Wexford provides some income protection for employees who are unable to work for an extended period of time due to illness or injury through its Short-Term Disability Leave (STD) insurance program. You are eligible for STD benefits if: You Have completed one year of continuous service You work a minimum of 30 hours per week and are covered by health insurance. Eligible employees are entitled to short- term leave for up to 26 weeks in a rolling 12-month period. The rolling 12-month period is calculated by counting backwards from the date of the leave request. For example, if you request a leave in November, the rolling 12-month period is from November of the previous year to November of the current year. You will be required to provide a medical doctor's certificate to qualify for short- term disability leave. STD runs concurrent with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Your weekly benefit is 50% of your weekly salary to a maximum of $300, whichever is less. . . . . Thus, Wexford policies, at the times relevant, allowed eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave pursuant to the FMLA and 26 weeks of what Wexford termed "short-term disability" leave, the latter to run concurrently with the 12 weeks of family medical leave. Policy 5.3 describes Wexford's policy concerning "When Return to Work is Not Possible": If following 26 weeks of medical leave you remain unable to return to work your employment will be terminated. If you are able to work at a later point in time, you are welcome to reapply for employment. Your past history and work background will be taken into consideration for reemployment purposes. Consistent with this policy, Wexford does not grant extensions of the 26 week, short-term disability maximum absence. Also consistent with the policy, Wexford treats an employee as terminated at the end of the 26 week short-term disability absence if the employee does not return to work. Policies 5.3 and 5.4 provide the procedural requirements for applying for a medical leave of absence (forms to file, providing health care professional certifications of illness, etc.) and other procedures and the conditions for which FMLA leave will be granted. Of relevance to this matter, one of the conditions for which FMLA leave will be granted is: "a serious health condition that makes you unable to perform the essential functions of your job." Policy 5.4. Policy 5.7 of the Revised Employee Handbook is the established procedure for "Personal Leave of Absence - Unpaid." That Policy provides, in pertinent part" With the approval of management and the Vice President of Human Resources, you may be granted an unpaid personal leave for unusual, unavoidable situations requiring an absence from work. The unpaid personal leave is for a pre-determined period of time. Unpaid personal leaves of absence are awarded at the discretion of management and cannot be presumed or guaranteed. You must use all available PTO [personal time off] before requesting personal leave. . . . As reasonably interpreted by Wexford, the Unpaid Personal Leave of Absence policy is not used or intended for use as a method of taking off time in addition to the time off allowed by Wexford's policies governing FMLA leave and short- term disability leave. Ms. Seiden's Absence from Wexford. Ms. Seiden, who acknowledged receipt of, and responsibility for reading, the Employee Handbook at the time she was employed by Wexford, was diagnosed with kidney carcinoma in 2004. As a result of her illness she did not rest comfortably and, therefore, woke up during the night, she could not sit for long periods of time, and, although not fully developed in the record, she required hospitalization. As a result of her illness, Ms. Seiden was, due to a "serious health condition," "unable to perform the essential functions of [her] job." As a consequence, the last day that Ms. Seiden worked at BCI was April 26, 2004. Ms. Seiden was provided a Memorandum dated May 6, 2004, from Tara M. DeVenzio, Risk Management/Leave Compliance Assistant (hereinafter referred to as the "May 6th Memorandum"). The May 6th Memorandum, which Ms. Seiden read, states that Wexford had been notified that she was requesting a leave of absence and is "in need of Family Medical Leave (FML) and Short Term Disability (STD) forms." Those forms were included with the May 6th Memorandum. The May 6th Memorandum goes on to explain the procedures Ms. Seiden was required to follow in making her request for leave and the extent of leave available to her. The May 6th Memorandum also informed Ms. Seiden that, consistent with Wexford's written leave policies, the "[m]aximum amount of time allotted for Short Term Disability is 26-weeks on a rolling twelve (12) month period . . ." and that "[i]f you do not return when your leave has ended, you will be considered to have voluntarily terminated employment." Consistent with the May 6th Memorandum and the policies of the Employee Handbook, Ms. Seiden completed the forms required by Wexford to apply for FMLA and short-term disability leave to begin in April 2004, and end in October 2004. Ms. Seiden executed a Wexford Family / Medical Leave of Absence Request (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Leave Request") on May 10, 2004. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). On the Initial Leave Request Ms. Seiden checked a box which indicated her reason for requesting leave was "Serious health condition that makes me, the employee, unable to perform the functions of my position." A space on the Initial Leave Request for "Date Leave of Absence to End" was left blank. Also provided to Wexford with the Initial Leave Request, was a Certification of Health Care Provider (hereinafter referred to as the "Certification"), as required by Wexford's leave policies. The Certification was from Nine J. Pearlmutter, M.D. Dr. Pearlmutter reported on the Certification that Ms. Seiden's "serious health condition" was a "renal mass" and that hospitalization was necessary. Dr. Pearlmutter also stated "yes at this time" in response to the following question on the Certification: If medical leave is required for the employee's absence from work because of the employee's own condition (including absences due to pregnancy or a chronic condition), is the employee unable to perform work of any kind? Ms. Seiden's Initial Leave Request was approved and she was provided a Memorandum dated May 25, 2004, from Ms. DeVenzio, memoralizing the approval. Ms. DeVenzio informed Ms. Seiden that her leave was approved "to commence on April 26, 2004." Ms. Seiden's 26-week period of leave began on April 26, 2004, ended October 25, 2004. Throughout this period, Ms. Seiden remained absent from BCI. On October 22, 2004, a Friday, Ms. Seiden telephoned Ellie Zeigler a Human Resources Generalist for Wexford, and spoke to her about the pending end of her approved leave. Ms. Seiden informed Ms. Zeigler that she wanted to request an extension of her leave, which Ms. Zeigler had not authority to grant or deny. Ms. Zeigler, who had not authority to approve or disapprove the request for an extension, told Ms. Seiden that she would send her forms, which she would have to file in order to request additional leave. Ms. Zeigler also explained to Ms. Seiden that the maximum leave available to her had been exhausted, and that, because her physician had not released her for return to work, her employment with Wexford would be considered terminated if she did not return to work the following Monday. Ms. Zeigler also told Ms. Seiden that a letter to that effect would be sent to her. Ms. Zeigler, as promised, sent Ms. Seiden a Wexford Family / Medical Leave of Absence Request. On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, two days after Ms. Zeigler's approved absence ended, Ms. Seiden executed the Wexford Family / Medical Leave of Absence Request (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Leave Request") which Ms. Zeigler provided to her. Again, she checked as the "Reason for Leave" the box indicating "Serious health condition that makes me, the employee, unable to perform the functions of my position" and the "Date Leave of Absence to End" space was left blank. A second Certification of Health Care Provider form (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Certification"), executed by Dr. Pearlmutter was provided with the Second Leave Request. Dr. Pearlmutter listed, among other things, carcinoma of the kidney as Ms. Seiden's illness. While Dr. Pearlmutter indicates a "2 month" duration for one of the listed conditions, she did not indicate when Ms. Seiden would be able to return to work at the end of two months. Again, Dr. Pearlmutter answered "yes" to the question quoted in Finding of fact 18. The Second Leave Request, which was sent by certified mail on Thursday, October 28, 2004, three days after the end of Ms. Seiden's approved leave, was received by Wexford on Monday, November 1, 2004, seven days after the end of her approved leave. The Termination of Ms. Seiden's Employment. On October 25, 2004, the last day of Ms. Seiden's approved absence, Arthur Victor, Wexford's Human Resources Manager, and Ms. Zeigler exchanged e-mails concerning Ms. Seiden. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Victor, Ms. Zeigler informed Mr. Victor that October 25, 2004, was the last day of Ms. Seiden's approved leave. In response to Ms. Zeigler's information, Mr. Victor wrote "[t]hen there is no extension. Six months is up 10/30/04. You need to talk to Ron Miller re. termination." This decision was consistent with Wexford’s written policies and was based upon Ms. Seiden's failure to return to work on October 25, 2004. Given Mr. Victor's statement that "there is no extension," it is found that Mr. Victor had been informed that Ms. Seiden intended to request an extension of her approved absence. It is also found that Wexford was aware of the reason for Ms. Seiden's absence: kidney cancer. Finally, it is found that, by terminating Ms. Seiden's employment, Wexford denied the requested extension. After receiving Mr. Victor's e-mail indicating that Ms. Seiden would be terminated, Ms. Zeigler wrote to Ron Miler and Judy Choate, Ms. Seiden's supervisor, and informed them of the following: I received a call from Jane last friday [sic] requesting an extension for her fmla. Jane's 26 weeks for her std/fmla has expired as of today (10/25/04). I just spoke with Jane and inform [sic] her that her Dr. has not released her for full duty and that she was exhausted all of her authorized fmla/std leave and that Wexford considers her to have resigned from her position. I told Jane that Judy will be sending her a letter confirming her of the above. To Ms. Choate, Ms. Zeigler continued: The letter should be sent from you. Attached you will find a copy of the letter that Art has drafted for your [sic] to send to Jane regarding her std/fmla. . . . . Also, please complete the "Termination Processing From" and forward it to the Pittsburgh office so I can term her out of the system. The draft termination letter provided to Ms. Choate and dated October 26, 2004, was signed by Ms. Choate and sent to Ms. Seiden. The letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Termination Letter") states, in part: As you are aware, you have exhausted all authorized Family and Medical/Short Term Disability leave. You were to return to work on October 25, 2004. Since you have not returned, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. considers you to have resigned your position as a Licensed practical [sic] Nurse, effective October 25, 2004. If you are in disagreement with this letter, please contact me immediately but no later than 4:00pm, on 10/28/02004 at If it is determined that there were extenuating circumstances for the absence and failure to notify, you may be considered for reinstatement. . . . . Ms. Seiden received the Termination Letter on November 3, 2004. She did not contact Ms. Choate about the matter. Although she had been informed on October 22, 2004, that she would be terminated by Wexford during her telephone conversation with Ms. Zeigler, November 3, 2004, constitutes the first official notice of Wexford's adverse action which Ms. Seiden received. The effective date of Ms. Seiden's termination was October 25, 2004. The Reason for Ms. Seiden's Termination. Ms. Seiden was terminated because, consistent with written Wexford policies which Ms. Seiden had been informed of on more than one occasion, Ms. Seiden had exhausted the maximum family medical leave and short-term disability leave she was authorized to take. Having used the maximum authorized medical leave, Ms. Seiden was still unable to perform any of the functions and duties required of her position. Due to her illness, she was simply unable to perform any work at all during the period relevant to this case, a fact Wexford was aware of. While she testified at hearing that she had been told by her physician that she would be able to return to work in January 2005, that testimony constitutes hearsay upon which a finding of fact will not be made. More significantly, Wexford was never informed by Ms. Seiden or her physician that she would be able to work. Wexford's policies gave Ms. Seiden leave in excess of the 12 weeks required by the FMLA. Wexford was not required to do more. Ms. Seiden's Claim of Discrimination. Ms. Seiden filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR on November 30, 2005, or 392 days after being informed that she had been terminated and 401 days after her actual October 25, 2004, termination date. After a Determination: No Cause was issued by the FCHR, Ms. Seiden filed a Petition for Relief in which she alleged that Wexford had "violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 by terminating [her] based upon a perceived disability." No allegation of failure to provide an accommodation for her disability was alleged in the Petition. Summary. The evidence proved that Ms. Seiden failed to file her complaint of discrimination with the FCHR within 365 days of the discriminatory act. She offered no explanation as to why she did not do so. Ms. Seiden failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful employment discrimination. While she did prove that she suffered from kidney cancer and that, as a result of her illness she was unable to perform the duties of her position, which may constitute a disability, she ultimately failed to prove that she was a "qualified individual" with or without an accommodation. From April 2004 through October 22, 2004, when she orally informed Wexford that she desired an extension of leave, her termination from employment on October 25, 2004, and on November 1, 2004, when her formal request for an extension of leave was received by Wexford, Ms. Seiden, along with her physician, reported to Wexford that she was unable to carry out her employment duties. Ms. Seiden also failed to prove that she was terminated because of her illness, on the basis of a perceived disability. Finally, Wexford proved a non-pretextual, non- discriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Seiden's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Jane Seiden. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether Michael J. Rodgers abandoned his position and resigned from the career service within the contemplation of Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact V. G. "Jerry" Collins, a DOT maintenance engineer for 14 years, was Michael Rodgers' supervisor in June of 1987, when DOT employed the latter as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard. While recovering from a job-related injury, Mr. Rodgers had been assigned to pump gas there. After Mr. Rodgers began work for DOT, he was furnished a copy of DOT's employee handbook. DOT's Exhibit No. 6. On page 12, the handbook states: If, for any reason, you are going to be late or absent when prior approval has not been obtained, you must notify your immediate supervisor within one hour of your regular authorized starting time. This will allow the Department to effectively schedule your work assignments on a daily basis. When you call in, you should give the reason(s) for your absence, type of leave requested and date and time you expect to report back to work. If you are unable to report back to work on the date and time given contact your supervisor, again, to explain why and request an extension of leave as needed. If you fail to contact your supervisor or other authorized person, within the first hour of absence, you will be placed on unauthorized leave of absence without pay for the entire period of time absent from work. If there were extenuating circumstances to keep you from making such contact, this will be taken into consideration at a later time. If you do not indicate on the first day of absence that you will be absent more than one day, then call in on each successive day to report your absence. Failure to provide such notice will result in your being charged unauthorized leave without pay for all days absent where proper notification is not given. DOT's Exhibit No. 4. On page 43, the handbook discusses the abandonment rule: JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. DOT's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Rodgers signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook on December 16, 1983. DOT's Exhibit No. 5. At about four on the afternoon of Monday, June 22, 1987, Mr. Collins asked Mr. Rodgers when his next doctor's appointment was. Mr. Rodgers replied, "I need to see him tomorrow." (T. 35) He did not "state that it would be for illness" (T. 53) or specify the reason for the visit. (T. 74) Believing Mr. Rodgers had an appointment to see his doctor the following day, Mr. Collins said, "That's fine, when you come back to work bring a doctor's certificate." (T. 17) But the leave Mr. Collins authorized Mr. Rodgers to take was "not a leave of absence for illness." (T. 53) On Tuesday, June 23, 1987, A DOT employee marked Mr. Rodgers absent for the day on "authorized leave" (T. 18) without pay. Mr. Rodgers, who lives about 60 miles from Perry, travelled to Dr. Hauser's office in Old Town on Tuesday morning "to sit down and talk with him about some information [he] needed," (T. 36-37) concerning an automobile accident's forensic sequelae. He was told to return later that day, because the doctor could not see him immediately. Although he returned at noon, and on four different occasions that afternoon, the doctor gave other patients priority. Mr. Rodgers then telephoned DOT's Perry yard, and "gave the secretary . . . the message that [he] was unable to see the doctor and . . . would still need to be off . . . to attempt to see him again on Wednesday the 24th." (T. 24, 38) When Mr. Collins learned of Mr. Rodgers' conversation with the secretary, he asked William S. Clark to telephone Dr. Hauser's office, at the Tri-County Medical Center. Betty in Dr. Hauser's office told Mr. Clark that, although Mr. Rodgers had in fact visited the office, he had no appointment. On Wednesday morning, DOT's attendance records were marked to reflect that Mr. Rodgers was absent on authorized leave without pay, although Mr. Collins testified that leave never was authorized for that day. (T. 19, 80) Later Wednesday, Mr. Collins, under the impression that Mr. Rodgers "had lied about going to the doctor for a doctor's appointment," (T. 82) ordered that the attendance records for Tuesday and Wednesday be altered to show that Mr. Rodgers' leave was not authorized on those days. (T. 19, 80, 82) On the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th, Mr. Rodgers, who had inquired at the office about Dr. Hauser's availability on two occasions earlier in the day, saw Dr. Hauser, discussed effects of the automobile accident, and made an appointment for the following day to have his back examined. (T. 38) On Thursday, the 25th, he kept the appointment, and obtained a slip of paper attesting the fact. But, in Mr. Collins' view, Mr. Rodgers' employment had ended before he saw the doctor that day: "He was considered to have abandoned his position by 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning since he had not called in [after Tuesday afternoon.]" (T. 79) When Mr. Rodgers returned to work on Friday, June 26, 1987, Mr. Collins read, then returned, the note from the doctor, informed Mr. Rodgers of the changes in the attendance records, and advised him that his employment had terminated.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT reinstate Michael J. Rodgers as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard, with back pay since June 26, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aaron A. Green, Esquire P. O. Box 1265 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Brian Clancy was employed by the Department of Transportation in a survey crew and had been so employed since before April 19, 1983, until he was deemed to have resigned from his position by abandonment on July 7, 1986. In March or April, 1986, Petitioner discussed with his immediate supervisor on the survey crew, Ray Fletcher, the possibility of him taking leave in July to go to New York in time for the Statue of Liberty celebration July 4, 1986. Fletcher advised Petitioner that by that time he would have accrued enough leave to take ten days off. Petitioner interpreted that as approval for leave. On June 30, 1986, Petitioner did not report to work and his absence was reported by his supervisor as were his subsequent absences on July 1, 2 and 3, 1986. On July 3, 1986, James Lott, District Location Surveyor, sent a memo to his supervisor stating that Clancy had been absent from the position for three consecutive days and requested he be terminated by reason of abandonment. By letter dated July 7, 1986 (Exhibit 4) the Deputy Assistant Secretary - District One advised Clancy that he was deemed to have resigned his position by reason of abandonment and of his right to a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing. At no time did Petitioner request leave-in writing nor was he ever granted leave in writing. Other than his discussions with Fletcher in April or May regarding taking leave in July did Petitioner say anything else about his leave and Fletcher has no recollection that any specific time period for this leave was discussed. Petitioner contends that he never intended to abandon his position and thought that his discussions with Fletcher constituted approval of his leave request. By acknowledgment dated April 19, 1983 (Exhibit 2), Petitioner acknowledged receipt of Employee Handbook (Exhibit 1). Petitioner further contends that each time he took leave prior to June 30, 1986, his supervisor had the leave request prepared for him and brought it to Petitioner to sign, and that Petitioner never went to the office to initiate the paperwork. Petitioner did not testify that he ever departed on leave without having written approval prior to June 30, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marshall T. Hazlewood, was an employee of respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), from April 12, 1972 until July 14, 1983 at the Pinetta Toll Plaza in Satellite Beach, Florida. He served in the positions of toll collector, shift supervisor and manager I at that facility. In April, 1983 Hazlewood advised his supervisor that he would retire in July, 1983. By this time, Hazlewood had accumulated annual leave in excess of 240 hours, as well as an undisclosed amount of compensatory time and sick leave. His supervisor asked him not to use his annual leave in excess of 240 hours until July, or just prior to his retirement, because of a shortage of other personnel services (OPS) money for that fiscal year. In other words, if Hazlewood used his leave in April, May or June, the supervisor would necessarily have to use current fiscal year OPS funds to hire a temporary replacement. Hazlewood acquiesced and continued to work until June without taking annual leave. On June 16, 1983 Hazlewood put in an annual leave slip requesting annual leave (except for July 4, a holiday, and his personal holiday) from June 27 through July 14, 1983, his retirement date. This brought his total annual leave down to 238.50 hours as of the close of July 14, his date of retirement. The leave slip was approved by his supervisor and forwarded to the bureau chief in Tallahassee. He also spoke by telephone with the coordinator for the Tampa section and the assistant bureau chief in Tallahassee concerning his retirement. Whether he told them of his plans to use annual leave the last few weeks of employment was not disclosed. In any event, no one questioned his leave slip. When he retired on July 14, 1983 Hazlewood received his normal pay plus compensation for unused sick leave. He also received a warrant in the amount of $1,005.68 which represented compensation for 238.50 hours of unused annual leave. Because the pay system at DOT is computerized, and not manually checked until several weeks later, Hazlewood received his final pay without a hitch. Later on, after a manual review of his file was made, it was learned that Hazlewood's final pay had been improperly computed. DOT requested a return of the warrant, and apparently reissued a second warrant which was $324 less than the first. That prompted the instant proceeding. According to Rule 22A-8.10(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, promulgated by the Department of Administration (DOA), and which must be adhered to by DOT, an employee cannot be paid for leave after his "last official day of employment." An employee's last official day of employment is interpreted to mean when he is physically present on the job. The parties have stipulated that Hazlewood's last official day of employment was June 26, 1983, when he actually reported to work. The DOA also interprets the rule to prohibit the taking of annual leave in conjunction with an employee's separation from service. This includes the taking of such leave merely to use up sick leave or to bring one's total annual leave down to the maximum reimbursable amount of 240 hours. These interpretations were disseminated by DOT to all of its field offices, including the chief of toll facilities, as early as October, 1981, and are generally described on page 21 of the DOT Employee Handbook which Hazlewood had. They are also expressed in "Interpretation of Attendance and Leave Rules" issued by the DOA. After determining Hazlewood's last date of employment to be June 26, his balance of annual leave was properly reduced to 176 hours rather than 238.50 hours. This balance was arrived at by deducting those hours of leave improperly used during the pay period ending July 14, 1983, and for which he had already been paid, from the 240 maximum hours one can accumulate at date of retirement. The DOT accordingly reissued Hazlewood a check for 176 hours of unused leave, which was $324 less than the amount previously given to him. This was actually less than the amount DOT should have deducted, for it did not seek to recover excess payments during the two-week pay period ending June 30, 1983. Petitioner contends that because no one advised him that taking leave in the manner he did was improper, it is unfair to now penalize him for doing so. He also points out that his supervisor approved the leave slip and was the one who suggested he delay taking leave until July because of budgetary problems. He considers it morally wrong for DOT to treat him in the manner that it has. The DOT acknowledged that the leave slip was approved, but stated the supervisor was apparently unaware of existing Department policy. It contends that all non Tallahassee offices are periodically advised of personnel rules, and that the Hazlewood case was one of a few that sometimes occurs. After the Hazlewood error came to light, DOT issued another memorandum on September 1, 1983 to all personnel explaining the policy for leave time upon separation from service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Marshall T. Hazlewood to have reinstated $324 in payments for unused annual leave be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Marshall T. Hazlewood 333 McLeod Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service pursuant to the personnel rules of the Career Service System?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent for more than five years. At all times relevant hereto, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. During the month of December, 1986, and the portion of January, 1987, prior to the date the Petitioner was removed from his position, the Petitioner was assigned to the Blountstown, Florida, road maintenance office. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Gustavev Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin was an HMT-3 with the Respondent and supervised a maintenance crew of three men, including the Petitioner. Mr. Goodwin was the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Blackburn, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor with the Respondent, was Mr. Goodwin's immediate supervisor. Mr. Blackburn supervises all crews operating out of the Blountstown office. The Petitioner and his crew worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week. Mr. Goodwin prepares a weekly crew report on a daily basis. Mr. Goodwin records the hours a crew member worked or, if a crew member was not present, Mr. Goodwin notes the absence and the reason for the absence. Mr. Blackburn transfers the information recorded on the weekly crew reports to timesheets which are used for payroll purposes. If approval of a request for leave is required, employees are required to report to their crew supervisor or Mr. Blackburn. The Petitioner would have been required to obtain approval of leave from Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn, if prior approval had been required. In cases of sick leave, employees were expected to call by telephone on the day of the illness or injury and inform Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was at the office each work day in the morning before the crews completed fueling their trucks and departed for the day. Mr. Blackburn was then out of the office during most of the remainder of the day. During the last week of December, 1986, Mr. Goodwin, the Petitioner and the other members of Mr. Goodwin's crew were "bull skating" (joking and talking). The Petitioner told Mr. Goodwin in response to some comment, probably pertaining to the work that would be done the first week of January, 1987, that "I won't be here next week anyway. I be in the hospital." Although Mr. Goodwin did not remember the Petitioner having made these comments, the Petitioner and one of the crew members, Mr. Arthur Jackson, both testified that the comments were made. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that he could be absent from work during the first week of January, 1987. The Petitioner was absent from work during the first week of January, 1987 -- January 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987. Neither Mr. Goodwin nor Mr. Blackburn were contacted on January 5-8, 1987, by the Petitioner or anyone on behalf of the Petitioner, about the Petitioner's absence. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that his absence on January 5-8, 1937, was approved. The Petitioner had obtained approval of annual leave prior to the period at issue in this case. The Petitioner had planned to go to the hospital on January 5, 1987, because of problems he has had with his legs, and to remain in the hospital for the remainder of the week. Because of the problems with his legs and his automobile, the Petitioner did not go to the hospital or see a doctor on January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, the Petitioner had a friend drive him to Panama City, Florida, where he remained under the care of Dr. Ernest G. Haslam, M.D., in the hospital, until January 12, 1987. Although the Petitioner does not have a telephone at his residence, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn could have been contacted by Petitioner's wife, who works at Hardees, or by a friend. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt on April 14, 1983, of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook and his responsibility to review the handbook in detail and to request clarification, if necessary. On page 43 of the handbook it is provided that "[a]fter an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from Career Service ..." On page 22 of the handbook it is provided that "[i]f a medical appointment is necessary during work hours, you should obtain `approval, in advance, to use your earned sick leave." By certified letter from Allen Potter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department, dated January 8, 1976, the Petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have abandoned his position with the Respondent and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his absence from work during the first week of January, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration rule that the Petitioner, Albert T. Smith, has not abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, and has not resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0450 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s), if any, in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RD ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has filed a letter dated April 10, 1987. The only proposed finding of fact contained in this letter concerns the question of whether the Petitioner told his supervisor, Mr. Goodwin, that he would not be at work during the period of time at issue in this case. The proposed finding of fact has been accepted in RD 10. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RD Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RD 1-4 and 8. 2 RD 5-7 and 9. 3 RD 10-11. 4 RD 11 and 13. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner had obtained prior approval for sick leave subsequent to the period of time involved in this case. The evidence only proved that the Petitioner had on other occasions received prior approval of annual leave. 5 RD 19-20. RD 16 and 18. The evidence does not prove that the Petitioner got into a car and drove to town. RD 21. The Petitioner was not, however, "absent from his position without authorized leave ..." COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kay N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Albert T. Smith Route 1, Box 135, B 69A Blountstown, Florida 32424 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice (discrimination under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes) against Petitioner on the basis of his race (Black/African-American), handicap, or retaliation, and if so, what is the remedy? Although cases arising under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may be instructive for interpreting and applying the handicap provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's claim under ADA and any allegations of libel and slander are not within the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lawrence James, Jr., is a Black/African- American. Respondent, The Alachua County Department of Criminal Justice Service, is an "employer" within the definition in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent operates the Alachua County Jail. Respondent maintains a paramilitary command, advancement, and ranking system for its employees. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Sergeant. On March 2, 1994, an inmate escaped from the Alachua County Jail during the evening shift. As a result of the inmate's escape, several correctional officers were disciplined. Petitioner was disciplined by a reduction in rank April 26, 1994. (P-37) There were allegations that harsher discipline had been meted out to the Black/African-American officers, and the matter was arbitrated, pursuant to the union collective bargaining contract. As a result of the arbitration, in the summer of 1994, it was recommended that Petitioner be returned to his position at the Jail with restoration of rank, but without any back pay. However, at the time of that recommendation, Petitioner already had been terminated for "a non-related infraction of county policy." (P-37) The "non-related infraction of county policy" reason for Petitioner's 1994 termination was not established on this record, but neither was any discriminatory reason proven.2 After Petitioner's 1994 termination, further proceedings ensued, and Petitioner was ultimately restored to his rank and position at the Jail. As part of this restoration, it was agreed the Respondent employer would conduct training and re-orientation sessions for Petitioner, since he had not actively been performing his duties at the Jail for approximately two years. The present case only addresses the discrimination Petitioner allegedly suffered due to race, handicap, or retaliation concerning his leave requests in 1996, and his 1997 termination for unauthorized absence. After his second successful arbitration(s) and/or grievance procedure, Petitioner was eligible to return to work on February 19, 1996. He did not return on that date. Respondent ordered Petitioner back to work on March 13, 1996, at which time Petitioner requested, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It is not clear if Petitioner ever made Respondent aware that he suffered from high blood pressure, but from the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner notified Respondent in March 1996, that he was suffering from a prior on- the-job injury to his back, diabetes, and depression. Diabetes, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Clinical depression, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contended at hearing that his clinical depression in 1996 was due to his 1994 demotion and termination and the procedures to get his job back and also due to the hostile work environment he anticipated he would face if he returned to work daily in 1996 with people whom he perceived as having lied about him and who had tried to terminate him. It should be noted that Petitioner did not clearly include "hostile work environment" in either his 1998, Charge of Discrimination or his 2000, Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations only considered and referred the instant case upon allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, and retaliation. From Petitioner's description of his back ailment, it is found that condition also constituted a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. From Petitioner's description of how his back injury affected his daily life and job performance, it is very doubtful that Petitioner was able to physically fulfill the requirements of being a jailor at any time in 1996 until he was terminated in 1997. No evidence was presented with regard to the workers' compensation consequences of this situation. By an April 1, 1996, letter, Respondent's Interim Director of Criminal Justice Service, Richard Tarbox, informed Petitioner that he had exhausted his sick leave credits as of the pay period ending March 31, 1996; that based on Respondent's records, Petitioner would exhaust the balance of his accrued sick leave at the rate of forty hours per week during the pay period ending May 12, 1996; that he was expected to know his available accrued leave credits and to contact his immediate supervisor at least one week prior to the expiration of the current leave period to request leave without pay if he anticipated not returning to work; and that he had been placed on FMLA leave for an indefinite period, not to exceed twelve weeks, which would expire on June 6, 1996. (R-30) The April 1, 1996, letter specifically informed Petitioner that failure to come to work or contact Respondent could be considered abandonment of his position. (R-30) The foregoing instructions concerning "abandonment of position" parallel Alachua County's Personnel Regulations and Disciplinary Policy, hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as "personnel regulations." (P-1). Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; c. Group III Offenses No. 8, at pages 5-6, of the personnel regulations had existed prior to Petitioner's 1994 termination, and was in effect at all times material. It provided, Absence of three consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ. The personnel regulations also provided in Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; a. Group I Offenses No. 8, at pages 3-4, that the following offense would subject an employee to progressive discipline: Absence without authorization or failure to notify appropriate supervisory personnel on the first day of absence. (Emphasis supplied). This regulation also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994, and was in effect at all times material. Progressive discipline for the first such offense was written instruction, counseling and/or one-day suspension. For the second occurrence, one to five days' suspension was specified. For the third occurrence, up to five days' suspension or discharge was specified. These provisions also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994 and were in effect at all times material. Petitioner was also familiar with the long-standing progressive discipline system of Respondent's personnel regulations. Basically, this system required that discipline first be proposed in writing by a superior. The proposed discipline would go into effect and become actual discipline if the employee did not appear at a hearing to dispute the charges or the proposed discipline. If the employee prevailed at the hearing, the proposed discipline would be rescinded or altered. If the employee did not prevail, the proposed discipline would be reduced to writing in another document, and the employee then had the option of filing a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement or of appealing through the personnel system to a citizens' board. While Petitioner had been absent in 1994-1996, a new requirement had been added to the personnel regulations, under Chapter A-299, which required that employees who planned to be absent, must notify their immediate supervisor no later than 30 minutes from the time they are scheduled to report for work. (Emphasis supplied) The "immediate supervisor" or "appropriate supervisory personnel" in Petitioner's situation would have been the lieutenant on his shift. However, Petitioner and Lt. Little, who became his supervisor, concurred that the custom at the Jail always had been to require that employees contact the shift sergeant on the shift preceding an emergency absence, or if that were not possible, to contact the employee's own shift sergeant or anyone else on that shift. Jail custom also provided that the employee who was going to be absent could rely on any person on his shift to deliver his oral message to the employee's supervising lieutenant and that approval or disapproval paperwork would be handled by that lieutenant after notification. On June 6, 1996, Petitioner still had not returned to work. Instead, he requested leave without pay until June 15, 1996. Respondent granted Petitioner's request. This constituted an accommodation of Petitioner's handicap(s) in that he had no remaining earned leave or entitlement to FMLA leave, yet his employer held his position open for his return. On or about June 10, 1996, Anthony F. Greene, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Vista Pavilion, a free-standing psychiatric facility, released Petitioner to return to work. He wrote to Respondent's Risk Manager that Petitioner continued to have problems with depression, which might prove "volatile" in a work environment with superiors Petitioner believed had harassed him by terminating and blaming him for the 1994 escape. At approximately the same time, Richard Greer, M.D., medical specialty unexplained, also released Petitioner to return to work, upon the conditions that Petitioner continue to see Dr. Greene on a weekly basis and continue to take his prescriptive medications. By a July 17, 1996, letter (P-4), Interim Director Richard Tarbox notified Petitioner to report for work at the Jail on the evening shift of July 22, 1996. The letter required Petitioner to continue his sessions with Dr. Greene; to continue to take his prescriptive medications; and to take the re- training and re-orientation specified as a result of the resolution of his 1994 termination and return to work. (See Finding of Fact 7.) The July 17, 1996, letter also included the sentence, We are in the process of contacting Dr. Greene to establish a procedure to verify that you continue your sessions with him. Petitioner interpreted this sentence as the employer's promise "[T]o get all my leave slips, find out when I was going to the doctor, my mental condition, and also my medical condition." (TR-Vol.II, pages 175-176) Petitioner's interpretation of this sentence was unreasonable in light of its express language, the context of the remainder of the July 17, 1996, letter, the instructions of the April 1, 1996, letter (See Findings of Fact 16-17), and what Petitioner already knew of the County's personnel regulations and/or the Jail custom requiring him to call in and/or apply for leave to be subsequently approved or disapproved by his supervisor. Nothing in the July 17, 1996, letter altered the requirements of the personnel regulations or the April 1, 1996, letter. Petitioner bore the responsibility to ask for medical leave sufficiently in advance of his absences. On July 22, 1996, Petitioner reported for work at the Jail as instructed and was assigned to an evening shift supervised by Lt. Stover. According to Sgt. Babula, Petitioner also worked under Shift Sgt. Withey at some point in July 1996. However, by July 1996, Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. He needed to self-administer a shot of insulin each morning and night. To ensure ideal spacing of these two shots, Petitioner almost immediately requested to work the day shift. Respondent accommodated this request concerning Petitioner's handicaps and assigned him to the day shift under Lt. Little and Sgt. Babula, as shift sergeant. Petitioner claimed his handicaps were not accommodated by Respondent, but in addition to approving leave for him from February 19, 1996, to July 22, 1996, not replacing him during that period, and the change of shift made in July 1996, at Petitioner's request, Sgt. Babula testified to approving special shoes for Petitioner due to his diabetes. By September 1996, Petitioner again had used up all of his accrued leave. Accordingly, he had to ask for leave without pay to visit his various doctors, including Dr. Greene. On September 9, 1996, during a therapy session, Petitioner told Dr. Greene that he had been threatened on the job and that he was pursuing resolution of the incident through appropriate channels. The same day, Dr. Greene wrote to Lt. Little, telling him of the threat. The nature of this alleged threat or who made it was not stated in Dr. Greene's letter or at hearing. The letter cleared Petitioner to return to work September 12, 1996. This out-of-court statement to his psychotherapist at that time does not establish the truth of the statement or that Petitioner's superiors made the alleged threat. Also, the threat, if one existed, could not have related to Petitioner's written leave requests, because Petitioner's earliest dispute about leave did not occur until September 13, 1996. (See Finding of Fact 41). The September 9, 1996, date was not related by testimony to any oral or written request for leave or any disciplinary matter in evidence. Petitioner testified to having been threatened on the job sometime prior to September 9, 1996, but he never testified what the threat was, why the threat was made, or by whom the threat was made. Petitioner's witness, Alfred Dickerson, also is African-American. He testified generally that it was "pure hell" at the Jail for anyone who, like himself and Petitioner, had been disciplined due to the 1994 escape and who had prevailed in the resultant grievance activities, but he could not remember any specific incidents involving Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Dickerson was out of the Jail, on workers' compensation leave, from May 1996 to October 1997, the whole of the material time frame for this case.3 On September 16, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay to Lt. Little, his supervisor, for the previous dates of September 13 and 15, stating thereon that he had been ill those days and that the request was being made because his request to work his days off to make up for the 16 hours of leave he had used on September 13 and 15 had been denied. The request does not specifically mention "flex time." (P-6) "Flex time," as described by both Petitioner and Lt. Little, would have permitted Petitioner to work his days off, instead of taking time off without pay to make up time used to go to his doctors on days he was scheduled to work. However, if an employee asked to use flex time in this way, another employee had to trade days with him, and the exchange would be worked out by the supervising lieutenant. On October 1, 1996, Petitioner was given a "Letter of Warning" by Lt. Little. The Warning reflected that Petitioner's advising a sergeant other than his immediate supervisor, Lt. Little, on September 24, 1996, that he was not coming to work until some personal matters were taken care of, was insufficient notice and was being treated as "absence without authorization" in violation of the personnel regulations. It also stated, It has been standard practice and understood that you must notify your immediate supervisor . . . please be advised that any further violations of this nature may result in docked pay and progressive disciplinary action . . . Attached to this document was a Notice of Disciplinary Action, also prepared October 1, 1996, stating, Disciplinary action taken as a result of the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action dated blank not filled in. (Except for WARNING) WARNING (Reasons for warning): Violation of Alachua County Personnnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, a., Group I, Offense No. 8 'Absence without authorization'. (P-8) The same document notified Petitioner that he had a right to appeal the Warning pursuant to either the personnel regulations or the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt of this latter document until October 7, 1996. (P-8/R-19) Also on October 1, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay for September 23- 26 and for September 29-30, to Captain King. The reason for Petitioner's absence September 23-26 was not stated on the formal request, but Petitioner did again state thereon that his request to "flex" his days off had been denied, presumably by Lt. Little. The time for September 29-30 was requested for "personal business and emergency family leave without pay" due to his mother's seeing a doctor about her detached retinas. (P-7) Respondent is not obligated under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to accommodate Petitioner's family's handicaps.4 On October 21, 1996, a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action" was issued by Lt. Little, apparently covering the same date, September 24, 1996, as his October 1, Warning, and adding other dates. The reasons for the proposed discipline given in this October 21, 1996, Notice differ slightly from the content of the October 1, Warning. The October 21, 1996, Notice related that on September 23, Petitioner had spoken to Captain King and Lt. Little, and because his request for leave had been made in advance, Petitioner had been granted the day off; that on September 24, Petitioner had failed to report to work and failed to request an extension of leave, and he was therefore considered to be "absent without authorization" for September 24, 1996. The October 21, Notice further stated that on September 25, Petitioner had called Captain King, requesting leave without pay for September 25 and 26, and because Petitioner had requested leave in advance, Captain King had granted the request covering those two days, but that on his October 1, leave request (see Finding of Fact 44) Petitioner had included two more days, September 29 and 30, which had not been previously authorized. Finally, the October 21, Notice indicated that on September 30, Petitioner had called Lt. Stover to say that he would be reporting to work as soon as he was through testifying to the Grand Jury that afternoon, and that his failure to request leave in advance was being treated as "absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." As of this October 21, 1996, Notice, the proposed disciplinary action became suspending Petitioner without pay. Petitioner was offered an opportunity to contest the proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on November 19, 1996. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this document on October 24, 1996. (R-21) On October 22, 1996, Petitioner wrote to the Interim Director of the Jail, Richard Tarbox. In his letter, Petitioner complained that he had not yet received the agreed re- orientation and re-training. He also discussed his medical problems, including problems with recent changes in his medications and his five-year-old back injury. He requested flex time and related that his life had been threatened by employees on the job (see Findings of Fact 37-40), and that Lt. Little had been informed of the threats and flex time request, but the letter again did not indicate by whom Petitioner was threatened or why. (P-10) Despite Petitioner's after-the-fact written requests for flex time, Lt. Little had no recollection of Respondent ever asking him for flex time. There is no evidence that Lt. Little, Mr. Tarbox, or any other representative of Respondent contacted Petitioner concerning the alleged threat against him or specifically addressed the issues of re-orientation/re-training or flex time. On October 25, 1996, Dr. Greene also wrote Mr. Tarbox. He described Petitioner as cooperative and not evidencing any inappropriate behavior. He reported that Petitioner had voiced no homicidal or vengeance ideation to him. He felt that Petitioner's supervisors' requirement that Petitioner use leave to attend the mandatory therapy sessions with him constituted a paradox and a stressor for Petitioner. He felt that other stressors were the employer's failure to offer re-orientation/ re-training to Petitioner and the employer's failure to contact him, Dr. Greene, to verify treatment purposes and schedules. Dr. Greene requested that Mr. Tarbox clarify Petitioner's treatment and work status to both him and to Petitioner in a timely manner because not doing so was exacerbating Petitioner's physical condition, headaches, and diabetes. He further stated that he could release Petitioner for work without further psychological treatment and that further psychological treatment was not necessary to ensure Petitioner's fitness for work or to prevent his being a risk to others, but that Petitioner would continue in therapy for other purposes. (P-11) Neither Mr. Tarbox nor any other representative of Respondent specifically replied to Dr. Greene's October 25, 1996, letter. However, all leave disputes pending on that date were addressed in a November 22, 1996, letter to Petitioner from Captain King. (See Findings of Fact 57-59.) On October 31, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for eight hours leave without pay for leave he had taken on October 30, 1996, for "emergency dr. app't for work related injury, and lab work for diebetic [sic] condition." (P-14) At some point, a leave form for eight hours leave without pay on November 9, 1996, was prepared. It indicates that Petitoner was "unavailable to sign." This form was disapproved by Lt. Little and by Mr. Tarbox on November 12, 1996. Apparently Petitioner only signed the request on November 26, 1996. (P-21) On November 14, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 15, 1996, for "work related condition, Dr. Greene." (P-15) On November 19, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 22, 1996. The request was approved by a supervisor on November 19, 1996. (P-17) On November 22, 1996, Captain King issued a "Letter of Warning" to Petitioner. It stated that on November 19, 1996, a disciplinary hearing had been held (see Finding of Fact 47) regarding the October 21, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, addressing Petitioner's absences on September 29-30, 1996, and that because Petitioner had proven that he had attempted to contact his supervisor in advance of his absence, the September 29 violation was being withdrawn. With regard to the September 30 violation charged, it was found that Petitioner had contacted Lt. Stover and informed him that Petitioner would return to work after testifying before The Grand Jury, and since Petitioner had not returned to work on that day after testifying, he was being found guilty as charged for violation of Alachua County Personnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3. a. Group I, Offense No. 8, "Absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." The November 22, 1996, letter went on to warn Petitioner that future violations would be more carefully scrutinized for strict adherence to the policy of notification and that failures on Petitioner's part might result in progressive disciplinary action being taken. (P-20) Because prior discipline had been overturned or rescinded, the November 22, 1996, Letter of Warning was technically Petitioner's first violation/discipline. Also on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted to Lt. Little a leave request form, dated the same day, labelled "FOR INFO.," with supporting documentation, including Dr. Hunt's certificate showing Petitioner had been treated on November 4, and November 22, 1996, had office management of HTN/NIDDM hematuria, a pending IVP and urology consult, and would need to be seen again by Dr. Hunt in 4-6 weeks. The language of one attachment showed Petitioner "is under Dr. Hunt's continual care," but nothing specified any period of time Petitioner intended to take off from work for the pending consultation or any other purpose. (P-19) Petitioner testified that his November 22, 1996, leave request was not intended to request any leave at all when he submitted it, but that it should have alerted his supervisors that Petitioner had a growth between his legs that was potentially malignant and that he needed an operation sometime in the future. A reasonable person would not have concluded this from the four corners of the November 22, 1996, written request with attachments dated for past medical appointments. Petitioner also testified that by submitting the November 22, 1996, leave request "in blank" and explaining orally to Lt. Little what he intended to do was his effort to comply with the requirement that he ask for leave in advance of taking it. This testimony shows that Petitioner at this point understood the employer's prior instructions to request leave in advance. Apparently, Petitioner envisioned only having to phone in to get any member of his shift to fill in the blanks on his November 22, 1996, request form, but he admitted he had never before used a blank leave request in this way. Petitioner further testified that he had told Mr. Tarbox and other supervisors at a meeting (probably one of his disciplinary hearings) before Christmas 1996, that he "did not know how long he could work." While this representation of Petitioner is credible and it may be reasonably inferred that Mr. Tarbox understood Petitioner was debilitated to some degree by the growth and might need an operation sometime in the near future, it does not logically follow that all those hearing Petitioner at that time understood that his oral statement related to the November 22 blank leave request which had attached to it only information about past doctors' appointments and potential, undated, future consultations. Petitioner's vague statement at the meeting/hearing did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail for requesting leave. The blank November 22, 1996, leave request marked "FOR INFO" also did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail. There is no requirement that Respondent grant Petitioner an open-ended request for leave or one that specifies no time period at all. Petitioner's November 22, 1996, blank leave request was never approved. On November 26, 1996, Petitioner also acknowledged receipt of a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action," by which Lt. Little and Mr. Tarbox recommended that Petitioner be suspended without pay.5 Petitioner was again offered an opportunity to contest this proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on December 3, 1996. (P-18) The record is silent as to whether a disciplinary hearing was actually held on December 3, 1996. Petitioner submitted a leave form on December 6, 1996, for 2.5 hours "vacation" leave without pay on December 3, 1996, for a "Conference with doctor to try an [sic] stop continued disciplinary action because of illness doctor approved." (P-23) On December 3, 1996, Petitioner had telephoned Lt. Little to ask if his message had been received. He then reported to work at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's business records (P-22) show the following: Petitioner worked December 4-5, some of December 6, and all of December 7, 1996. He was not required to be at work on December 8-9. He called in sick on December 10-11. On December 12, he reported for work and attended five hours of drug policy training. Then he left for medical reasons and later called in to say he was too sick to return to work. On Friday, December 13, Petitioner called in sick, saying he was going to the doctor for a cut foot. He later called in again and was told that he needed to do his timesheet and it was agreed he would do it and have it in the following Monday. Petitioner was absent on Saturday, December 14. He was not required to be at work on December 15-16, 1996. On Monday, December 17, Petitioner did not phone or appear for work. On December 18, Petitioner phoned in, saying he had to wear bedroom slippers and had domestic problems. On December 19, Petitioner called in late and left a voice message on the Jail phone. On Friday, December 20, Petitioner called in on time but said he would not be in until Tuesday of the following week. He gave no reason. He was not required to be at work on December 22-23. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner did not come to work or call in. On Christmas Day, Petitioner called in before shift and stated he would not be in that day or the following day, December 26, 1996, until 10:00 a.m. On December 26, December 27, and December 28, Petitioner did not report for work or call in. Petitioner was not required to work December 29 or 30, 1996. On December 31, Petitioner called and said that he would not be in that day but would call back to talk to the shift lieutenant. He did not do so. Also, Petitioner did not report for work or call in for January 1 through 4, 1997. Most of this business record was substantiated by the direct testimony of Sgt. Babula and Lt. Little who observed the events and wrote most of the business record. The matters that were not confirmed in their direct testimony were supported by the type of hearsay that explains or supplements direct evidence and is admissible in this type of proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that the business record was essentially correct as to days he was absent in December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner's testimony only varies the foregoing business record to the effect that on December 10, 1996, not December 13, 1996, Petitioner called and spoke with Sgt. Withey, stating that he would not "be back [to work] until [he had] seen and heard from [his] doctors," and related to Withey that he had some problem with his foot. Petitioner assumed that his superiors would get this message and would understand that he meant he was exercising the blank November 22, 1996, leave request. (See Findings of Fact 60-66). His superiors did not infer from this message what Petitioner had hoped they would. A reasonable person would not infer all that from the information Petitioner says he provided Sgt. Withey. It is uncontested that Petitioner did have an injury to his foot at this time and that such injuries can be particularly hazardous to persons who, like Petitioner, suffer from diabetes. From December 4, 1996, onward, Petitioner did not speak directly with his lieutenant, although he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in order to request advance leave. Petitioner did not return to work after December 7, 1996. Despite the personnel rules, custom at the Jail, and prior direct orders by warning and disciplinary action letters, Petitioner submitted no leave slips directly to his superiors after December 6, 1996. Instead, he submitted them to his union shop steward and to a County Commissioner, although he had no reason to believe the Commissioner had any authority over Jail personnel matters. Respondent never authorized leave for Petitioner after December 13, 1996. Petitioner's extended absence without authorization was in violation of Respondent employer's long-standing "three day abandonment rule." There had been no word from Petitioner since December 31, 1996, so between January 17 and January 24, 1997, a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" was issued against Petitioner for [V]iolation of Alachua County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, c., Group III, Offense No. 8 'Absence of three (3) consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ.' The proposed discipline was termination, and again, Petitioner was offered the opportunity to contest the proposed final agency action at a hearing to be convened on February 18, 1997. (P-25) Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner saw a Master of Social Work, because Dr. Greene was on educational leave. Petitioner was so upset that the social worker advised him to focus on his medical problems. Apparently, Petitioner leapt to the conclusion that meant his doctors would handle all his leave-related problems. Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner had successful surgery on the growth between his legs. On January 27, 1997, Dr. Greene saw Petitioner in therapy and notified Mr. Tarbox in writing that, Mr. Lawrence James was seen for an appointment today in my office. He is apparently unable to continue working in what is perceived to be a hostile work environment at the jail. Compounded by his medical problems and what seems to be a lack of responsivity and accommodation by the administration, Mr. James' level of emotional distress has considerably increased since our last communication. It is strongly recommended that he take a leave of absence from the workplace until his condition is improved. He is scheduled to return next week for continued intervention. Thank you for your time and attention. (Emphasis supplied) (P-26) Dr. Greene testified that it was Petitioner's combined mental and physical circumstances which caused him to recommend the leave of absence. The January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action was mailed to the last address Petitioner had given Respondent. On January 30, 1997, Petitioner's mother signed the certified mail receipt for the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. Sometime thereafter, she delivered the Notice to Petitioner, who no longer lived with her. He refused to deal with it. Dr. Brient removed a suture from Petitioner's leg on February 4, 1997. This seems to have related to Petitioner's post-surgery release after removal of the growth between his legs. Petitioner did not then return to work. Because Respondent's principals had not recognized Petitioner's mother's name on the certified mail receipt, they caused the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to be served on Petitioner by a Deputy Sheriff. Petitioner received this personal service on February 5, 1997, and told the Deputy that he would not deal with the Notice of Disciplinary Action, but his doctors would. Having been released as a result of his operation, there was no physical reason Petitioner could not have appeared for the February 18, 1997, hearing to present any opposition to his proposed termination based on "the three day abandonment rule." He did not appear. On February 21, 1997, Petitioner was mailed a "Notice of Dismissal," effective that date and signed by Harry Sands, a new Interim Director, for abandoning his position, in violation of the personnel regulations. The Notice of Dismissal gave Petitioner the option of appealing his termination through the employee appeal system or the collective bargaining grievance procedure. Petitioner did not take either appeal route. However, Petitioner did suggest to another Jail officer that those who had done this to him might need to get a pine box, i.e. coffin. The threat was not deemed worthy of prosecution by the State Attorney's Office. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that he never received the promised re-orientation or re-training associated with re-instatement to his job. No witness gave any clear indication of what the re- orientation and re-training, as contemplated by the re- instatement agreement (see Finding of Fact 7) or as contemplated by Mr. Tarbox's July 17, 1996, letter (see Finding of Fact 29), was supposed to include. Lt. Stover did not remember any specific training he gave Petitioner, nor did Lt. Little, but Lt. Little testified that he was present when, before Petitioner first arrived on Lt. Stover's shift in July 1996, the Captain had ordered them both to "bring [Petitioner] up to speed." Petitioner suggested that failure to re-orient and retrain him evidenced Respondent's discrimination against him. His post-hearing proposal also asserts that due to Respondent's failure to train him in "new" personnel regulations, combined with Respondent's requirement that he adhere to those regulations which Jail custom did not normally follow, constituted disparate treatment and/or discrimination against him on the basis of his race or due to retaliation, and/or failure to accommodate his handicap. This perception is unpersuasive in light of the employer's repeated correspondence urging him to take the training, whatever that training might have been. Despite Mr. Tarbox's failure to reply to Petitioner's October 22, 1996, inquiry about training (See Finding of Fact 48), Petitioner's perception of discrimination was not established as fact. From the evidence as a whole, it is more probable that any failure to train Petitioner was the result of his request to change shifts, and thus, lieutenant-supervisors in July or his frequent absences. The record does not make clear whether the re-orientation/re-training requirement was unique to Respondent, who returned in 1996, or applied to all four of the returning African-American officers restored in 1994, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than he did. He did not establish that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than the other restored African-American officers, handicapped or otherwise. He also did not establish that any other restored African-American officer, handicapped or otherwise, received more re- orientation/re-training than he did. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Sergeant Babula testified credibly that he had at least instructed Petitioner with regard to the new payroll forms when Petitioner changed shifts in July 1996. Payroll forms include calculating hours worked and monies owed. Testimony and business records also show Petitioner had five hours of drug policy training. (See Finding of fact 72). Also, Respondent did not discipline Petitioner for his failure to request leave of specific personnel as required by the only new personnel regulation, until after Petitioner had been instructed in writing to do so. These written instructions may not have constituted complete "re-orientation" or "re- training," but they were direct orders sufficient to instruct Petitioner what was expected of him. (See Findings of Fact 16, 29, 43, 46-47, 57-59). Lastly, based on Petitioner's testimony that even if he had known he was required by a new regulation to request leave from his lieutenant-supervisor he would not have followed that regulation but instead would have considered himself bound by his union contract and by the custom of asking for leave of anyone on his shift at the Jail, it appears that any failure of Respondent to specifically "train" Petitioner concerning new personnel regulations had no effect on his subsequent failure to comply with the employer's expectations concerning its leave policy. Petitioner had admitted in evidence a certified copy of a "Second Superceding Indictment" issued by a federal Grand Jury on February 27, 2001. It was not established that this was the same Grand Jury before which Petitioner testified in 1996. (See Finding of Fact 47). The indictment (which is only a charging document, not a conviction) named Nate Caldwell, Respondent's former Director; Samuel Krider, Respondent's former Assistant Director; Garry M. Brown, a former Captain with Respondent; and Charles Scott Simmons, a former Lieutenant with Respondent, for conspiracy to obstruct justice by violating 18 USC Section 1503, by hindering the court and jury in a federal civil rights action brought by Mr. Dickerson against the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson's federal case arose out of Mr. Dickerson's demotion in rank with Petitioner in connection with the 1994 escape. It was not established that any of the indicted officials held office during the time material to Petitioner's instant case, 1996- 1997, or that any of them had anything to do with Petitioner's 1996 leave disputes or 1997 termination. Indeed, it was established that Sands or Tarbox was Interim Director at all times material. The indictment mentions Petitioner and Captain King, a superior of Petitioner at all times material, but neither Petitioner nor Captain King were indicted. Despite the lack of clarity of Petitioner's and Mr. Dickerson's testimony, the undersigned infers from their testimony and the indictment that Petitioner testified concerning the same matters before the Grand Jury in 1996 and that prior to 1996 Petitioner had been a witness in Mr. Dickerson's federal discrimination case against the County Commissioners. However, Petitioner testified that his retaliation allegation herein is not based on his 1996 testimony before the Grand Jury. Rather, Petitioner asserted at hearing that he believed he had been retaliated against by his superiors in 1996-1997 for speaking at 1993 meetings of the County Commission concerning structural and staffing problems at the Jail, and otherwise he did not know why he had been retaliated against. (TR-Vol. I pp. 229-233).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner has not proven discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001.
