The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a janitor with Respondent because of his handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lee, was hired by Respondent in August 1994 as a custodial worker at the Tallahassee Mall in Tallahassee, Florida. As a janitor Petitioner's duties included bending, stooping, and lifting. He was assigned to zone 3 in the Mall. Up until 1996, when Petitioner was injured, Petitioner received good evaluations on his job performance. Indeed Petitioner was very proud of the quality of his work and took special care to do his job well. Sometime prior to May 20, 1996, Petitioner, while at work and in the scope of his employment, stepped on a set of stairs which were not properly attached to a stage in the Tallahassee Mall. The steps slipped causing Petitioner's feet to come out from under him. Petitioner fell flat on his back. As a consequence Petitioner suffered a permanent back injury for which he received workers' compensation. The injury impairs his ability to work and therefore is a handicap. Around May 20, 1996, Petitioner was released by his doctor and was given orders for light duty with no bending, stooping, or heavy lifting. Petitioner gave these orders to his supervisor, Mr. Navin, when he returned to work on May 20, 1996. Respondent had light duty work available which Petitioner was qualified to perform. However, Respondent did not assign Petitioner to light duty work, but changed his work area from zone 3 to zone 1. Zone 1 is located at the front entrance to the mall and requires more work to maintain. Petitioner attempted to perform his duties but could only work for 3 1/2 hours before being overcome by pain from his injury. Petitioner could not work the next four working days because of the aggravation of his injury. On May 28, 1996, after returning to work, Petitioner was again given full duty work. Petitioner attempted to perform his custodial duties for about 2 weeks. However, the pain from his injury was so severe he again requested light duty work. Petitioner's supervisor asked Petitioner to bring him another notice from his doctor. Petitioner's doctor faxed the supervisor a second notice and Petitioner was placed on light duty work. Once Petitioner was placed on light duty work, the mall manager, Mr. Renninger, followed Petitioner around the mall watching him all the time while he worked. On July 8, 1996, prior to the mall opening for business, Petitioner was helping one of the mall store owners with a problem. Such aid was part of Petitioner's job. The mall manager walked up to Petitioner and began to yell at him in a very rude and disrespectful manner. The manager would not listen to Petitioner's explanation of the event. The manager gave Petitioner a written disciplinary notice for his aid to the mall store owner. The manager continued to follow Petitioner around the mall while he worked. Sometime around August 15, 1996, the mall manager advised the mall's employees that they should take their respective vacations prior to October. Petitioner thought it would be a good time for him to take the 4-day vacation time he had accumulated during his employment with the mall. He could use the time to allow his back to heal more. On August 15, 1996, Petitioner requested vacation leave and vacation pay for the period beginning September 3, 1996 and ending September 9, 1996. Initially, the request was denied. Petitioner's supervisor felt he had missed too much work and been late too often. However, Petitioner had only been absent or late in relation to his back injury. Petitioner explained that fact to his supervisor. His supervisor agreed and approved Petitioner's vacation. Petitioner returned to work on August 10, 1996. An argument with the administrative assistant occurred when she refused to recognize that Petitioner was entitled to be paid for his vacation time. She was not going to turn in any time for him so that Petitioner could get paid while on vacation. Getting a paycheck was a serious matter to Petitioner, and Petitioner, understandably, became gruff with the administrative assistant. Petitioner only raised his voice at the administrative assistant. He was not abusive and did not curse at her. In fact, the administrative assistant yelled at Petitioner when he raised the subject of his pay "Now, before you start bitching." Petitioner called the headquarters of Respondent and confirmed he had vacation time and pay accrued. After this incident Petitioner was fired ostensibly for mistreating the administrative assistant. The administrative assistant, who was incorrect, was not terminated. The reason appears to be a pretext. Petitioner's pay was $5.35 per hour and he worked a 40-hour-work-week. After his termination, Petitioner actively sought employment but could not find any until September 1, 1997. At that time he began work for Tallahassee Community College as a custodial worker with light duties at a higher rate of pay. Petitioner's search for work was reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner and awarding Petitioner backpay in the amount of $11,770.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 27th day of October, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a cooperative association of 54 farm members that is engaged in the State of Florida in the business of harvesting sugar cane and the milling of raw sugar for its members. Respondent is divided for organizational purposes into a mill division and an agricultural division. Petitioner's employment with Respondent was exclusively with its agricultural division. The agricultural division is divided into a harvesting department, a transportation department, and an equipment maintenance and repair department. The equipment maintenance and repair department has a service center, three field operations, a truck and trailer maintenance repair shop, and a machinery maintenance repair shop. There are approximately 300 vehicles owned by Respondent, including large tractor trailers used for hauling sugar cane. Petitioner was initially hired on September 29, 1975, in the transportation department as a tractor-trailer operator. In November 1976, Petitioner was promoted to assistant truck foreman where his primary duty was dispatching trucks to haul harvested sugar cane from the field to the mill. This is a responsible position that involves calculation of the tonnage requirements of the mill which must be coordinated with the availability of product and drivers. In the early 1980's Petitioner began having problems with his immediate supervisor, LaVaughn Milligan. These problems continued to escalate since the supervisor believed that Petitioner was trying to undermine his authority and was making promises to the drivers that he could not keep. By 1985, Mr. Milligan was dissatisfied with Petitioner's job performance and was prepared to recommend the termination of his employment. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Edward Mayo was the head of Respondent's maintenance and repair department. In 1985, a vacancy occurred in the position as truck and trailer maintenance and repair shop supervisor. There is a conflict in the evidence in that Petitioner testified that Mr. Milligan and Mr. Mayo asked him to accept the transfer, but Mr. Mayo testified that Petitioner requested the transfer. The testimony of Mr. Mayo is accepted as being more credible and it is found that Petitioner asked Mr. Mayo for a transfer to this vacant position. Mr. Mayo was aware of the problems that Petitioner was having with Mr. Milligan, but he decided to transfer Petitioner to this position despite these difficulties. Mr. Mayo recognized that Petitioner's difficulties with Mr. Milligan may have been the result of a personality conflict between the two men and he wanted to give Petitioner the opportunity to prove himself. The position Petitioner assumed in 1985 was the position he held when his employment was terminated. The truck and trailer repair and maintenance shop is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all of Respondent's vehicles and employs approximately 22 mechanics. Respondent was aware that Petitioner had no training or experience as a mechanic, and he was specifically instructed to make no mechanical decisions. Petitioner's responsibilities included the requisitions of parts, supplies, and equipment for his shop and the supervision of mechanic's work schedules. He was to act in a personnel management and administrative capacity. Petitioner satisfactorily performed his duties during his first year in the position. In late 1986, his job performance began to deteriorate and several complaints from different sources were made to Mr. Mayo about Petitioner's poor performance. Mr. Mayo became concerned about Petitioner's job performance and frequently discussed his concerns with Petitioner. Prior to October 1987, Respondent was unaware that Petitioner had a medical problem. Petitioner had been hospitalized in June 1987 while he was on vacation, but Respondent did not learn of that hospitalization until after October 1987. In October 1987, Petitioner was hospitalized for depression and for detoxification from his addiction to antidepressant drugs. Unknown to Respondent, Petitioner had been, for several years, suffering from anxiety, depression, and paranoia. Petitioner had experienced hallucinations and had been treated by several different physicians. He had been taking drugs for his conditions for some eight years, including Ativan, an antidepressant in the benezodiazpine family of drugs, to which he became addicted. Petitioner returned to work following his hospitalization in October 1987. He told Mr. Mayo that his hospitalization was related to the prolonged use of medication. Following return from his hospitalization in October 1987, Petitioner's job performance deteriorated to the point that he was unable to function at work and he could not perform his job. Petitioner had difficulty concentrating, demonstrated a short term memory deficit, and lacked energy. Petitioner began making mechanical decisions that he was not qualified to make and which posed a safety hazard. On December 10, 1987, Petitioner met with Dale Stacy, Respondent's Vice President of Agricultural Operations, Ray Campbell, Respondent's Personnel Manager, and Mr. Mayo. Petitioner was advised as to the deficiencies with his job performance. Respondent was willing to assist Petitioner and placed him on sick leave with pay until his doctors certified that it was medically sound for him to return to work. Medical assurances were requested out of a legitimate concern for the safety of Petitioner, Respondent's employees, and the general public. On December 22, 1987, Dr. Adele MacKay, Petitioner's psychologist, informed Respondent's assistant personnel manager that Petitioner was very anxious about being out of work and that she thought it would be best for Petitioner if he were allowed to return to work. Respondent was advised by Dr. Mackay that Petitioner may need support. On December 24, 1987, Petitioner was permitted to return to work. Mr. Mayo, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Stacy continued to be concerned about Petitioner's ability to safely perform his job, but they also wanted to accommodate Petitioner because he was a long term employee. To achieve these ends, Arnie Raaum, Mr. Mayo's assistant and one of Petitioner's supervisors, was assigned the primary responsibility of monitoring Petitioner's performance to ensure that safety was not compromised and of providing assistance to Petitioner if necessary. In Mr. Raaum's absence, Louis Boglioli, another supervisor in the maintenance and repair department, was to perform these duties. In the absences of both Mr. Raaum and Mr. Boglioli, Mr. Mayo was to perform these duties. Between the time Mr. Raaum, Mr. Boglioli, and Mr. Mayo were assigned these duties and the termination of Petitioner's employment, Mr. Raaum spent considerable time in both monitoring Petitioner's performance and in correcting errors made by Petitioner. This assignment detracted from the ability of Mr. Raaum to perform his regular duties. Petitioner's condition and his ability to safely perform his job continued to deteriorate between December 1987 and December 1988. Despite Mr. Raaum's close supervision, many safety related incidents occurred which were the result of Petitioner's job performance. These incidents were documented in Petitioner's employment file, but there was no injury to any person or significant damage to property. By late 1988, Petitioner's condition had deteriorated to the point where he was unable to perform his job. He was unable to comprehend, remember, or follow instructions. In December 1988, Mr. Mayo, who had been following Petitioner's job performance, determined with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Stacy that Petitioner could not perform his job. Mr. Mayo had lost confidence in Petitioner's ability as a supervisor and felt that safety was being compromised by Petitioner's continued employment. Other job possibilities with Respondent were considered, but each possibility was rejected for legitimate business reasons. Petitioner believed that he had had a "nervous breakdown" and that he was capable of working in a position with less stress than his position as supervisor of the maintenance and repair shop. Because of this belief, Petitioner requested that he be transferred to his former position as an assistant truck foreman. This request was refused because of his previous difficulties in performing that job, because he was not capable of performing supervisory work, and because the position was not vacant. There were no supervisory level positions vacant that Petitioner was capable of filling. Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated on December 28, 1988, and he was given two months severance pay. Petitioner's termination was not a disciplinary matter for willful misconduct. Rather, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated because Petitioner was not capable of performing his job duties.
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 Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1990. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-3, 5, and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8-16 are rejected as being legal conclusions. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-10, 13, 15-16, 18-20, and 25 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 11-12. 17, and 21-24 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 26 are rejected as being recitation of testimony. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire Law Office of Joseph A. Vassallo, P.A. 3501 South Congress Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire Ruth P. Clements, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird Acting Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 NOTICE Of RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed with the Florida Department of Transportation since 1971. He is a graduate of the University of West Florida, with a degree in business management. Petitioner is 38 years old, with a physical disability which limits his use of his left hand and arm, and his left leg is shorter than his right. In 1979, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in its right-of-way section, as a Right-of-Way Agent III. In that position, he was responsible for the coordination of the Acquisition, Relocation and Property Management sections of Respondent's District III. One of Petitioner's subordinates was H. E. Walls, who was in charge of the Acquisition section. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was J. F. Culpepper, Assistant Right-of-Way Administrator. In April, 1980, a new Right-of-Way Administrator, J. A. Alfes, was assigned to District III. In 1980, and again in 1981, Petitioner filed charges of discrimination against Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations premised upon Petitioner's aforementioned disability. The 1980 charge was resolved through the entry of a settlement agreement. The charge filed in 1981 was premised upon the same disability, but that charge was ultimately dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In January, 1981, a hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on one of the charges of discrimination filed by Petitioner. On the day following that hearing, Petitioner was called into Mr. Alfes' office in Chipley, Florida, and was told that the hearing held in Tallahassee had been several hours of "horse shit." On May 18, 1981, Mr. Alfes advised Petitioner of an impending reorganization of the section in which Petitioner was employed. Subsequently, on June 17, 1981, Mr. Alfes told Petitioner that there would be "consequences" as a result of Petitioner's having filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In 1981 a reorganization of functions occurred in all six districts statewide of DOT. This reorganization eliminated one classification of position, Right-of-Way Agent III, which Petitioner had held in District III, and elevated the positions at the head of Acquisition and Relocation sections to the administrator level. At the time this reorganization occurred, Petitioner, as previously mentioned, was a Right-of-Way Agent III, and Herbert Walls headed the Acquisition section. Mr. Alfes, Petitioner's immediate superior, recommended that Petitioner be placed in charge of Relocation, and that Mr. Walls, who had been working in Acquisition, be placed in charge of the Acquisition section in light of his experience in that area since 1978. J. F. Culpepper, who occupied the position on DOT's organization chart to whom the Acquisition section, Relocation section, and Property Management section would report, recommended that the Petitioner be placed in charge of the Acquisition section, based upon his belief that Petitioner was better qualified by reason of his real estate training and college degree. Mr. Walls had only a high school diploma. During the period of his employment with DOT, Petitioner had not handled any complete right-of-way acquisition matters, and had never negotiated for DOT in the acquisition of any right-of-way parcels. Petitioner had, however, attended two relocation seminars while employed by DOT. Mr. Walls had been continually engaged in acquisition work for DOT since at least 1978. DOT's District Engineer, Alan Potter, was the DOT employee ultimately responsible for selecting the heads of the Acquisition and Relocation sections. Mr. Potter concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be placed in charge of the Relocation section, based upon his belief that it was the most important job involved in right-of-way acquisition, and that it required a very thorough and cautious person. Based upon Mr. Potter's evaluation of Petitioner as possessed of high ability, and being very mature and compassionate, Petitioner was placed in charge of the Relocation section. At the time Petitioner was named as head of Relocation and Mr. Walls was placed as head of Acquisition, the two positions were both classified as Right-of-Way Specialist II's, pay grade 22. Later both were reclassified as Right-of-Way Administrator I's, at pay grade 23. The record in this cause establishes that neither position was more prestigious" than the other, or that either position placed the individual holding it in a more favorable posture for promotion or advancement. Subsequently, in the summer of 1981, the reorganization of DOT was completed, with Mr. Walls having been appointed head of Acquisition, with approximately six subordinates. Petitioner became responsible for Relocation, and shared the supervision of a clerical employee with the head of Property Management. After reorganization, Mr. Alfes relocated Petitioner's office in another building 100 feet away from the main office. Petitioner's office was initially located in a passageway and, as a result, Petitioner was required several times a day to make trips to the main building to obtain files necessary to complete his work. In August of 1983, prior to final hearing in this cause, Mr. Alfes retired, and Petitioner's office was relocated in a more spacious office close to the Acquisition section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the petition for relief, and denying the relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of May, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: BEN R. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 4289 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32315 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 JEAN OWEN, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS WOODCREST OFFICE CENTER 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD SUITE 240, BUILDING F TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 DONALD A. GRIFFIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
The Issue The issue in the case is whether David Bumgarner (Respondent) should be assessed a penalty for an alleged failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage for his employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency designated to enforce the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which requires that employers in Florida obtain workers' compensation coverage for their employees. The Respondent is a sole proprietor based in North Carolina and doing business as "Builders and Assemblers." On February 25, 2009, Ira Bender, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, observed ten men assembling the iron-and-steel frame for a single story storage building being constructed at 7253 Gasparilla Road, Port Charlotte, Florida. The Respondent was present at the time Mr. Bender observed the workers, and Mr. Bender asked the Respondent about the project. The Respondent advised Mr. Bender that he was the owner of the company constructing the building, that the ten men erecting the building frame were his employees, and that they were being paid $10.00 per hour. Mr. Bender, accompanied by the Respondent, then spoke to each of the ten men at the work site and obtained their names and other relevant information. The Respondent provided to Mr. Bender a copy of a certificate of insurance from "Acord" bearing policy number BNUWC0108275. Mr. Bender reviewed the Petitioner's "Coverage and Compliance Automated System" (CCAS) database and information contained on the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") website. Both sources are routinely used to monitor and review workers' compensation coverage. Neither the CCAS database nor the NCCI website indicated that the Respondent had workers' compensation coverage valid within Florida for any of the ten employees at the work site or that the Respondent had a valid exemption from coverage for any employee. After discussing the collected information with his supervisor, Mr. Bender issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment dated February 25, 2009. The Respondent subsequently provided a copy of his workers' compensation policy to the Petitioner. The policy information page attached to the policy is an NCCI-issued form identified as "WC 00 00 01 A." The Respondent's policy's information page provides, in relevant part, as follows: 3.A. Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of the policy applied to the Workers Compensation Law of the states listed here: NC * * * C. Other States Insurance: Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any listed here: All states and U.S. territories except North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wyoming, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin islands, and states designated in Item 3.A. of the Information Page. Administrative rules adopted by the Petitioner and referenced elsewhere herein explicitly state that the coverage identified in the Respondent's policy information page is not valid within the State of Florida. Mr. Bender also issued a Request for Production of Business Records on February 25, 2009. Other than the previously referenced insurance certificate and policy, no further business records were provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Mr. Bender subsequently forwarded the case to Lynn Murcia, the Petitioner's penalty calculator. Because the Respondent failed to provide business records sufficient to enable computation of a penalty, Ms. Murcia computed the penalty based on an imputed payroll as provided by Florida law. The NCCI publishes the "SCOPES Manual," which contains a commonly-used system of occupational classifications used to determine workers' compensation requirements. In Florida, the SCOPES Manual has been adopted by incorporation into the Florida Administrative Code. The SCOPES Manual identifies the erection of steel or iron frames for buildings not in excess of two stories under classification code 5059. The Respondent's employees were engaged in such activities, and Ms. Murcia therefore properly classified the Respondent's employees under code 5059. Ms. Murcia utilized the SCOPES classification in determining the imputed payroll applicable to this case and, thereafter, computed the penalty according to a worksheet that has been adopted as an administrative rule by the Petitioner. The worksheet is routinely used to calculate penalties applicable to employers who fail to obtain workers' compensation coverage for employees. Based on Ms. Murcia's calculations, the penalty was identified as $1,764,643.98, as was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 31, 2009. Ms. Murcia's calculation of the applicable penalty, including her reliance on the applicable SCOPES classification codes and the imputation of the Respondent's payroll, was not disputed at the hearing. Her testimony has been fully credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order assessing a penalty of $1,764,643.98 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of September, 2009.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Margie Ann Sims, was unlawfully terminated (by Respondent), Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner is forty eight (48) years old. She commenced work for Respondent, Niagara Wires, a subsidiary of Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., located in Quincy, Florida during 1965 as an Accounts Payable Clerk. Petitioner was terminated on August 5, 1983, as a result of a reduction in staff and unsatisfactory work performance.1 During Petitioner's job tenure, she held various accounting and secretarial positions. Petitioner's initial duties were that of an accounting clerk and she later progressed to Assistant Chief Accountant. She later served as Corporate Bookkeeper and Secretary. Throughout her employment, her job duties were very broad and encompassed many areas of responsibility including overseeing accounts receivable, billings, payroll, bank statements, journal entries, wire transfers and financial statements. During 1975, Respondent's corporate office was moved to Quincy, Florida and Petitioner handled accounting and secretarial duties for the corporate office, dealt with banks making fund transfers, loan balancing and note arrangements; managed financial consolidation of Respondent's eight companies on a quarterly basis; maintained all pension plan records for Respondent's fourteen pension plans which included calculations of pension benefits, submission of wages and credited service to actuaries in preparation of various pension reports. Petitioner's other duties involved maintenance of company minute books, typing, submission and maintenance of files for all letters of credit issued; keeping patent and trademark files and assisted with telecopy, switchboard and TWX. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1976, Petitioner worked directly for Respondent's corporate secretary/treasurer, Robert Worrall. The assignment occurred as a result of a recommendation by Respondent's manufacturing manager, Don Anderson. Petitioner was considered the best of the three employees available to work for Worrall. Thereafter, several changes were made in Respondent's corporate makeup including the addition of the Lockport Felt Division in 1977. As a result, additional employees were placed in the accounting department and Petitioner's duties became more secretarial and clerical in nature than accounting. This situation remained unchanged until Petitioner's termination in 1983. Although Petitioner worked directly for Worrall, she was also expected to perform secretarial and clerical work for others in the accounting department, specifically including Harry Kurtz, Vice-President of Finance, Bruce Kennedy, Controller and Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager. While Petitioner's primary responsibility was to complete Worrall's work, she was also expected to perform work for other accountants and fiscal employees in the accounting department as she was the only trained employee in the accounting department available for typing duties. (TR 35, 106, 133-134, 117-119, 138, 142 and 153). Respondent has not maintained a formal policy concerning employee discipline or warnings for salaried employees, as Petitioner. (Testimony of Cairns and Worrall, TR 19, 46-47, 60 and 77). Commencing in 1980, Worrall became unhappy with Petitioner's work performance. This unhappiness took the form of counseling with Petitioner during year-end annual reviews and included the following deficiencies: "away from her work station when needed; too much time spent socializing with others; unwilling to work; pushing work back on Worrall; untimeliness and failing to timely complete work as assigned." (TR 85, 110, 116- 117). Like Worrall, other employees in the accounting department for whom Petitioner worked were dissatisfied with her performance during the years 1980-1983. Harry Kurtz, Vice- President of Finance, experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality including errors in typing and formatting, misspelled words and inaccurate numbers to the point where he did not want her (Petitioner) to perform his (Kurtz) work. He was thus forced to seek assistance from persons outside the accounting department, including Pat Simmons who replaced Petitioner, to perform his work. Kurtz related these problems to Worrall. (TR 128, 129-133, 131 and 136). Bruce Kennedy, Controller, experienced similar problems with Petitioner's work quality. He noted Petitioner frequently misspelled words and transposed numbers. Kennedy experienced problems concerning timeliness and the invalid excuses by Petitioner for failing to complete assigned work as scheduled. (TR 137-139). Based on Petitioner's poor work quality, Kennedy went outside the accounting department to get assistance in performing his clerical and secretarial duties. Kennedy informed Worrall of his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's work. Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager, also experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality in regards to accuracy and neatness. Burnett related an incident where Petitioner used so much "white-out" to make corrections that numbers on ledger sheets were not legible. Burnett also experienced problems with Petitioner in getting work returned timely. He also found it necessary to go outside the accounting_ department to solicit the assistance of Pat Simmons to perform his work. Burnett related to Worrall his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance. (TR 128, 150). Linda Jaudzimas is presently employed with Niagara Wire Weaving Employees Credit Union. She has held that position since approximately May of 1980. During the years 1978 through May of 1980, Jaudzimas was employed as an accounting clerk in the corporate accounting office for Niagara Lockport Industries. During that time period, she worked directly with Petitioner and Worrall. Jaudzimas described Petitioner and Worrall as having a very good work relationship and that Worrall depended upon Petitioner a lot. However, since May of 1980, Jaudzimas had only limited contact with Petitioner The typical degree of contact would be only to "pick up reports; I would get information from pensions for time reporting periods." (TR 54 and 58). Don Anderson is presently employed as the Manufacturing Manager for Respondent. Anderson has been in Respondent's employ since 1971. From 1971 through January 1, 1974, Anderson was Respondent's Chief Accountant. Anderson had no direct knowledge concerning Petitioner's work performance since January of 1974. Anderson corroborated Cairns and Worrall's testimony that Respondent had no formal policy concerning disciplinary action taken against salaried employees, as Petitioner. (TR 60). Respondent conducted informal evaluations of salaried employees, including Petitioner, at the end of each year in conjunction with salary increases. During Petitioner's 1981 work performance evaluation, Worrall discussed his concerns with Petitioner including the fact that she spent too much time talking to other people; that he always had to look for her and she pushed work back on him. Petitioner's time away from her work station and her negative attitude toward the company's insurance program were items of discussion. (TR 17; 84-88). An entire list of Worrall's concerns respecting Petitioner's job performance were placed in her personnel file during the 1981 annual performance review. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Petitioner recalls Worrall using that list during their meetings. (TR 36). Petitioner's performance did not improve during the following year and Worrall expressed the same concerns to her during her annual work performance review during 1982. (TR 115-116). Petitioner received "good" salary increases during the late 70's however, due to her poor performance from 1980-1982, Worrall recommended that she receive only the minimum cost of living increases for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. In mid 1983, Respondent made a decision to reorganize its corporate offices by moving the sales office of Niagara Lockport from Quincy to Starkeville, Mississippi and by making a change in the research and development department. Pat Simmons, age 41, was secretary for the vice-present of research and development. Worrall was familiar with Ms. Simmons and her work having seen it first hand. Additionally, she was highly recommended by her then supervisors. Finally, she had performed work considered to be "high quality" by other employees in the accounting department including Kurtz, Kennedy and Burnett. When Simmons became available due to the reorganization, Worrall decided to replace Petitioner with Simmons. Petitioner's job had become primarily secretarial and clerical in nature and Worrall desired a competent executive secretary to replace her. (TR 88 90, 92, 94, 121-122, 127). Petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 3). Petitioner's duties were assumed by Simmons (95 percent) and Elaine Hall (5 percent) who was retained since she- possessed requisite accounting skills. Hall was able to complete the cash report in two hours, a job that had taken Petitioner the better part of a day to perform. (TR 86). As a result of the reorganization, two other employees, Loretta Hood (mid 30's) and Virginia Jeffcoat (mid 50's) were terminated. Petitioner was terminated in August, 1983 for the reasons that her performance was not satisfactory and a qualified person (Simmons) had become available due to Respondent's corporate reorganization and staff reduction. This was told to Petitioner at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 2; TR 68, 93). Subsequent to her termination, Petitioner requested that Worrall write her a letter of recommendation. Worrall complied, however, Petitioner was not pleased and asked him to write a second one giving him an example to follow (Respondent's Exhibit 7). Petitioner wanted a "good" letter of recommendation so that she could easily obtain another job. In writing the recommendation, Worrall followed his policy of not commenting on negatives but merely set out the type of work Petitioner performed. Petitioner was still unsatisfied with Worrall's second letter and she therefore asked the Respondent's President, Malcolm Cairns, to write a letter of recommendation for her. As with Worrall, Petitioner participated in the drafting of the letter for Cairns by providing him with an example. (TR 22, 23 and 70). Cairns did not include anything negative in the letter so that it would be easier for Petitioner to obtain another job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was not terminated due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Seliger, Esquire 229 E. Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Swift, Currie, NcGhee and Hiers, P.A., by Victor A. Cavanough 771 Spring Street, N.W. Post Office Box 54247 Atlanta, Georgia 30379-2401 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240/ Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in Ms. Cheren's April 15, 1988 letter of denial of renewal, Petitioner, Earlen Braddy operated Earlen's ACLF home at 2840 47th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent, DHRS, is the state agency responsible for licensing ACLF's in Florida. Ms. Braddy has operated the ACLF in question at the current location for about four years during which time she has had as many as five residents at one time. Currently, and for the past year, she has had only three residents in the facility which she also occupies as her home. One current resident has been with her since she opened. On December 4 and 9, 1986, while Ms. Braddy was operating her ACLF in a licensed status, her facility was inspected by representatives of Respondent's Office of Licensure and Certification on its yearly survey. During the survey, the inspectors found several deficiencies, all of a Class III, (least serious) category, in such areas as Administration; Management and Staffing Standards, (6 deficiencies); Admission Criteria and Resident Standards, (3 deficiencies); Food Service, (12 deficiencies); Physical Plant, (5 deficiencies); Fire Safety, (1 deficiency); and Other Administrative Rule Requirements, (4 deficiencies). Though most deficiencies related to the failure to keep or provide the surveyors with the paperwork required to be kept by statute and the rules of the Department, some of the deficiencies related to resident care. These deficiencies were identified to Ms. Braddy in person by the inspectors at the time of discovery and again at the out-briefing. She was also advised as to how to correct them and where to secure assistance in doing so, if necessary. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the uncorrected deficiencies identified in the December, 1986 survey and the March, 1987 follow-up, the Petitioner's license was renewed in April, 1987. Follow-up surveys were conducted in March, June, and October, 1987, at the next annual survey in 1988, and at its follow-ups. While some deficiencies originally identified were thereafter corrected, many were not. Another annual survey of the facility was conducted on February 16, 1988, prior to the issuance by the Department of the yearly renewal license. At this survey, again, numerous Class III deficiencies were identified including: Administrative, (5 deficiencies); Admission, (3 deficiencies); Food Service, (9 deficiencies); Physical Plant, (1 deficiency); Fire Safety, (3 deficiencies); and Other Administrative, (3 deficiencies). Many of these were carried over uncorrected from the previous year's survey, (December, 1986) and its follow- ups, and some were new. Some of the former remained uncorrected through the June, 1988 follow-up to the February, 1988 survey. In August, 1988, the Department filed three Administrative Complaints against the Petitioner seeking to impose monetary civil penalties against her. All three resulted in Final Orders being entered. In the last of the three, Petitioner was alleged to have committed five violations of the statutes and Departmental rules, all of which relate to Petitioner's alleged failure to "provide or make available for review documentation" in five certain areas. Petitioner and Respondent agree that these areas are those primarily involved in the uncorrected deficiencies outlined in the survey reports and upon which the Department relies to support denial of Petitioner's renewal. Petitioner readily agrees that the deficiencies cited by the Department both in the survey reports and in the Administrative Complaints existed at the time of identification and, in many cases, for some time thereafter. While Petitioner now claims all deficiencies have been corrected, her accountant, Mr. Schaub, indicates that at least one, that relating to the failure to document and keep on file scheduled leisure time, had not been accomplished previously and was not now being accomplished. As to the others, those requirements which were not being complied with at the time of the surveys are now being met. Some identified deficiencies were not actually defects. The documentation was being kept, but due to Petitioner's inability to keep up with it, was not made available to the surveyors. Mr. Schaub is convinced that Petitioner has a paperwork problem and needs help with it. She spends her time taking care of the residents without much help and does not keep up with the required paperwork. As he describes it, she is being "choked with red tape" due to the paperwork requirements imposed by the Department whose rules do not differentiate much in the requirements for record keeping between large facilities and very small ones as this is. In his opinion, however, and also in the opinion of the surveyors who visited the facility, the residents appeared to be clean, appropriately dressed, well fed, and content. Ms. Braddy contends that at the present, all the actions the rules require are being taken and while in the past she may not have done everything correctly, she has made the effort to comply with the instructions she received from the Department. She has recently hired an individual to help her and stay with the residents while she is gone. Before he came to work, she received some assistance from her children who, without pay, helped her from time to time. She believes her facility is now operating within the Department's requirements and there has been no survey conducted since June, 1988, to indicate whether this true or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Earlen Braddy, be issued a conditional license to operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility for a period of 6 months at which time, if all deficiencies are not corrected, the application for renewal be denied. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3025 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER None submitted. BY THE RESPONDENT 1. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein though the problem appears to be more a question of inability rather than unwillingness. Rejected as contra to the state of the evidence. Mr. Schaub indicated she would continue to have paperwork problems but with help could master the problem Not a Finding of Fact but a comment of the state of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gardner Beckett, Esquire 123 8th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Edward Haman, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioners and the Intervenor assert that they are substantially affected by an agency statement that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The subject matter at issue here concerns the method of determining the order of layoff of some of the Respondent's employees.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts In 1996, the federal government modified and/or reformed welfare to require eligible participants to obtain employment. The Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 414, Florida Statutes, also known as the WAGES law, which required the Respondent to provide certain services to applicants for and participants in the WAGES program, including work activities, training, and other job-related services, which the Respondent termed "front-end services." Those services were primarily provided by Career Service employees of the Respondent. In 1998, the Florida Legislature amended portions of the WAGES law to require that local WAGES coalitions, instead of the Respondent, provide those front-end services to WAGES participants, effective October 1, 1998. As a direct result therefor, the Respondent was required to lay off approximately 700 career service employees. As a part of the implementation of the announced layoff of employees, Respondent requested approval of a method of determining the order of layoff, pursuant to Rule 60K- 17.004(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: (g) Agencies shall then choose and consistently apply one of two methods, or another method as approved by the Department of Management Services, in determining the order of layoff. These methods are commonly referred to as "bumping." Option 1: The employee at the top of the list shall have the option of selecting a position at the bottom of the list based on the number of positions to be abolished, e.g., 20 positions in the affected class, 5 positions to be abolished. The employee at the top of the list can select any of the positions occupied by the 5 employees at the bottom of the list. The next highest employee on the list then has the option of selecting any of the positions occupied by the 4 remaining employees at the bottom of the list with the process continuing in this manner until the 5 employees at the top of the list have exercised their option. Option 2: The employee at the top of the list has the option of selecting any position occupied by any employee on the list with fewer retention points in the class. The next highest employee and remaining employees shall be handled in a similar manner until the list is exhausted. Rather than selecting Option 1 or Option 2, set forth in the published rule, the Respondent requested approval of an alternative method of determining the order of layoff. By letter dated August 17, 1998, the Department of Management Services (DMS) approved the method of determining order of layoff set forth in its correspondence. The method of determining the order of layoff is described by DMS in its approval letter as: The option you have chosen will allow adversely affected employees to select any position in the affected class and series, in the competitive area approved in our August 5, 1998 letter. Neither the Respondent's request for approval of the alternate method of determining the order of layoff, nor DMS' approval of that method, have been adopted in substantial conformity with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's request for approval of the alternate method of layoff was intended to apply solely to the layoff occasioned by changes in the WAGES law. Facts based on evidence at hearing Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, is the certified bargaining agent for approximately 67,000 career service employees of the State of Florida. As such, it represents the employees of the Department who were affected by the subject layoff. The individual Petitioners, Betty Hall, Diana Lomas, Mercedes Valdez, and Elizabeth Judd, are members of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. The challenged bumping procedure was not reached by collective bargaining. Under the alternative layoff method approved for the Respondent by DMS, employees with the greater number of retention points received enhanced bumping rights, permitting them to "bump" employees with fewer retention points in the same class and in the class series. Conversely, by this alternative procedure, employees with fewer retention points were accorded diminished protection against bumping. These employees could be bumped not only by employees with greater retention points in the class, but also by employees with greater retention points in other classes in the class series. For example, Consuelo Casanovas, from Petitioners' Exhibit 8, who was adversely affected in her position of Employment Security Representative I, was accorded bumping rights to positions in her class and to positions in the other two classes in the class series, Customer Services Specialist and Interviewing Clerk. Had the Respondent elected Option 1 or Option 2 in the published rule, Rule 60K-17.004(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, Ms. Casanovas would not have had the right to bump to positions in the other two classes, and persons in those other two classes would not have been subject to bumping by Ms. Casanovas.1
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ana Caos, M.D., is a applicant for a restricted license to practice Medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes. Successful completion of the Florida Board Examination is a prerequisite to licensure under Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes. In an effort to meet that prerequisite, the Petitioner has already taken the Florida Board Examination six times since October 1, 1966. The Petitioner has passed portions of the licensure examination, but thus far she has not received a passing grade on the Basic Sciences portion of that examination. The Petitioner seeks to continue taking the licensure examination until she achieves a passing grade on all portions of the examination. On January 19, 1993, the Board of Medicine filed and served an order regarding the Petitioner's licensure application. The order reads as follows, in pertinent part: You are hereby notified pursuant to Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes, that the Board of Medicine voted to DENY your application for licensure as a physician by examination. The Board of Medicine reviewed and considered your application for licensure by examination on November 19, 1992, in a telephone conference call originating in Tallahassee, Florida and has determined that said licensure by examination be denied, stating as grounds therefore: That you have failed to pass the FLEX examination six times since October 1986. Subsection 458.311(2), Florida Statutes, prohibits licensure of any individual who has failed the FLEX examination five times after October 1, 1986. Although the Board previously permitted you to sit for the FLEX examination for a sixth time in 1992, it has since that time determined that this provision applies to all applicants for licensure. The Board of Medicine has never adopted a rule to the effect that Section 458.311(2), Florida Statutes, applies to applicants for a restricted license under Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes. The Board of Medicine has an existing rule that interprets several provisions of Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes (1991). (See Rule 21M-22.020 (1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code.) At the Board meeting on July 11 and 12, 1992, the Board of Medicine discussed proposed amendments to the existing rule and voted to initiate rulemaking to amend Rule 21M- 22.020(1), Florida Administrative Code, by adding to it a new subsection (d) reading as follows: (d) The phrase "successfully completes the Florida Board Examination" is interpreted as requiring obtaining a passing score as defined by Rule 21M-29.001(2) within the time frame set forth in Section 458.311(2), Florida Statutes. Specifically, if the applicant has failed the examination five times after October 1, 1986, the applicant is no longer eligible for licensure. At its meeting on July 11 and 12, 1992, the Board of Medicine instructed its legal counsel to initiate rulemaking to adopt the rule amendment quoted above. For reasons unknown to the Board's Executive Director, the Board's legal counsel had not yet filed the proposed rule amendment for adoption as of the date of the formal hearing in this case. On March 12, 1993, eleven days after the formal hearing in this case, notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The proposed rulemaking noticed on March 12, 1993, is the same as, or substantially the same as, the proposed language described in Paragraph 5, above. The proposed rulemaking noticed on March 12, 1993, is presently the subject of a rule challenge petition filed by the Petitioner in this case. See Case No. 93-2166RP. The Petitioner in this case is also the Petitioner in Case No. 93-1801, which involves a petition filed pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the proposed denial of the Petitioner's application for a license.
