The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of religion and national origin and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lalla is Hindu, and his religion is Hinduism. Mr. Lalla was employed in the County’s Enterprise Technology Services Department (ETSD). ETSD provides information technology (IT) services supporting the operations of other departments in the County. ETSD manages and maintains the IT infrastructure, including computer hardware and software, and the County’s electronic communications network. On January 31, 2005, Mr. Lalla was hired as an Operating Systems Programmer (OSP) in the Enterprise Security Office (ESO) of the County’s ETSD. An OSP is an advanced level technical professional, who may have duties in a number of different infrastructure support areas within ETSD. On December 18, 2007, Mr. Lalla received a written reprimand as a result of his failure to report a suspected security breach of the County’s computer security system. The written reprimand was for incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duty, negligence or willful misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a County employee. Further, connected to the reprimand, Mr. Lalla was reassigned within the IT infrastructure area to another division, the Data Center Division, at which he had new duties and responsibilities. His new supervisor was Adrienne DiPrima. In an email dated December 17, 2008, from Ms. DiPrima to Mr. Lalla, among other things, Ms. DiPrima welcomed Mr. Lalla, indicating that their group was “hoping for a new person to work with [them] on mainframe security” and acknowledging that he had a very limited background in mainframe security. Further, among other things, she advised him that, because it was “a difficult time of year to get started on anything long-term,” for now, he would be working closely with another employee to handle the “day-to-day RACF administration tasks” so that the employee could “concentrate on the upgrades being done for the new operating system release.” On or about January 15, 2008, Mr. Lalla’s reassignment was effective and that was when Ms. DiPrima first met with him. She was leaving the next day for a vacation. Ms. DiPrima met with Mr. Lalla briefly. During the meeting, among other things, she indicated to him that, during her absence, she wanted him to become familiar with the day-to-day operations and work with the person in the particular area that he (Mr. Lalla) was assigned, with that person also being Mr. Lalla’s mentor. Additionally, they discussed the potential for training Mr. Lalla in his new area and the possibility of the Data Center Division funding the cost for training courses. When Ms. DiPrima returned from vacation, she and Mr. Lalla also reviewed the procedure for requesting leave time. Among other things, she advised him that she does not generally deny leave if coverage for the absent person’s duties and responsibilities is available; but for extended leave, for instance a week or two, advance request/notice and approval were required in order to make sure that a person was available for coverage and to make arrangements for the coverage. For several months, Ms. DiPrima saw nothing in Mr. Lalla’s work performance that suggested any disciplinary issues might arise. Therefore, no disciplinary action was contemplated against him. At no time in the reassignment did anyone suggest or did Mr. Lalla believe that he was going to be subjected to any disciplinary action. However, having gone through the previous disciplinary action, together with learning new responsibilities and duties in what he believed to be a short period of time, Mr. Lalla was feeling pressured. The perceived pressure affected him mentally and physically. On April 3, 2008, Mr. Lalla submitted a leave of absence form to ETSD’s Personnel Officer, Shanda Mazzorana, for an unpaid leave of absence for the period from April 9, 2008, through April 9, 2009. The form contained, among other things, a section for the reason for the request, with one of the reasons being “Personal Reason” and subcategories being “Religious holidays,” “Education not related to the job,” and “Other.” He checked “Personal Reason,” “Education not related to the job,” and “Other.” Also, among other things, the leave of absence form provided two lines for the explanation for the request. Mr. Lalla provided as an explanation for the one-year leave of absence that the request was for “Religious and spiritual pursuits of Buddhism at overseas Monastery.” Mr. Lalla did not attach any documents to his request. Ms. Mazzorana asked Mr. Lalla to further explain why he wanted the unpaid leave. He informed her that he was seeking leave to study Buddhism. She requested him to provide some written information to supplement his request. In response to Ms. Mazzorana’s request, Mr. Lalla provided a single page informational sheet about the Buddhist Monastery that he had obtained from his mother. She attached the informational sheet to his request and forwarded the entire packet to the Director and Chief Information Officer, Donald Fleming, for his review and decision. Buddhism and Hinduism are interrelated. Mr. Lalla believed that the religion of Buddhism provided him a remedy to deal with the mental pressures that he was experiencing at work, instead of seeking medical or psychological assistance either privately or through his employer, the County. Nowhere in his request did Mr. Lalla express this reasoning for his request. Mr. Lalla’s religion of Hinduism did not require him to study Buddhism at a monastery for a year. Ms. DiPrima was unaware that Mr. Lalla wanted or had requested an extended leave of absence. Before making a final decision, Mr. Fleming inquired of Ms. Mazzorana whether any prior employees had requested an extended leave of absence that was non-health or non-medical related. Ms. Mazzorana provided two precedents that had occurred over a 25-year period. One situation involved a full- time employee who requested a leave of absence for six months in order to obtain an advanced degree, a Ph.D. The request was denied. Another situation involved a probationary employee who requested a six-week leave of absence to attend a religious retreat. A probationary employee did not have the right to request a leave of absence, and, as a result, his request was also denied. The County’s Leave Code, Section 8, Leave of Absence is applicable to the instant case. Section 08.01.01, as to a leave of absence generally, provides, among other things, that “A leave of absence is an approved absence without pay for a maximum period of one year.” No dispute exists that Mr. Lalla was eligible for a leave of absence as a permanent employee pursuant to Section 08.02.01. Also, Section 08.03.01 sets forth the reasons that a leave of absence may be granted, i.e., medical reasons, job- related reasons, personal reasons, and military, and provides in pertinent part: A leave of absence may be granted for the following reasons: Medical Reasons * * * Job-related Reasons Education related to the job . . . To serve as a full-time representative of an organization composed entirely of County employees To accept an exempt position For other job-related reasons in the best interest of the County service . . . Personal Reasons Education not related to the job . . . Dependent care for a child, spouse, parent or other dependent for federal income tax purposes who is physically or mentally incapable or caring for himself . . . For other personal reasons in the best interest of the County service . . . Military . . . . Additionally, Section 08.04.00 sets forth the application procedure for a leave of absence and provides in pertinent part: 08.04.01 Employees seeking a leave of absence must make a written request to their department director . . . * * * 08.04.03 The department director may request any additional information supporting the request for the leave of absence . . . 08.04.04 The department director may approve or deny requests based on the facts of each case. Approval or denial by the department director must be applied consistently and on the same terms within categories a, c and d of Leave of Absence (Section 08.03.01) although the terms for each separate category may be different. . . 08.04.05 Approval may be for the full period requested by the employee or any portion of such period. Further, Section 08.05.00 sets forth the benefits period for a leave of absence and provides in pertinent part: 08.05.01 A leave of absence may be granted for a maximum period of one year . . . and a minimum period of one pay period. Mr. Fleming considered the staff situation at the County. The County was in a hiring freeze and had lost positions. Mr. Fleming also considered the staff situation at the Data Center Division. A review by him showed that the Data Center Division was understaffed. Mr. Fleming was unable to determine how he would be able to burden the staff with the additional work, if Mr. Lalla’s request was granted, and get the work completed. Additionally, Mr. Fleming considered Mr. Lalla’s request as an academic request, with a religious course of study. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, as to the staff situation at the County and, in particular, at the Data Center Division, the inability to effectively and efficiently re-assign Mr. Lalla’s duties and responsibilities, during his one-year leave of absence, and the precedent of requests for extended leave of absence, Mr. Fleming determined that there was no reasonable basis to grant Mr. Lalla’s request. On April 7, 2008, Mr. Fleming denied Mr. Lalla’s request. Even if Mr. Lalla’s request were considered a religious request, the result would have been the same. Based on the same reasoning, Mr. Fleming would have denied a religious request. Mr. Lalla would have agreed to a shorter period of time as an accommodation to what he (Mr. Lalla) was requesting. However, neither Mr. Fleming nor Mr. Lalla suggested an accommodation of a shorter period of time for the leave of absence. Additionally, Mr. Lalla was aware that a Buddhist monastery was located in Homestead, Florida. He did not suggest to Mr. Fleming, as an option, attending the Buddhist monastery in Homestead, instead of in India. No evidence was presented that Mr. Fleming was aware of the monastery in Homestead. Ms. Mazzorana advised Mr. Lalla of the denial of his request for a leave of absence by Mr. Fleming and the reasons for the denial. She provided Mr. Lalla a copy of the completed leave of absence form that was signed by Mr. Fleming. Ms. DiPrima was also advised of the denial of Mr. Lalla’s request for the extended leave of absence. On April 14, 2008, Mr. Lalla requested approval from Ms. DiPrima for a two-week vacation beginning the next day on April 15, 2010. Among other things, he advised her that the union was attempting to get the one-year leave of absence approved; that there were certain things that he wanted to do in preparation for the one-year leave of absence; that the two-week vacation would provide him that preparation time; and that two co-workers were available to and had agreed to perform his duties during his absence. Ms. DiPrima denied Mr. Lalla’s request for the two- week vacation. She pointed out to him that there were assignments that he had not completed and that the request was not submitted sufficiently in advance to make sure that his work duties and assignments were covered. Mr. Lalla decided that he could no longer remain with the County. He decided to resign. Mr. Lalla did not discuss with anyone at ETSD that he was contemplating resigning or his decision to resign. On April 15, 2008, Mr.Lalla sent a memorandum to Human Resources regarding his resignation. He indicated, among other things, that, due to recent workplace circumstances, which “severely impacted [his] mental and spiritual health” and the denial of his request for a leave of absence, he was “forced to tender [his] resignation under duress, effective immediately.” Further, among other things, he set forth the workplace circumstances, which were, in essence, how ETSD handled the suspected security breach in the Security Office and handled him and his fellow employees in the Security Office; and set forth the circumstances of the denial of his request for a leave of absence, which he sought for “Religious and Spiritual pursuits,” attempting “to rebuild and repair [his] damaged mental and spiritual health.” Furthermore, on April 15, 2008, among other things, Mr. Lalla sent an email to Ms. DiPrima, while she was at lunch, indicating that, having reviewed what had occurred over the past 12 months, he was “forced” to resign, effective immediately, “under duress.” Further, he cleared his desk; reformatted his computer; and walked out of ETSD without speaking to anyone. The County’s policy required Mr. Lalla to give at least two weeks notice before resigning if he wanted to resign in good standing. By failing to give at least two-weeks notice, he did not resign in good standing.
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 finding that the County of Miami-Dade, FL ETSD did not commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Delano Lalla on the basis of religion and national origin and retaliated against Delano Lalla in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Delano Lalla 8051 Southwest 159th Court Miami, Florida 33193 Lee Kraftchick, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1993 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner was employed by Respondent beginning in 1985 and, at all times material hereto, was supervised by Dr. Frank A. Coliazzi. Petitioner had been made aware of the rules and policy of the Respondent in regard to unauthorized leave of absence. Specifically, Petitioner was counselled in this regard on March 26, 1986, by Dr. Frank A. Colliazzi for his unauthorized leave of absence on March 25, 1986. Petitioner knew, or should have known, that un-authorized leave of absences could result in disciplinary action or the loss of employment through abandonment. Prior to April 14, 1986, Petitioner had a history of unauthorized leave of absences. In fact, Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on April 9 & 11, 1986, after being counselled as late as March 26, 1986 in this regard. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on April 14, 15 & 16, 1986. Petitioner appeared briefly at the work place on April 15, 1986 but did not go to work and left immediately when requested to work by Dr. Colliazzi, with a promise to return to work the next morning, April 16; 1986, at 8:00 a.m. The Petitioner did not request a leave of absence at this time and did not return to work on April 16, 1986 as promised. Respondent's certified letter of April 16, 1986, informing Petitioner that Respondent considered him to have abandoned his position because of his three (3) consecutive days of unauthorized leave was not received by Petitioner until April 24, 1986 due to Petitioner's failure to notify Respondent of his change of address. However, Petitioner was made aware of the letter and its contents by Maxine Fields on April 21, 1986. Petitioner's failure to return to work on April 17 & 18, 1986, lends support to Respondent's contention that Petitioner had abandoned his job since Petitioner was not aware of Respondent's position on his abandonment until April 21, 1986. At no time relevant to this proceeding was leave requested by Petitioner or granted by Respondent. Although Petitioner received notice of the hearings, he failed to appear at either one and present evidence in rebuttal to Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the Respondent in deeming the Petitioner to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service was correct and affirming such action. RESPECTFULLY ENTERED and SUBMITTED this 25th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2604 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(1), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 & 8. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 & 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Judy Waldman, Esquire General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Barbara Wingo, Esquire Associate General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 James H. Foster 3216 Lancastor Lane Tampa, Florida 33619 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Claudia W. Holland, is a teacher employed in the public schools of Broward County, Florida for a period of approximately 31 years and presently holds Florida Teaching Certificate number 13983, Post Graduate, Rank Two. She is presently employed in the public schools in a non-teaching capacity. To substantiate the allegations of the petition filed herein seeking revocation of the Respondent's certificate, the Petitioner called several student witnesses who were either students of the Respondent or were the alleged victims of the "unprofessional, unethical and unauthorized conduct" allegedly engaged in by the Respondent. My careful examination of the testimony of those witnesses revealed glaring inconsistencies in their testimony and for reasons hereinafter stated, cannot provide a basis to support the ultimate penalty of revocation of the Respondent's teaching certificate. This conclusion is based on an examination of the testimony of the numerous student witnesses who testified at the hearing. Without reciting their testimony in detail, I will summarize such testimony and at the outset point out that their testimony was inter alia, contradictory, evasive and generally uncreditable when the testimony is compared to that of other witnesses including that of the Respondent. A summary of pertinent portions of such witnesses' testimony follows. Shirley Smith, a student of the Respondent testified that on the occasion in which Respondent allegedly pushed them into the lockers and struck two students on their legs with a ruler, the incident came about when they (the affected students), admittedly showed up for class after the bell rang. Smith had trouble unlocking her locker and was unable to unlock it until after the bell rang. When the bell rang, she appeared for class along with several other students. Respondent told those students who entered the class after the bell rang to stay outside. It appears that just about the time they were leaving the classroom, an announcement came over the public address system and those late students stayed to hear the announcement. Respondent noticing that they were not leaving the classroom, struck Shirley Smith and Kim Schwab on their legs. (Testimony of Shirley Smith) Smith testified that Respondent often used a yard stick to attract students' attention when they were unruly or were unattentive. Smith testified that when she noticed Kim Schwab's bruise on her leg, it was red. (TR 70) During her testimony, Smith testified that no bruise was left on Kim Schwab's leg. In this respect, her testimony contradicts that of a statement written by her immediately after the occurrence allegedly took place. (See Respondent's Exhibit #2, TR. 71). Likewise, the testimony of Kathryn Smith, also one of Respondent's former students who was allegedly "picked off the classroom floor approximately 18 inches by her neck and thereby scuffed her shoes when she was pushed into a locker by Respondent." Throughout her testimony, Smith testified that she was unsure of the statements to which she was testifying. She testified that approximately one minute after Kim Schwab was struck by Respondent, a black mark had appeared on her leg. In this regard, her testimony also contradicts that contained in a written statement by her given immediately following the incident (See Respondent's Exhibit #1). Kim Schwab, also a student who was struck by Respondent while listening to an intercom message at the doorway of Respondent's classroom, testified that the bruise was all red until she went to the clinic where bactine was administered. Ms. Schwab testified that Respondent would call students "fools" when they would fail to do their class assignments or for example when they lost their work folders. She denied that Respondent engaged in any other name calling. She also corroborated the statements of other student witnesses to the effect that Respondent used the ruler from time to time to attract students' attention. She testified that she was struck after Kathy Smith was pushed. However, she did not see Kathy being pushed into the locker (when she allegedly scuffed her shoes) although she was standing right next to her. On the other hand, the Respondent, a teacher in the school system for approximately 31 years testified openly, frankly and candidly about her duties as a teacher and with respect to the allegations leveled against her. She admitted as charged that she occasionally used the term "nigger" and "cracker." However, she testified that she used cliches as teaching tools and at no time intended such to derogate her students or to cast racial slurs toward them. She told of how she requested her students to engage in a discussion respecting the use of the terms "nigger" and "cracker" by having them turn to the dictionary and reflect on the meaning of such terms as they relate to the races with some reflection on the connotation that such words have traditionally meant in the past. (TR. 284 -286) She also admitted to the use of the term "jackass" on one occasion to criticize a disruptive student. She denied ever calling student "fools" although she admitted to the use of the term "silly" when a student engaged in acts and/or conduct which in her opinion amounted to such. She further denied calling students "crazy" or calling a student a homosexual as alleged. In this regard, she testified that one student called a fellow student a "gay" whereupon she asked that student what he meant. That student replied that he (meaning the other student) was a homosexual. Finally, she denied throwing books, staplers, etc. at students as alleged and the testimony of other student witnesses seem to bear her testimony out in this regard. Respecting the allegation that the Respondent used threatening gestures with a meter and yard stick and a hammer while teaching, the evidence reveals that Respondent used the sticks to tap on her desk to gain disruptive students' attention and that a hammer which had been brought to the classroom to nail decorative posters on the bulletin board was used by her in the classroom one day in a gavel-like fashion. There was no testimony adduced whatsoever to so much as imply that she used the hammer to hurt students. Turning to the allegation that Respondent "administered illegal corporal punishment . . . by pushing, shoving and scratching students," the evidence falls short. Aside from the noted inconsistencies in the testimony of those students who were allegedly the victims of such behavior and/or conduct, the Respondent's version appears much more believable and creditable. For example, it is all but impossible to conclude that Respondent could even lift a student by her neck, let alone lift a student some 18 inches by her neck as testified to by the alleged victim. Moreover, it was noted that those students who were standing in the immediate vicinity of the alleged activity denied that such conduct occurred. We are therefore left with the situation where we have a substantiated allegation that Respondent either in an effort to eject students from her classroom or force them where they belong, struck one student, Kim Schwab. The Respondent does not deny that she might have struck Kim Schwab while trying to get she and other students to either take their seats or leave the classroom after the bell had sounded. In so doing however, there is no testimony indicating that she used more force than was necessary under the circumstances or that in fact her striking the student (Schwab) was intentional. Evidence reveals that after the incident occurred, the matter was called to her attention by the school administrator whereupon the Respondent could not even recall whether or not she in fact hit the student. However, that evening she grappled with the fact that she might have struck the student for several hours in an effort to try and recall all that actually happened. No similar incidences occurred during the remainder of the school year. It was noted as Respondent's counsel points out that Section 232.27, Florida Statutes, entitled "Authority of Teacher" provides, inter alia: . . . each teacher or other member of the staff of any school shall have such authority for the control and discipline of students as may be assigned to him by the principal or his designated representative and shall keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which he is assigned to be in charge of students. This statutory pronouncement as interrupted in Williams v. Cotton, 346 So.2d 1039, 1041 (1st DCA, 1977), is that: "this statute, in authorizing - in fact requiring - a teacher to keep 'good order' in his classroom necessarily implies the power to the teacher to use reasonable physical force (not amounting to corporal punishment) to do so. Without such reasonable implied power, the requirement to keep 'good order' would be meaningless". In addition, Section 232.275, F.S., entitled "Liability of Teacher or Principal" provides: Except in case of excessive force or cruel and unusual punishment, a teacher or other member of the instructional staff, a principal or his designated representative, or a bus driver may not be civilly or criminally liable for any action carried out in conformity with the state board and district school board rules, regarding the control, discipline, suspension and expulsion of students. This authority seemed to point out that the Respondent at least had the right to use reasonable force to insure the maintenance of a tranquil teaching atmosphere. Additionally, it was noted that on one occasion the Respondent was counselled regarding her teaching methods and when corrective measures were requested of her, she took appropriate action to remedy the situation. (Testimony of Respondent and Warren Smith, Principal). Chapter 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, permits the suspension and revocation of a teaching certificate when the person charged has been found guilty of personal conduct "which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board." Admittedly, there existed problems with respect to the Respondent's teaching practices and for which she should perhaps be reprimanded as provided in the Board's rules. However, the statutory provision upon which revocation is here sought rests on a finding that the conduct engaged in by Respondent is that level of conduct which "seriously reduces her effectiveness as a school board employee." While the evidence is clear that the Respondent, in an effort to eject several late students from her class, struck Kim Schwab, there was no showing by competent and substantial evidence in the record that this in any manner reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. (See for example Boyette v. State, Professional Practices Council, 346 So.2d 598 (1st DCA, 1977). For these reasons, I conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet its quantum of proof in the manner required to warrant suspension of the Respondent's teaching certificate. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the petition filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of November, 1977. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1572 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Suite 990, Lincoln Center Tallahassee, Florida 33609 Mr. Edward Kuhn Broward County Courthouse Room 248 201 Southeast 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may lawfully discipline Respondent due to excessive absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a police officer in the Operations Division of the Cape Coral Police Department (Department) from October 5, 1987, through approximately April 27, 1998, when Petitioner terminated her employment. As detailed below, Petitioner monthly provides its employees with a specified amount of leave, based on their years of service. Petitioner credits all leave in a single account. Employees then draw on their leave account by taking scheduled and unscheduled leave. This case involves Respondent's use of allegedly excessive amounts of leave. In 1989, Respondent used 125.76 hours of unscheduled leave. On May 23, 1989, she received an interim performance evaluation noting that she was "below acceptable" in unscheduled leave time and needed to improve her relations with other employees. On October 13, 1989, she received an annual performance evaluation stating that she had had 18 days "sick leave" in the preceding 12 months and was below "operational standard" in attendance and relations with others; all of her other categories were marked as meeting operational standard. The attached narrative notes a "slight improvement" since her May 1989 interim performance evaluation. In 1990, Respondent used 198.5 hours of unscheduled leave. Her October 12, 1990, annual performance evaluation states that Respondent was again below operational standard in attendance with 23.25 days of "sick leave." She had raised her relations with others to operational standard and work habits to above operational standard. The narrative attached to the evaluation states that the evaluator has spent a sizable amount of time conferring with Susan regarding causes to her illnesses and resulting time off due to illness. Officer Von Halla does have problems with migraine's and when she experiences one, she is [less than] an effective part of the shift in fulfilling her normal duties. I have tried to understand why she experiences so many migraines and have suggested different activities (i.e. physical exercise, stress reduction). I am confident that despite the significant amount of time taken due to illness, when this officer calls in sick, she is sick and does not use this time for other unknown reasons. I feel, currently, Officer Von Halla is attempting to minimize the amount of times she calls in sick. Despite some improvement recently, Officer Von Halla still is in need of progress in this area so her time reserved starts reflecting this. The narrative concludes that Respondent can improve her weak point, which is attendance, by "finding new ways to minimize the migraine potential and making a genuine effort towards this." Another evaluative document speaks in a very different tone from the annual performance evaluation, which is signed by a sergeant who was Respondent's immediate supervisor. On October 2, 1990--only 10 days before the 1990 annual evaluation-- a captain reviewed Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and warned: you are hereby notified that this level of unscheduled leave time usage will no longer be tolerated. You will be required to achieve a level of usage that is consistent with the national and department average which equates to approximately sixty hours per year, or five hours per month. If you fail to maintain this rate between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990 I will request that the Chief of Police consider terminating your employment effective January 1, 1991. If you are successful, you will be expected to maintain this average with the exception of documented major medical complications that require the use of extended leave. By memorandum dated December 14, 1990, from the captain to the police chief, the captain stated: On October 2, 1990, I advised Officer Von Halla that she would be required to maintain an acceptable level of unscheduled leave usage through December 31, 1990. The level of usage was established at five (5) hours per month, or a total of 15 hours for the period of October 2, 1990, through December 31, 1990. . . . Since October 2, 1990, Officer Von Halla has chosen to utilize forty (40) hours of leave. Thirty-two (32) hours were for illness as noted by her chiropractor and eight (8) for unexpected visitors. The captain's memorandum reasons: "In analyzing Officer Von Halla's unscheduled leave, it is clear that her utilization of unscheduled leave far exceeds any norms and Officer Von Halla is clearly abusing this city benefit." The memorandum states that, after consulting with the city attorney and city manager, the captain was recommending that Petitioner initiate termination proceedings against Respondent. By memorandum dated January 17, 1991, the captain asked a lieutenant to convene a Command Review Board to evaluate Respondent's excessive absenteeism and her violation of three groups of general orders prohibiting feigning of illness and failing to perform duties, abusing sick leave, and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the Department. The memorandum explains the last alleged violation as noting that the department had had to use 66 hours of overtime, at a cost of $1125, to cover shift shortages caused by Respondent's unscheduled absences. The Command Review Board sustained the allegation that Respondent had abused her unscheduled leave, but rejected the allegations of feigning illness and failing to perform duties and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the department. Accordingly, the Command Review Board recommended that the police chief suspend Respondent without pay for one day. By memorandum dated February 2, 1991, the police chief adopted the findings and determinations of the Command Review Board and suspended Respondent for one day. By memorandum dated February 14, 1991, Respondent protested the proposed discipline and demanded a hearing. The arbitrator entered a decision on June 24, 1991, that the police chief had just cause for suspending Respondent for one day without pay. Respondent served this suspension. The next annual performance evaluation is dated January 25, 1992. Respondent earned marks of above operational standard in job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, work habits, and appearance. Her only mark of below operational standard was in attendance. In the preceding 15.5 months, Respondent had used 18 days of "sick leave" and had one day without pay, due to her exhaustion of leave. From May 1990 through April 1991, Respondent used 148 hours of unscheduled leave. The evaluations and memoranda from 1992 through 1994 are largely the same: average or above-average performance in all areas but attendance. The records note only the excessive use of unscheduled leave, but do not attribute the use to fraud. From January 13, 1994 through December 26, 1997, Respondent used 691.72 hours of unscheduled leave. On February 12, 1995, the former captain, now a major, recommended that the Department suspend Respondent without pay for three days due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, the police chief, "with some reluctance," concurred with the recommendation of three days' suspension. On April 18, 1995, a Departmental disciplinary review board met and failed to agree on corrective action. The board recommended only that the Department remove Respondent from field duty and place her in a noncritical position. Upon further deliberations, the board agreed upon a two-day suspension. Respondent served this suspension in June 1995, and the following month a quarterly evaluation dated July 1, 1995, notes that she was still using unscheduled leave. A memorandum dated September 10, 1995, notes that Respondent used 213 hours of unscheduled leave in the first eight months of 1995. By memorandum dated September 20, 1995, the major and three of his subordinates, including the person with immediate supervisory authority over Respondent, recommended to the police chief that the Department terminate Respondent due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. Rejecting the recommendation for termination, the police chief imposed a 30-day suspension without pay, based partly on the assurance of Respondent's physician that the cause of her constant illness had been corrected. Respondent served her suspension from November 22- December 21, 1995. Quarterly evaluations in June 1996 and March 1997 note some improvement in the use of unscheduled leave. From October 1996 through September 17, 1997, Respondent used 180 hours of unscheduled sick leave. From October 1, 1997, through January 26, 1998, Respondent used 82 hours of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated January 26, 1998, the major advised the police chief of Respondent's continued use of unscheduled leave and recommended termination. By notice to Respondent from the police chief dated February 13, 1998, the chief advised Respondent that he was considering disciplinary action, including termination. The notice cites the following grounds from Article Seven, Section C, Ordinance 50-94: excessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work, violation of Department work rules or operating procedures, actions or conduct detrimental to Petitioner's interests, or any other properly substantiated cause that adversely affects Petitioner. The notice alleges that Respondent's conduct also violates department General Order D-1.IV.36, which prohibits excessive use of unscheduled leave. The notice summarizes Respondent's past use of unscheduled leave and the discipline that she had received. The notice asserts that she had used 96 hours of unscheduled leave in the past four months. By letter dated March 12, 1998, Respondent advised the police chief that her ear, nose, and throat physician had placed her on Predisone, which had eliminated her debilitating headaches. By letter dated March 16, 1998, the police chief provided Respondent final notice of proposed disciplinary action for the four grounds mentioned in the prior notice. Respondent has raised an issue of disparate treatment. However, the record fails to reveal other, similarly situated employees with comparable patterns of usage of unscheduled leave. The record contains a detailed record of Respondent's relevant payroll history from January 1, 1994, through May 1, 1998, on which date Petitioner terminated her. By year, these records disclose the following totals of hours for unscheduled leave and leave without pay, the latter of which is due to Respondent's exhaustion of her granted leave: 1994--190 and 48.22; 1995--201 and 148; 1996--94 and 42; 1997--174 and 58; and 1998 (four months)--32.72 and 0. The respective totals are 691.72 and 296.22 hours. Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and leave without pay far exceed the averages for the Department. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit, which is represented by the Florida State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Petitioner and FOP negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in effect from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 2000 (Agreement). Article 3, Section 1, of the Agreement provides: Except as specifically abridged or modified by a provision of this Agreement, City will continue to have, whether exercised or not, all of the rights, powers and authority heretofore existing, including, but not limited to, the following: . . . to hire, transfer, promote and demote employees; to direct employees, to take disciplinary action up to, and including, termination; to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; [and] to issue rules and regulations . . .. Article 10, Section 2, of the Agreement describes the forms of discipline as follows: In accordance with Police Department General Order D-1 (as dated April 1, 1993), forms of corrective action will be utilized by City with the approval of the Police Chief shall include: Counseling or Re-Training--to correct and improve employee performance; Reprimand--a written statement warning the employee of the consequence of future misconduct of a similar nature; Suspension-- suspension from duty without pay; Demotion--a change to a position of lesser responsibility and salary; and Termination--dismissal from the Police Department. Article 10, Section 3, of the Agreement provides that Petitioner shall use "[p]rogressive corrective action," unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action. Article 11 of the Agreement provides that Petitioner may take disciplinary action against an employee for "just cause." Article 15, Section 1(a), of the Agreement grants employees with five or less years of continuous service 25 days of annual leave per year. Article 15, Section 1(b), grants employees with 6-10 years of continuous service 30 days of annual leave per year. The remaining subsections grant more leave based on years of service. Article 15, Section 1(g), of the Agreement provides: The use of annual leave for other than illness must be scheduled with the employee's supervisor. In case of illness, an employee must notify his/her supervisor not later than two (2) hours before the beginning of the scheduled work day or in accordance with Police Department Rules and Regulations. The Agreement provides that Petitioner may discipline covered employees for "just cause," but does not identify what constitutes "just cause." Ordinance 50-94 (Ordinance) sets forth the rules and regulations governing all of Petitioner's employees. Article One, Section B.2, states that the Ordinance covers employees who are parties to a collective bargaining agreement, "except that in the event of a conflict between the terms of this Ordinance and the collective bargaining agreement, the collective bargaining agreement shall govern." Article Six, Section E, provides that an employee may be dismissed for "just cause," but that the department head must comply with the procedures in Article Seven prior to termination. Article Seven, Section B, requires progressive discipline for "the same or similar conduct by the employee," although Petitioner reserves the right to impose the most severe discipline as an initial measure "when circumstances warrant." Article Seven, Section C, cites several grounds for discipline, including "[g]ross neglect of duty or specific serious failure to perform assigned duties"; "[m]ental or physical impairment, normally as supported by written documentation from not less than two licensed physicians, that prevents the employee, even with reasonable accommodation, from performing the essential functions of his or her position"; "[a]bsence without leave, or failure to give proper notice of absence"; "[e]xcessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work"; "[v]iolation of Department work rules or operating procedures"; "[a]ctions or conduct detrimental to the interests of the City"; or "[a]ny other properly substantiated cause which adversely affects the City." Article Seven, Section D, requires that the employee proceed with a grievance for proposed discipline under the ordinance or collective bargaining agreement. Section E.5 describes the hearing conducted under the ordinance, which is the procedure that Respondent elected, and states, at Subsubsection 7, that the Administrative Law Judge is to determine if Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence "just cause" for the discipline. Subsubsection 8 provides that the order is a final order. Subsubsection 9 provides for judicial review. Article Eleven describes attendance and leave. Section A.6.a provides that fulltime employees shall be present at their assigned jobs, "unless absence from duty is authorized by the Department Head as provided herein." Section A.6.c states in part: Excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness shall be grounds for disciplinary action. For purposes of this paragraph, "excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness" shall mean use which is in excess of the average number of hours and/or occurrences of unscheduled leave taken by other City employees in the same or similar positions . . .. Article Seven, Section E.3, defines unscheduled leave as that which the employee requests and the supervisor approves on the day that it is taken. This section states: "An employee's excessive use of unscheduled leave may be grounds for disciplinary action." Section E.1 contains a schedule for the accrual of leave, and the applicable monthly accrual rate, which increases with seniority, applies to the total of each employee's scheduled and unscheduled leave. Department General Order D-1 (General Order), as last revised on December 11, 1995, provides, at Section II, that it applies to [ALL] members of the Department. This section states that the police chief will use progressive discipline, "unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action." Section IV prohibits various acts, including feigning illness, avoiding responsibility, or failing to perform one's duties; "excessive use of unscheduled leave"; or engaging in conduct that adversely affects the morale and efficiency of the department. By memorandum dated July 20, 1987, a major in the Department advised all operations division personnel that absences, "regardless of cause," weaken the Department's ability to serve the public though personnel shortages, increase personnel costs due to overtime to cover absences, and increase burdens on other employees. The safety of the public and law enforcement officers requires a minimum staffing of law enforcement officers on each shift. The absence of a scheduled officer requires that the Department pay overtime for an unscheduled officer to report for duty. The record does not demonstrate that unscheduled absences of an officer, up to the total amount of granted leave, compromise the safety of the public or other officers. The contrary inference is precluded in part by the fact that, in the Agreement, Petitioner grants each officer a certain amount of leave and does not further restrict the officer's choice to use his or her granted leave as unscheduled leave. However, the use of unscheduled leave in excess of the granted leave is not anticipated by the Agreement and may compromise the safety of the public and other officers.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, 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 15th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 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) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was absent from work without authorization for three consecutive workdays so that she is deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned as a Career Service employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Viola D. Cooper began her employment with Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 19, 1987. She held the position of Support Service Aide at the Landmark Learning Center in Opa Locka, Florida. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains attendance and leave policies. She signed a receipt for the handbook which acknowledged that she understood it was her responsibility to review the handbook in detail. On several occasions, Petitioner was counseled by her immediate supervisor regarding the proper procedures to follow when Petitioner would be late reporting to work and when Petitioner wanted to use some of the leave time available to her. Additionally, on August 8, 1988, Petitioner received a written reprimand from her supervisor for being absent from work without authorized leave. That written reprimand recited that Petitioner was scheduled to work on July 5, 1988, and that she failed to come to work and failed to call. She was, accordingly, assessed eight hours of leave without pay for that particular day and was advised that a future violation of absence without authorized leave would result in disciplinary action ranging from a 10-day suspension to dismissal. She was further reminded in that written reprimand that she was required to request leave when she was going to take time off from work. On May 3, 1989, Petitioner advised her then supervisor Barbara Butler that she intended to take off some time to visit her sick mother, that she did not know exactly when she would be doing that, and that she did not know how long she would be gone. She told Butler she did not want to use any of her annual leave (vacation) time available to her; instead, she wished to take leave without pay so as to not use her annual leave time for that purpose. Her supervisor again advised her as to the proper procedures and further advised her that if she wished to take leave without pay such a request must be presented in writing in advance to Edward Dixon, the Food Service Director at Landmark. Petitioner understood the instructions given to her by Butler. She advised Butler that she would attempt to finish working the rest of that week but that if she found out that she needed to go even in the middle of the night, she would do so. Petitioner worked May 4 and May 5, 1989. During the time period of May 3 when Butler advised her to follow the proper procedures and informed her, once again, as to what the proper procedures were, through May 5, her last day of work, Petitioner submitted no request for leave to her supervisor and made no request of Dixon for authorized leave without pay. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on May 6 and 7, a Saturday and a Sunday. From Monday, May 8, 1989, through Thursday, May 11, 1989, Petitioner failed to report to work. Petitioner had not requested that she be permitted to take leave from her work assignment, and no authorization had been given to her by anyone to not report for work on those days. Butler advised Dixon that Petitioner had stated that she might be taking time off to visit her mother, and Dixon's subsequent attempt to contact Petitioner to ascertain why she had failed to report to work for four consecutive days was unsuccessful. By certified letter dated May 11, 1989, Dixon and Ulysses Davis, Superintendent at Landmark Learning Center, advised Petitioner that she had not called in or reported to work on May 8 through May 11 and, therefore, she had abandoned her position and was deemed to have resigned from the Career Service. They further advised Petitioner that her resignation would be effective on the date she received the letter or on the date that they received the undelivered letter directed to her. Petitioner received that letter on May 19, 1989. Between May 8, 1989, and May 19, 1989, Petitioner had made no contact with anyone at Landmark Learning Center. By May 19, 1989, Petitioner had been absent without leave for 10 consecutive workdays. On May 19, Petitioner appeared at Landmark Learning Center to pick up her pay check. Although she went to the food service area while she was at Landmark, she did not speak to Butler, Dixon, or anyone else regarding her lengthy unauthorized absence or her failure to request leave in advance of failing to appear for work. Similarly, she failed to speak to anyone in Landmark's personnel office regarding her failure to request leave time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays and is therefore deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of December, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3538 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact contained in her paragraphs numbered 1-3 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Judd-Edwards Assistant Regional Director 2171 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142 Julie Waldman and Caridad Planas, Esquire 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue 5-424 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner from December, 1982 to December, 1987 as a tariff clerk, a permanent career service position. On September 23, 1987 Respondent became ill and left work without informing her supervisor, Jill Hurd, or her co-workers. Hurd was available on September 23 and 24, 1987 if Respondent had tried to explain her absence or request leave authorization. Respondent presented Health Status Certificates to Petitioner signed by M. R. Grate, Jr., M.D., dated October 30, November 11 and 18, 1987 which certified her inability to return to work from October 27 through November 30, 1987, during which time she was under his care. On the basis of these certificates, Petitioner authorized her sick leave from October 27 to November 30, 1987. Respondent did return to work on December 2, 1987, but was again absent on consecutive work days of December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. On December 3, 1987, Respondent sent a note to Hurd, via her husband, stating she did not feel well and would not be in to work. On December 4, 1987 her husband again brought Hurd a note stating Respondent would not be in because her baby was ill. Respondent's husband called Hurd on December 7, 1987 to state that she was still ill and would not be in to work. Hurd stated that Respondent needed to get back to work. At no time did Respondent request leave for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, nor was she approved for leave. She simply informed her supervisor, Hurd, through her husband that she was not coming to work each day. Prior to these unauthorized absences in December, 1987, Respondent had received a memorandum from Hurd on January 14, 1987 setting forth specific instructions for calling in sick following a number of unauthorized absences. Respondent was specifically instructed to call her supervisor, Hurd, each morning by 8:30 a.m. when she wanted to take sick leave. Despite this instruction, Respondent never called Hurd on December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, but simply had her husband deliver notes and messages to Hurd on her behalf. This prevented Hurd from discussing with Respondent the extent of her illness and when she expected to return to work. On November 25, 1987 Respondent had an appointment with Dr. Grate, who signed another Health Status Certificate for the period November 30 to December 11, 1987 indicating she remained under his care and was still unable to return to work. However, despite the fact she did report to work on December 2, 1987 and had been given specific instructions about how to apply for sick leave, she never presented Dr. Grate's Health Status Certificate dated November 25, 1987 to Hurd, or anyone else associated with Petitioner, until the hearing in this case. Therefore, Respondent did not present proper medical certification of illness for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, and instead simply failed to report to work, or to in any way attempt to personally contact her supervisor. A letter dated December 7, 1987 notifying Respondent of her abandonment of position and of her right to a hearing was sent to Respondent from Petitioner's Executive Director by certified mail, return receipt requested. Respondent's husband signed for this letter on December 9, 1987, and Respondent acknowledges receipt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter Final Order concluding that Respondent has abandoned her position with Petitioner in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave, for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-0161) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact cannot be made since her post-hearing submission shows no indication that a copy was provided to counsel for Petitioner, despite specific instruction at hearing, and the narrative contained in her letter consists of serial unnumbered paragraphs which primarily present argument on the evidence rather than true proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Public Service Commission 212 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Harold McLean, Esquire Public Service Commission Office of General Counsel 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Norma D. Saabir P. O. Box 5802 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5802 =================================================================
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Willie L. Claridy was an employee of the Department of Transportation for 2 or 3 years and was under the immediate supervision of Daniel E. Skinner at the Sarasota Maintenance Office for approximately a year, including March and early April of 1984. On or about Monday, March 26, 1984, while in the outside shop area at his place of employment, Mr. Claridy mentioned taking a vacation to some fellow employees. He said he was going home to a family reunion. The employees moved into the office area, and the conversation continued. Mr. Skinner, who was petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Claridy, and two others were present in the office. During the conversation in the office, Mr. Claridy stated that he was going to take a vacation; however, he never specifically asked for leave, he was not told that he could have leave, and no specific dates were mentioned. 1/ Although Mr. Skinner could not recall the discussion regarding Mr. Claridy's vacation, he admitted that it could have taken place. However, Mr. Claridy never signed a leave slip requesting leave, and Mr. Skinner never signed a leave slip approving leave. Nevertheless, Mr. Claridy did not report for work on April 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, 1984, and did not contact his office during that time. The Employee Handbook, received by Mr. Claridy on April 20, 1983, clearly states that an employee must obtain the approval of his supervisor before taking leave. Neither the handbook nor the memorandum to employees of January 1982 states that prior approval must be in writing, although the language in the handbook implies that it should be. However, Mr. Claridy was fully aware of the procedure that he needed to follow in requesting leave. On two earlier occasions when Mr. Claridy had wanted time off he had submitted leave slips and received approval from his supervisor prior to his absences from work. Mr. Claridy's stated reason for not submitting a leave slip in this case in advance of his absence is neither accurate nor credible. He testified that he thought he might get called back to work during the course of his leave time due to a shortage of mechanics, and, if this occurred and he had submitted the leave slip, he would not have gotten paid for his time. 2/ However, the evidence at the hearing indicated that Mr. Claridy did not plan to be and was not in town during his absence from work, and therefore could not have been called into work. 3/ Further, Mr. Claridy stated that they might need him because they were short of help but also testified that "[w]e were caught up with all our work." Finally Mr. Claridy's return to work during a period of time when he was on authorized leave would not have adversely affected his pay or his annual leave time, and Mr. Claridy would have discovered this had he made any inquiries. Mr. Skinner did not approve Mr. Claridy's leave time nor did he inform Mr. Claridy that he could submit a leave slip after his vacation. Consequently Mr. Claridy's absence from work on April 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th was unauthorized. Mr. Claridy had received the Employee Handbook and the memorandum of January 1982 which informed him that three consecutive absences without authorized leave would result in termination of employment. Mr. Claridy was properly informed by certified letter dated April 5, 1984, that having failed to report for work during the period in question and having failed to take action to notify his supervisor of the reasons for the absence he was deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the Department of Transportation in deeming the petitioner to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service was correct and affirming such action. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 18th day of December, 1985.
