The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has been discriminated against on account of her handicap or disability in connection with her termination of employment, in alleged violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Teresa Cavanaugh, was employed by Sprint from 1985 through 2000. During 1999 and 2000, Ms. Cavanaugh held the position of Technical Analyst I, assigned to the Carrier Market’s department at Sprint’s National Access Service Center in Leesburg, Florida. In this position, Ms. Cavanaugh was responsible for assuring that orders for the use of Sprint’s local telephone lines by long distance carriers such at AT&T were processed correctly. Ms. Cavanaugh’s immediate supervisor in this position was Robert Whittaker, the Customer Access Manager. Mr. Whitaker’s immediate supervisor was Jackie Picard, the National Customer Service Manager. On August 26, 1999, the Petitioner was arrested in Marion County, Florida and charged with two third-degree felonies involving obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and possession of a controlled substance. The Petitioner informed Sprint’s house counsel, Susan Stucker, of her arrest on August 31, 1999. Ms. Cavanaugh explained the arrest to Ms. Stucker and Ms. Stucker informed Ms. Cavanaugh that she needed to report the arrest to her supervisor. Ms. Stucker also told the Petitioner that as long as the arrest was not related to work, she would be permitted to continue working for Sprint until such time as there was a disposition of the charges. After speaking with Ms. Stucker, the Petitioner informed Mr. Whitaker of her arrest. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Stucker informed her, in the above-described conversation, that her job would not be affected as long as adjudication was withheld with respect to the criminal charges. Ms. Stucker, however, denied telling that to Ms. Cavanaugh and instead testified that she would never have made such a statement because, pursuant to Sprint’s unwritten policy, convictions for or pleas to felony charges are terminable offenses, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. Ms. Stucker also told the Petitioner that Sprint’s policy was to that effect in a subsequent conversation. This dispute in testimony is resolved in favor of that given by Ms. Stucker because of the respective demeanor of the witnesses and Ms. Stucker’s undisputed testimony that on at least two other occasions she approved terminations of persons who pled nolo contendere to felony charges. Her testimony was corroborated by documentation regarding the nolo contendere plea of one of the persons whose employment was terminated, Wilson Hinson. In fact, as with Ms. Cavanaugh, Mr. Hinson’s records demonstrate that the court withheld adjudication of guilt regarding the charges against him. Several weeks later, on Friday, September 17, 1999, the Petitioner sent an e-mail to Mr. Whitaker expressing that she was "losing control of her mind," was "spinning out of control," felt "helpless and desperate," was "going over the edge," and needed "some serious help." The Petitioner indicated also that she had an "overwhelming sense of helplessness and hopelessness." Ms. Cavanaugh stated in her e-mail, and in testimony at the hearing, that prior to this incident, she never had felt this way. She further testified that she had no prior history of mental illness. After reading the Petitioner's e-mail, Mr. Whittaker became concerned that Ms. Cavanaugh could be a threat to herself or to co-workers. Based upon this concern, he shared the e-mail with Ms. Picard, and both Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard informed the Human Resources Department of Sprint of its contents. Mr. Whitaker, Ms. Picard and Colby Gilson, the Manager of Employee Relations, developed a plan whereby the Petitioner would be placed on paid "crisis leave" and referred to Sprint's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for evaluation as to her ability to safely perform her job. Mr. Whittaker informed the Petitioner that she was being placed on leave and referred to EAP on the morning of her next scheduled work day, Monday, September 20, 1999. After meeting with Mr. Whittaker, the Petitioner was placed on leave and evaluated by the EAP. The Petitioner informed the psychiatrist who was evaluating her as part of the EAP process that her mood had improved after being placed on leave. The Petitioner was cleared to return to work on a part-time basis in late December 1999 or early January 2000. She was allowed to return to a full-time schedule in late January 2000. On or about June 27, 2000, the Petitioner, on her own initiative, commenced a short-term disability leave. Because the leave was for an alleged mental condition, the Petitioner was asked to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) pursuant to Sprint's standard policy of verifying leaves for conditions that are difficult to review through objective medical evidence (e.g., mental conditions and soft tissue injuries). The Petitioner underwent the IME, which confirmed her need for leave. The Petitioner then remained on leave until October 17, 2000, at which time she returned to work on a part- time basis. She resumed a full-time schedule approximately one week later, on October 23, 2000, with no restrictions on her ability to work. Due to the amount of leave the Petitioner had taken to date, during September and October 2000, Sprint's Benefits Department in Kansas City sent the Petitioner two letters informing her regarding the availability of long-term disability benefits and disability retirement benefits, respectively, should she wish to apply for them. These letters were sent out pursuant to the Benefits department's standard practice of notifying employees who have been out comparable periods of time of the availability of such benefits so as to minimize the potential lapse in benefits should an employee exhaust all of his or her short-term disability leave. After her return from leave, on or about October 31, 2000, the Petitioner told Mr. Whittaker that she was taking what she believed to be a very strong prescription that had been given to her by her doctor. Mr. Whittaker consulted with Mr. Gilson as to whether he needed to take any action in response to this information. Mr. Gilson informed Mr. Whittaker that he should require the Petitioner to provide a note from her doctor indicating whether or not she could continue at work while taking the medication. Mr. Whittaker followed Mr. Gilson's directions and requested that the Petitioner provide a note from her doctor. She submitted such a note to Mr. Whittaker on November 2, 2000. According to that note, the Petitioner was cleared to work with no limitations or restrictions, "as long as she participates in treatment and maintains compliance with medications and scheduled appointments." The Petitioner has not established how any major life activities have been substantially limited by any alleged mental condition. On or about November 29, 2000, the Petitioner informed Mr. Whittaker that her probation officer would be calling him to verify that she worked at Sprint and was coming to work on a regular basis. According to Whittaker, at no time prior to that conversation had the Petitioner informed him of any final disposition of the felony charges filed against her. Mr. Whittaker informed Mr. Gilson of this conversation, and Gilson then asked Stacy Smith, a security investigator, to contact the court in Marion County to determine whether there had been any final disposition of the charges lodged against the Petitioner in August 1999. Mr. Smith, who as part of his regular job duties had been tracking the proceedings against the Petitioner and other Sprint employees subject to criminal charges, contacted the Marion County Clerk's office which provided documents showing that, in October 2000, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the two felony charges. The documents Mr. Smith received also showed that the court had withheld adjudication on the basis of that plea. The information Mr. Smith received from the court ultimately was provided to Mr. Gilson, Ms. Stucker, Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard. Based upon Sprint's unwritten policy regarding terminations for felony convictions or pleas, Mr. Whittaker recommended the termination of the Petitioner's employment. Ms. Picard concurred with Mr. Whittaker's recommendation, as did Picard's immediate supervisor, Krystal Barr. Mr. Whittaker's recommendation was reviewed by Ms. Stucker, Mr. Gilson, and David Sapenoff, Mr. Gilson's immediate superior. Each of these individuals concurred in the decision to terminate the Petitioner’s employment. On the basis of Mr. Whittaker's recommendation, and the above-mentioned concurrences, the Petitioner's employment was terminated on December 14, 2000. Although the Petitioner claims that she was never told the basis for her termination, both Mr. Whitaker and Ms. Picard testified that the Petitioner was told that she was terminated because of her felony plea. This dispute in testimony is resolved in favor of that of Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard, given both the respective demeanor of the witnesses and the fact that the records of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security indicate that the Petitioner stated in an interview, regarding her entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits, that she was terminated because of her felony conviction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Teresa Cavanaugh 3010 Northeast Seventh Lane Ocala, Florida 34470 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick M. Muldowney, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap, within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2002), and whether the same alleged discrimination violated Section 448.045, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a handicapped person. Petitioner is bipolar and has episodes of psychosis and occasional ideations of suicide and homicide. On January 14, 2003, Petitioner returned to work after an extended vacation, during which he suffered a psychotic episode and was diagnosed with his handicap. Respondent scheduled an in-office hearing, identified in the record as a "fit-for-duty hearing," because Respondent was concerned for the safety of Petitioner and other employees. Respondent denied Petitioner's request to postpone the hearing for one day to allow Petitioner to get back into "the swing of work routine." Petitioner requested 30 days of accrued personal leave. Respondent granted the request, and Petitioner was due back on the job on February 18, 2003. At the conclusion of the 30-day leave, Respondent granted Petitioner's request for medical leave. The medical leave began on February 18, 2003, and Petitioner was scheduled to return to work on July 3, 2004. Respondent's policy requires every employee that is on medical leave, including Petitioner, to be certified by a physician that the employee is fit to return to work, with or without reasonable accommodation. A physician's certification is a prerequisite for any employee on medical leave to return to his or her job after medical leave. During Petitioner's medical leave, Petitioner sought treatment from several physicians. As of the date of the administrative hearing, no doctor had certified Petitioner as fit to return to work because Petitioner consistently refused to take medication prescribed for his handicap. After going on medical leave, Petitioner received short-term disability benefits and, at the time of the administrative hearing, was receiving long-term disability benefits. The long-term benefits were scheduled to expire in August 2005. Petitioner is not contractually entitled to long- term disability benefits unless Petitioner is unable to perform all of the material and substantial duties of his regular occupation. When Petitioner's medical leave ended on July 3, 2004, Petitioner was not medically certified as fit to return to work. Petitioner refused to take medication prescribed for his condition and continued to receive long-term disability benefits. Respondent refused to accommodate Petitioner any further with additional leave. Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on July 3, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner by convening a "fit-for-duty hearing" or by subsequently terminating Petitioner's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman K. Wright 826 Grand Cayman Court Orlando, Florida 32835 J. Lester Kaney, Esquire Cobb & Cole 150 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into a stipulation, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, but is quoted for the sake of clarity: Stipulated Facts Petitioner is Charles E. Kellum whose address is 10420 SW 119th Street, Miami, Florida. Petitioner is a forty-two (42) year-old male whose education consists of a graduate equivalency degree received while serving in the Air Force from 1954 through 1958. His Air Force work and training was as a fire fighter in the Crash Rescue and Fire Department of the United States Air Force. In 1959, Petitioner became employed with the Sheriff's Department of Dade County, Florida, as a motorcycle officer and first joined the Florida retirement system then in effect for county employees. Later, Petitioner changed to what is now known as the Florida Retirement System. While employed by Dade County, while on duty, and while a member of the Florida Retirement System or its predecessor, Petitioner was involved in four (4) accidents. The accidents and injuries sustained are as follows: In 1964, Petitioner was in a motorcycle accident for which he first received treatment from Dr. Samartino for abrasions and contusions; In a separate motorcycle accident, on February 16, 1965, Petitioner sustained a fractured radial head of the right elbow. In surgery that month the radial head was removed. In April, 1965, the end of the ulna was removed. In November, 1965, certain reconstructive surgery was attempted to increase the motion in his right arm. Subsequent reconstructive surgery was attempted in February, 1966. (Deposition of Dr. Samartino, pages 8 - 11); In an on-duty accident in March, 1970, Petitioner fell and injured his knee and underwent surgery on the knee in April of 1970. In May, 1974, Petitioner was involved in an accident wherein, while making an arrest, he fell on a rocky terrain and suffered re- injury to his arm and knee and injury to his back. (Deposition of Kellum, pages 4 - 5). That Petitioner was retired from Dade County for medical reasons in May, 1974. He has not been employed since, except for approximately one year he was operating a small lawn maintenance business with the help of his son and another helper. His activities are limited to driving a truck and soliciting business. Stipulated Evidence Exhibit 1 - The deposition of Charles Kellum, Petitioner Exhibit 2 - The application for retirement benefits filed December 9, 1974, and the employer's statement of disability dated December 6, 1974. Exhibit 3 - The reports of Dr. Toth dated December 9, 1974, and August 6, 1974. Exhibit 4 - The reports of Dr. Gilbert dated December 9, 1974, and October 30, 1974. Exhibit 5 - The reports and deposition of Dr. Samartino. Exhibit 6 - The reports and deposition of Dr. Jacobson. Exhibit 7 - The deposition of Harry Windler, pages 8 - 14 and pages 19 - 36. Exhibit 8 - The letter from the Director of Retirement dated April 10, 1975. Upon a consideration of the evidence further findings of fact are: The various in-line-of-duty injuries and back pain suffered by Petitioner caused his involuntary retirement from the Dade County Department of Public Safety in 1974, after an injury on May 4, 1974. Petitioner applied for work with the police department, and wants and has wanted to return to some kind of law enforcement or police work. Respondent through its administrator, as provided in Section 121.091(4), Florida Statutes, denied Petitioner Kellum's disability retirement benefits by letter dated April 10, 1975, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "A" and make a part hereof. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing in April of 1975. The Respondent denied the petition as being untimely but thereafter revoked the denial and requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to hold a hearing on the issues presented. The employer, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Public Safety, in its statement of disability stated that "physicians' statements indicate that this employee is unable to perform police duties." It also stated that no other jobs in the organization, suitable to the applicant's abilities, exist consistent with his classification. The departmental policy of the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Public Safety is to phase out employees who have become liabilities from an insurance risk management point of view. Because of the stringent minimum physical requirements imposed upon law enforcement officers in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner cannot perform his duties as a policeman or law enforcement officer and could not be re- employed in that position. There are no permanent sheltered positions for law enforcement personnel. Doctors Alex Toth and Robert G. Gilbert stated that Petitioner's condition is "prognosis guarded." They both stated that Petitioner was unable to perform regular duties. Dr. Toth stated Petitioner was "completely disabled," and Dr. Gilbert stated "for all intent and purposes, this patient is totally disabled." Dr. G. Thomas Samartino, in answer to the question, "At this time, in 1977, do you forecast any further degeneration in his health due to that particular diagnosis?" (degenerative arthrosis of the right elbow), answered "Yes." He further stated that he could not really forecast disability but that "it may stay pretty much the way it is or get a whole lot worse," and noted that there has been no improvement since 1966. He stated Petitioner suffered a 35 percent disability of the upper right extremity and a 30 percent disability of the body as a whole, which includes pain. All three physicians stated that they felt the Petitioner should not be employed as a policeman. Dr. Robert E. Jacobson, a neurologic surgeon, stated that from the functional standpoint the Petitioner would be unable to return to work as a combat policeman, although he could do other type of work. He also stated that the numerous injuries and back and neck complaints would add up to a more marked problem than any one would imply. Petitioner's training was as a fire fighter in the crash rescue fire department while in service of his country from 1954 to 1958. He joined the service immediately out of high school and, before his discharge, took the GED test to get a high school certificate. His employment and further training has been in police work, being employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department in October of 1959, a position he filled for fifteen, (15) years. His training after Air Force service consists of little more than on- the-job training for his employment as a motorcycle officer. Petitioner was self-employed, driving a truck and soliciting business together with two other persons in the yard maintenance work. He applied without success for at least two positions with private employers, but he has not applied for rehabilitative training. His remuneration from his self- employment was approximately $6,000.00 per year, substantially lower than he earned as a police officer, which pay classification is approximately $8,000.00 to $20,000.00. Petitioner is totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service as an employee in police and law enforcement work, but he can perform a useful work service. Petitioner contends: That he is permanently and totally disabled from doing the police or law enforcement work for which he is trained and for which he had been employed for some fifteen (15) years, and that his disability arose from his work; That he is unable to perform materially or substantially all or any of the remunerative duties for which he is educated and trained, and which might permit him to be compensated at or near the compensable rate of a Dade County policeman; and That he is entitled to the disability benefits authorized by Section 121.091(4), inasmuch as he is totally and permanently disabled to perform duties as a police or law enforcement officer because of injuries he received while on such duty. Respondent contends: That Petitioner is not totally and permanently disabled hut only partially disabled, and can and does work and earn an income although he is disabled from performing the duties of his normal occupation; and That a showing that Petitioner is incapable of performing duties of his usual occupation is not sufficient to obtain disability retirement benefits under the statute.
Recommendation Grant Petitioner Charles E. Kellum disability retirement benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Melvin R. Horne, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RETIREMENT CHARLES E. KELLUM, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-465 DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of disability, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact SLCSO is a law enforcement agency in Port St. Lucie, Florida. On April 15, 1996, Petitioner began employment with SLCSO as a corrections officer. She worked as a detention deputy overseeing inmates and was assigned to booking most of her career. Petitioner was good at her job and typically got above average on her evaluations related to her work performance. She also got along with her colleagues. After 2005, when Wesley had a conflict with Lieutenant Stephanie Lyons ("Lt. Lyons"), Petitioner began to believe that she was working in a hostile work environment and that her colleagues were out to get her at the direction of Lt. Lyons. Wesley reported and filed complaints throughout her employment whenever she believed improper behavior occurred. She reported multiple incidents, including ones where she felt employees made statements about her that were untrue. As a result, numerous investigations were conducted by her supervisors and SLCSO Internal Affairs, to which the majority were concluded unfounded. Many of the incidents Wesley reported were unsettling to her and ultimately made her depressed with anxiety, have panic attacks, and elevated her blood pressure. Lt. Lyons, Lt. Daniel O'Brien ("Lt. O'Brien"), Sergeant Jeffrey Jackson ("Sgt. Jackson"), Sgt. James Mullins ("Sgt. Mullins"), and Sgt. Johnny Henry ("Sgt. Henry") were some of Petitioner's supervisors while employed at SLCSO. One incident that has been extremely troubling to Wesley is her observation of Sgt. Jackson punching a pregnant inmate in the stomach. The incident is so upsetting to Wesley that even though she reported the incident when it occurred, she continues to be upset by the incident and continues to relive it, which distresses her. During her employment, Wesley also lost her mom and brother in the same year, 2011. The losses took an added toll on her and caused more emotional difficulties. Another major personal event that stressed Wesley was that she found out the deputy that she thought she had been in a 15-year monogamous relationship with was having an affair with another deputy on Wesley's shift. Those working conditions caused Wesley even more emotional harm. At some point, Wesley had an emotional breakdown, could not get out of bed, and even thought she no longer wanted to live. Eventually, Wesley's illnesses became debilitating, and her high blood pressure was unstable. Wesley started missing work because of her illnesses. She physically was unable to work. On June 20, 2012, after Wesley was absent five times, she was counseled for abuse of sick leave benefits in violation of SLCSO Policy 5.1.33. During the counseling, Wesley was told she "needs to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of sick time usage to improve [her] below average status. Deputy Wesley will receive a below standard on her evaluation for sick time usage." Wesley first applied for the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") on September 25, 2012, but the process was not completed. On February 25, 2014, Wesley was issued a reprimand for abuse of sick leave in violation of SLCSO Policy 5.1.33 after she was absent another five days in 12 months. She was warned that "any further absences will result in continued progressive discipline." Wesley did not lose pay when she was reprimanded. On or about August 21, 2014, Wesley submitted an Intermittent Family Medical Leave Act request for her own "Serious Health Condition" to the SLCSO Human Resources Office ("Human Resources"). Wesley's application was incomplete. On October 8, 2014, Petitioner submitted the outstanding medical certification needed for the application submitted on August 21, 2014. Human Resource Manager Lori Pereira ("Pereira") denied the FMLA request on October 13, 2014, because the medical certification was submitted untimely, 52 days from the date of Petitioner's last absence. On October 22, 2014, Wesley requested reconsideration of her FMLA application, and Human Resources denied it on October 27, 2014. On March 20, 2015, Wesley requested FMLA leave again. In her application, Wesley provided a medical certification filled out by her cardiologist, Dr. Abdul Shadani ("Dr. Shadani"), which stated the patient will be absent from work for treatment "2-6 per year," and the underlying medical condition is systemic arterial hypertension ("hypertension"). "N/A" was the response Dr. Shadani supplied on the medical certification for probable duration of patient's incapacity. The hours/week section was marked intermittent. The certification box was also checked "No" after the question, "Will it be necessary for the employee to work intermittently or to work less than a full schedule as a result of the conditions?" On April 1, 2015, Human Resources approved Wesley's request for Intermittent FMLA leave due to medical reasons. The approval cycle was from August 21, 2014, through August 20, 2015. Pereira backdated Wesley's leave to August 21, 2014, the date Dr. Shadani identified as the beginning of Wesley's medical condition. The backdating converted Wesley's unexcused absences to excused absences, and she avoided additional disciplinary action for unexcused absences. SLCSO policy required that when an employee is on Intermittent FMLA leave, the employee has to call out as needed and report which type of leave is being used. The policy for taking sick leave required that employees call in two hours prior to the shift and notify your supervisor. Wesley felt it was unnecessary to have to call in so frequently. In order to maintain FMLA leave, employees are required to get renewed medical certifications for the cycles. Human Resources notified Wesley when she needed to provide a physician recertification to continue her FMLA leave. When Wesley had to get recertifications, she felt like it was too frequently and that she was being harassed. Obtaining recertifications required that Wesley pay co-pays, which she believed were very expensive since she was not working. Wesley also felt like she was being punished for using the FMLA leave benefit. During the August 21, 2014, to August 20, 2015, FMLA leave cycle, Wesley was absent approximately 444 hours. Pereira discovered Wesley's high leave rate, 444 hours, and noticed that it did not coincide with the projected two to six absences a year on the medical certification. Pereira conferred with her supervisor, Lt. Sheeler, and they decided to verify with Dr. Shadani whether the 444 hours were absences related to Wesley's underlying medical condition to which Wesley had FMLA leave approval. On August 31, 2015, Pereira wrote Dr. Shadani a letter inquiring about the 444 hours Wesley had been absent. By facsimile dated September 4, 2015, Dr. Shadani responded to Pereira's request and confirmed that the amount of absences listed in the medical certification was correct without further explanation or reference to Wesley's hypertension. On September 9, 2015, Human Resources approved Wesley's Intermittent FMLA request for the August 21, 2015, through August 20, 2016, cycle for Petitioner's own serious health condition. It was backdated to cover the dates Wesley missed back to August 21, 2015, even though the recertification was not completed until near the end of the covered FMLA period. While working at SLCSO, Wesley sought mental health counseling to help deal with her feelings about the workplace. She wanted to continue working for SLCSO and perform successfully. Human Resources decided they needed a better understanding of Wesley's condition with the extensive time she had been absent contrary to Dr. Shadani's absence projection. Pereira and Lt. Sheeler decided to request a second opinion since no detailed information was provided from Dr. Shadani. Pereira contacted Dr. Joseph Gage ("Dr. Gage"), a cardiologist and requested that he provide a second opinion. Dr. Gage was asked to review Wesley's job description and evaluate if her 444 hours of absences were reasonable for her medical condition, provide the reasoning for the number of absences from work for her medical condition, and determine if Wesley was capable of performing her job functions. SLCSO also requested that they be invoiced for the co-pay for Wesley's visit to Dr. Gage. On or about September 29, 2015, Pereira spoke with Wesley and told her she needed to go get a second opinion and that SLCSO was choosing a cardiologist, Dr. Gage, for the mandatory second opinion. That same day, Wesley received a call from Stuart Cardiology that she needed to report for a second opinion. SLCSO set up the appointment for Wesley. Wesley felt that SLCSO's making her report for a second opinion was harassment after her doctor, Dr. Shadani, had already responded to the Human Resources' request. Wesley emailed Pereira and told her "I am starting to feel punished for being on FMLA." Wesley also emailed Pereira and asked for the "specific reason(s) for your request for a second opinion." On or about October 2, 2015, Pereira responded to Wesley by email and stated: As I mentioned in our phone call a few moments ago, since Dr. Shadani's medical certification states that you would be absent for treatment for your medical condition for 2-6 times per year and due to the fact that you missed 444 hours within the past year, we are requiring this second opinion with our choice of cardiologist, Dr. Gage. On October 5, 2015, Dr. Gage evaluated Wesley. On October 9, 2015, Dr. Gage provided Human Resources his results of Wesley's evaluation. Dr. Gage was not able to confirm if the absences were from Wesley's hypertension because he did not have her blood pressure measurements during the absent dates. However, Dr. Gage was concerned about Wesley's blood pressure level and instructed Wesley not to return to work until the hypertension was more regulated. Dr. Gage also recommended Wesley expedite a visit to her cardiologist, Dr. Shadani, before being released. Wesley was released to return to work by Dr. Shadani on October 6, 2015. However, she did not provide her return to work release to Human Resources, contrary to SLCSO policy. Instead, Wesley provided the doctor's note to her supervisors. SLCSO policy requires medical clearance be provided to Human Resources if a deputy has missed more than 40 hours of consecutive work. On October 20, 2015, Kimberly Briglia ("Briglia"), the then human resources manager that replaced Pereira, called and told Wesley that a physician medical clearance had to be provided to Human Resources for her to return to work. Briglia's call was followed up by an email, and Wesley felt harassed, which she reported. On October 23, 2015, Lt. Sheeler reminded Wesley by memo that she had been sent an email by Human Resources on October 19, 2015, requesting a fitness for duty evaluation be provided by her physician. The memo informed Wesley that it was a "direct order" that she provide a fitness for duty report by November 2, 2015. Human Resources had sent previous correspondences to Wesley by certified mail that were returned unclaimed. SLCSO's practice was to have documents personally served by Civil Unit deputies when certified mail was unclaimed. Since Wesley had not been claiming her certified mail, Briglia had the SLCSO's Civil Unit personally serve Wesley at her residence with Lt. Sheeler's fitness for duty report memo dated October 23, 2015, to ensure Wesley received it because of the November 2, 2015, impending deadline. Wesley believed the personal service was harassment, and having to go to another doctor for a fitness of duty clearance was also harassment. On October 30, 2015, Wesley provided the fitness for duty report to Briglia and Lt. Sheeler. On October 31, 2015, Wesley was released to full duty without restrictions. On January 5, 2016, Human Resource Specialist Caitlyn Tighe requested Wesley provide a medical recertification to continue her FMLA leave. On January 22, 2016, Wesley provided Human Resources a FMLA medical certification signed by Dr. Shadani even though she felt it was harassing when SLCSO requested such documentation. On March 7, 2016, Wesley requested a retroactive pay increase because she believed that a deputy had received a similar pay increase and that she deserved the same. Wesley continued to believe that her supervisors were harassing her. On or about March 24, 2016, Wesley reported to Captain William Lawhorn ("Capt. Lawhorn") that she had been mistreated by Lt. Lyons yet again, as she had been doing since 2005. Wesley complained of the following problems with Lt. Lyons: Lt. Lyons assigned Sgt. Jackson over Wesley because he was "someone who feeds off of [Lt. Lyons]." Lt. Lyons tried to discipline Wesley while she was applying for FMLA leave. Lt. Lyons directed Sgt. Tom Siegart ("Sgt. Siegart") to call Wesley to let her know that she would need a doctor's note to return to work if she was out another day because she was on her third consecutive sick day. The "needs improvement" on Wesley's performance evaluation was only the rating because Lt. Lyons directed Sgt. Siegart to lower it. Lt. Lyons asked the deputies over radio communications had they seen Wesley who was late for roll call. Wesley believed Lt. Lyons was trying to embarrass her by calling her over the radio and not looking for her when she came in late. On April 19, 2016, Director of Finance Toby Long denied Wesley's request for a pay increase and explained that in 2007, Wesley had been provided an increase that corrected the discrepancy in her pay grade. He also informed Wesley that she had been paid properly since the 2007 increase. On April 22, 2016, Capt. Lawhorn had a meeting with Wesley and Lt. Lyons to discuss the March 24, 2016, complaint. Lt. Lyons agreed not to address Wesley publicly on the radio and talk with her privately going forward. Wesley declined the transfer Capt. Lawhorn offered, and Wesley and Lt. Lyons agreed they could work together. Capt. Lawhorn found no misconduct for any of the five complaints Wesley made on March 24, 2016. He found that the assignment of Sgt. Jackson was an arrangement based on need. The corrective action was moot because it was retracted when it no longer applied since Wesley's FMLA leave was backdated. He also determined that Lt. Lyons frequently used the radio to communicate all issues to deputies and was not singling Wesley out. Next, Capt. Lawhorn decided it was common practice to have a deputy call to check on another deputy about leave and to determine how to plan the work schedule. He also concluded Lt. Lyons used proper discretion when lowering Wesley's rating to "needs improvement," because Wesley had a zero sick leave balance and was tardy to work. Lastly, Wesley had been late at roll call; so, it was appropriate to look for her. Soon after the meeting, Wesley complained to Capt. Lawhorn that Lt. Lyons had discussed the meeting with Lt. Lyons' friend, Deputy Denetta Johnson ("Dep. Johnson"), and Dep. Johnson glared at her. Capt. Lawhorn followed up the complaint by investigating. He met with Dep. Johnson and found out that Lt. Lyons had not discussed the meeting with her. On May 27, 2016, Wesley provided SLCSO a Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition signed by Dr. Shadani to continue her FMLA leave. In May 2016, Wesley's Intermittent FMLA was approved after she provided the FMLA medical recertification to Human Resources. In May 2016, Capt. Lawhorn tried to assist Wesley and found himself compiling a history of Wesley's career, including ten years of complaints against Lt. Lyons and other supervisors, reviewing her discipline and attendance history, medical condition, FMLA leave, and injuries. He evaluated Wesley's complaint that Lt. Lyons and the other supervisors were causing her undue stress and that she was being treated differently. Capt. Lawhorn discovered that Wesley had ten corrective actions for her whole tenure with the sheriff's office, which were related to neglect on-duty charges or sick leave abuse. Her record confirmed approved Intermittent FMLA leave for a personal, serious medical condition. Capt. Lawhorn's review found that Wesley's work history pattern of declining attendance, including periods without a full paycheck, started in 2013 and included: 2013, missed two full paychecks; 2014, missed one full paycheck; 2015, missed ten full paychecks; and 2016, missed four out of nine checks (YTD). Capt. Lawhorn addressed the possibility of Wesley qualifying for workers' compensation benefits because of her complaints about workplace stress, anxiety, and interactions with Lt. Lyons. Capt. Lawhorn addressed the issues in a memo to Major Tighe dated May 16, 2016. However, it was determined that Wesley did not qualify for workers' compensation benefits. By July 2016, Wesley's FMLA leave was running out. Human Resources Clerk JoLeah Rake prepared and sent a letter to Wesley to notify her that the FMLA leave exhausted July 26, 2016. The letter was returned unclaimed. Briglia determined that notifying Wesley that her leave was exhausted was an urgent matter and that she requested personal service to Wesley's residence by the SLCSO Civil Unit to ensure Wesley received the notice. On or about August 3, 2016, Wesley provided a return to work note to Briglia from Dr. Denise Punger ("Dr. Punger"), stating that Wesley could return to work on August 5, 2016. Wesley had just missed five days of work. Briglia could not determine the nature of Wesley's illness because Dr. Punger's note did not provide an explanation for Wesley's five absent days of work. Also, Dr. Punger was not Dr. Shadani, the doctor who had previously provided Wesley's medical certifications for FMLA leave. Briglia was concerned for Wesley's safety and the safety of her co-workers. On August 4, 2016, Briglia made an independent Human Resources decision and requested by letter that Wesley provide a more detailed explanation from Dr. Punger for her absences, to ensure Wesley was fit for duty to return to work. Briglia had the Civil Unit personally serve the letter dated August 4, 2016, to Wesley at her residence. On August 4 2016, Wesley called Briglia to address her displeasure with the request for details from her physician and the personal service at her residence a second day in a row. Wesley described the SLCSO actions as embarrassing, harassment, retaliation, discrimination, and a violation of her rights. Wesley informed Briglia that they were making her situation worse. Briglia told Wesley she would return her call. On August 5, 2016, together Briglia and Lt. Sheeler called Wesley back to explain that it was within SLCSO policy to verify details of medical conditions. They further told Wesley that since the release was signed by a physician other than Dr. Shadani who had previously provided the explanation for her FMLA leave medical certifications and absences, the medical reasons for the absences needed to be clarified and provided. Lt. Sheeler and Briglia also told Wesley that workplace safety was the priority that created the need for the request in order to both protect employees and to make sure SLCSO is not going against the orders of Wesley's doctor. It was also explained to Wesley that civil service was necessary because she did not claim her certified mail, she needed to be notified, and she could not return to work without a fitness for duty clearance. Wesley did not believe Briglia and Lt. Sheeler. Each request for medical documents caused Wesley additional stress. Wesley admitted at hearing that she did not claim her certified mail. Afterwards, Wesley provided a medical excuse slip from Dr. Punger, clarifying that Wesley's absences were due to migraines and high blood pressure. Human Resources allowed Wesley to return to work after receiving Dr. Punger's excuse slip. On August 22, 2016, Wesley filed a complaint against Briglia. On August 22, 2016, Wesley received a corrective action for abuse of sick leave and an informal counseling for the five sick absences in four months that were not FMLA leave related. Wesley violated agency policy by taking time off without accrued sick leave. On or about September 8, 2016, Wesley provided SLCSO a Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition signed by Dr. Shadani. On September 19, 2016, Wesley filed a complaint regarding the August 22, 2016, corrective action. After reviewing the corrective action, Capt. Lawhorn found the corrective action appropriate and the informal discipline fair and supported by policy. Wesley did not lose pay for the discipline. On September 22, 2016, Wesley filed a discrimination case with the FCHR, alleging SLCSO discriminated against her by subjecting her to harassment and discrimination, and retaliation, for taking FMLA leave due to her disability, hypertension. On March 16, 2018, FCHR issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause. Wesley filed a Petition for Relief on or about April 12, 2018, to contest the determination. Wesley claims in her petition that the requirement that she acquire a second opinion from Dr. Gage, the personal service to her residence by the SLCSO Civil Unit deputies to deliver correspondence, and the requirement that her physician, Dr. Punger, clarify her medical condition to return to work were harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for her utilizing her FMLA leave benefit.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Peggy F. Wesley, pro se (Address of Record) For Respondent: R. W. Evans, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) R. W. Evans, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) Peggy F. Wesley (Address of Record-eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Christina M. Restauri, committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed community association managers pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was licensed as a community association manager, license number CAM 0019553. In May 1998, the Respondent became the community association manager for the Association. As such, the Respondent had duties and responsibilities in connection with the day-to-day management of the Association's business. In exchange for the performance of her manager duties, the Association paid the Respondent a salary, provided her with a condominium unit for her residence, paid her utilities, and covered her local telephone service. The Respondent's managerial duties included all office management for the Association, including the collection of fees owed to the Association, the payment of monies owed to vendors by the Association, and the accounting associated with payroll for salaries owed to employees of the Association. The Respondent and the Association entered into a written management agreement that outlined the terms of her employment. The agreement (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) did not require the Association to pay for the Respondent's family health insurance. Additionally, the agreement did not provide for paid sick leave in excess of four days per year. In connection with her responsibilities for payroll, the Respondent controlled the amount of checks made payable to herself for salary owed during the course of her employment. This authority also allowed her to control the amount of monies withheld from her salary to cover her family medical insurance and for the monies payable for federal withholding taxes and social security. On at least two occasions, the Respondent altered her withholding such that no monies were withheld for federal taxes. The Respondent failed or refused to produce a W-4 form that would have supported the change in withholding. Moreover, the Respondent did not produce a W-2 form that would have supported, after-the-fact, that the withholding forms had been modified to support the altered withholding amount. The Respondent failed or refused to produce documentation to establish that she repaid the Association for family medical benefits she received. Initially, the amount to cover the family health benefit was reportedly withheld from the Respondent's paycheck. The adequacy of the withheld amount came into question. Under the terms of her employment, the Respondent was to remit the monthly family health premium to the Association. She did not do so. In fact, copies of checks that were purportedly offered in support of her claim that she had made the payments were never deposited into the Association's account. When the Respondent was challenged as to the amounts owed for health premiums and the matter was to be further investigated, she tendered her resignation. She never produced any of the financial records requested to document any of the matters contested in this proceeding. In addition to the foregoing payroll discrepancies, the Respondent caused herself to be overpaid $125.00 for sick leave. On or about October 12, 2000, the Respondent took $700.00 from the Association's petty cash and loaned it to Sandy Schwenn. Ms. Schwenn was employed by the Association as a secretary and had agreed to repay the funds. The loan was never repaid. The Respondent was not authorized to loan monies from the Association's petty cash fund and admitted the error during a board of directors' meeting on November 15, 2000. Whether the Respondent made good on her promise to repay the loan herself is unknown. Clearly, at hearing the Respondent did not make such representation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order against the Respondent that imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $2500.00, and revokes her license as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 13th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Malone, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christina Marie Restauri 4640 Northwest 30th Street Coconut Creek, Florida 33063 Jennifer Westermann Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination against Petitioner on the basis of handicap.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination arises out of her employment with Respondent Children's Home Society (CHS) and a series of medical leaves in the years 2000-2001, which ultimately resulted in loss of her position. Respondent CHS is a non-profit social service organization established over 100 years ago. It is the oldest private child welfare service in Florida. It provides a range of services for the benefit of children and families throughout the state, including but not limited to counseling and support services, adoption, residential care, and home-based services. Petitioner appeared at the November 7, 2003, disputed- fact hearing using a cane. The undersigned observed that she seemed to experience pain at movement of her back and one leg. She presented no supportive medical evidence that she is currently disabled/handicapped and little to explain the cause of her present mobility problems or when they first appeared, except that one of her explanations for her current condition is that she was held against her will in a psychiatric center, in June 2002, pursuant to a circuit court Order, and at that time she fell and broke her back and leg. This occurred a year after Respondent had declared Petitioner's position vacant. Petitioner also testified that on March 29, 1999, on her way to work with CHS, her back and legs were injured, her face was crushed, and her teeth were shattered in an automobile accident that totaled her car. There is no evidence that she was off work with CHS for any period of time in 1999 or that any workers' compensation claim was made by her to CHS at that time. Petitioner did request a wage statement from CHS in connection with some automobile insurance claims in 1999. Also, in 2001, Petitioner also made a claim to CHS's insurance company for long-term disability benefits on the basis of this automobile accident, as more fully described below.3/ It is significant that her September 29, 2001 Charge of Discrimination did not list her back and legs as her handicap. Her November 14, 2002 Petition for Relief mentions the 1999 automobile accident. In 2000-2001, Petitioner was Program Supervisor I for CHS's Healthy Families Program in the Lake County area of CHS's Mid-Florida Division. She was in charge of the North Lake area, which encompasses Fruitland Park, Tavares, Leesburg, Lady Lake, Mt. Dora, Astor, Paisley, Sorrento, and other unincorporated areas of North Lake County. The Healthy Families Program is a very demanding one. Its Program Supervisors I have multiple and complicated responsibilities. As a Program Supervisor I for the Healthy Families Program, it was Petitioner's job to provide hands-on supervision to six paraprofessional Family Support Workers (FSW); ensure that rigorous program standards were maintained by them and other paraprofessionals and interns through weekly (two-hour minimum) formal staffings of each case; conduct ongoing case file reviews for quality of documentation; conduct year-end performance evaluations of supervised staff through information gained during the weekly staffings, file reviews, data related to stated objectives, home visits, and telephone quality assurance contacts with all clients; coordinate activities among and between staff (such as Christmas food and toy drives); coordinate comprehensive training and orientation for staff; provide staff with ongoing coaching throughout program implementation; oversee new case staffing and assignments with Family Assessment Workers (FAW); provide professional intervention for difficult cases; conduct joint home visits with all case load families every quarter; generate and/or oversee the reporting of program data; provide monthly comprehensive regular reports to a Program Manager on the status of all program activity; provide home visits and documentation in the absence of an FSW; cross-train to be an FAW; and assume new case assessment and documentation in the absence of an FAW. Program supervisors, with peers, conduct six to eight weeks of intensive training for each new FSW. After the initial training, the Supervisor is responsible for an additional 40 hours of ongoing training. The weekly staffing on every case is mandatory. Healthy Families Florida allows no excuses for a missed staffing on even one case in one caseload in one week. The program either meets the standard or it does not. This is also true for program objectives in which seventeen measurable goals must be met for every case. Program supervisors are required to assure constant and accurate data entry of all program information. Accuracy and timeliness of the data provide a measure of the program's success or failure in achieving program objectives. Program supervisors must meet every new family within the first month of service and conduct joint home visits with each family each quarter. Quality assurance telephone calls must be conducted with each family every quarter. Case files must be reviewed constantly to assure that the required documentation is in place. Finally, program supervisors must meet with the Health Families Program Specialist each quarter for a file audit and program review. In June 2000, Petitioner took her first Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. She was out on FMLA leave for four weeks and two days, returning in July 2000. During this period of time, Petitioner gave birth to a live male infant. The child died while Petitioner was strapped to the table in the delivery room and hospital personnel dropped the infant. Quite naturally, this tragic event, over which she had no control, caused Petitioner psychological trauma and enormous grief. She also maintained that the lack of appropriate after-care at that time might have resulted in her subsequent need for FMLA leave and a hysterectomy, as more fully described below. CHS's FMLA policy was contained in its Employee Handbook. In 1995, Petitioner acknowledged, in writing, receipt of the Employee Handbook. In 1996, CHS's leave policies were amended, and a clear equal employment opportunity and anti- discrimination policy was added to the Handbook. Petitioner maintained that she had signed the receipt for the Handbook before the foregoing amendments. That testimony by Petitioner is credible, but it is also clear that Petitioner subsequently became aware of CHS's leave policy via explanations in a series of letters to her from CHS's Human Resources Department over the course of her second FMLA leave of absence, which began in November 2000. FMLA leave is calculated on a twelve-month rolling calendar period. Under the FMLA, Petitioner was guaranteed reinstatement to her former position as Program Supervisor I or an equivalent job with the same pay, benefits, terms, and conditions of employment as long as her total FMLA leave (including all leave periods) did not exceed twelve weeks in a twelve-month period. CHS characterizes all medical leave as FMLA leave if the employee is eligible for FMLA leave. CHS requires that accrued paid vacation and sick leave be utilized before utilizing unpaid FMLA leave. This allows the employee to draw full salary and continue to receive health insurance benefits as long as possible before having to resort to unpaid leave, but it means that FMLA leave, vacation leave, and sick leave are depleted simultaneously. CHS automatically offers any employee who is on FMLA leave for a serious health condition an opportunity to convert the leave to disability leave after his or her FMLA leave expires. Under this CHS leave policy, an employee does not have to be handicapped or disabled to qualify for disability leave. At all times material, Julie Ormond, Healthy Families Program Manager, was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Ms. Ormond reported to Glenna Osborne. Glenna Osborne was the Director of Program Operations for CHS's Mid-Florida Division. She supervised three programs: Family Builders, Healthy Families, and Responsible Fatherhood. Ms. Osborne was in charge of 77 employees and 10 supervisors. Ms. Osborne has a Master's Degree in Human Development and 25 years' experience in management. On or about October 11, 2000, Ms. Ormond wrote a memo to two Healthy Families supervisors, one of whom was Petitioner. The memo detailed certain problems with both supervisors' areas: supervision duties, data entry requirements, and report completions. Ms. Ormond requested that the problems be corrected and in place no later than October 30, 2000. On November 3, 2000 and November 7, 2000, Ms. Ormond copied Ms. Osborne with memos sent only to Petitioner on the same dates, detailing that some of Petitioner's programs had serious problems, now including complete absences of some data entry, late data entry, and both failure to classify and inaccuracy of classification of some clients. There also were problems in Petitioner's area with meeting State requirements and registering childhood immunizations. Petitioner was instructed to resolve the problems in her area as soon as possible. Ms. Ormond also copied Ms. Osborne with a memo along the same lines, dated November 7, 2000, from another CHS employee, Jean Plescow. When data entry is incomplete or late, it is not always possible to readily determine whether the problem is just a delayed data entry or if there also has been an actual failure to accomplish the act, plans, staffings, trainings, and immunizations for which the data was supposed to be entered. Over time, as related more fully below, it appeared that there were more problems with Petitioner's job performance, and the performance of the staff she supposedly had trained, than merely a failure to transpose information to a computer from other records. Before her work problems had been resolved, Petitioner went out a second time on leave associated with a medical problem. It was Petitioner's affirmative duty to apply for leave initially and to seek extensions, if necessary, of any leave granted. Although Petitioner testified that she filled out all the vacation and sick leave forms necessary before going out on "medical leave"; that she left in October 2000; and that when she left, she fully intended to be back at work before her accrued vacation and sick leave ran out, the following facts are found upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. At Petitioner's request dated November 21, 2000, CHS again placed her on FMLA leave as of that date. Petitioner's last day of work before this second period of FMLA leave was November 19, 2000. On November 21, 2000, Petitioner informed CHS that she expected to return to work on or about January 23, 2001. Ms. Osborne's testimony was credible to the effect that she believed that Petitioner was going out on leave in November 2000 for surgery related to the June 2000 birth of Petitioner's child and not for surgery related to any prior automobile accident. Ms. Osborne is also credible that although she knew that Petitioner had been in an automobile accident in 1999, she never knew the extent of Petitioner's injuries from that accident and had never received any doctors' reports or any requests for accommodation of a handicap from Petitioner. Ms. Osborne did not perceive Petitioner as handicapped for any reason at any time between 1999 and November 19, 2000. Petitioner claimed that she only took the Program Supervisor I job on the condition "that if it were too hard, I could have my old [CHS] job back." Petitioner testified about how excellent she believed she performed her Program Supervisor I job prior to November 19, 2000, and that her work was up to date and commendatory when she took her second medical leave. She further stated that, as of November 19, 2000, she had accrued enough vacation and sick leave to cover the time she expected to be out on her second medical leave. Upon the facts found in Findings of Fact 23 and 24, it is further found that Petitioner never requested or received from CHS any workplace accommodations for a handicap dealing with her back or legs prior to her absence beginning in November 2000. Furthermore, all the medical excuses Petitioner supplied to CHS after November 19, 2000, support a finding that iron deficiency anemia from a uterine fibroid and a surgical hysterectomy with resultant recovery time caused Petitioner's absence from work after November 19, 2000, even though Petitioner supplied a different explanation to CHS's long-term disability insurance company after her leave ran out, as more fully discussed below. As Director of CHS's Mid-Florida Division's Human Resources Department, Linda Barry was responsible, in 2000-2001 for implementing and interpreting CHS's policies and procedures; benefits administration; approving transfers and promotions; approving and administering FMLA leaves and other leaves of absence; making termination decisions; and keeping apprised of CHS's hiring needs. On November 28, 2000, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter advising that because of her June 2000 leave, only seven weeks and two days remained of Petitioner's FMLA leave and requesting that Petitioner complete and return the FMLA paperwork. In the meantime, Ms. Osborne assessed the North Lake staffing situation and documented her concerns in a November 30, 2000 memo to Ms. Ormand. Ms. Osborne noted some of Petitioner's program documentation was satisfactory and some was exemplary, but that there still existed serious problems with missing, incomplete, or inaccurate program documentation and inadequate training and supervision of Petitioner's team. Ms. Osborne requested that Ms. Ormand bring these deficiencies to Petitioner's attention as soon as Petitioner returned from FMLA leave, and that if Ms. Osborne's observations were confirmed by Ms. Ormand, the problems should be addressed at that time by Ms. Ormond in Petitioner's evaluation. During Petitioner's absence beginning November 19, 2000 and continuing into 2001, three other area supervisors performed their own full-time responsibilities and divided Petitioner's job responsibilities among themselves. Janie Counts, Sumter County Supervisor, traveled several times a week to provide fill-in supervision for two of Petitioner's FSWs. The South Lake Supervisor, Stephanie Ellis, provided fill-in supervision for two more of Petitioner's FSWs. Ms. Ormand traveled from Tavares to Leesburg to provide fill-in supervision for Petitioner's two remaining FSWs. If one of the three fill- in supervisors was ill or on leave, the remaining two fill-in supervisors oversaw Petitioner's two remaining FSWs, continued to cover their own teams, and covered the other absent supervisor's six FSWs. In the course of scrambling to carry on CHS's regular workload in Petitioner's absence, these three supervisors reported to Ormand and Osborne more problems they uncovered in Petitioner's operation. Ms. Counts sent Ormand and Osborne written reports. Her December 10, 2000 report reflected that Petitioner had left behind inadequate program documentation, had failed to prepare her supervision notes, had missing family support plan updates, had late data and missing data, and had failed to provide adequate training to her FSWs. Ms. Counts reported to Ormand and Osborne in a December 15, 2003 memo that she had uncovered even more problems that had existed in Petitioner's program before Petitioner went on leave. She also related that Petitioner had come to the office that day for the office's Christmas Lunch. CHS's FMLA leave policy required the existence of a "serious health condition." A doctor's certification supporting an FMLA leave is required. Physicians are provided an instruction sheet explaining the definition of "serious health condition", so they can categorize the patient's illness. Sometime in December 2000, Petitioner's doctor, Dr. Grousse, provided Ms. Barry with medical certifications to support Petitioner's then-current FMLA leave. Dr. Grousse listed Petitioner's condition as severe iron deficiency anemia and stated that she needed a hysterectomy soon. Dr. Grousse advised that Petitioner could not perform any work at that time. On December 20, 2000, Ms. Barry sent Petitioner a memo explaining her FMLA leave rights and requesting a medical certification from her surgeon. She also informed Petitioner of CHS's policy of applying vacation and sick leave concurrent with FMLA leave and stated the balance of Petitioner's FMLA leave remaining after her leave in June 2000 had been seven weeks and three days. She noted that as of CHS's December 15, 2000 payroll, Petitioner had 313.32 hours accrued vacation time and 124.22 hours accrued sick time. On December 27, 2000, Dr. Boggus provided Ms. Barry with medical certification to support Petitioner's FMLA leave. He indicated that Petitioner needed pelvic surgery, that she could not perform any work at that time, and that she would need six weeks off work after the surgery for recovery. He categorized Petitioner's condition as a "1" and "2", which meant that her condition required a stay in the hospital and a work absence plus treatment. He did not categorize her condition as "chronic" (requiring periodic treatment), nor did he categorize her condition as "permanent/long term" (requiring supervision). In the meantime, Petitioner's job duties still had to be covered and her team re-educated and brought up to grade if CHS's program objectives were to be met. Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter dated January 10, 2001, advising Petitioner that her FMLA leave would expire on January 12, 2001; extending her leave to January 22, 2001, as unpaid disability leave; advising her that she could continue to use any remaining accrued vacation time; and requesting that she submit a physician's statement for any leave she would require beyond January 22, 2001. The FMLA does not require that employees who are absent more than 12 weeks in a 12 month-period be returned to the same or a comparable position. Significantly, Ms. Barry's January 10, 2001 letter stated that although it was not guaranteed that Petitioner's Program Supervisor I position would be available when she was ready to return from leave, an effort would be made to place Petitioner in her previous position or a comparable one, or if no such position were available when Petitioner was ready to come back, she might be eligible for re- hire should a position later become available and her past work history warranted re-hire. The crucial point here is that CHS expressed no obligation to hold Petitioner's job for her after her FMLA leave ran out, but stated that it would try to give her a job in the same capacity when she returned. In fact, on January 12, 2001, Petitioner had her hysterectomy, which, according to Dr. Boggus's December 27, 2000 certification, meant that Petitioner would have then needed an additional six weeks, or until approximately February 23, 2001, before she could return to work in any capacity. However, Petitioner's FMLA leave expired on January 12, 2001. She did not contact CHS until after that date, and only then did she send in medical information about the date of her surgery. (See Finding of Fact 45.) By the time Petitioner's FMLA leave had expired on January 12, 2001, the fill-in supervisors had reported to Ms. Osborne that they were burned out with having to work their own full loads and also deal with the deficiencies left behind by Petitioner. One fill-in supervisor found it impossible to find the time to retrain the two FSWs assigned her from Petitioner's team while trying to maintain her own workload as a full-time supervisor. Another fill-in supervisor requested a transfer to a less demanding program and a demotion. By the middle of January 2001, Osborne and Barry had concluded that the undue hardship on the fill-in supervisors was so great that it was impossible to hold Petitioner's position open any longer. They felt to do so would seriously compromise the extent and quality of services that CHS could offer its clients and would jeopardize the well being of the other supervisors who were covering for Petitioner. Faced with Petitioner's not returning to work in any capacity for an indeterminate period of time, Barry and Osborne decided they had no choice but to replace Petitioner when her FMLA leave expired. According to Ms. Barry, Dr. Neil Finkler provided a medical certification update on behalf of Petitioner to her "toward the end of January 2001." Because Dr. Finkler's undated certification is referenced in her January 23, 2001 letter to Petitioner (see Finding of Fact 46), it is concluded that Ms. Barry received Dr. Finkler's certification before January 23, 2001, and probably received it by the January 22, 2001 date she had required in her January 10, 2001 letter for a reply from Petitioner. Dr. Finkler's certification advised that surgery had been performed on January 12, 2001, and that Petitioner would be incapacitated until February 23, 2001. Dr. Finkler categorized Petitioner as a "1", which is defined as requiring a stay in the hospital and a work absence plus subsequent treatment. Dr. Finkler did not categorize Petitioner's condition as chronic, requiring periodic treatment or as a permanent/long term condition requiring supervision. On January 23, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter confirming that CHS had received Dr. Finkler's certification; notifying Petitioner that CHS had extended her leave to February 23, 2001, as unpaid disability leave, but that Petitioner could continue to use any remaining accrued vacation time; notifying her that as of CHS's January 15, 2001 payroll, her vacation balance was 269.54 hours; and advising that when Petitioner was ready to return to work she would have to provide a fitness-for-duty certification. The letter also stated: Because the operations of CHS require that vacant positions be filled, a disability leave of absence does not guarantee that your job will be available when you return. An effort, however, will be made to place you in your previous position or a comparable one. If no such position is available, you may be eligible for re-hire should a position become available for which you are qualified and your work history warrants rehire. The representation that an effort would be made to return Petitioner to her former position was probably untrue, given that Ms. Barry already knew that a replacement had to be hired soon. However, comparable positions might be available. (See Findings of Fact 48 and 49.) On January 26, 2001, Ms. Counts submitted a report of her fill-in supervision for Petitioner to Ms. Ormand. She reported that Petitioner's subordinates had not been trained by Petitioner on charting requirements and had not even been given certain forms. Effective January 29, 2001, after the automatic extension to January 22, 2001, given Petitioner in Ms. Barry's January 10, 2001 letter, had expired, but before the February 23, 2001 extension specified in Ms. Barry's January 23, 2001 letter, had been reached, CHS selected Belinda Henson to replace Petitioner as the Program Supervisor I for the Healthy Families Program in Lake County. Ms. Hensen would be on probation for six months, but she was considered a permanent employee as of her date of hire, to the extent that she would not be ousted from Petitioner's old Program Supervisor I position even if Petitioner chose to return to work. Although Petitioner was replaced as Program Supervisor I in her area on January 29, 2001, CHS still considered Petitioner to be an employee on leave status. CHS did not foreclose the possibility that it could have other Program Supervisor I openings available when Petitioner was ready to return from her leave. On February 16, 2001, Ms. Ormand sent a memo to Ms. Barry and Ms. Osborne, stating the problems with Petitioner's past job performance as expressed by the fill-in supervisors. When Petitioner's extended leave expired on February 23, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter of that date, stating that CHS had not received any further medical certification to authorize leave beyond February 23, 2001, and that if Petitioner needed to continue her leave, she must provide an updated physician's statement showing such leave to be necessary. Ms. Barry's letter also informed Petitioner that her previous position had been filled, but Should you be able to return to work, an effort will be made to place you in a comparable position, should one be available. If no such position is available, you may be eligible for rehire as a new employee if you should apply for an available position in the future. On February 27, 2001, Petitioner faxed Ms. Barry a copy of a note from Dr. Boggus, advising, "No lifting over 5 lbs for one month. She may return 25 hours/wk for next one month." Dr. Finkler also provided a note stating that Petitioner could return to work on February 27, 2001, "but only work up to 25 hours/week with no heavy lifting for the next 1 month." There were no part-time openings in the Mid-Florida Division as of February 27, 2001. Petitioner's accrued paid vacation leave must have run out at about this time. Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter dated March 5, 2001, advising Petitioner that Ms. Barry had received the two doctors' notes restricting Petitioner to part-time work and that there were no part-time positions currently available in CHS's Mid-Florida Division. However, Ms. Barry extended Petitioner's leave for one month to March 27, 2001, the time period of her restriction to part-time work. Petitioner could have applied in other CHS divisions for any available part-time position for which she was qualified. The record is silent as to whether there were any such part-time positions available then, but it affirmatively appears that Petitioner did not inquire into, or apply for, any part-time positions that may have been available outside of the Mid-Florida Division. Petitioner testified that she drove to a CHS office in Orlando either to get copies of her records or to apply for a position (her purpose is not entirely clear from her testimony). Because the parking lot was undergoing excavation, she just drove away. This is not a reasonable explanation for not applying for a position.4/ As set out above, Petitioner had established a pattern of not taking affirmative action to timely supply the necessary medical information to Ms. Barry. Petitioner repeatedly had waited until her leave expired before submitting any medical documentation. Nonetheless, CHS still considered her an employee through March 27, 2001.5/ Petitioner testified that she made an unemployment compensation claim and CHS fought it. She further testified that she was denied her unemployment compensation benefits, but someone in the Governor's Office intervened and she was then paid one unemployment compensation check only. The testimony concerning the Governor's Office is uncorroborated and not credible. However, Exhibit P-7, shows that on January 3, 2002, an Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee entered a "Decision", which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Issues involved: SEPARATION: Whether the claimant [Petitioner] was discharged for misconduct connected with work or voluntarily left work without good cause (including cause attributable to the employing unit or illness or disability of the claimant requiring separation); pursuant to Sections 443.101(1), (9), (10), (11); 443.036(29), Florida Statutes; and Rule 38B- 3.020, Florida Administrative Code. LEAVE: Whether the claimant's unemployment is due to a leave of absence voluntarily initiated by the claimant, pursuant to Sections 443.036(28) and 443.101(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Findings of Fact: the claimant became employed by a children's home in August, 1994. Her last position was program supervisor. The employer was subject to the terms of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In June, 2000, the claimant used four weeks and two days of FMLA leave. That left a remaining balance of FMLA leave of seven weeks and three days to be used within 12 months. Effective November 21, 2000, the claimant again began FMLA leave which expired on January 12, 2001. At that time the claimant was unable to return to the full duties of her position because of a temporary disability. The employer had no part-time, light duty work for the claimant. The employer did not terminate her employment, but could no longer guarantee the claimant her position would be held open for her after the FMLA leave expired. The claimant underwent surgery on January 12, 2001. When she was released by her physician for full duty work, her position had been filled. The claimant filed an initial claim for unemployment benefits effective March 18, 2001. Conclusions of law: The law provides that a claimant shall be disqualified for benefits for any week of unemployment due to a leave of absence, if the leave of absence was voluntarily initiated by the claimant. A bona fide leave of absence exists only when the employer and claimant have agreed upon a specific term and the claimant is guaranteed reinstatement to the same or a substantially similar position upon expiration of the leave. The testimony in this case shows that the employer did not guarantee reinstatement to the clamant after her FMLA leave expired on January 12, 2001. Therefore, the claimant was not on a bona fide leave of absence after January 12, 2001, and she was not on a bona fide leave of absence when she filed her initial claim for unemployment benefits. When the claimant did not return to work upon the expiration of the bona fide leave of absence, she became separated from her employment. Because it was the claimant who did not return to her full duty position at that time, and not the employer preventing her from returning to her full duty position, the job separation is considered a voluntary leaving. The law provides that a claimant who has voluntarily left work without good cause as defined in the statute shall be disqualified from receiving benefits. "Good cause" includes only such cause as is attributable to the employing unit or which consists of an illness or a disability of the claimant requiring separation from the work. The term "work" means any work, whether full- time, part-time or temporary. The record and evidence in this case show that the claimant voluntarily separated from her employment on January 13, 2001, because she underwent surgery on January 12, 2001, and she was unable to return to work due to a temporary disability. Thus, the claimant became separated from her employment due to a disability requiring separation. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause consisting of a disability requiring separation, and she is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Decision: The determination of the claims adjudicator dated April 16, 2001, is MODIFIED to hold that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause consisting of a disability requiring separation. [Bracketed material and emphasis supplied] It is not certain from the record herein that the foregoing January 3, 2002, unemployment compensation decision ever became final, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Even if final, and therefore binding on the parties, the decision was made under statutory definitions and tests different from those found in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and therefore, the decision is not binding in this case. However, the decision remains instructive as to matters of timeline, such as when CHS knew that Petitioner was claiming to be handicapped and from what cause. (See, below.) Clearly, it appears that Petitioner was not acknowledging any back and leg trouble to the unemployment compensation forum at least as late April 16, 2001, and probably not as of January 3, 2002. Accordingly, it is found, on the basis of Exhibit P-7, that on March 18, 2001, Petitioner filed an initial claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Exhibit P-7 shows that the claim was apparently defended through CHS's Winter Park Office, and the record is unclear as to when Ms. Barry, whose office was located in Jacksonville, or Ms. Osborne, whose office was located in Tavares, found out about the claim. (However, see Findings of Fact 67 and 74.) Because Ms. Barry had not received any further medical certification from Petitioner before Petitioner's leave extension expired on March 27, 2001, she legitimately could have terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis that Petitioner had neither returned to work nor requested an extension of her leave. Instead, On April 3, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter advising that CHS had not received any further medical certification indicating Petitioner needed leave beyond March 27, 2001, and stating that Petitioner needed to provide medical certification if she had a continued medical need preventing her from returning to work or that required continued restrictions in the type of work she could perform. The letter further stated that if Petitioner were able to return to work, she must submit a fitness-for-duty certification. Ms. Barry requested that Petitioner submit any documentation regarding her medical status no later than April 16, 2001. On April 4, 2001, Ms. Barry received a telephone call from an attorney, Mr. Larry Colleton, requesting information on how Petitioner could apply for long-term disability insurance benefits. Ms. Barry did not believe Petitioner was eligible for long-term disability benefits because Petitioner had already been released for part-time work (see Finding of Fact 52), but she sent Petitioner an explanation of long-term disability benefits, including information that they applied to any employee who was disabled for six months or longer; an explanatory booklet; and forms to apply directly to the insurance company for that type of benefit. Ms. Barry copied Mr. Colleton with her explanatory cover letter to Petitioner. Exhibit P-7 shows Mr. Colleton as Petitioner's lawyer in the unemployment compensation case. The record is silent as to whether Ms. Barry knew, on April 4, 2001, that there was an unemployment compensation claim or of Mr. Colleton's involvement therein. Ms. Barry testified that she did not interpret Mr. Colleton's telephone request concerning long-term disability benefits to be notification of a handicap or a request for an accommodation for a handicap. On April 11, 2001, Petitioner faxed Ms. Barry a March 28, 2001 letter from Dr. Boggus advising that although Petitioner had been "completely and totally disabled from her usual occupation through March 23," she was now cleared to return to work. The fax also included a copy of Petitioner's completed application form for long-term disability benefits directed to CHS's insurance company. This form, signed by Petitioner, represented that she was disabled due to the 1999 automobile accident and the absence of any jobs within CHS that fit her limitations. Upon receiving the application for long-term disability benefits signed by Petitioner, Ms. Barry assumed that Petitioner would thereafter deal directly with CHS's insurance company to support her application for long-term disability benefits, including sending it a medical excuse dated after the March 28, 2001 release by Dr. Boggus, which Ms. Barry had received. Ms. Barry submitted the employer portion of the long- term disability paperwork to the insurance company on April 30, 2001. Exhibit P-7 shows that on April 16, 2001, an unemployment compensation claims adjudicator entered an order, which held Petitioner ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The undersigned is persuaded that this would be the last date reasonable to suppose that Ms. Barry did not know about the unemployment compensation claim. By letter dated May 9, 2001, the long-term disability insurance company sent Petitioner a letter requesting a statement from her doctor to support her long-term disability application. Ms. Barry received a copy of this letter. By letter dated June 4, 2001, the insurance company advised Petitioner that because Petitioner had previously been asked for proof of disability, and disability documentation had not been received, the insurance company was closing her file on long-term disability benefits. Ms. Barry received a copy of this letter, too. The last medical release that Ms. Barry ever received from Petitioner was Dr. Boggus's unrestricted return to work release, dated March 28, 2001, which Ms. Barry received on April 11, 2001. (See Finding of Fact 65.) By letter dated June 11, 2001, Ms. Barry notified Petitioner that she was being removed as an active CHS employee and that CHS was closing her personnel file because she had not submitted any doctor's certification indicating a medical need for a continued leave of absence and she also had not applied for any vacant open positions within CHS. This letter was the effective termination of Petitioner by Respondent. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by Ms. Barry and Ms. Osborne. There is no persuasive evidence that, between March 28, 2001, when she was medically released to return to work and June 11, 2001, when she was terminated, Petitioner had applied for any CHS positions. Barry and Osborne each credibly testified that they had no reason to believe at any time material that Petitioner was handicapped, because Petitioner's physician, Dr. Boggus, had released her as being fully able to perform the functions of her job on March 28, 2001, and as of the date of her termination, Petitioner had never complained to Barry or Osborne that she believed that she was being discriminated against on any basis. On June 19, 2001, after the first unemployment compensation decision which apparently went against her (see Finding of Fact 67), Petitioner wrote Heidi Burkett, an employee in the same Jacksonville CHS Human Resources Office as Ms. Barry. The letter referenced Petitioner's unemployment compensation claim number. By this letter, Petitioner requested reinstatement to the position of "Program Supervisor in the Lake County area or an elevated position." This letter mentioned nothing about any handicap. On June 19, 2001, there were no Program Supervisor I openings in CHS, and Petitioner was not qualified for a position above Program Supervisor I. Petitioner testified that she had a "Paralegal Master's," but in Ms. Osborne's view, that degree would not render Petitioner eligible for any open elevated position. Petitioner would have had to have an advanced degree in a field related to childcare or in social work in order to fit the qualifications of any higher position with CHS. Furthermore, Petitioner would not have been promoted to an elevated position until her supervisors had an opportunity to work with her to make sure she had resolved the performance issues which were uncovered in her Program Supervisor I position while she was on leave. There is no evidence that Petitioner made any further contacts after her June 19, 2001 letter in an attempt to return to CHS, or that she applied for, or expressed any interest in, any positions below Program Supervisor I inside or outside of Lake County. The September 29, 2001 Charge of Discrimination was the first notice Ms. Barry had that Petitioner was claiming discrimination. Petitioner claims that after June 2001, she was gainfully employed as a teacher "for a while" by the Lake County School Board and/or a technical institute. She did not demonstrate that any accommodation for handicap was necessary in these employments. The record is silent as to her earnings since her separation from CHS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive survivor benefits from a joint and survivor annuity, under Option 3 of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) defined benefit plan, following the death of her spouse, Anne M. Birch, who, as an FRS member, elected Option 1 in 2012 when Florida law would not allow Ms. Birch to elect Option 3 or 4 and designate the joint annuitant as Petitioner, whom she lawfully married after electing Option 1.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Birch, who was born on September 12, 1950, and Petitioner, who was born on August 26, 1956, fell in love and began to live together in 1992. They jointly owned all significant property, including their primary residence, with a right of survivorship and were jointly liable for household expenses and debt, including the mortgage note on their primary residence. On January 31, 2001, Ms. Birch executed a will that left any remaining property to Petitioner and named her as the personal representative of the estate.1/ Ms. Birch designated Petitioner as her primary beneficiary for employee benefits that authorized such designations. On October 11, 2002, Ms. Birch and Petitioner signed an Amended Declaration of Domestic Partnership, pursuant to the Broward County Domestic Partnership Act of 1999, to register themselves as domestic partners under Broward County Ordinance 1999-18. Fully vested and having accrued substantial benefits from having worked for Broward County in an FRS-covered position for nearly 30 years, on October 23, 2012, Ms. Birch entered DROP, effective October 1, 2012. At that time, Ms. Birch elected Option 1 for the payment of her benefits, checking the "no" box in response to the question of whether she was married. As described in the Conclusions of Law, Option 1 is the maximum benefit and is payable for the life of the retiree. Ms. Birch's monthly Option 1 benefit was $3039.25. The monthly Option 3 benefit, which, as described below, is payable until the latter death of the FRS member or her surviving spouse,2/ would have been nearly $1000 less than the monthly Option 1 benefit.3/ Respondent implemented Ms. Birch's election by paying Ms. Birch's Option 1 benefits into her DROP account. In August 2013, Ms. Birch became ill with cancer. She eventually had to quit working and terminated DROP, at which point Respondent paid Ms. Birch her Option 1 benefits directly. On June 16, 2014, Ms. Birch and Petitioner were lawfully married in Massachusetts. Almost two years later, on May 24, 2016, Ms. Birch died, at which time all payments under Option 1 ended. When Ms. Birch and Petitioner registered as domestic partners in Broward County, no state allowed or recognized same- sex marriage, often pursuant to a "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Continuously since 1997, Florida law banned the allowance and recognition of same-sex marriage, even if performed in a jurisdiction where such a marriage were legal, and restricted "marriage" to a legal union between a man and a woman and "spouse" to a member of such a union. § 741.212(1) and (3); Ch. 97-268, § 1, at 4957, Laws of Fla. (Florida DOMA).4/ Massachusetts was the first state to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, effective in 2004. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (decision stayed 180 days to allow legislature to enact law consistent with the court's ruling). Three or four years after Goodridge, Ms. Birch and Petitioner visited Massachusetts, but did not exercise their right to enter into a lawful marriage at that time. A series of court decisions invalidated the federal and state DOMAs, including the Florida DOMA. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), held that the federal DOMA, as applied to federal tax law, was unconstitutional. By order entered August 21, 2014, in Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014) (Brenner I), Respondent was enjoined from enforcing or applying the Florida DOMA, although the court stayed its injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay,5/ as reported by the district court in Brenner v. Scott¸ 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91969 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (Brenner II), in which, on March 30, 2016, the court issued a summary judgment on its injunction in Brenner I. Between Brenner I and Brenner II, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state DOMAs were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Petitioner testified that she and Ms. Birch would have been lawfully married by October 2012, when Ms. Birch retired, but for the Florida DOMA. This testimony is credited. Long prior to 2012, Ms. Birch and Petitioner organized their financial affairs as though they were lawfully married, sharing assets and liabilities equally. Petitioner testified credibly that she and Ms. Birch always "played by the rules": thus, Ms. Birch and Petitioner would have been deterred from getting married prior to Ms. Birch's retirement, such as when they were visiting Massachusetts in 2007, due to the legal futility of attempting to obtain recognition in Florida of a marriage lawfully performed elsewhere. Less persuasive is Petitioner's testimony that, in October 2012, Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3, if this option had been available to her, and it is impossible to find on this record that she would have done so. There is no evidence that Ms. Birch and Petitioner rearranged their financial affairs to achieve, to the extent possible, an Option 3 election. Household income was $1000 per month greater under Option 1 than Option 3, so life insurance on Ms. Birch or an annuity for Petitioner could have mitigated Ms. Birch's inability to choose Option 3 when she retired. Prior to retiring, Ms. Birch did not attempt to elect Option 3 in writing or orally. Even after retiring, as noted below, Ms. Birch displayed ambivalence about whether she wanted to change her election. As a named defendant in Brenner I, on April 14, 2015, Respondent responded to the injunction against its enforcement or application of the Florida DOMA by issuing Information Release #2015-184 (Release). Sent to FRS members who retired prior to January 2, 2015, and elected Option 1 or 2, the Release states: . . . FRS retirees and . . . DROP participants who were in legally-recognized same-sex marriages at the time they retired or began DROP participation and chose Option 1 or Option 2 will have an opportunity to change benefit payment options in light of . . . Brennan. These retirees will be able to change their retirement payment option from their current selection to Option 3 or Option 4 to provide a continuing monthly benefit to their spouse. The retirees impacted by this change have an effective retirement date or DROP begin date on or before January 1, 2015. The Release provides that an eligible retiree interested in a second election must contact Respondent in writing, identify the retiree's spouse, and certify that the retiree and spouse were married in a state or country that allowed same-sex marriage when the FRS member retired. The Release states that Respondent will respond with an estimate of the new benefit payment under the option that the retiree intends to select and provide the retiree with the paperwork necessary to make the second election. Available on Respondent's website,6/ the Release provides the opportunity of a second election of Option 3 or 4 to any FRS member7/ who retired prior to January 2, 2015; chose Option 1 or 2 when she retired; and was in a same-sex marriage when she retired. The Release places no limit on how far in the past the retirement took place.8/ The thrust of Petitioner's case is directed toward backdating her lawful marriage to Ms. Birch to a point prior to Ms. Birch's retirement. As noted above, the timing of the lawful marriage is a problem under the Release, which requires a lawful marriage at the time of retirement, but another problem under the Release is the fact that the Release provides to the FRS retiree, not her surviving spouse, the opportunity for a second election, nor, as discussed immediately below, is this a technical requirement that can be overcome by Petitioner's serving as a representative of Ms. Birch--the second election is extended only to living FRS retirees. The virtue of the Release for Petitioner is that it confers the opportunity of a second election without any proof that, at the time of the first election, the FRS member would have elected Option 3 or 4. If Petitioner does not rely on the Release, she must also prove that Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3 or 4, which, as noted above, she has failed to prove. By limiting the second election to the FRS retiree, the Release limits the potential of adverse selection in allowing a second election, possibly years after the first election.9/ There are three possibilities at the time of the second election: both spouses are alive, only the FRS retiree is alive, and only the surviving spouse is alive. The Release's restriction of the right to make the second election to the FRS retiree means that the second and third possibilities do not result in second elections: respectively the FRS retiree would not reduce her payment to provide an annuity to a spouse who is already deceased10/ and a surviving spouse has no right to make an election under the Release. The couple may gain a minor financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option several years after the retirement of the FRS member, so that they may be better informed of the health of each of them. But the surviving spouse would gain a significant financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option after the death of the FRS member. Shortly after Respondent issued the Release, Ms. Birch filed with Respondent a Spousal Acknowledgement Form that she had signed on May 8, 2015. This form indicates that Ms. Birch is married, but nothing else. At about the same time, though, Ms. Birch contacted Respondent by telephone to discuss the Release and any choices that she may now have under the Release. By letter dated May 26, 2015, Respondent calculated monthly benefit amounts under Options 1 through 4, but the letter warns: "Your benefit option will not be changed unless you complete and return the required forms noted in this letter" and indicate a choice of repaying in a single payment or installments the excess benefits of Option 1 over the smaller benefits paid under Option 3 or 4. The May 26 letter requires further action on Ms. Birch's part and predicates any right to a second election upon a lawful marriage at the time of retirement. The record provides no basis for finding that any of Respondent's representatives misstated the lawful-marriage condition. To the contrary, in at least one conversation with Ms. Birch, Respondent's representative insisted on verification of a lawful marriage as of October 2012. Additionally, Ms. Birch was not requesting a right to make a second election; at most, she was gathering information to prepare to decide whether to ask to change her election. By June 26, 2015, pursuant to a note documenting a telephone conversation between Ms. Birch and a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch decided to keep Option 1 rather than make a second election of Option 3.11/ In May 2016, Ms. Birch finally made a clear attempt to change her election to Option 3. By letter dated May 12, 2016, Ms. Birch stated that she was lawfully married to Petitioner on June 12, 2012, and asked for "the change in beneficiary for my pension, due to the one time option given" in the Release. Even at this late date, Ms. Birch was not yet ready to elect Option 3 because the letter concludes: "I would like to see the breakdown of monetary options to make an informed decision." However, on May 20, 2016, during a telephone call with a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch provided the date of birth of Petitioner and asked Respondent to expedite her request because she did not have long to live. On the same date, Ms. Birch signed an Option Selection form electing Option 3. By letter dated July 18, 2016, Respondent acknowledged the death of Ms. Birch and informed Petitioner that all pension benefits ended at that time. By letter dated September 22, 2016, Petitioner asked for reconsideration and supplied copies of various documents, the relevant provisions of which have been referenced above. By letter dated October 20, 2016, Respondent denied the request for reconsideration.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under Option 3 from Ms. Birch's FRS account and dismissing Petitioner's Request for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Rivero was first employed by Miami-Dade County in November 1984, apparently as a security guard with the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department. He took a physical examination and informed the doctor conducting the examination that he suffered from cluster migraine headaches and that they occurred about six to eight times each month. Mr. Rivero subsequently left his employment with Miami-Dade County, but was re-hired in September 1986. At the time he was re-hired, he advised the recruiting officer that he suffered from migraine headaches. Mr. Rivero was employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department from September 1986 until August 10, 1999. From January 1996 through May 1999, Mr. Rivero was employed as a park ranger by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, and he worked at the Metrozoo. His job responsibilities included patrolling areas of the zoo, assisting in emergencies, providing information to patrons, and providing for the safety of patrons and security for Miami-Dade County property. Because of his migraine headaches, Mr. Rivero often was absent from work, and he was advised several times by his supervisors, in documents entitled Record of Counseling, that the frequency of his absences was unacceptable. The most recent Record of Counseling submitted at the hearing by Mr. Rivero was dated November 24, 1997. On January 10, 1995, Mr. Rivero consulted with Ray Lopez, M.D., a neurologist, about his recurring migraine headaches, which had become more intense and frequent after Mr. Rivero was involved in an automobile accident in November 1994. Dr. Lopez diagnosed Mr. Rivero with migraine headaches, with post-traumatic, likely cervicogenic, intensification. Dr. Lopez treated Mr. Rivero for his headaches from January 1995 until at least December 1999. During this time, Mr. Rivero was seen by Dr. Lopez approximately twice a month. Between 1995 and 1999, Mr. Rivero's migraine headaches continued to intensify in severity and frequency. By January 1999, Mr. Rivero found it increasingly more difficult to carry out his duties as a park ranger at Miami-Dade County's Metrozoo when he had a headache, and his headaches were occurring almost daily. Between January 1999 and March 1, 1999, Dr. Lopez wrote several notes documenting Mr. Rivero's inability to work on specified days because of the headaches. Effective March 29, 1999, Mr. Rivero's work schedule was cut from 39 hours per week to 16 hours per week. Mr. Rivero had previously worked Saturdays through Wednesdays, with Thursdays and Fridays off. As a result of the change, Mr. Rivero was assigned to work on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Mr. Rivero last reported for work at the Metrozoo on or about May 22, 1999. Mr. Rivero was unable to continue working because of the frequency and severity of his headaches. Nonetheless, Mr. Rivero called the Metrozoo office regularly between May 22, 1999, and July 18, 1999, to report that he was absent because of illness. He did not, however, have any intention of returning to work after May 1999 because he believed he could no longer perform the duties required of a park ranger.3 In July 1999, Diane Condon, the personnel manager for Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, was told by Mr. Rivero's supervisor at the Metrozoo that Mr. Rivero had been absent for quite some time, that he had exhausted his paid leave time, and that the reason for his absences was medical. It was suggested to Ms. Congdon that Mr. Rivero be offered leave under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. In a letter dated July 12, 1999, from John Aligood, Chief of the Human Resources Division of the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, Mr. Rivero was notified that he had been preliminarily granted family/medical leave but that he would have to present a certification from his doctor within 15 days of the date he received the letter in order for his eligibility for such leave to be finally determined. Mr. Rivero was advised in the July 12, 1999, letter that continuation of the leave was contingent on receipt of medical certification from his doctor; that he must furnish the certification within 15 days after he received the letter; and that "[f]ailure to do so will result in relinquishing FMLA leave; you will then be required to return to the full duties of your job or resign, or you will be terminated for abandonment of position." The July 12, 1999, letter was sent to Mr. Rivero via certified mail, and he picked it up on July 22, 1999. Mr. Rivero contacted Ms. Congdon on July 22, 1999, and told her that Dr. Lopez was unavailable at that time to complete the medical certification. Ms. Congdon advised him that the medical certification was required for the family/medical leave to continue.4 In a letter dated August 10, 1999, which was prepared by Ms. Congdon, Mr. Rivero was advised that his employment had been terminated for abandonment of position because he had failed to provide the medical certification required for continuation of family/medical leave by July 26, 1999, which was 15 days after July 12, 1999.5 Summary The evidence presented by Mr. Rivero is insufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that his employment as a park ranger with the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department was terminated because of his medical condition. Mr. Rivero himself testified that he believed he was unable to perform the duties required by his job as of May 1999 because of his migraine headaches and that he had no intention of returning to work subsequent to May 1999. The evidence presented by Mr. Rivero is sufficient to support the inference that, prior to July 12, 1999, Mr. Rivero did not advise his supervisor at the Metrozoo or anyone else in the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department that he did not intend to return to work after the end of May 1999. His being placed preliminarily on family/medical leave as of July 12, 1999, did not harm Mr. Rivero but, rather, resulted in his health benefits being continued until his termination on August 10, 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief of Ruben Rivero. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 12th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner became an employee of an FRS employer within a calendar month after completing his participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) in violation of Subsection 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes (2006)1; whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an unadopted rule; and whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to several facts in this proceeding. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the FRS. Petitioner was employed as an equipment operator (street sweeper) by the City of Venice, Florida (the City), for more than 35 years until he completed his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. At that time Petitioner was earning approximately $38,000.00 annually. The City revoked its participation in the FRS effective January 1, 1996, and established a new City retirement plan. The new City retirement plan applies to all employees hired after January 1, 1996. However, the City continued its participation in the FRS for all employees who were members of the FRS prior to January 1, 1996. Petitioner elected to participate in DROP on March 31, 2002. At the conclusion of DROP, Petitioner received a lump-sum payment of approximately $84,279.00 and received monthly benefits until Respondent ceased paying benefits in accordance with the proposed agency action. Petitioner's efforts at reemployment were unsuccessful. On January 31, 2007, the City employed Petitioner to perform the same work he previously performed at a base salary as a "new hire."2 The City assured Petitioner that reemployment would not adversely affect Petitioner's FRS retirement benefits because the City does not consider itself an FRS employer. A member of the City's human resources department contacted a representative for Respondent to verify the City's statutory interpretation. The conversation eventually led to this proceeding. Petitioner was not employed by an employer under the FRS during the next calendar month after completing his participation in DROP on January 11, 2007. Judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law hold that the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is a factual finding. When Petitioner began employment with the City on January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not a member of the FRS within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(12). He was not an employee covered under the FRS because he was hired after January 1, 1996, when the City revoked its participation in FRS. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(11). Petitioner was not employed in a covered group within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(34). Petitioner did not become a member under Chapter 121, and the City was not a "city for which coverage under this chapter" was applied for and approved for Petitioner. On January 11, 2007, Petitioner ceased all employment relationships with "employers under this system" within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(39). When Petitioner resumed employment on January 31, 2007, Petitioner did not fail to terminate employment with an employer under the FRS system. Petitioner's new employer was not an employer under the FRS system and had not been such an employer after January 1, 1996. After January 1, 1996, the City was not a covered employer for any employees employed after that date, including Petitioner. On January 31, 2007, Petitioner was not an employee of an employer within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(10). The City did not participate in the FRS system for the benefit of Petitioner. The employment of Petitioner by the City on January 31, 2007, had no financial impact on the FRS, and Petitioner did not begin to accrue new benefits with the FRS. Respondent did not demonstrate in the record why the agency's proposed statutory interpretation requires special agency insight or expertise and did not articulate in the record any underlying technical reasons for deference to agency expertise. Nor did the agency explain in the record or its PRO why the issue of whether Petitioner is an employee of an FRS employer is not an issue of fact that is within the exclusive province of the fact-finder. Respondent proposes a literal interpretation of selected statutory terms without explaining legislative intent for the prohibition against reemployment within the next calendar month.3 Respondent's proposed statutory interpretation also fails to distinguish the economic impact in situations involving what may be fairly characterized as a dual-purpose employer; that is one like the City which is part covered employer and part non-covered employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order reinstating Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits, paying all past due amounts to Petitioner, with interest, and dismissing its request for reimbursement of past FRS benefits from Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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, 2008.
