The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner’s reclassification and transfer from career service to the selected exempt service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), was valid and lawful. All citations are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 1, 2001, Petitioner was a career service employee of Respondent, for whom she had worked since 1988. On that date, Petitioner was involuntarily reclassified as a selected exempt employee of Respondent. Both before and after her reclassification, Petitioner’s job required her to act as a liaison and contract administrator for technical consulting contracts relating to Respondent’s information technology systems. Respondent contends that it reclassified Ms. Georgalis to selected exempt service in July 2001 as a result of amendments to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statues. Consequently, the Section then read, in pertinent part, as follows: (2) EXEMPT POSITIONS.--The exempt positions that are not covered by this part include the following: * * * (x) Effective July 1, 2001, managerial employees, as defined in s. 447.203(4), confidential employees, as defined in s. 447.203(5), and supervisory employees who spend the majority of their time communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees' work, and who have the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees or effectively recommend such action, including all employees serving as supervisors, administrators, and directors. Respondent reclassified all persons who were "Level VI managers and Level 5 supervisors" to select exempt service as a result of the content of Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes. Respondent did not confirm that the responsibilities and duties of the position occupied by Petitioner necessitated reclassification to select exempt employee status. Petitioner’s job duties were substantively different from other persons within the DP Level VI occupational group.1 Petitioner did not primarily oversee the work of Respondent's employees as required by the career service exemption. Moreover, she did not even oversee the work of non-governmental supplemental or augment persons who were providing services that could otherwise be provided by departmental employees, assuming such oversight is relevant to the statutory exemption. Petitioner's role was primarily that of liaison and coordinator between Respondent's management and end users of Respondent’s planned technology services, including Respondent's employees who would use the technology that was being developed, as well as construction companies and engineers outside Respondent's department who would ultimately use such technology in working on department's construction projects in the future. Another part of her duties was the administration of contracts between the Department and outside contractors, and in doing so she dealt with independent subcontractor technical consultants who had subcontracts with those outside contractors. These technical subcontractor consultants were not augment employees, and Petitioner was not knowledgeable enough to supervise them on a technical basis. In Petitioner's words, "They spoke an entirely different language." She presented them with broad goals formulated by higher management and served as the conduit to inform them as to whether their work product was acceptable to Respondent and other end users. Petitioner’s job description, both before and after her transfer, confirmed that her position was a “senior level career service data processing position.” She was not required to spend the majority of her time “communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees’ work.” Petitioner was only expected to spend approximately 10 percent of her time overseeing the work of the two state employees working in her area. As established by her testimony, Petitioner never spent more than 3 percent of her time supervising those state employees. Furthermore, the two state employees assigned to specialized technologies were supervised by another employee after the Summer of 2001. At hearing, Respondent's only witness, suggested that Petitioner spent 60 percent of her time supervising “employees,” but he did not know what percentage of that time was spent overseeing the work of career service employees. Testimony of Respondent's witness, Nelson Hill, in this regard is not credited in view of his admission that he was not housed in the Rhynne Building in 2001, where Petitioner was located, and thus had no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day activities of Petitioner or the other persons working at that building. In any event, a majority of the persons which Hill contends were “supervised” by Petitioner (six out of eight) were not employees of Respondent, but were rather independent subcontractors whose services Respondent retained through contracts with outside third parties. These technical consultants were subcontractors under state approved contracts. They were not “hired” by Respondent. Further, they were not paid by the State, but were rather compensated pursuant to their agreement with the third party state contractor. They were not provided with any insurance, pension, unemployment or worker’s compensation benefits, but were instead treated as true independent contractors; and, most importantly, they were not protected by career service protections, as would have been required if they were indeed state employees. In sum, Respondent's position, as expounded by Hill at the final hearing, is that the application of the exemption provided in Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes, may be justifiably applied to Petitioner due to Petitioner's alleged oversight of the independent subcontractors even though they were not “employees” of Respondent.2 The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner spent a majority of her time “supervising” anyone. Petitioner’s position description confirms that her contract administration activities consumed no more than 35 percent of her time. By that description, Petitioner was required to provide “daily direction of consultant activities” and “manage, direct, and supervise technical and administrative staff." In actuality, Petitioner spent less than 25 percent of her time in such activities. Petitioner spent the vast majority of her time gathering and transmitting information regarding technological and budgetary needs and facilitating the flow of information from the end users (i.e., Respondent's employees or outside construction contractors and engineers who would use the proposed technology) to Respondent management and back again. Any oversight provided by Petitioner to the technical consultants was exactly the same as that provided to other third-party companies with which Respondent had contracts. These outside companies and technical consultants were engaged by Respondent because they had the skill to achieve the goals that were presented to them within the budget that was established by Respondent. Petitioner's interaction with these persons was not “supervision” of a state employee, but rather “contract administration.” Petitioner’s position descriptions specifically confirm that she was not a “managerial” or “confidential” employee as that term is defined in Section 447.203(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, based on the duties and responsibilities contained in Petitioner’s position description and the actual duties she performed, there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner was subject to exemption from career service as concluded by Respondent in July 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Transportation should enter a final order finding that the position held by Petitioner Mavis R. Georgalis on July 1, 2001, was not properly classified into the selected exempt service. Petitioner was, and should continue to be, classified as a career service employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. 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 2nd day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was formerly employed as a Tax Auditor II in Respondent's Fort Lauderdale office. In May, 1987, Petitioner filed a charge against Respondent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charge was docketed as Charge No. 150871115. Eleven months later, Petitioner filed a second charge against Respondent with the EEOC. This second charge was docketed as Charge No. 150881243. By letter dated May 3, 1988, Petitioner requested that he be granted leave without pay "until both EEOC investigations [were) over." Petitioner's request resulted in a memorandum of understanding and agreement between Petitioner and the Acting Director of Respondent's Division of Audits, Glenn Bedonie. The memorandum was signed by Bedonie on May 9, 1988, and by Petitioner the following day. It provided in pertinent part as follows: This memorandum will confirm our agreement that the Department is granting your request for leave without pay until such time as the two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations are completed and the findings or conclusions are rendered and final. This action is based upon your voluntary request dated May 3, 1988 attached herein. You will remain on approved leave without pay commencing at 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, 1988 for (12) twelve calendar months or until a finding or conclusion has been rendered and becomes final by the EEOC in both of the above EEOC investigations. If a finding is not so rendered in both investigations within (12) calendar months, and if you make a timely request to this office the Department agrees to request an extension from the Department of Administration of your leave of absence without pay under Rule 22A- 8.016(2), F.A.C. Such extension is to last until such time as an investigative finding or conclusion is rendered and becomes final in both investigations. On May 10, 1988, the same day he signed the foregoing memorandum of understanding and agreement, Petitioner advised his supervisor in writing that the following were "two addresses where mail will reach me:" P.O. Box 22-2825, Hollywood, Florida 33022 and 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33016. Petitioner did not indicate any other manner in which he could be contacted. By letter dated August 31, 1988, Petitioner and Respondent were informed that the EEOC's Miami District Director had determined, with respect to Charge No. 150871115, that the evidence obtained during the investigation [did] not establish a violation of the statute." The letter also contained the following advisement: This determination does not conclude the processing of this charge. If the charging Party wishes to have this determination reviewed, he must submit a signed letter to the Determination Review Program which clearly sets forth the reasons for requesting the review and which lists the Charge Number and Respondent's name. Charging Party must also attach a copy of this Determination to his letter. These documents must be personally delivered or mailed (postmarked) on or before 09-14-88 to the Determinations Review Program, Office of Program Operations, EEOC, 2401 E. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507. It is recommended that some proof of mailing, such as certified mail receipt, be secured. If the Charging Party submits a request by the date shown above, the Commission will review the determination. Upon completion of the review, the Charging Party and Respondent will be issued a final determination which will contain the results of the review and what further action, if any, the Commission may take. The final determination will also give notice, as appropriate, of the Charging Party's right to sue. Petitioner requested review of the Miami District Director's determination in Case No. 150871115. By letter dated April 28, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent were notified of the results of that review. The body of the letter read as follows: The Commission has reviewed the investigation of this charge of employment discrimination and all supplemental information furnished. Based upon this review, we agree with the determination issued by our field office and hereby issue a final determination that the evidence obtained during the investigation does not establish a violation of the statute. Therefore, the Commission dismisses and terminates its administrative processing of this charge. As the charge alleged a Title VII violation, this is notice that if the Charging Party wishes to pursue this matter further, (s)he may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court against the Respondent(s) named above within 90 days of receipt of this Determination. IF CHARGING PARTY DECIDES TO SUE, CHARGING PARTY MUST DO SO WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS DETERMINATION; OTHERWISE THE RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. By letter dated March 8, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent were informed that the EEOC's Miami District Director had determined, with respect to Charge No, 150881243, that the "evidence obtained during the investigation [did) not establish a violation of the statute," The letter further advised: If the Charging Party does not request a review of this determination by March 22, 1989 this determination will become final the following day, the processing of this charge will be complete, and the charge will be dismissed. (This letter will be the only letter of dismissal and the only notice of the Charging Party's right to sue sent by the Commission.) FOLLOWING DISMISSAL, THE CHARGING PARTY MAY ONLY PURSUE THIS MATTER FURTHER BY FILING SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT(S) NAMED IN THE CHARGE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DISMISSAL. Therefore, in the event a request for review is not made, if a suit is not filed by June 21, 1989 the Charging Party's right to sue will be lost. Petitioner did not request review of the District Director's determination in Case No. 150881243. Therefore, this determination became final on March 23, 1989. On May 5, 1989, Respondent's Personnel Officer, William P. Fritchman, sent Petitioner a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, directing Petitioner to report to work immediately. The letter was mailed to P.O. Box 22- 2825, Hollywood, Florida 33022. The body of the letter provided as follows: This letter is to notify you that your tax auditor II position in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is ready for you to return to work. Your return to work will be effective immediately upon your receipt of this letter. The Department of Revenue agreed to your request for a leave of absence without pay for 12 months or until EEOC in Miami had concluded its investigation of your EEOC charges, numbers 150-88-1234 [sic] and 150-87-1115. As you know, EEOC has now concluded its investigations and issued its findings in both cases. The Department considers the reason for granting the leave of absence to be expired. Please contact Mr. Bill Hammock, Chief of Audit Activity or Mr. Howard Maxwell, Field Audit Supervisor, immediately upon receipt of this letter concerning your intentions regarding your actual reporting to work in Fort Lauderdale. Their phone number is (904) 488-0310. Your immediate supervisor will be Ms. Mary Jane Myscich. Please report to her concerning any necessary details surrounding your reporting to work. If you do not contact either of the above individuals as instructed in this letter within three workdays from the date you receive this letter, the Department will consider that you have been on unauthorized leave without pay for that three workday period. Such unauthorized leave will be considered to be abandonment of position and a resignation from the Department of Revenue as outlined under Rules 22A- 7.010(2) and 22A-8.002(5). Please contact me at (904) 488-2635 if you have any questions concerning this matter. Efforts to deliver the letter to Petitioner were unsuccessful. It therefore was subsequently returned to Fritchman as "unclaimed." By letter dated May 7, 1989, but not mailed until May 10, 1989, Petitioner requested "an extension of leave without pay status for six additional months."/1 In support of his request, Petitioner erroneously stated the following in the letter: Findings and conclusions of both EEOC Charge Nos.:150871115 dated 5/13/87 and 150881243 are as EEOC has informed you are rendered but not final. The former charge is still under appeal. Petitioner's May 7, 1989, letter, as well as the envelope in which it had been sent, reflected that Petitioner's current mailing address was 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33316. Accordingly, on May 12, 1989, utilizing a next- day delivery service, Fritchman sent to that address the following letter informing Petitioner of the denial of his leave request: I am in receipt of your letter sent May 10, 1989 to Mr. Bedonie. In your letter you request the Department to seek an extension of your leave without pay for an additional six months. For the reasons expressed in my letter to you dated May 5, 1989, copy attached, your approved leave of absence is concluded. Under the written agreement between you and the Department the two EEOC investigations have concluded; therefore the reason for your leave no longer exists. A copy of my letter to you dated May 5, 1989 is attached to this letter and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. If you have already received a copy of that letter, then your return to work is effective on that date of your receipt. You are expected to resume your duties as a Tax Auditor II. Please contact me at (904) 488-2635 if you have any questions concerning this matter. The next-day delivery service unsuccessfully sought to deliver this letter and attachment to Petitioner at 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33316. On May 18, 1989, the letter and attachment were returned to Fritchman. Later that same day, Fritchman attempted to contact Petitioner by telephone, but was unable to reach him. As of May 18, 1989, Petitioner had not yet returned to work, notwithstanding that he had not received authorization to be absent at any time subsequent to the expiration of the leave he had been granted pursuant to the May, 1988, memorandum of understanding and agreement. In view of Petitioner's failure to report to work, Fritchman sent to Petitioner's Hollywood post office box a letter dated May 19, 1989, informing Petitioner that, because he had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays, he was deemed to have abandoned his Tax Auditor II position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. Fritchman further explained in the letter as follows: You did not report to work on May 11, 1989 under the terms of your agreement with the Department. You were therefore on unauthorized leave without pay effective May 11, 1989 or on receipt of the May 5, 1989 letter, whichever occurred first. You have not reported to work as agreed in the May 11, 1988 agreement. You are not entitled to rely on a unilateral request for an extension of leave without reporting to work. Rule 22A-8.002(5)(b), F.A.C. states: "If an employee's request for leave is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the agency head shall place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Career Service." You did not report to work on May 11, 1989 nor any day after that. The Department considers you have been on unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays. The Department considers that effective certainly no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, May 18, 1989 you have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. The Department's records will indicate that this is a voluntary resignation from employment with the Department. It is this determination that Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service which is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his Tax Auditor II position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1989.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner was a supervisory employee as defined by Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and was therefore properly reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service effective July 1, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner became employed by the Commission as an Engineering Supervisor in 1984, and held Select Exempt status prior to 1991, when he was reclassified to a Career Service employee. From 1997 until his retirement, he held Position No. 00168, titled “Utility Systems/Communications Engineer Supervisor.” The first paragraph of his October 1, 1997, Position Description states: This is work supervising engineers in the Bureau of Economic Regulation. The primary duty of the employee in this position is to spend the majority of time communicating with, motivating, training and evaluating employees, planning and directing their work; and having the ability to effectively recommend to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward or discipline subordinate employees. The October 1, 1997, Position Description was in effect at the time Petitioner was reclassified to Select Exempt following enactment of the Service First Initiative. Following the decision of the District Court of Appeal in Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (1st DCA 2003), Petitioner was notified of his right to seek an administrative hearing for the purpose of challenging his reclassification. Petitioner timely requested a hearing on August 13, 2003. Petitioner does not dispute the supervisory nature of the job outlined in the Position Description. He claims that despite his Position Description, his position was not truly “supervisory” as a practical matter and thus did not fit within the authorized grounds for reclassification under Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001). The Position Description alone is not controlling, because it is possible the actual nature of Petitioner’s job changed and the Position Description had not been amended to reflect that. It is therefore appropriate to look behind the Position Description to see whether the actual duties expected of Petitioner were supervisory in nature. To support his claim that his responsibilities had “eroded” to the point they were no longer supervisory in nature, Petitioner points to the hiring of several individuals to work in the section for which he was responsible. Several individuals (Ed Fuchs, Ted Davis, Gerald Edwards, and Jeanette Sickel) were hired to work under Petitioner by the Commission. Petitioner objected to the hiring of some of those persons on the ground that they lacked qualifications, educational and otherwise, for their positions, but they were hired nevertheless. Another individual, Wetherington, was hired with Petitioner’s assent after interviewing with Petitioner and the Bureau Chief. Once the individuals were hired, they worked under the supervision of Petitioner. He was responsible for approving their time sheets, conducting their annual evaluations, approving travel and leave requests, and training. Petitioner was responsible for assigning the work to employees Sickel, Munroe, Davis, Edwards, and Wetherington, and for monitoring its quality. It was Petitioner who the Commission held responsible for the work product of the section. Petitioner directed the manner in which the employees performed their work on a day-to-day basis. Petitioner answered to Marshall Willis, Bureau Chief of Rate Filings. Willis was responsible for evaluating Petitioner’s performance on the basis of how well Petitioner managed the performance of employees under Petitioner’s supervision, and Petitioner was rated and held accountable to communicate, train, direct, and assign work to subordinate employees assigned to him. Petitioner’s evaluation by Mr. Willis dated December 8, 2000, notes that Petitioner must put forth greater effort in reviewing the work of his engineering section and in improving the analysis reflected in written recommendations. Similar issues had been raised in an earlier evaluation. In response to a November 1998, evaluation of his performance by Mr. Willis, Petitioner acknowledged deficiencies in the performance of his engineering section, and provided assurance that he would “strive to do a better job of supervising my staff” in the future. At all pertinent times, Petitioner’s position was not of a routine, clerical, or ministerial nature, and did require the application of judgment. Petitioner had a significant role in personnel administration, as he served as the officer trusted by the state to verify the hours worked, to direct the amount and quality of work performed during those hours, and to be held accountable for the collective performance of the employees in the engineering section. Petitioner did lack the ultimate authority to hire and fire personnel, but that does not make his role in personnel administration insignificant. While hiring and firing are indeed important decisions, in state government the ultimate authority to hire and fire always resides with the agency head or office head. The bulk of the day-to-day management of personnel does not consist of hiring and firing, but rather of assigning the work and monitoring its successful completion. In addition to the expectations set out in the Position Description, the course of conduct and of communications received from his Bureau Chief establish that supervisory responsibility was in fact a requirement of Petitioner’s position. Petitioner was actually expected to spend a majority of his time communicating with, motivating, and training employees, and planning and directing their work. The clearly established expectations for Petitioner’s position would place upon the incumbent the responsibility for making effective recommendations for hiring, transfer, suspension, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, assignment, reward, or discipline of subordinate employees. The instances of other Commission officials declining to follow Petitioner’s recommendations regarding hiring reflect the officials’ lack of satisfaction with the way Petitioner was carrying out those supervisory responsibilities, not an acknowledgement that those responsibilities do not exist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Public Service Commission enter a final order that Petitioner’s position was properly reclassified as Selected Exempt Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S S. SCOTT STEPHENS 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 December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Crouch 245 Pond Court Havana, Florida 32333 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1906 Christiana T. Moore, Esquire Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Blanco Bayo Director of Records and Reporting Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 William D. Talbott, Executive Director Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Richard D. Melson, General Counsel Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
The Issue This matter concerns the Petitioner's attack on Rules 22A-13.04 and 22A- 7.10(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, on the grounds that they are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, George Nelson, was a permanent status Career Service employee on July 14, 1980, working for the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. His specific employment was a firefighter. On the subject date, by correspondence directed to an official within the Division of Forestry, namely, Larry Wood, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of his intention to run for a School Board Seat, District IV, in Wakulla County, Florida. A copy of that notification may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. As stated in the correspondence, Nelson had made an attempt to determine the necessary steps to gain the approval of his agency before taking the oath of candidacy for the aforementioned position. (This request was made following a conversation with the same Larry Wood held on July 10, 1980, on the subject of Nelson's candidacy. On July 10, a letter was sent addressed only to "Larry" and at Mr. Wood's instigation the subsequent letter of July 14, 1980, was dispatched referring to Wood as "Mr. Larry Wood", for appearance sake.) As set forth in the Nelson correspondence, the last date for qualifying for the School Board position was July 22, 1980, at 12:00 Noon. Prior to that date, the Petitioner's request to run was forwarded through the decision-making channels within the Division of Forestry. At the time Nelson dispatched his letter of July 14, 1980, there was some concern expressed by Wood to the effect that there might be some scheduling conflict between Nelson's primary employment duties as a forest ranger and his duties as a School Board Member; however, Wood indicated that the scheduling matter could probably be accommodated. Wood offered no guarantee to the Petitioner that the request to run for office would be approved by the appropriate agency officials. On July 18, 1980, and again on July 21, 1980, officials with the Division of Forestry orally indicated to the Petitioner that he would not he allowed to run for the School Board. In view of the fact that the last day for qualifying was July 22, 1980, the Petitioner determined to offer his candidacy without the permission of his agency head and on that date he took the loyalty oath for public office for the School Board, District IV, Wakulla County, Florida, as may be seen by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the Loyalty Oath and the Oath of Candidacy and Statement of Candidacy. On July 23, 1980, Larry Wood, District Forester and supervisor to the Petitioner, contacted the Petitioner to inquire why the Petitioner had offered his candidacy without permission of the agency. The Petitioner responded that he did so because he did not feel that there was any conflict between school board duties and that of forest ranger. Wood informed him that he would hear from the Division of Forestry on the subject. Following the conversation with Wood, on July 24, 1980, the Petitioner received two items in response to his request. One of those items was dated July 21, 1980, from John M. Bethea, Director, Division of Forestry, addressed to Larry Wood, in which the subject of the Petitioner's candidacy was discussed and the indication given that it would not be approved due to scheduling problems and conflict and controversies "that are generated by any local governmental political body". The memorandum went on to say, "These controversies might affect the Forestry Division's ability to carry out the responsibilities with the very segments of the public." A copy of this memorandum may be found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The second item received by the Petitioner on July 24, 1980, was dated on that date, and addressed to George Nelson from Larry Wood, indicating a denial of the petitioner's request to run for public office. This correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, a copy of which has been admitted into evidence. After the Petitioner had received the memoranda discussed herein, there ensued a series of meetings between the Petitioner and various officials within the agency in which the agency tried to persuade him to withdraw his candidacy in view of the fact that he had not gained their permission to run for the school Board. Throughout these discussions, the Petitioner continued to assert the conviction that unless some conflict of interest could be shown to him, he did not intend to withdraw as a candidate. In the discussions, the agency further stated that the choices open to the Petitioner were ones of resignation from his position as A Forest Ranger or withdrawal from the School Board race. They also stated that if he were caused to resign, there could be no rights to appeal beyond that point. In the course of the process, the Petitioner met with Director Bethea, who explained the Director's position on the Petitioner's right to run for office and reiterated his opposition, based upon his problems of scheduling to accommodate the needs of the Division of Forestry and the needs of the school Board of Wakulla County and also the concern of possible conflicts and controversies arising out of the necessity for forest rangers to go on the property of the citizens of the several counties in the State of Florida and the fact that this might create a problem in view of the nature of the functions of a school board member. Although the Director generally held the philosophy that employees in positions such as the Petitioner's should not normally be allowed to run for local office, he did not absolutely foreclose the possibility that someone might persuade him to the contrary and thereby cause him to allow them to seek a local office. Each case would be reviewed on its own merits. The matter was also presented before representatives of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, who took the same position as had been taken by the other authorities within the department, and again the Petitioner indicated that he would decline to withdraw as a candidate. Following the meeting with the Department officials, Wood made one other contact to ascertain if the Petitioner had changed his mind about withdrawing his name as a candidate and the Petitioner indicated that the had not. Subsequent to that latter conversation with Wood, the Petitioner was hand-delivered a letter dated August 12, 1980, which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. This letter informed the Petitioner that he was deemed to have resigned his position as Forest Ranger effective August 15, 1990, and offered as a statement of authority Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes. After August 15, 1980, the Petitioner was removed as a permanent party Career Service employee with the Respondent. Following his dismissal, the Petitioner through his counsel in the subject case has attacked the Joint Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, by contending that those aforementioned exhibits constitute invalid rules for reason that they were not duly promulgated. The Petitioner continued to work beyond August 15, 1980, and was eventually reinstated as a probationary employee with the Division of Forestry and holds the position of probationary Forest Ranger at this time.
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Petitioner was a supervisory employee as defined by Subsection 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and was, therefore, properly reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service effective July 1, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The 2001 Florida Legislature enacted a substantial revision of the Florida Civil Service system referred to as the "Service First" initiative. (See Chapter 2001-43, Laws of Florida). This revision, which became effective on July 1, 2001, substantially expanded the parameters of the Selected Exempt Service classification to include many positions which had previously been identified as Career Service positions. Generally, Selected Exempt Service employees serve at the pleasure of the agency head and are considered at-will employees; whereas, Career Service employees have greater employment rights and job security. Petitioner was employed by Respondent at the Pinellas Maintenance Yard from December 15, 1997, to September 19, 2002. Initially, Petitioner held the position of Office Support III, but was eventually promoted to Office Support V in June 2001, both Career Service classifications. Following the enactment of the Service First initiative, Respondent reclassified Petitioner's Career Service position to Selected Exempt Service status in July 2001. On September 19, 2002, Petitioner was terminated from employment without explanation. His annual salary was $32,500. Following the decision in Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), Respondent notified Petitioner of his rights to seek an administrative hearing and challenge the reclassification. Petitioner timely challenged Respondent's action. During his tenure working for Respondent, Petitioner, pursuant to his written position description, was responsible for various administrative functions, including personnel, records, and fiscal matters, as well as supervisory responsibilities, including the supervision of a few administrative staff. Specifically, his position description provides in part: 20% of time: Supervises and/or participates in the daily administrative activities . . . . Ensuring the reception telephone and radio are fully staffed at all times. . . 15% of time: Supervises and/or participates in the personnel activities for Pinellas Maintenance Office. Counsels employees in matters of retirements, benefits, grievances, discipline and other personnel and work related problems. . . 15% of time: Supervises and/or participates in the fiscal activities for the Pinellas Maintenance Office. Supervises the maintenance of ledgers and Journals associated with local Purchase Orders, local Charge Accounts and Purchase Requisitions, Utility Invoice Transmittals, Contract Invoice transmittals, Partial Payments, etc. . . 10% of time: Directs purchasing for the Pinellas Maintenance Office. . . 10% of time: Serves as representative of the Pinellas Maintenance Engineer at meetings. . . 10% of time: Receives incoming mail, reviews and distributes to appropriate personnel. . . 5% of time: Participates in the selection process for entry level Field Operations Unit positions. . . 5% of time: Directs and coordinates the maintenance and use of records storage. . . 5% of time: Trains employees in methods for performing an efficient and effective job. 5% of time: Performs other related duties as required. Petitioner admits that he was responsible for and routinely engaged in many activities that were supervisory in nature. The evidence supports the fact that Petitioner performed these duties, and his performance evaluations reflect his activity. Petitioner's position description allocated specific time frames to the written duties and responsibilities. Upon careful review, the position description provides that the Office Support, Level V position employee shall "supervise and/or participate" in administrative, personnel, and fiscal matters 50 percent of the work-time. The remaining 50 percent of work-time is allocated to other duties, including purchasing, attending meetings, mail distribution and inquiries, assisting with the selection process of certain entry level positions, coordinating records storage, training certain employees, and performing other "related duties as required." While Petitioner admits that he performed supervisory activity, he contends that it consumed a small percentage of his work-time. He further argues that he was authorized and required to spend 50 percent of his time "supervising and/or participating in" certain activities. Petitioner alleges that he spent little time "supervising" and most of his time "participating" and actually performing the activities. The evidence demonstrates that among the 80 to 100 people employed at the yard, Petitioner supervised a personnel technician, a financial clerk, a clerical employee, and a receptionist, all of whom required limited supervision. Petitioner primarily served as the personnel liaison for all of the employees, maintained their files, researched personnel matters, and responded to inquiries. He handled the personnel paperwork related to hiring and firing, leave, pay adjustments, travel reimbursements, and employee benefits. In addition, Petitioner investigated and processed workers' compensation claims and handled the yard's safety and training records. He worked on special projects including ferreting out overtime abuse, installing a security system, and handling certain maintenance issues. In addition to his administrative personnel responsibilities, Petitioner admittedly supervised, trained, directed, and evaluated four subordinates and was responsible for improving their performance via counseling and corrective action. He initiated disciplinary action and issued a written reprimand to one employee with poor attendance. On occasion, Petitioner conducted staff meetings with his subordinates and also met with them individually. He managed attendance and approved leave for his staff of four. He participated in interviewing and selecting candidates for open positions under his supervision and determined the appropriate criteria, created the interview questions, and was a member of the interview panel. Petitioner was evaluated, in part, upon his supervision of subordinates. One evaluation noted that he needed to improve follow-up with assignments made to others and another indicated that he capably initiated change, but occasionally required assistance to effectuate it. Petitioner's evaluations also assessed his leadership and delegation skills, and one noted that he delegated well, but needed to work to regain better control of his areas. Although some of Petitioner's time was spent supervising, the evidence demonstrates that the vast majority of his work-time was spent performing non-supervisory activities. The facts show that Petitioner actually performed the noted activities the majority of the time and supervised those activities on occasion. Furthermore, Mr. Nawab, who periodically served as Petitioner's supervisor, provided credible evidence that Petitioner's primary responsibilities and the majority of his work-time involved non-supervisory activities. While Petitioner, during his testimony, diminished the time he spent engaged in supervisory work, the credible evidence demonstrates that he spent the minority of his work-time communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees and planning and directing employees' work. Although Petitioner may have demonstrated mediocre supervisory skills, which does not make the position any less supervisory, neither Petitioner's supervisor nor his position description required him to spend the majority of his work time engaged in those supervisory activities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The position of Office Support V for the Pinellas Maintenance Yard for the State of Florida Department of Transportation was not exempt from Career Service classification as defined in Subsection 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001); Respondent improperly reclassified the position as Selected Exempt Service; and Petitioner should be reinstated with the full benefits accrued since his termination on September 19, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 25th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33606 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Petitioner, pursuant to Rules 22A-7.010(2)(a) and 22A-8.002(5)(a)3, Florida Administrative Code, abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Emily D. McGee, was employed by the Respondent, Department, as a Public Assistance Specialist II in the Department's Medically Needy Unit #87 in New Port Richey, Florida. In that assignment, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor Dorothy White. It is established policy at the HRS facility in question for employees who will be absent to notify their supervisors as soon as possible when they know they will be absent. During her employment, Petitioner had received printed copies of this general policy and of the State rules governing the presumption of abandonment of position in cases where an employee is on unexcused leave for three consecutive workdays. On April 13, 1990, Petitioner was overcome with job stress and was admitted to a residential mental health care facility for four days, which was drawn against Petitioner's earned sick leave. Subsequent to her release, she received outpatient psychological therapy at the Center for the Treatment of Depression in New Port Richey, Florida, with Howard L. Masco, M.D., as her treating physician. On April 20 and again on April 25, 1990, Petitioner was advised by White that in order to properly draw against earned sick leave she must provide a doctor's statement that she was disabled and unable to perform her duties and the projected date of her return to work. On April 25, 1990, a doctor's statement was received, but it did not contain a projected date of return. On April 26, 1990, Petitioner applied to draw against the District V Sick Leave Pool, beginning on May 1, 1990 for an indeterminate period of time. This request was denied by the Committee Administrator. On May 9, 1990, White advised the Petitioner, telephonically and in writing, that her request to draw against the sick leave pool was denied. If she was unable to return to work, Petitioner must submit a written request for leave without pay for her current absence from work, with a beginning date of May 4, 1990 and a projected date of return to work. A physician's statement would also be required. After a period of misunderstanding, a written request with a physicians' statement was submitted by the Petitioner and Leave Without Pay was approved on June 18, 1990 retroactive to May 4, 1990. The physician's statement, dated May 18, 1990, stated that Petitioner has been unable to work since her hospitalization on April 13, 1990 and was still unable to work at the present time. Dr. Masco indicated that he was unable to determine when Petitioner would be able to return to work but that the present diagnosis was depression. Petitioner was advised, in writing, that additional leave could not be granted beyond July 17, 1990 and that Petitioner was required to return to work with medical certification at that time as to her ability to perform her assigned job functions. On the dates between July 18 and July 20, 1990, inclusive, Petitioner neither appeared at work nor informed her supervisor or anyone at HRS that she was going to be absent or was medically unable to return to work. No leave was authorized for her. This period constitutes in excess of three consecutive workdays of absence without approved leave. By letter dated July 27, 1990, Petitioner was advised in writing by the District Administrator that her failure to return to work on July 18 and thereafter constitutes abandonment of position. At the hearing, Petitioner attempted to show that her disability continued beyond July 20, 1990 and up to the present day, and that she had no intention of abandoning her position. That in fact she was physically unable to perform her duties due her continuing stress and depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner, Emily D. McGee, abandoned her position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and resigned from the Career Service when, on July 18, 19 and 20, 1990, without authority, she absented herself from her workplace for three consecutive days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 1st day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Emily D. McGee Post Office Box 1223 Port Richey, Florida Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 701 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida John Pieno, Jr. Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Linda Stalvey Acting General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2013.
Findings Of Fact William H. Mathias was initially employed by SWFWMD as Director of Employee Relations on January 30, 1980, at pay grade At the time of Petitioner's employment William C. Tatum was Executive Director of SWFWMD. Petitioner has over ten years' experience in personnel relations and security and holds two master's degrees. Due partly to Petitioner's aggressiveness and strong personality, he began exerting influence in the personnel division in pushing the Personnel Department in directions not necessarily approved by Tatum. Tatum wanted to reduce the influence the Personnel Department was having on SWFWMD. On July 26, 1982, Petitioner was transferred to the Field Operations Division with no change in grade. Exhibit 5, which announced this transfer, stated Petitioner was transferred as Assistant Director. On July 28, 1982, a subsequent memorandum, Exhibit 6, was issued by Tatum changing Petitioner's title from Assistant Director to Acting Administrative Assistant. Prior to this transfer Tatum spoke with William F. Sietman, Director of Field Operations, who advised Tatum that he had no need for Petitioner in the Field Operations Division however, Tatum insisted that Petitioner, with his two master's degrees, could make a valuable contribution to SWFWMD if placed in the right niche. Shortly thereafter, Tatum was replaced as Executive Director by Gary W. Kuhl, who was promoted to that position from Assistant Executive Director. The first evaluation report submitted by Sietman on Petitioner, at the end of his first six months on the job, was unsatisfactory. Petitioner appealed to Kuhl, who withdrew his evaluation partly because no job description had been prepared for the position occupied by Petitioner. Kuhl directed the preparation of a job description for the work to be done by Petitioner. When the job description_ was prepared, the position was given the title of Program Management Analyst and the duties to be performed are as contained in Exhibit 1. Principally, Petitioner's function was to do some coordinating of the budgets prepared by the various sections in Field Operations, coordinate planning and negotiate and oversee the building maintenance contract. This position was a staff function as opposed to a line function in which the incumbent would exercise direction, or command, over the section heads. As a staff function his duties were coordination as opposed to direction. Subsequent to his initial unsatisfactory evaluation at the end of his six months probationary period, Petitioner's evaluations improved each evaluating period and at the time of his termination his performance can be described as very good. However, on several occasions complaints about Petitioner giving personnel advice to Respondent's employees regarding overtime, job classifications, and pay grades reached Kuhl. This was the subject of a memorandum addressed to Petitioner and Sietman by Kuhl on May 15, 1984 (Exhibit 7). Petitioner was told to leave personnel matters and advice to the Personnel Department or face disciplinary action. Changes in the functions imposed on Respondent in 1984 necessitated the employment of additional technical people and the establishment of additional technical positions at SWFWMD. The Governing Board indicated to the Executive Director that the budget could not be raised by the amount needed to fund all of these positions and that cuts would have to be made. Kuhl met with the various division heads to require more justification for the proposed new positions and to ascertain which existing positions they could eliminate. This resulted in a proposed list of positions including the librarian, Petitioner's position, and other positions currently unoccupied. As a result of these discussions it was concluded the unfilled positions and the position of Program Management Analyst could be eliminated. By memorandum dated August 17, 1984 (Exhibit 4), Kuhl advised the Governing Board of the proposed reduction in work force. By letter dated August 20, 1984 (Exhibit 15), Kuhl advised Petitioner that the position of Program Management Analyst was eliminated effective immediately and that he was eligible to apply for any other position in SWFWMD for which he was qualified. Petitioner appealed the termination to the Governing Board and, when the Board affirmed his termination, he filed the instant petition. Prior to the transfer of Petitioner to the Field Operations Division, the budget was prepared by each section chief for his section, and the division director coordinated the budgets. While Petitioner was assigned to Field Operations, he performed this budget coordination role previously taken by the director. When Petitioner's position was eliminated, the division reverted to the way it operated before Petitioner's arrival, with little, if any, noticeable effect. The role Petitioner had assumed in supervising the maintenance contract also reverted back to where it was before Petitioner's arrival, again with no noticeable effect.
