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
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Sergeant Ronald Behnke, should be allowed to withdraw from the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System (FRS).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol and participant in the Florida Retirement System for 27 years. On January 26, 1999, the Division of Retirement (Respondent) received a "Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program" from Petitioner for entry into the DROP program, effective April 1999, the month of his 50th birthday. Petitioner's application, a Special Risk Management Member, was acknowledged and accepted by Respondent on February 23, 1999, and Petitioner received his estimate of benefits shortly after that time. The statute governing FRS at that time permitted Petitioner to defer his election of entry into the DROP program to a date within "twelve months immediately following the date the member attains 57, or age 50 for Special Risk Class members." Section 121.091(13)(a)2., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). Respondent applied an internal policy requiring a member to elect to enter the DROP no later than the member's birth month at age 50. The statute permitted actual entry into DROP to be deferred by the member to any point within the 60-month duration of DROP eligibility. However, late entry could not extend the 60-month period, which is measured from the "date to which he or she is eligible to defer his or her election to participate." Section 121.091(13)(b)1., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). Petitioner's 50th birthday was April 9, 1999. Shortly after filing his application for the DROP program, but before April 1999, Petitioner learned there was pending legislation, which, if passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor, would allow him to delay his entry into DROP until 12 months following his 52nd birthday. He and other troopers closely watched and discussed legislation that could affect their positions. On March 12, 1999, Petitioner communicated with staff of Respondent. Respondent's staff advised Petitioner to send a letter requesting a delay in the effective date of entry into the DROP program. The staff explained that Petitioner could repeatedly change the effective date of DROP entry, while watching the pending legislation. Pursuant to these instructions, on March 12, 1999, Petitioner transmitted a letter, through personnel in the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) to Respondent, modifying the DROP program entry date to commence on May 1, 1999. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to monitor the progress of the pending legislation closely. Shortly after April 23, 1999, Petitioner received a letter from Ira L. Gaines, Benefits Administrator, employed by Respondent, cautioning Petitioner about his letter delaying entry into the DROP program. The letter advised Petitioner that the month of April 1999, was the only month he could accomplish cancellation of his DROP application, and that if the pending legislation did not pass, he would not be able to establish a retroactive start date. On April 26, 1999, Petitioner received a telephone call from Ira L. Gaines concerning his letter delaying his entry into the DROP program until May 1, 1999. Petitioner testified that Gaines represented to Petitioner that the pending legislation, which would have extended the time for entering the DROP program until age 52, was most likely "dead." He explained that Petitioner would, therefore, lose substantial benefits unless he withdrew his letter delaying entry until May 1999. He recommended that Petitioner enter the program effective April 1, 1999. Although he understood that no Division employee could control the outcome of the legislation, Petitioner relied upon these representations by Respondent's benefits administrator and sent a letter to Respondent dated April 27, 1999, rescinding his March 12, 1999, letter and entered the DROP program, effective April 1, 1999. Thereafter, Petitioner ceased efforts to follow actions by the Legislature. On October 8, 1999, Petitioner learned the legislation had passed and become law permitting DROP entry at the age of 52. Petitioner immediately addressed the question of withdrawing from DROP until the age of 52 with the director of the Division of the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). Petitioner received a verbal assurances that it would benefit FHP if Petitioner were permitted to delay entry into DROP until the age of 52, since FHP expected to lose a great many experienced officers in a short period of time. The division director told Petitioner he would make inquiry and get back with Petitioner about his desire to withdraw from DROP until the age of 52. When Petitioner had not heard from his chain of command by October 20, 1999, he again initiated contacts with benefits staff in the DHSMV and Respondent. DHSMV Human Resources Director, Ken Wilson, on behalf of the FHP Director, directed Petitioner to pursue the matter with Respondent and to notify him of Respondent's decision. Petitioner's employer, FHP, supported and approved Petitioner's request to withdraw from DROP, and notified Respondent of its approval and its commitment to repay retirement contributions. On October 25, 1999, Petitioner contacted Maurice Helms with Respondent, and requested consideration of his desire to withdraw from DROP. On November 3, 1999, Petitioner received a decision from Respondent notifying him that request to withdraw from DROP was denied. The decision was received by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision recited that it constituted "final agency action" and notified Petitioner of his right to file a formal petition for review within 21 days of receipt of the final order. Another trooper, Corporal Dwight Wiles, testified that he was allowed to cancel his DROP application after his first month of participation. However, Corporal Wiles did not receive his estimate of benefits until after his first month of participation. Ira L. Gaines testified on behalf of Respondent that the Division's policy allowed all participants to withdraw their application within the month of their eligibility, or within 30 days of receiving their estimate of benefits, whichever was later. Mr. Gaines testified that it was an operational policy of the Division, as it was a new program and there were some 40,000 participants, the estimates of benefits could not always be accomplished by the DROP effective date. Mr. Gaines testified that this was done for the benefit of the members, so that they would have an opportunity to decide if the benefits were enough or if they wanted to continue accruing retirement credits. No formal rules have been adopted by the Division regarding the DROP program because it is still a new program. Mr. Gaines testified that Respondent's DROP Question and Answer memoranda was an internal office operational policy that was necessary to deal with the new program and that the information was not given to members. In fact, the memoranda was marked "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE THE DIVISION--FOR INTERNAL USE." Mr. Gaines testified that allowing members to change their DROP effective date as they pleased would create a burden on the Division and that his section would be unable to handle the workload. There is no provision in the statute which speaks to withdrawal from the DROP program once participation has begun. Petitioner detrimentally relied upon misrepresentations of fact and/or law by staff of Respondent, who convinced him to withdraw the letter delaying entry into DROP. Respondent's staff had both the appearance of knowledge and authority to make representations on behalf of Respondent. On learning of erroneous information, Petitioner did not sit on his rights. He immediately took action to mitigate his injury by seeking to withdraw from the DROP program. Respondent has adopted policies of general applicability governing administration of DROP entry by members of the Florida Retirement System. Although Respondent has rule-making authority, pursuant to Section 121.091(13)(k), Florida Statutes, these policies have not been adopted as administrative rule pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. They have not been and are not otherwise distributed to members of the FRS or other agencies of Florida government. Rather, the policies are retained for internal use of Respondent. Two of Respondent's unadopted policies adversely affected Petitioner: (1) that of requiring an election to participate in DROP in the month of a Special Risk member's 50th birthday, rather than within 12 months of reaching 50 years of age; and (2) that of restricting withdrawal of a DROP application to the last day of the month of a member's 50th birthday or 30 days following receipt of a DROP estimate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to withdraw from the Deferred Retirement Option Program, without loss of eligibility upon repayment of any retirement contributions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Ron Poppell, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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 Petitioner, Judith A. French (French), was employed full time by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), as a switchboard operator in Riveria Beach, Florida. On three consecutive workdays, to wit: July 7- 9, 1986, French was absent from her employment without authorized leave. By certified letter dated July 10, 1986, the Department advised French that her absence from work since July 7, 1986, was unauthorized and that, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2), Florida Administrative Code, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. The letter further advised French of her right to petition the Department of Administration for a review of the facts, and whether they constitute abandonment. French timely petitioned the Department of Administration for review. On August 13, 1986, the Department of Administration accepted French's petition and requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the final hearing. At hearing, French asserted that her absence was occasioned by a sudden and severe illness she contracted over the fourth of July weekend, which illness she averred rendered her totally incapacitated and unable to contact her employer the week of July 7, 1986. French offered no proof, however, of the cause or nature of her illness but merely testified that she was incapacitated, subject to profuse vomiting, and admitted to a hospital on July 14, 1906, where she was treated for a lack of potassium. While unable to do so personally, French contended that efforts were made on her behalf to advise the Department of her illness. According to Lester Smith (Smith), French's live-in-boyfriend and co-worker at the Department's Riviera Beach office, he made on attempt to call French's supervisor at noon, July 7, 1986, but no one answered the Department's telephone. Smith asserted that his efforts to contact the Department on July 1986, were frustrated by an epileptic seizure he suffered that morning, and the fact that he had to use a pay phone since their phone was out-of-order. Smith did not contend that he was incapacitated by his seizure of July 7, 1986, and offered no further excuse for his failure to notify the Department that he and French would be absent that day. On July 8, 1986, according to French and Smith, their friend Mr. Dudick offered to call the Department concerning their absence, and subsequently advised them that he had been unable to reach their supervisor but had left word with the Department that French and Smith were ill and their telephone out-of- order. Mr. Dudick did not testify at hearing, and there is no record of any such call having been received by the Department. On July 9, 1986, no effort was made to notify the Department that French would be absent from work. The proof established that French's absence from her employment on July 7-9, 1986, was not authorized, and that the Department was not notified that she would be absent due to illness. Consequently, on no less than three consecutive business days her employer was left without the benefit of her services or the notice needed to secure a replacement to perform her duties. While French may have been ill, she offered no proof that would excuse her failure to promptly notify her employer of her incapacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Judith A. French, abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 10th day of November, 1986 APPENDIX The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraphs 2-7. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith A. French 2815 Broadway, Apartment #1 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 K. Stuart Goldberg, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) when she submitted the DROP paperwork to her employer, but that paperwork was not submitted to Respondent within the timeframe set forth by statute or administrative rule. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 10, 2021, Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement (the Division), issued a letter to Petitioner, Celeste Lyons (Ms. Lyons or Petitioner), denying her application to participate in DROP because the Division did not receive her application to participate within the required time, pursuant to section 121.091(13)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2020), and no provision in Florida law would allow the Division to approve her for participation in DROP after the eligibility period.1 On April 7, 2021, Ms. Lyons filed an Amended Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division. The Division transferred the matter to DOAH, where it was assigned and set for hearing. On June 28, 2021, Petitioner moved to amend her Request after discovering the Division was also relying on Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-11.002(2) and (3)(a) to deny her participation in DROP. Petitioner was granted leave to amend her Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, and this matter proceeded on the Second Amended Request for Formal Hearing submitted July 13, 2021 (Second Am. Req.). After three continuances, the final hearing was held on September 16, 2021. Petitioner presented her own testimony and the testimony of Kathy Gould, Bureau Chief of Retirement Calculations for the Division. Petitioner's Exhibits P1 through P34 and P36 were admitted into evidence. 1 All references to the Florida Administrative Code Rules and Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codifications. The Division presented the testimony of Garry Green, Policy Administrator for the Division. Respondent's Exhibits R2 through R5, R6-1, R6-2, R7, R10 through R13, R15, and R16 were admitted into evidence. At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed to submit a joint stipulation of facts regarding the timeline of events. The Stipulation of Facts was filed on October 4, 2021, and is incorporated into this Recommended Order when appropriate. The Transcript of the hearing was filed on October 4, 2021. Both parties timely filed proposed recommended orders, which have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ms. Lyons, is a Fiscal Administrator for the Office of the State Attorney, Twentieth Judicial Circuit (SAO-20). Respondent, the Division, is a part of the Department of Management Services (Department). The Division is responsible for administering the retirement plans and programs under the Florida Retirement System (FRS). DROP is a retirement benefits program that entitles an eligible member of FRS to defer receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with the employer. § 121.091(13), Fla. Stat. The deferred benefits accrue with FRS on behalf of the member, with interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of DROP participation. Id. After the member terminates employment with the employer, the member receives the total DROP benefits and begins to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Id. SAO-20 has been Ms. Lyons' employer for more than thirty years. Employees of SAO-20 participate in FRS and, if eligible, can choose to participate in DROP. SAO-20 obtained administrative services through the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC). JAC is a statutorily created "central state office" that provides "administrative services and assistance when possible to and on behalf of the state attorneys and public defenders of Florida, the capital collateral regional counsel of Florida, the criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, and the Guardian Ad Litem Program." § 43.16(5), Fla. Stat. These services include accounting, payroll, benefits, and retirement assistance to the above cited entities that participate in FRS. Although JAC was not Ms. Lyons' employer, it did have access to employees' personnel files. Moreover, the Division had trained JAC personnel on FRS and DROP, and the Division authorized JAC to accept DROP paperwork from various employers and submit it to the Division. JAC, however, was not part of the Department or the Division. Rather, JAC served as a conduit between SAO-20's human resources office and the Division for the processing of all the retirement benefit paperwork. MS. LYONS' DROP ELIGIBILITY AND PAPERWORK Ms. Lyons' normal retirement date was January 1, 2020. Ms. Lyons' 12-month eligibility window to elect to participate in DROP was between January 1 and December 31, 2020. § 121.091(13)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Before this date, in February and August 2019, Ms. Lyons requested estimates of her retirement benefits from the Division. These estimates were generated by the Division and sent directly to Ms. Lyons' home address. In the "Comments" section of the estimates created by the Division, it explicitly states, "If the DP-ELE is not received in our office by 12/31/2020, your eligibility to participate in DROP is forfeited." The August 2019 estimate projected that after 60 months, Ms. Lyons would have received $113,826.03 if she entered (or began participation in) DROP during her first month of eligibility, January 2020. In January 2020, Ms. Lyons continued to work for SAO-20 but filled out the Division's paperwork for participating in DROP with the help of Rosemarie Mitchell, Director of Human Resources for SAO-20. These forms included the following: Notice of Election to Participate in [DROP] and Resignation of Employment (DP-ELE); Application for Service Retirement and [DROP] (DP-11); Option Selection for FRS Member (FRS-11o); [FRS] Pension Plan Spousal Acknowledgment Form (SA-1); and [FRS] Pension Plan Retired Member and DROP Participant Beneficiary Designation Form. (FST-12). On these forms, Ms. Lyons certified she elected to participate in DROP and would resign her employment on the date she terminated from DROP. Ms. Lyons listed "January 1, 2020," as her DROP start date and "December 31, 2024," as her DROP termination resignation date. Petitioner's employer, SAO-20, also certified that Ms. Lyons would "be enrolled as a DROP Participant" on January 1, 2020, and that Ms. Lyons would "terminate ... her employment" on December 31, 2024. All of the above forms were filled out, signed by Ms. Lyons, and notarized on January 9, 2020. On January 9, 2020, Ms. Lyons submitted the above forms to Ms. Mitchell. On that same day, Ms. Mitchell emailed Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork to the JAC Retirement Coordinator. Jessica Estes (formerly known as Jessica Liang), a Senior Human Resources Coordinator for JAC, acknowledged JAC's receipt of Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork and requested two new FST-12 forms and more documentation verifying Ms. Lyons' date of birth. The requested information was not required to be eligible or participate in DROP. Ms. Estes' normal procedure was to forward DROP paperwork to the Division before the end of the month in which it was received. If she had followed this practice, she should have sent in Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork to the Division on or before January 31, 2020. She did not. In fact, no one in SAO-20 or JAC forwarded Ms. Lyons' DROP paperwork to the Division before December 31, 2020. This mistake was not discovered until more than a year later. On February 25, 2021, JAC discovered it had failed to submit the DROP paperwork for Ms. Lyons to the Division. On February 26, 2021, after JAC contacted the Division, Ms. Estes emailed Petitioner's DROP paperwork, including Forms DP-ELE and DP-11, to Kathy Gould, Chief of the Bureau of Retirement Calculations at the Division. Again, there is no dispute this was outside of Ms. Lyons' 12-month eligibility window. On March 5, 2021, SAO-20 notified Ms. Lyons of JAC's failure to submit her DROP paperwork to the Division within the eligibility period. On March 10, 2021, the Division issued an Administrative Notice to Ms. Lyons denying her participation in DROP and informing her that she was not eligible to participate in DROP because the application and election were received outside her 12-month eligibility window (and past the December 31, 2020, deadline). Relying on sections 121.091(13)(a)2. and 121.021(29)(a), the Division informed Ms. Lyons that a member must "submit a form DP-ELE ... to the Division ... within twelve months of the date you first bec[o]me eligible to participate," and because the Division "received [Ms. Lyons'] DP-ELE after the end of [her] eligibility period, [she was] not eligible to participate in DROP." The denial letter did not reference any administrative rule. The testimony established that the Division has accepted DROP paperwork after the eligibility period when there is a dispute about whether the paperwork has been received by the Division within the 12-month eligibility window. In these cases, the Division has, after an investigation, discovered that there was a technical mistake on the Division's end that prevented submission of the DROP paperwork within the statutory deadline. For example, in the past, the Division has accepted DROP paperwork as timely received when an FRS member submits DROP paperwork via facsimile, but it does not print out on the Division's end because of a technical issue; or where an email with DROP paperwork attached was sent by the member to the Division within the eligibility period, but did not upload or arrive in the Division's inbox until after the end of that period. That is not the case for Ms. Lyons. Her documentation was not sent to the Division within the statutory timeframe, and there was no technical (or human) error on the Division's end of the communication. Any error was on the part of JAC or SAO-20.
Conclusions For Petitioner: George T. Levesque, Esquire James Timothy Moore, Esquire Patrick Hagen, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Respondent: Gayla Grant, Esquire Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Whitney Rebecca Hays, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Celeste Lyons from participation in DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: George T. Levesque, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gayla Grant, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Patrick Hagen, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James Timothy Moore, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Whitney Rebecca Hays, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Kristen Larson, Interim General Counsel Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was an employee of the state of Florida employed by the Department. On May 10, 1991 the Petitioner was arrested and placed in isolation without any outside contact except in the evenings by phone. By letter dated May 15, 1991, mailed to Petitioner's home address, the Department advised Petitioner that having been absence from work for three consecutive days without authorized leave of absence the Department assumed that the Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from career services. Additionally, this letter advised the Petitioner that he had 20 calendar days from receipt of the notice to petition the State Personnel Director for a review of the facts to determine if the circumstances constituted abandonment of position. The return receipt for this letter appears to be signed by Vickie Carpenter but does not indicate the date it was signed by her. A copy of this same letter was mailed by the Department to the Petitioner at the jail but no return receipt was ever received by the Department. However, the Petitioner testified at having received the letter around May 23, 1991. On May 23, 1991 the Respondent was released from jail and was available for work beginning on May 24, 1991. However, the Department had already terminated the Petitioner based on abandonment of position. By letter dated June 6, 1991 the Petitioner requested the State Personnel Director to review his case. By letter dated June 12, 1991 and received by Petitioner on June 14, 1991, the Department again advised Petitioner that the Department assumed that he had abandoned his position and again outlined the review process. On June 20, 1991 the Secretary of the Department of Administration entered an Order Accepting Petition and Assignment to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By letter dated August 27, 1991 the Department advised Petitioner that it was withdrawing the action of abandonment of position, and that he was reinstated to his position effective August 30, 1991. However, by letter dated August 29, 1991 the Department advised Petitioner that he was to report for work on September 3, 1991 rather than August 30, 1991, and that he was to report to Ft. Myers rather than to his old job in Punta Gorda. Additionally, Mark M. Geisler, Subdistrict Administrator, the author of the letter, advised the Petitioner that since the issue of back pay had been discussed with DeLuccia it was best for Petitioner to contact him in that regard. Petitioner was reinstated by the Department on September 3, 1991. Petitioner did not at any time agree to forego any back pay in order for the Department to reinstate him. The Petitioner has never received any back pay for the period beginning Friday, May 24, 1991 (the day he was able and ready to return to work) through Monday, September 2, 1991 (the day before Petitioner returned to work). Petitioner's wife, Vickie L. Carpenter was, at all times material to this proceeding, employed by the state of Florida, and because she and Petitioner both were employed by the state of Florida their health insurance was furnished by the state of Florida at no cost to them. Upon the Department terminating the Petitioner his wife was required to pay for her health insurance until Petitioner was reinstated on September 3, 1991. Petitioner was unable to report to work during the period from May 10, 1991 through May 23, 1991, inclusive, due to being incarcerated, and was on unauthorized leave of absence during this period. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any back pay for this period, and so stipulated at the hearing. However, Petitioner is entitled to receive back pay for the period from May 24, 1991 through September 2, 1991, inclusive. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that the Department was aware of Petitioner's incarceration and that it was not Petitioner's intent to abandon his position with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a Final Order (1) confirming the action of the Department that Petitioner did not abandon his position with the Department, and (2) reimbursing Petitioner for back pay for the period from May 24, 1991 through September 2, 1991, inclusive, and for any other benefit that Petitioner was entitled to during this period, including, but not limited to, health insurance benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Carpenter 1669 Flamingo Blvd. Bradenton, FL 34207 Susan E. Vacca, Qualified Representative Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 1415 Punta Gorda, FL 33951-1415 Augustus D. Aikens, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Robert B. Williams, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 06085 Fort Myers, FL 33906
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a career-service employee of Respondent. She served as a health service representative assigned to the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Her specific task was to investigate and follow up on contacts for sexually transmitted diseases. Petitioner's Employee Handbook, which Respondent received when she was hired, states: You may request annual leave for any purpose desired, but you must obtain Your supervisor's approval before taking annual leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask for verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work, complete the leave request form for your supervisor's signature. The Handbook also Provides that certain employees are entitled to one eight-hour personal holiday "at a time which is mutually agreeable to the individual and the immediate supervisor." The local policy of the Seminole County Public Health Unit required each employee to request leave by filling out the back of a timesheet. In this manner, the employee would show the type of leave requested, the date and time of the leave, the employee's initials. The form provided spaces for the signature of the supervisor and the date described in detail in the Paragraph 5 below. The back of the timesheet states: "All Leave and Overtime must be requested and approved in advance." The Handbook requires advance approval of annual leave. Although the blanket statement on the back of the timesheet requires advance approval of all leave and overtime, the Seminole County Public Health Unit routinely did not require advance approval for all types of leave. For instance, sick leave, overtime, and annual leave for less than a few hours were normally approved after the fact. On at least two occasions, including one involving Respondent, annual leave for an entire day was also approved after it had beef taken. However, the Seminole County Public Health Unit normally requires advance approval of annual leave for a Period of one day or more. The instructions on the timesheet direct that the date next to the supervisor's signature indicate the date of the request for leave. Consistent with the varying policies governing leave, the date beside the supervisor's signature on the timesheet was used to show the date of approval of a request for annual leave and the date of the request for sick leave and certain other types of leave. By negative implication, the Handbook also requires written approval of annual leave for nonemergencies because it expressly permits "verbal approval" for annual leave for emergencies. There are no requirements in the Handbook or the timesheets for written approval of requests for other forms of leave, and the Seminole County Public Health Unit did not maintain enforceable policies to that effect. Two persons were authorized to approve requests of Respondent for annual leave. The first person was Charlotte Blades, who was the coordinator of the sexually transmitted disease program of the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Ms. Blades was Respondent's immediate supervisor The other person authorized to approve requests for annual leave was Bernice Duncan, who was the senior community health nurse of the Seminole County Public Health Unit and Ms. Blades' supervisor. In practice, the written approval of Ms. Blades could be revoked by Ms. Duncan. On one occasion, Respondent requested eight hours' annual leave to attend her son's high school graduation on June 9, 1989. Ms. Blades signed the timesheet on May 23, 1989. Between that date and the date of the leave, Ms. Duncan told Respondent that, although Ms. Blades had signed the timesheet, the leave was not approved. Ultimately, Respondent received approval for leave through 2:30 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m., on the day of the graduation. In late July or early August, 1989, Respondent submitted a timesheet requesting 32 hours' annual leave from August 28-31, 1989. About one week later, before Ms. Blades or Ms. Duncan had acted on the request, Respondent changed the request to September 1, which was the Friday before Labor Day weekend, and September 13-14, 1989. In addition, she requested leave with pay for September 15, 1989, as her personal holiday. According to the timesheets, Ms. Blades approved the September 1 leave request on August 25, 1989, which was a Saturday. She assured Respondent that she would discuss with Ms. Duncan the remaining requests for leave. Respondent followed up with Ms. Blades several times, explaining that she wanted the leave to attend her son's graduation ceremonies from military basic training in South Carolina. Despite her assurances, Ms. Blades had not mentioned Respondent's request to Ms. Duncan before Ms. Blades became sick and missed work from September 6-9. On the second day of Ms. Blades' absence, Respondent took her request to Ms. Duncan, who said that she had not been aware of Respondent's request. Ms. Duncan told Respondent that Ms. Blades was on sick leave and did not respond further. The following day, Respondent spoke again with Ms. Duncan, who this time assured her that if Ms. Blades were not at work on Monday, September 11, Ms. Duncan would sign the timesheet approving the leave requested for September 13-15. Ms. Blades returned to work on Monday, September 11. When Respondent asked her in the morning to sign the timesheet, Ms. Blades refused to do so and told her that it had not yet been approved. Consistent with her prior conversations with Respondent, though, Ms. Blades did not say that the request had been disapproved. Respondent then left the office for much of the day. When she returned, Ms. Blades and Ms. Duncan were both out. The next day, Tuesday, September 12, Ms. Blades spoke with Respondent, but still declined to say whether the request was approved or rejected. She continued to say merely that the request had not yet been approved. Tuesday afternoon, Respondent told a coworker to tell Ms. Blades that Respondent was going to South Carolina and would be back the following Monday morning. While still in town, Respondent telephoned both supervisors shortly after 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, but they had not arrived at work yet. Respondent asked the receptionist to remind Ms. Blades that Respondent had gone to South Carolina and would return the following Monday morning. Both messages were delivered to Ms. Blades, who relayed them to Ms. Duncan. Respondent then departed for South Carolina, where she remained through at least September 15. At the time of her departure, Respondent knew that her request for annual leave had not been approved and that she was taking unauthorized annual leave. When she arrived back in the office on September 18, Respondent received a copy of a letter dated September 15 that had been mailed to her the prior Friday. The letter states that Respondent had been separated from State service for abandonment of position, effective at the close of business on September 15, 1989. The second paragraph of the letter contains material misstatements of fact. It states that Respondent had been advised that, due to the present work situation, her leave could not be approved. The letter also states that she did not contact her supervisor that she would be absent. No one ever advised Respondent that her leave could not be approved or in fact was rejected until after her return from South Carolina. Also, Respondent informed both supervisors, directly and through third parties, that she would be absent, where she was going, why, and when she would return. However, she did not contact them during the three-day absence. Concerning the request for leave for a personal holiday, neither Ms. Blades nor Ms. Duncan ever informed Respondent that the date was inconvenient. Under the circumstances, Respondent could reasonably infer that the date was agreeable with Ms. Blades. At no time did Respondent intend to abandon her career-service position. The facts do not support a reasonable inference that Respondent abandoned her job during the three days in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not abandoned her position in Career Service employment with the State of Florida. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. Parkinson Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 701 Orlando, FL 32801 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Alva J. Barfield 1010 Locust Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and supervised by Wilson Yawn, Maintenance Engineer, Chipley, Florida. On April 15, 1985, Petitioner signed an acknowledgment receipt indicating that: (a) he had received an Employee Handbook; (b) it was his responsibility to review the Handbook; and (c) he was to request clarification, if needed, from his supervisor. Petitioner knew, or should have known, since the Handbook explained job abandonment, that unauthorized leave of absence could result in the loss of his job through abandonment. Petitioner was absent from work without authorized leave on August 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1987. At no time relevant to this proceeding was any type of leave requested by Petitioner, or granted by Respondent. Petitioner was formally advised by certified letter dated August 21, 1987 that Respondent considered him to have abandoned his job and to have resigned from the Career Service.
