The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding, under the relevant provisions of Chapter 760 Florida Statutes, concern whether the Petitioner was discriminatorily discharged because of her race and purported disability.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Escambia County Area Transit, Inc., operates a passenger bus service in the area of Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner was employed as a bus operator since August of 1999. On September 7, 2006, the Petitioner took FMLA leave for a condition involving migraine headaches. That leave extended through October 9, 2006. The Petitioner returned to work from that FMLA leave on January 9, 2007, however. A notice was sent to the Petitioner from Dawn Groders, an administrator with the Respondent, on April 19, 2007, informing the Petitioner that she had exhausted her FMLA leave for the twelve month "rolling calendar year" and that she would not begin accumulating additional FMLA leave until October 9, 2007. The Respondent's policy regarding FMLA leave is as follows: "If a family leave of absence exceeds 12 weeks on a rolling twelve month period, the employment status may be in jeopardy, which could result in termination of employment." There is a labor contract between the Respondent and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1395, the Petitioner's union. That contract contains no provision regarding warning or noticing an employee about obtaining exhaustion of FMLA leave. On October 19, 2007, the Petitioner commenced additional FMLA leave for an injury to her finger. The collective bargaining agreement contains a provision regarding a discretionary leave of thirty days which may be discretionarily granted by the employer. Because the Petitioner had previously exhausted her FMLA leave, based on the rolling twelve month calendar, and had yet to re-acquire any leave, the Petitioner was granted discretionary leave by the Respondent because of having exhausted her FMLA leave. The Petitioner contends that she should have been given alternative light-duty work by the Respondent. On December 3, 2007, however, the Petitioner received a letter from Richard Deibler, the Respondent's Director of Safety Training and Planning, which stated that there was no temporary alternative- duty work available at that time. (Respondent's Exhibit 4, in evidence). The witness for the Respondent established that there was no available part-time or light-duty work at the time the Petitioner was on FMLA leave or attempted to be on FMLA leave. The union contract does not require that part-time, light-duty work be available, with the exception of one individual who was so authorized and who was "grandfathered-in" in that status from a previous union contract. The Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence which would establish that light-duty, part-time work was available at the time in question, in late 2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner remained on re-activated FMLA leave due to her previous injury during the month of December 2007. On December 11, 2007, she received a notice from the Respondent to the effect that she must report for duty by December 27, 2007, because of exhaustion of her FMLA leave and was advised that her employment might be terminated if she were not at work by that date. On December 27, 2007, the Petitioner failed to return to work and her employment was terminated because of exhaustion of her FMLA leave, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. As of the date of her termination, the Petitioner had used a total of 64 days of FMLA leave during the course of the rolling calendar year, dating back to December 27, 2006. The Respondent was aware that the Petitioner had exhausted her FMLA leave based on a rolling calendar year in October 2007, and yet still extended her leave, not just for the referenced thirty days discretionary leave, but for nearly ninety additional days. The Petitioner has asserted no dispute with the number of days the Respondent contends (and the evidence supports) that she was not present at work due to using FMLA leave or other forms of leave, such as discretionary leave. The Petitioner offered no persuasive evidence to show that she was terminated from her employment due to her race or any other reason aside from exhaustion of her FMLA leave and the company's policy with regard thereto. The Respondent's representative and witness established, with her testimony, that the Petitioner was not terminated because of any perceived or actual disability. Although the Respondent knew of the medical reasons the Petitioner stated necessitated her absence, the Respondent was not aware that any physical impairment had resulted in an impairment of any major life activity of the Petitioner. The testimony of Ms. Chizek, is accepted as persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner was not terminated because of any perceived or actual disability or for reasons of her race, but rather was terminated solely because she had exhausted her FMLA leave and in fact the substantial amount of discretionary leave voluntarily granted to her by the Respondent. The Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that employees or former employees, outside her protected class (African-American) had been treated dissimilarly and more favorably, for the same or similar violations of company policy, to wit, the exhaustion of FMLA leave and subsequent continued failure to return to work. In fact, the persuasive, preponderant evidence shows that the Respondent uniformly applied its policy regarding FMLA exhaustion and subsequent termination of employment. Patty Chizek conducted an audit of all employee files in the fall of 2007 concerning the question of FMLA exhaustion. That audit was not an attempt to single out the Petitioner in any way due to her race or any disability, if one existed. Her investigation revealed that, in fact, a number of employees had exhausted their FMLA leave. They were all terminated during the month of December 2007, similarly to the Petitioner. Thus, Mary Nelson, Nadine Harris, Eurethia Davies, and Linda Donaldson, all of whom are Caucasian women, were terminated during December 2007 because of exhaustion of their FMLA leave. Derrick Roberts, an African-American male, was terminated during that month, for the same reason. All of these employees were terminated for that reason after not being able to return to work for a reasonable period of time after exhaustion of FMLA leave. Moreover, the Petitioner testified that she was first absent from work due to a migraine headache-related medical problem and, on the later occasion, due to injury of her finger, apparently caused by wrestling with the steering wheel of her bus, after it ran on the curb of a street she was traversing. Although it might be recognized, and indeed is undisputed, that these injuries or medical conditions were experienced by the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not establish that they truly impaired her in a major life activity. Even if they were significant, physical reasons for being absent from work for some of the time during which the Petitioner was absent, she did not establish, with persuasive evidence, that they impaired a major life activity and constituted any permanent, or relatively permanent, impairment of her ability to perform the duties of her job. Even if the Petitioner had established that there was a permanent impairment which might constitute a disability, she did not establish that the Respondent had refused a reasonable request for an accommodation therefor. Although the Petitioner requested light-duty employment, the Respondent established with persuasive evidence that, at the time it was requested by the Petitioner, there was no such employment available. Therefore, it was not an accommodation the Respondent could reasonably offer the Petitioner at that time, even if the Petitioner had a known, perceived or recognized disability at that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Marino, Esquire McMahon & Berger 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 James N. Foster McMahon & Berger 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 Tricia Dubose 1349 43rd Ensley Street Birmingham, Alabama 35208 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Prior to her termination and at all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed as a Senior Clerk for Respondent. At sometime prior to December 19, 1988, Petitioner purchased a nonrefundable airline ticket departing on December 23, 1988, and returning on December 30, 1988. Thereafter, Petitioner requested 40 hours of annual leave for the workdays of December 23, 1988, and December 27-30, 1988 and requested her personal holiday for the workday of December 28, 1988. On December 19, 1988, Petitioner was informed that she had 21.2 hours of available annual leave and was granted 16 of those hours for the workdays of December 23, 1988, and December 27, 1988. Petitioner's request to take her personal holiday on December 28, 1988 was denied, as was her request for annual leave for the period of December 28-30, 1988 denied. Upon being advised that a portion of her leave request had been denied, Petitioner told her supervisor about the airline ticket and that she "could not afford to lose my investment of my air-fare." Her supervisor, in turn, advised Petitioner that if she were absent December 28-30, 1988 she would be deemed to have abandoned her position. Notwithstanding such knowledge, Petitioner was absent from work without authorized leave for the three consecutive workdays of December 28-30, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a final order that the Petitioner abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service System as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1185 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Not pertinent nor necessary to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 3. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not pertinent nor necessary to result reached. Not pertinent nor necessary to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Not pertinent nor necessary to result reached. Not pertinent nor necessary to result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Thomas H. Bateman, III., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ms. Nancy M. Morrison 1925 Coolidge Hollywood, Florida 33020 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a food service worker at Lehigh Acres Middle School in Lee County, Florida (the school), from October 22, 1998, until August 2, 2004, when Petitioner suspended Respondent with pay and benefits. A food service worker is an educational support employee defined in Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner proposes to terminate Respondent's employment on the basis of facts alleged in the Petition for Termination dated August 11, 2004 (the petition). In relevant part, the petition alleges that during the 2003-2004 school year Respondent was guilty of excessive absences that affected Respondent's ability to carry out the essential functions of her position within the meaning of Section 9.015 of the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC agreement). During the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent's work day began at 8:30 a.m. and ended at 3:00 p.m. Each day included two paid 15-minute breaks and one unpaid 30-minute lunch break. Respondent's immediate supervisor adopted a policy identified in the record as a "ready-to-work" policy. The policy required food service workers, including Respondent, to put on their hair nets and aprons and wash their hands before beginning work. After a worker was ready to work, the worker then entered in a daily log sheet the time that the worker began work each day. The policy also required each worker to record in the daily log the time the worker left work and any period that the worker left and returned to work in the same day. The supervisor incorporated the "ready-to-work" policy in a revised employee handbook. The revised handbook was distributed to food service workers on September 26, 2003. On December 10, 2003, Respondent signed a form acknowledging that she had read the revised handbook. On 47 days from August 14, 2003, through May 20, 2004, Respondent was late to work, left work early, left for part of the same day, or was absent the entire day. Respondent was late to work on 20 days, left work early on 13 days, was absent 13 days, and left for part of one day for two hours and ten minutes. Petitioner deems all 47 instances to be "absences" within the meaning of Section 9.015 of the SPALC agreement. Assuming arguendo that all 47 instances are absences, the preponderance of evidence does not show that the absences were unauthorized. The supervisor testified at the hearing. The supervisor did not have authority to approve or disapprove absences. Rather, the head of the department or the school principal authorized requests for absences. Neither the head of the department nor the principal testified at the hearing. The supervisor did not know whether Respondent's absences were unauthorized. The supervisor merely reported the 47 absences to the "front office" and later determined they were unauthorized and excessive. Petitioner did not submit personnel records that may have documented which absences, if any, were unauthorized. Counsel for Petitioner argued during the hearing that even authorized absences can adversely affect Respondent's ability to carry out the essential functions of her position within the meaning of Section 9.015. However, counsel did not cite any legal authority in his PRO to support the argument. Assuming arguendo that all 47 absences were unauthorized, Subsection 9.016(a) of the SPALC agreement imposed an affirmative duty on Petitioner to inform Respondent, immediately upon her arrival to work following each absence, that Petitioner considered the absence to be unauthorized. The purpose of the requirement is to afford an employee such as Respondent with notice and an opportunity to show extenuating circumstances. If an employee demonstrates extenuating circumstances, the agreement requires Petitioner to change the absence to an authorized absence. It is undisputed that Respondent had several physical conditions, including skin cancer and a miscarriage, that affected her attendance during the 2003-2004 school year. The preponderance of evidence shows that Respondent was absent from work due to medical conditions. During the hearing, Petitioner stipulated that it was withdrawing several dates as a basis for its proposed termination of employment. The withdrawn dates include all 13 days on which Respondent was absent for an entire day; the day that Respondent left and returned to work for part of the day; and ten days that Respondent left work early on August 25 and September 10, 2003, and between October 20, 2003, and March 26, 2004. The stipulation reduced the contested absences on which Petitioner based the proposed termination to 20 days when Respondent was late to work and three days when Respondent left work early. As previously found, Petitioner failed to submit testimony or documentation that the contested absences were unauthorized or that Petitioner informed Respondent upon her arrival to work that Petitioner had determined the immediately preceding absence to be unauthorized. Assuming arguendo that the contested absences were unauthorized and that Petitioner provided timely notice to Respondent, the contested absences present other evidential concerns for the trier of fact. On 12 of the 20 days that Respondent was late to work, Respondent was no more than five minutes late. Being late five minutes or less did not affect Respondent's ability to carry out the essential functions of her position within the meaning of Section 9.015. Another food service worker testified for Petitioner that being late five minutes or less did not affect any employee's ability to do his or her job. For the remaining eight late arrivals, Respondent was 15 minutes late on two days, 30 minutes late on two days, and was late the remaining four days between seven and 12 minutes. The preponderance of evidence did not show that Respondent failed to telephone her supervisor when Respondent was going to be late 15 or more minutes. During most of the remaining four days, Respondent was at the school getting ready for work or otherwise within view of her supervisor. The co-worker called as a witness by Petitioner, testified that Respondent's tardiness in excess of five minutes did not adversely affect the witness' job responsibilities, but did adversely affect the supervisor or other workers. However, the witness erroneously thought that Respondent's work day in the 2003-2004 school year began at 8:00 a.m. It is undisputed that Respondent's shift began at 8:30 a.m. The witness never really knew Respondent's actual start time. When Respondent was late to work, Respondent made up the time by working into her lunch or break periods. This was a custom that similarly situated workers practiced regularly. The assistant principal for the school did not testify. However, documents in the record indicate that the assistant principal met with Respondent on October 20, 2003. At that time, Respondent had been late to work approximately 15 times, absent approximately two times, and had left work early approximately two times. The documents indicate the assistant principal "talked with [Respondent] . . . about being on time to work." The supervisor who testified at the hearing was not present at the meeting. Following the meeting with the assistant principal, Respondent's attendance improved. The supervisor did not formally discuss Respondent's attendance with her again until the supervisor completed a performance evaluation for Respondent in March 2004. The performance evaluation, in pertinent part, authorized the supervisor to score prescribed categories of Respondent's job performance as "Effective level of performance observed," "Inconsistently practiced," or "Unacceptable level of performance observed." The supervisor did not score any of Respondent's targeted areas as "Unacceptable level of performance observed." She scored five areas as "Inconsistently practiced," including categories labeled "Is punctual in attendance," "Follows written and oral work schedule," and "Exhibits dependability." On April 22, 2004, the school principal signed a form recommending Respondent for reemployment for the 2004-2005 school year. On April 29, 2004, Respondent counter-signed the form recommending reemployment. On the date of the proposed reemployment, Respondent had been absent from work 43 days, including 19 of the 20 contested late arrivals and one of the three contested days when Respondent left work early. On May 20, 2004, Respondent left work three hours early. On May 21, 2004, the supervisor issued a written reprimand to Respondent for being late to work, leaving work early, or being absent from work approximately 47 times between August 14, 2003, and May 20, 2004. The written reprimand did not provide a clear point of entry for Respondent to contest the factual basis for the reprimand in an administrative hearing. The reprimand merely informed Respondent that Respondent was entitled to prepare a response to the reprimand. Respondent and her union representative did not challenge the factual basis of the written reprimand in a grievance procedure authorized in Article 5 of the SPALC agreement. However, Section 5.102 prohibits the grievance procedure from being construed to deny any rights that are otherwise guaranteed to Respondent by law. On May 24, 2004, the first work day following Respondent's receipt of the written reprimand, Respondent began work five minutes late at 8:35 a.m. Neither the supervisor nor any other representative for Petitioner spoke with Respondent to inform her that Petitioner had determined the late arrival to be an unauthorized absence. On May 27, 2004, the supervisor recommended that Petitioner terminate Respondent's employment. This proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the petition, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding Respondent full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2005, 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 1st day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Dr. James W. Browder, III, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a clerical worker, a permanent career service position, at all times material hereto. Prior to October 3, 1988, Petitioner experienced back problems which prevented her attendance at work. Dr. Brian M. Mitteldorf, a chiropractic physician, treated Petitioner beginning September 25, 1988, and continuing through all times material hereto. On October 3, 1988, Theresa (Terry) Bartelmo, Petitioner's supervisor, advised Petitioner in writing that Petitioner would be out of sick leave and annual leave the following day. Mrs. Bartelmo enclosed two copies of the form used to request a leave of absence and advised Petitioner that it was necessary to fill in all blanks and to return the form to her by no later than October 10, 1988. Respondent does not authorize any type of leave for unspecified or unlimited duration. Ms. Bartelmo further advised Petitioner that "... If I do not hear from you by that date, (October 10,1988) then I will assume you wish to terminate your employment with the Department and will process the necessary documentation." On October 3, 1988, Petitioner's husband, Edmund DeSilva, met with Ms. Bartelmo. During the meeting, Ms. Bartelmo gave to Mr. DeSilva the letter she had written to Mrs. DeSilva, together with the forms for the leave of absence. The form for leave of absence was signed by Petitioner on October 3, 1988. Mr. DeSilva hand delivered the form to Ms. Bartelmo prior to the deadline of October 10 set by Ms. Bartelmo. This form was forwarded by Ms. Bartelmo to Martha (Marty) Anderson, Respondent's district personnel manager. Ms. Bartelmo recommended that the leave of absence be granted. Ms. Anderson approved the leave of absence on October 13, 1988. The leave of absence form submitted by Petitioner and approved by Respondent contained a tentative return-to-work date of November 23, 1988. On October 3, 1988, the date Petitioner signed the leave of absence form, it was uncertain when Petitioner would be able to return to work because of her medical condition. On or about October 18, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo telephoned Petitioner to check on her progress. After Petitioner told Ms. Bartelmo that she did not feel well enough to talk, Ms. Bartelmo asked Petitioner to call her when Petitioner felt better. Ms. Bartelmo did not talk with Petitioner again until after Petitioner's employment was terminated. Dr. Mitteldorf called Ms. Bartelmo on November 22, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m. Dr. Mitteldorf told Ms. Bartelmo during that telephone conversation that Petitioner was too ill to return to work. Ms. Bartelmo asked Dr. Mitteldorf for a letter stating his opinion as to when Petitioner could return to work. Dr. Mitteldorf's letter was dated December 13, 1988. During their telephone conversation on November 22, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo did not tell or indicate to Dr. Mitteldorf that their conversation was tantamount to an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Dr. Mitteldorf that she was mailing to him the forms Petitioner needed to submit to request an extension of her leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo can recommend approval of a request for leave of absence, but she does not have the authority to grant the approval. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Petitioner or anyone acting on Petitioner's behalf, that Petitioner had any form of authorized leave after November 22, 1988. Other than having Dr. Mitteldorf call Ms. Bartelmo, Petitioner made no effort to have her leave of absence extended. Petitioner's authorized leave of absence ended on November 22, 1988. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave of absence beginning November 23, 1988, and continuing for more than 3 consecutive work days. By certified mailing on December 2, 1988, Petitioner was advised that her career service position was terminated as of December 1, 1988. Petitioner had been given a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook on December 16, 1986, which provides in part: After an unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policies. Petitioner's request for a formal hearing was timely filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order concluding that Petitioner has abandoned her position with Respondent in the career service due to her unauthorized absence from employment for three consecutive workdays beginning November 23, 1988. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are unsupported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Colomba DeSilva 2019 Southwest 29th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned his career service at South Florida State Hospital
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Mark Jenkins was a career service employee at South Florida State Hospital assigned to the living and learning unit commonly known as the Polk ward. Mr. Jenkins' responsibilities as a UTR-Specialist included the day-to-day management of mentally ill or retarded clients who were unmedicated and considered aggressive. Employees in this unit attempted to train the clients to eat, bathe, and function with some independence. On January 25, 1987, Petitioner requested annual leave for the period from March 17, 1987, through April 4, 1987. The purpose of this request was to allow Petitioner adequate time to participate in his school's annual chorale tour. Petitioner was a scholarship soloist with the chorale and, as such, he was required to make the tour. Petitioner was a full-time college student pursuing a B.S. in psychology. In the past, Petitioner's requests for leave to accommodate his school schedule had been granted. However, for the request made January 25, 1987, no formal response was given. On January 12, 1987, Petitioner was notified that conflicts between school requirements and job responsibilities would have to be resolved. Petitioner was advised that he would not be allowed to take leave time for singing activities unless the hospital were assured of adequate unit coverage. Petitioner had received twenty-five leave days for the period March 7, 1986, through March 30, 1987, which was considered excessive by the personnel director, Barbara Nickels. Richard Duncan was the schedule coordinator for the Polk ward. It was his responsibility to review the leave requests and to determine whether or not leave could be approved. Duncan determined there was inadequate unit coverage to allow Petitioner to take the leave requested. Duncan did not notify Petitioner that the leave was not approved. It was Duncan's practice to approve leave in writing. He would prepare the unit schedule, in advance, to reflect an approval. Petitioner did not receive an approval and the unit schedule did not reflect Petitioner's leave request had been granted. Petitioner did not report to work, as scheduled, for the period he had requested leave. Petitioner did not call in during that time as he was on tour with the school chorale.
The Issue Whether Michael J. Rodgers abandoned his position and resigned from the career service within the contemplation of Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact V. G. "Jerry" Collins, a DOT maintenance engineer for 14 years, was Michael Rodgers' supervisor in June of 1987, when DOT employed the latter as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard. While recovering from a job-related injury, Mr. Rodgers had been assigned to pump gas there. After Mr. Rodgers began work for DOT, he was furnished a copy of DOT's employee handbook. DOT's Exhibit No. 6. On page 12, the handbook states: If, for any reason, you are going to be late or absent when prior approval has not been obtained, you must notify your immediate supervisor within one hour of your regular authorized starting time. This will allow the Department to effectively schedule your work assignments on a daily basis. When you call in, you should give the reason(s) for your absence, type of leave requested and date and time you expect to report back to work. If you are unable to report back to work on the date and time given contact your supervisor, again, to explain why and request an extension of leave as needed. If you fail to contact your supervisor or other authorized person, within the first hour of absence, you will be placed on unauthorized leave of absence without pay for the entire period of time absent from work. If there were extenuating circumstances to keep you from making such contact, this will be taken into consideration at a later time. If you do not indicate on the first day of absence that you will be absent more than one day, then call in on each successive day to report your absence. Failure to provide such notice will result in your being charged unauthorized leave without pay for all days absent where proper notification is not given. DOT's Exhibit No. 4. On page 43, the handbook discusses the abandonment rule: JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. DOT's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Rodgers signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook on December 16, 1983. DOT's Exhibit No. 5. At about four on the afternoon of Monday, June 22, 1987, Mr. Collins asked Mr. Rodgers when his next doctor's appointment was. Mr. Rodgers replied, "I need to see him tomorrow." (T. 35) He did not "state that it would be for illness" (T. 53) or specify the reason for the visit. (T. 74) Believing Mr. Rodgers had an appointment to see his doctor the following day, Mr. Collins said, "That's fine, when you come back to work bring a doctor's certificate." (T. 17) But the leave Mr. Collins authorized Mr. Rodgers to take was "not a leave of absence for illness." (T. 53) On Tuesday, June 23, 1987, A DOT employee marked Mr. Rodgers absent for the day on "authorized leave" (T. 18) without pay. Mr. Rodgers, who lives about 60 miles from Perry, travelled to Dr. Hauser's office in Old Town on Tuesday morning "to sit down and talk with him about some information [he] needed," (T. 36-37) concerning an automobile accident's forensic sequelae. He was told to return later that day, because the doctor could not see him immediately. Although he returned at noon, and on four different occasions that afternoon, the doctor gave other patients priority. Mr. Rodgers then telephoned DOT's Perry yard, and "gave the secretary . . . the message that [he] was unable to see the doctor and . . . would still need to be off . . . to attempt to see him again on Wednesday the 24th." (T. 24, 38) When Mr. Collins learned of Mr. Rodgers' conversation with the secretary, he asked William S. Clark to telephone Dr. Hauser's office, at the Tri-County Medical Center. Betty in Dr. Hauser's office told Mr. Clark that, although Mr. Rodgers had in fact visited the office, he had no appointment. On Wednesday morning, DOT's attendance records were marked to reflect that Mr. Rodgers was absent on authorized leave without pay, although Mr. Collins testified that leave never was authorized for that day. (T. 19, 80) Later Wednesday, Mr. Collins, under the impression that Mr. Rodgers "had lied about going to the doctor for a doctor's appointment," (T. 82) ordered that the attendance records for Tuesday and Wednesday be altered to show that Mr. Rodgers' leave was not authorized on those days. (T. 19, 80, 82) On the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th, Mr. Rodgers, who had inquired at the office about Dr. Hauser's availability on two occasions earlier in the day, saw Dr. Hauser, discussed effects of the automobile accident, and made an appointment for the following day to have his back examined. (T. 38) On Thursday, the 25th, he kept the appointment, and obtained a slip of paper attesting the fact. But, in Mr. Collins' view, Mr. Rodgers' employment had ended before he saw the doctor that day: "He was considered to have abandoned his position by 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning since he had not called in [after Tuesday afternoon.]" (T. 79) When Mr. Rodgers returned to work on Friday, June 26, 1987, Mr. Collins read, then returned, the note from the doctor, informed Mr. Rodgers of the changes in the attendance records, and advised him that his employment had terminated.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT reinstate Michael J. Rodgers as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard, with back pay since June 26, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aaron A. Green, Esquire P. O. Box 1265 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was absent from work without authorization for three consecutive workdays so that she is deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned as a Career Service employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Viola D. Cooper began her employment with Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 19, 1987. She held the position of Support Service Aide at the Landmark Learning Center in Opa Locka, Florida. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains attendance and leave policies. She signed a receipt for the handbook which acknowledged that she understood it was her responsibility to review the handbook in detail. On several occasions, Petitioner was counseled by her immediate supervisor regarding the proper procedures to follow when Petitioner would be late reporting to work and when Petitioner wanted to use some of the leave time available to her. Additionally, on August 8, 1988, Petitioner received a written reprimand from her supervisor for being absent from work without authorized leave. That written reprimand recited that Petitioner was scheduled to work on July 5, 1988, and that she failed to come to work and failed to call. She was, accordingly, assessed eight hours of leave without pay for that particular day and was advised that a future violation of absence without authorized leave would result in disciplinary action ranging from a 10-day suspension to dismissal. She was further reminded in that written reprimand that she was required to request leave when she was going to take time off from work. On May 3, 1989, Petitioner advised her then supervisor Barbara Butler that she intended to take off some time to visit her sick mother, that she did not know exactly when she would be doing that, and that she did not know how long she would be gone. She told Butler she did not want to use any of her annual leave (vacation) time available to her; instead, she wished to take leave without pay so as to not use her annual leave time for that purpose. Her supervisor again advised her as to the proper procedures and further advised her that if she wished to take leave without pay such a request must be presented in writing in advance to Edward Dixon, the Food Service Director at Landmark. Petitioner understood the instructions given to her by Butler. She advised Butler that she would attempt to finish working the rest of that week but that if she found out that she needed to go even in the middle of the night, she would do so. Petitioner worked May 4 and May 5, 1989. During the time period of May 3 when Butler advised her to follow the proper procedures and informed her, once again, as to what the proper procedures were, through May 5, her last day of work, Petitioner submitted no request for leave to her supervisor and made no request of Dixon for authorized leave without pay. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on May 6 and 7, a Saturday and a Sunday. From Monday, May 8, 1989, through Thursday, May 11, 1989, Petitioner failed to report to work. Petitioner had not requested that she be permitted to take leave from her work assignment, and no authorization had been given to her by anyone to not report for work on those days. Butler advised Dixon that Petitioner had stated that she might be taking time off to visit her mother, and Dixon's subsequent attempt to contact Petitioner to ascertain why she had failed to report to work for four consecutive days was unsuccessful. By certified letter dated May 11, 1989, Dixon and Ulysses Davis, Superintendent at Landmark Learning Center, advised Petitioner that she had not called in or reported to work on May 8 through May 11 and, therefore, she had abandoned her position and was deemed to have resigned from the Career Service. They further advised Petitioner that her resignation would be effective on the date she received the letter or on the date that they received the undelivered letter directed to her. Petitioner received that letter on May 19, 1989. Between May 8, 1989, and May 19, 1989, Petitioner had made no contact with anyone at Landmark Learning Center. By May 19, 1989, Petitioner had been absent without leave for 10 consecutive workdays. On May 19, Petitioner appeared at Landmark Learning Center to pick up her pay check. Although she went to the food service area while she was at Landmark, she did not speak to Butler, Dixon, or anyone else regarding her lengthy unauthorized absence or her failure to request leave in advance of failing to appear for work. Similarly, she failed to speak to anyone in Landmark's personnel office regarding her failure to request leave time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays and is therefore deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of December, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3538 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact contained in her paragraphs numbered 1-3 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Judd-Edwards Assistant Regional Director 2171 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142 Julie Waldman and Caridad Planas, Esquire 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue 5-424 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether the petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact 2. On April 14, 1983, petitioner received a copy of the "Employee Handbook" published by the Department of Transportation. Job abandonment is explained in the Employee Handbook as follows: After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current policy. The petitioner was absent without authorized leave on April 13, 14 and 15, 1987. Petitioner did not appear for work on those days and did not call the office to explain or report his absence. On April 16, 1987, petitioner called the office at approximately 8:00 a.m. to say that no one had come to pick him up. A fellow employee sometimes furnishes petitioner's transportation. By the time petitioner called in to work, he had been absent three consecutive days without authorization. Petitioner had previously been warned about his absenteeism. On March 17, 1987, petitioner was placed on unauthorized leave without pay due to his failure to report to work or notify his supervisor. On March 18, petitioner was sent a letter notifying him that he had to report by March 24, 1987, or he would be dismissed. Thus, petitioner was well aware that he had to notify his supervisor of any absences.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining the action of the Department of Transportation and finding that Fred P. Noble abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Fred P. Noble 2516 Queen Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Pamela Miles, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis M. Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections as a full-time career service employee. On July 13, 1984, he was ranked as a Correctional Officer I at Florida State Prison (FSP). On March 2, 1990, Petitioner had been placed on workers' compensation due to a back injury. On Thursday, April 5, 1990, Dr. W. David Sikes of the Bradford Chiropractic Center signed a medical release permitting Petitioner to return to light duty on Monday, April 9, 1990. Dr. Sikes was apparently the authorized treating physician to whom the agency had currently obligated itself pursuant to Chapter 440 F.S. [The Florida Workers' Compensation Act]. A previous physician had released Petitioner for full-duty work on April 3, 1990. Petitioner was present in the office of Personnel Manager Marion Bronson on Friday, April 6, 1990. At that time, Mr. Bronson told Petitioner to report for work on the first shift (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) on Monday, April 9, 1990. This meant Petitioner would be doing mail room duty during the day instead of his regular duties on his regular shift of midnight to 8:00 a.m. Petitioner told Mr. Bronson he could not work the first shift due to his needing to be home to take of his invalid wife. To this, Mr. Bronson replied that the first shift was the only light duty available. On Friday, April 6, 1990 Petitioner did not refuse to come in to work the first shift on Monday, April 9, and he did not tell Mr. Bronson that he was already signed out on annual leave for that date. Nonetheless, Mr. Bronson was left with the impression at the end of their meeting that Petitioner would not come back to light-duty work on Monday. Petitioner did not report for work on the first shift on April 9, 10, or 11, 1990 (Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday). On Wednesday, April 11, 1990, Mr. Bronson mailed Petitioner a letter that read, in pertinent part: You have been carried in unauthorized leave without pay status since April 9, 1990. You were also carried on unauthorized leave without pay on April 3, 1990. You are hereby instructed to return to duty at 8:00 a.m. the day after you receive this letter. If you do not return to duty on that date it will be deemed that you have abandoned your position at Florida State Prison and you will be dismissed. In the past, the FSP personnel office usually made further efforts to contact missing employees after such a letter had been sent, but no such attempts were made in this instance. Normally, FSP gives employees an opportunity to call in and rectify absentee problems but deems it abandonment if the employee does not respond. At no time subsequent to April 6, 1990 did Petitioner contact anyone at FSP regarding his absence. Petitioner did not actually receive the April 11 letter until Friday, April 13. Petitioner did not report for work on Saturday, April 14, Sunday, April 15, or Monday, April 16. Saturday would have been a regular workday for Petitioner. However, Petitioner's usual days off were Sunday and Monday, and nothing had been said by Mr. Bronson about altering Petitioner's workdays. On Monday, April 16, Mr. Bronson mailed Petitioner a letter that read, in pertinent part: This is to inform you that in accordance with Section 22A-7.010(2), F.A.C., you have been deemed to have abandoned your position as Correctional Officer I and resigned from the Career Service System effective April 14, 1990. A copy of Section 22A-7.010(2) is enclosed for your information. You have been absent from duty for at least three consecutive workdays without authorized leave as follows: April 10, 11, and 12, 1990. Please be advised that you have been dropped from the payroll effective the close of business April 14, 1990. Unbeknownst to Mr. Bronson, Petitioner had exercised preapproved annual leave for the period of April 10-14, 1990. None of Petitioner's superiors advised Mr. Bronson of this fact. There was no notation to this effect in Petitioner's personnel file in Mr. Bronson's office. It was Mr. Bronson's testimony that it was better personnel management and he would have preferred to have Petitioner drawing annual leave during this period than to be paying him full pay for makeshift light duty. If Petitioner had requested annual leave on April 6, 1990, Mr. Bronson would have granted it. As of April 14, 1990, Petitioner had "banked" 119.75 hours of annual leave time which would have been sufficient to cover his April 10-14, 1990 vacation or "no show" days. Additionally, he also had available 26.5 hours of sick leave but this sick leave was subject to certain deductions and adjustments which had allowed the agency to keep Petitioner on at full pay the previous week while technically he was only eligible for a reduced amount based on workers' compensation. In accord with standard FSP policy, Petitioner had previously submitted an annual leave request form on October 16, 1989 to request leave for the week of April 10 through April 14, 1990. This form had been approved by his immediate superior, who at that time was his shift supervisor, Officer Gaskin. Officer Gaskin was the correct superior to make such approval. Mr. Bronson has nothing to do with the approval of leave under such circumstances. Harry Tison, who became Petitioner's shift supervisor in April 1990 while Petitioner was still out on workers' compensation leave, was not aware of Petitioner's preapproved annual leave until Mr. Bronson's office began making inquiries after the April 16 letter, but at that time, Tison was able to refer to a leave calendar posted in his area which showed that Petitioner was expected to be out on annual leave on those days. From that information, Officer Tison, by reason of his familiarity with the FSP system and hierarchy, could infer that Petitioner's leave had been approved by FSP's highest command figure, "the Colonel." Some witnesses alluded to FSP policy that even preapproved annual leave requests constituted only tentative approval unless the employee checked with his supervisor a week before actually exercising his leave so as to be sure that the preapproved leave had not been revoked due to an employee crunch, but there is no such rule or printed policy of the Department of Corrections or FSP, and the evidence is insufficient to establish such a vague policy as uniform or binding on Petitioner. Also, in this instance, the week before, Petitioner was away from work most of that week on workers' compensation disability, and there is no evidence of any employee crunch which would have altered the prior annual leave approval.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner has not abandoned his position and returning him to the appropriate position with back pay and emoluments, subject to any appropriate setoffs under the Workers' Compensation Act and any mitigation from other employment. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner has filed only a "Final Argument" and that is essentially legal argument and proposed conclusions of law as opposed to proposed findings of fact which are entitled to a ruling pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. Moreover, the format does not lend itself to intelligible rulings since no sentence is numbered. Respondent's PFOF: 1-6 Accepted. Accepted except for the last sentence, which does not comport with the testimony heard. Accepted. Rejected in FOF 13, which reflects the greater weight of the credible evidence. Accepted but subordinate. - 15 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Perri M. King Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Gloria W. Fletcher, Esquire 515 North Main Street, Suite 300 Post Office Box 1208 Gainesville, Florida 32602 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
