The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed a unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent initially hired Petitioner as a legal secretary in 1997. At that time, Petitioner worked in Respondent's office in Chipley, Florida. Petitioner suffered no continuing medical problems in 1997. In a memorandum dated April 17, 2001, Respondent's staff advised Petitioner that employees using more leave than they had earned would have to be place on "leave without pay" for the time used in excess of time earned. In a letter dated May 14, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that she intended to resign her position as a legal secretary effective May 25, 2001. Petitioner wrote the letter because she was moving to Apalachicola, Florida. Instead of accepting Petitioner's resignation, Respondent offered and Petitioner accepted a transfer as a legal secretary in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was able to continue working for Respondent without a break in service. In the summer of 2002, Petitioner began to suffer from an unexplained shortness of breath. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent knew the cause for the symptoms Petitioner was experiencing. By letter dated October 9, 2002, Respondent once again advised Petitioner that she could not use more leave time than the amount she earned. On at least one occasion, Petitioner's excessive time-off caused a reduction in her salary for "leave without pay." In a memorandum dated October 11, 2002, Respondent's staff documented concerns about Petitioner's attendance and performance. One of the concerns was Petitioner's chronic failure to file reports in a timely manner. Petitioner was late in filing the reports even though Respondent allowed her to prepare them at home and send them to Respondent by facsimile transmission from her husband's place of business. In February 2003, Petitioner still did not have a medical diagnosis to explain why she was sick and unable to work. On or about February 13, 2003, Petitioner and her supervisor agreed that Petitioner would take leave without pay pending an excuse from a doctor that she was unable to work. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent offered to let Petitioner have an indefinite leave of absence is not persuasive. On March 12, 2003, Petitioner provided Respondent medical documentation, excusing her from work due to unspecified illness through March 17, 2003. On or about March 14, 2003, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital. Subsequent medical tests revealed blood clots in Petitioner's lungs. Petitioner was eventually released from the hospital with prescriptions for blood thinning medication and oxygen. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor's note, dated March 18, 2003, excused Petitioner from work for two weeks. On or about April 2, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor stated that Petitioner had been hospitalized with a serious condition called pulmonary embolus and that she continued to have significant symptoms of shortness of breath and fatigue. The doctor's note stated that Petitioner would not be able to work for six weeks. On May 5, 2003, Jackie Pooser, Respondent's Administrative Director, talked to Petitioner by telephone. Ms. Pooser advised Petitioner that she needed to provide another doctor's excuse by May 8, 2003, if she was still under a doctor's care and unable to return to work. Otherwise, Respondent expected Petitioner to resume her duties in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was Respondent's only secretary in Port St. Joe, Florida. That office was in dire need of a performing secretary. However, apart from her illness, Petitioner was not anxious to return to work in the Port St. Joe office because she had a personality conflict with the only full-time attorney who worked there. During the May 5, 2003, telephone conversation, Petitioner did not tell Ms. Pooser that she was disabled or request any on-the-job accommodation. Instead, she led Ms. Pooser to believe that she intended to return to her job when authorized to do so by her doctor, hopefully in June 2003. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she never requested that Respondent provide her with any type of accommodation. In a letter dated May 6, 2003, Ms. Pooser confirmed the May 5, 2003, phone conversation. In the letter, Ms. Pooser further reminded Petitioner that her medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. The letter referred to the Public Defender Classification & Pay Plan requirements for a doctor's excuse without which an employee is considered to have abandoned his or her employment position. Petitioner's medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. Petitioner did not return to work or provide Respondent with further medical documentation. On May 16, 2003, Respondent verbally terminated Petitioner by telephone. A follow-up letter dated May 19, 2003, stated that Petitioner's work performance had not been satisfactory for some period of time. The letter also stated that Petitioner had abandoned her position by failing to provide Respondent with a doctor's excuse. Petitioner's testimony that she requested her physician to send the medical excuse directly to Respondent by facsimile transmission is not persuasive. Petitioner did not call Respondent to inquire whether Respondent received the excuse or to offer any other explanation for failing to send medical documentation to Respondent. Petitioner's doctor subsequently released her to return to work. Petitioner received unemployment compensation for at least one month. In August 2003, Petitioner began working for a real estate company, checking guests into resort rentals. She resigned that job after working for one month. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not disabled when she worked for Respondent. According to Petitioner, she was diagnosed as being disabled in October 2003, after experiencing further medical problems. However, Petitioner has provided no competent (non-hearsay) evidence of that diagnosis. Respondent's attendance and leave policy states as follows in relevant part: STATEMENTS OF POLICY * * * The granting of any leave of absence with or without pay shall be in writing and shall be approved by the proper authority within the Public Defender Office. An employee who is granted leave of absence with or without pay shall be an employee of the Public Defender while on such leave and shall be returned to the same position or a different position in the same class and same work location upon termination of the approved leave of absence, unless the Public Defender and the employee agree in writing to other conditions and terms under which such leave is to be granted. Any leave of absence with or without pay shall be approved prior to the leave being taken except in the case of an emergency where the employee must be absent prior to receiving approval from the proper authority for the absence. * * * (b) If an employee's request for leave of absence is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the Public Defender may place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays may consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Public Defender's Office. * * * 3.14 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE In accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor, eligible employees can receive up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the following reasons: . . . taking care of one's own serious health condition. Employees are not required to take all 12 weeks at once. The employee may request a few days or weeks off at a time (referred to as intermittent leave) or continue to work on a part-time basis (reduced leave). Unless written medical justification deems it necessary, the Public Defender is not required to grant intermittent or reduced leave. * * * (4) Employees must provide reasonable notice (30 days if possible) and make an effort to schedule their leave so as not to unduly disrupt agency operations. The Public Defender may request progress reports from the employees regarding leave status. * * * (7) The Public Defender may require certification from a healthcare provider regarding the need for medical leave, as well as certification of an employee's fitness to return to work. From August 1, 2002, through May 16, 2003, Respondent approved 518 hours or 12 weeks and 38 hours of leave without pay. During the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she received the leave without pay. Her testimony that she was not familiar with the above-referenced policies is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 23rd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Public Defender, Fourteenth Circuit Jackson County Courthouse Post Office Box 636 Marianna, Florida 32447 Christian C. Griggs 130 25th Avenue Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Operation Par, Inc. (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Lydia Breedlove (Petitioner), on the basis of handicap.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the definition of chapter 760. Respondent operates prevention, intervention, and treatment programs for individuals who are addicted to, or are at risk of addiction to alcohol, drugs, or other substances. Petitioner was employed by Respondent on or about October 27, 2003, and was assigned to different duties within Respondent’s business organization. Petitioner worked on Respondent’s Emergency Response Team (ERT) in 2008. Work with the ERT required Petitioner to travel to clients’ homes and conduct interviews and evaluations. Subsequent to her assignment with ERT, Petitioner voluntarily transferred to the Cornerstone of Success and Achievement (COSA) program. The COSA assignment did not require travel, and allowed Petitioner to be stationed within an office setting. During her time with ERT, Petitioner was counseling at a client’s home when she fell ill and was unable to continue her assignment. From the client’s home, Petitioner was transported to the hospital, and was absent from work from April 14, 2008, through May 19, 2008. Petitioner used her sick leave or personal leave time for this absence. Petitioner obtained a medical excuse for the absence and was able to return to work after the incident described above. In October 2008, Petitioner again fell ill and missed two days of work. Following this absence, Petitioner obtained a doctor’s excuse that allowed her to return to work. It was following the October illness that Petitioner sought and was given a transfer to the COSA program. Petitioner hoped that the COSA program would better suit her medical issues. Shortly after the assignment to COSA, Petitioner again fell ill, and was hospitalized and placed in an intensive care unit (ICU). During this time, Petitioner was not able to perform her work duties. Because she was to be out of work for an extended time, Respondent facilitated Petitioner going on FMLA leave. Because she exercised this option, Petitioner was allowed twelve weeks of leave to afford her an opportunity to regain her health. Petitioner attempted to return to work in February 2009, but once again fell ill. This time Petitioner was hospitalized and unable to perform her work duties. From February 6, 2009, until February 20, 2009, Petitioner did not contact Respondent to explain the latest round of illness. Petitioner was unable to perform her work duties during this time and could not obtain a doctor’s excuse to return to work. During the February illness, Petitioner did not seek an accommodation that would allow Petitioner to return to work. In fact, as of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was unable to work. Subsequently, Respondent facilitated obtaining disability benefits for Petitioner. The company health and life insurance plans allowed Petitioner to continue her life insurance at no cost, and allowed her to receive approximately 60 percent of her wages while she was unable to work. Later, Petitioner also qualified for and received Social Security disability benefits. Petitioner became upset because Respondent terminated her employment with the company on or about February 20, 2009. Petitioner’s life insurance and disability benefits were not terminated. As Petitioner was unable to perform her job duties, Respondent was obligated to employ someone who could get Petitioner’s work assignments completed. Respondent considered Petitioner a valued employee, and had she been able to return to work, she would have been allowed to do so. Regrettably, Petitioner’s health did not permit her to return. Should Petitioner become able to work, Respondent would be willing to consider her for future employment. Petitioner’s job with Respondent required that she engage in interpersonal relations. Further, given the nature of the job programs, Petitioner’s work required that she handle stressful situations. According to her disability claim, Petitioner is unable to handle stress. Additionally, Petitioner’s physician verified that she is unable to return to work due to the stressful nature of the work, and her need for rehabilitation. Petitioner’s medical condition caused her to be limited in the scope of activities she can perform. Petitioner mistakenly believed Respondent was not interested in helping her when, in fact, the company assisted in the procurement of benefits for Petitioner. Petitioner may apply for a job with Respondent whenever she is able to return to work. To date, she is not able to do so. Respondent’s programs (ERT and COSA) were negatively impacted by the shortage of support when Petitioner was not able to work. The best interests of the company and its clients required that an employee who could perform the work be placed in the job. Petitioner claimed that the assignment to COSA negatively impacted her health; however, such assertion is not supported by medical evidence. It was Petitioner’s conjecture that the assignment to the COSA site caused her subsequent illness, because she had to work in a converted garage with only a space heater for heat. The latter claim is not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Finally, it is determined that Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment based upon the company’s need to complete work assignments that were critical to the business operations of the entity. Petitioner timely filed a complaint with the FCHR, and alleged that her termination by Respondent was based upon her disability. Respondent articulated and proved business considerations that required the termination. Such considerations were not a pretext for an otherwise impermissible act. Further, Respondent did not terminate Petitioner’s employment in retaliation for Petitioner’s use of FMLA leave, or because she alleged the work environment contributed to her medical condition. To the contrary, Respondent assisted Petitioner in claiming FMLA leave so that she could document her extended absences from work. Respondent allowed Petitioner to return to work on every occasion she presented a doctor’s excuse for her absence. Petitioner was not able to perform her work duties at the time of the termination.
Recommendation Based upon 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 claim against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esquire 625 East Twiggs Street, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cynthia Lee May, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 625 East Twiggs Street, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lydia Breedlove 305 Belleair Place Clearwater, Florida 33756 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's employment position was properly reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor. As a Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor, the Petitioner was responsible for supervising the performance of counselors and other employees in the Manatee County office. The Manatee County office employed nine persons, including five Vocational Counselors and four clerical and administrative employees. The position description applicable to the Petitioner's employment provided that he was responsible for hiring, evaluating, training, and managing employees in the office. He was responsible for managing and coordinating the fiscal resources available to the office. He was responsible for recruitment of new employees, and for the performance evaluation of existing employees. The Petitioner developed criteria used to hire new employees, created interview questions, and participated in the interview process. The Petitioner's employment recommendations were always approved by his supervisor. The review of the Petitioner's job performance focused primarily on his success in supervising his employees. He received an evaluation of "excellent" and "effective" in such categories as planning based on the missions and goals of the agency, implementation of quality control standards, efficient work organization, budget management, leadership, staff management and discipline, and effective evaluation of subordinates. As part of his supervisory responsibilities, the Petitioner was responsible for approval of all leave requests and travel reimbursement. He was also responsible for the employee evaluation process, including recommending staff members for performance based bonuses. The Petitioner was also responsible for any disciplinary action taken related to his subordinate employees. There is no evidence that the Petitioner did not perform his duties as described by the applicable position description. At the hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged that he was the supervisor for the office and its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order finding that the "Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor" position held by Britton Townsend on July 1, 2001, was properly classified into the Selected Exempt Service. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret O'Sullivan Parker, Esquire Department of Education Office of the General Counsel 1244 Florida Education Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Britton Townsend 331 11th Avenue, West Palmetto, Florida 34221 Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 South Hyde Park Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33606 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive benefits pursuant to Option 3 as retirement earned by his deceased wife, Susana T. Fabian.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Howard Fabian, is the spouse of the late Susana T. Fabian. Mrs. Fabian was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The Fabians were married for approximately 14 years and have two children from their union. The girls, now teenagers, reside with Mr. Fabian and depend on him for their financial support. The Respondent, DMS, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the FRS. Benefits payable to FRS participants are tendered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and DMS rules. Mrs. Fabian was employed as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County Public Schools on or about December 17, 1984. As such, she was eligible to participate in the FRS. In fact, Mrs. Fabian's employer made contributions to the FRS for her benefit throughout her employment with the school system. Such contributions continued for over 13 years. It is undisputed that Mrs. Fabian was "vested" and was, therefore, entitled to receive retirement benefits from the FRS. Unfortunately, Mrs. Fabian became ill in 1997 and was unable to teach. She requested an extended sick leave for the period August 31, 1997 through May 31, 1998, which her employer granted. Mrs. Fabian returned to teaching the following year and was able to perform her duties until January 2000. At that time her medical condition worsened. Her request for unpaid leave through June 2000 was granted. Despite her best efforts to regain her health, Mrs. Fabian did not improve. Each time her employer asked whether she would return to work, forms were returned seeking an extension of leave. The employer continued to grant the extension requests and approved sick leave without pay for the period through June 14, 2002. Mr. Fabian filled out a leave form seeking leave on his wife's behalf through June 2003. By letter dated May 14, 2002, the school system denied that request. Whether or not the employer correctly calculated the time Mrs. Fabian received unpaid leave is unknown. The Petitioner asserts that had Mrs. Fabian received credit for "hardship leave and dire emergency leave" in 1997 and 2000 (for which the union contract provided), the leave request in June 2002 would or could have been granted. The record is clear that the Respondent did not have any part in the internal workings of the Miami-Dade County School District and did not have knowledge as to whether Mrs. Fabian could have been granted additional unpaid leave. The employer's decisions regarding this employee were unknown to the Respondent until the instant action. However, about the time the employer denied the last leave extension request, Mr. Fabian received a FRS application for disability retirement. The application was completed on or about June 2002. The form signed by Mrs. Fabian was out- of-date and did not have a designation of beneficiary space. Pursuant to its policy, DMS accepted the out of date form and sent Mrs. Fabian a form for designating a beneficiary. The form for designating a beneficiary listed four options: Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 4. All (Options 1-4) were clearly and unambiguously described. However, only two of the options had estimates included on the form sent to Mrs. Fabian. Estimates for Options 3 and 4 were not noted. Under Option 1 the form indicated a monthly benefit of $895.28. Option 2 indicated a monthly payment of $824.89. At that point in time DMS did not have sufficient information to calculate Options 3 and 4. To calculate Options 3 and 4 DMS must have information regarding a "Joint Annuitant." Had Mr. Fabian included information for Options 3 and 4 those amounts would have been calculated. In this case, the Respondent could not know Mrs. Fabian was married, as the initial (outdated) form did not provide that information. The Respondent could have become aware of Mrs. Fabian's marital status as a result of a telephone call from Mr. Fabian to DMS in August of 2002. At that time DMS still needed information to put Mrs. Fabian on the retirement payroll. The request for information unambiguously listed information needed for a "joint annuitant." The first notice to Mrs. Fabian, dated July 11, 2002, asked for the proof of birth for the joint annuitant. Similarly, the SECOND REQUEST-RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS (Respondent's Ex. 12) dated September 4, 2002, indicated the following: Your name cannot be placed on the retired payroll for the reason(s) indicated below: BIRTH VERIFICATION Please see the enclosed memo outlining the acceptable means of proving your birth date. BIRTH VERIFICATION OF BENEFICIARY If you elect Option 3 or 4, we will need proof of birth for your joint annuitant. FRS-11o, OPTION SELECTION FORM The enclosed Option Selection Form is needed. If you elect option 3 or 4, we will need proof of birth for your joint annuitant. You may wait until an estimate of benefits is provided before selecting your option. FORM FST-12, BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION This form must be completed to designate a beneficiary. You must designate a beneficiary to receive any benefits due at your date of death. [Emphasis in original] Nevertheless, when the Option Selection form was submitted to DMS, Mr. Fabian, exercising a power of attorney provided by his wife, chose Option 1. Mr. Fabian claims he did not know Option 3 was available. The Option Selection form clearly and unambiguously listed all four options available to Mrs. Fabian. Mr. Fabian is an educated professional. He has taught school for the Miami-Dade County School District and has operated a real estate office for approximately 20 years. The Option Selection form signed by Mr. Fabian for himself and for his wife on September 3, 2002 (Petitioner's Exhibit. 7) required the Petitioner to complete a "Spousal Acknowledgement," recognizing that the member had chosen Option 1. The section must be completed if the FRS member is married and if Option 1 or 2 is elected. Clearly, the Petitioner knew or should have known that the form contemplated a permanent decision. In fact, the Petitioner acknowledged by signing beneath the section that stated: . . . I also understand that I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed, deposited, or when my Deferred Retirement Option Program participation begins. DMS received the Beneficiary Designation Form and Option Selection forms on September 12, 2002. The completed file was referred to payroll and Mrs. Fabian then received monthly retirement benefits under Option 1 (the option selected by her husband pursuant to his power of attorney). It is undisputed the first payment was negotiated upon its receipt. Prior to cashing the first payment Mrs. Fabian could have changed her option selection. On December 24, 2002, Mrs. Fabian passed away. The Respondent then notified Mr. Fabian that the option he had selected did not provide for continuing benefits beyond the month of Mrs. Fabian's death. Additionally, Mr. Fabian was advised that he was not entitled to a refund of any contribution Mrs. Fabian paid to FRS as she had not made any. The employer paid 100 percent of the contributions to Mrs. Fabian's account. Retirement benefits under the FRS are not equivalent to life insurance. That is, the retirement payments are payable to the employee who "earned" benefits or to those who may be "joint annuitants" as defined by law. At all times material to this case, the employer paid the full amount credited to Mrs. Fabian's retirement account, approximately $84,046.51. Obviously, Mrs. Fabian sought the benefits from her account prior to her anticipated retirement date. DMS allows disability retirement under such circumstances. Therefore, Mrs. Fabian's eligibility to claim her disability retirement is not disputed. The deposition testimony of Nina Barron was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 5. Ms. Barron reviewed the retirement options with the Petitioner prior to the time the form was submitted to FRS. Ms. Barron also calculated the amounts payable to Mrs. Fabian pursuant to each option. Ms. Barron also believes she spoke to Mrs. Fabian regarding the options. Ms. Barron mailed the calculated estimates for each option to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's allegation that he was confused regarding the options and which election would best protect his family's interests has not been deemed persuasive in light of the testimony of Ms. Barron. The witness provided an unofficial estimate to Mrs. Fabian that included all 4 options.
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 the Petitioner's request. S DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplande Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Kenneth M. Watson, abandoned his career service position with the Department pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by being absent from work without authorization on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Watson was employed by the Department from June l2, 1985, until November 6, 1987. When Mr. Watson was first employed by the Department he was given a copy of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook. Mr. Watson was, therefore, informed of the following, which appears on page 43 of the Handbook (DOT exhibit 5-B): JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. The leave policy of the Department requires that employees "[g]et your supervisor's approval before taking leave." Page 21 of the Handbook (see DOT exhibit 5-A). In November, 1987, Mr. Watson was employed by the Department as a Highway Maintenance Technician II. He was a Career Service employee. In November, 1987, Mr. Watson worked under the direct supervision of Tommy Gay. Mr. Gay was a welder and had no authority over Mr. Watson other than to supervise work they performed together. Mr. Gay had no authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson's next immediate supervisor was Elzie Mercer, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor IV. Mr. Mercer had authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson's next immediate supervisor was Joseph Heath, the District Bridge Inspection Engineer. Mr. Heath also had the authority to approve personal absences from work for Mr. Watson. On November 3, 1987, Mr. Watson was absent from work. This absence had been approved by the Department. Mr. Watson was supposed to return to work on November 4, 1987. He was supposed to be at work on November 5 and 6, 1987, also. Mr. Watson did not report to work with the Department on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Neither Mr. Mercer or Mr. Heath approved Mr. Watson's absence for November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Mr. Watson did not directly contact Messrs. Gay, Mercer and Heath, or anyone else at the Department about his absence on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. Mr. Watson did not request approval for his absence on November 4, 5 or 6, 1987. A woman who identified herself as Mrs. Green called the Department on November 4, 1987, and spoke with the receptionist, Carol Ellis. Mrs. Green informed Ms. Ellis that "if Mr. Watson does not show up at his job in a couple of days he is probably in jail." Ms. Ellis informed Messrs. Gay and Mercer about this conversation. Mrs. Green called again on November 6, 1987, and spoke with Barbara Taylor, a secretary with the Department. Ms. Taylor informed Mr. Heath of this phone call. Mr. Heath had Mr. Gay call the Duval County Jail. Mr. Gay verified that Mr. Watson was in jail. Mr. Watson first spoke with Mr. Heath on November 10, 1987. Mr. Watson informed Mr. Heath that he was in jail. Mr. Watson requested approval of annual and sick leave for the period of his absence. Mr. Watson was told that he could not use sick leave for the absence. Mr. Heath also informed Mr. Watson that he was denying the request for annual leave and that Mr. Watson would be treated as having abandoned his position with the Department because of his unauthorized absence. Mr. Watson spoke with Mr. Heath by telephone again on November 13, 1987. Mr. Heath again denied Mr. Watson's request for leave. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Watson appeared at work for the first time since before his authorized absence on November 3, 1987. He was informed that he could not work and he left. Messrs. Mercer and Heath were not contacted by Mr. Watson and requested to approve his absence from work on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987, until November 10, 1987, or later. At no time did Mr. Watson obtain approval of his absence. Mr. Watson was informed by letter dated November 24, 1987, that he had abandoned his position with the Department. The Department received a letter on November 25, 1987, requesting a formal administrative hearing. Mr. Watson had sufficient annual leave to cover his absence from the Department on November 4, 5 and 6, 1987. He did not have sufficient annual leave to cover his absence through November 17, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Administration concluding that Kenneth M. Watson abandoned his career service position with the Department. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 16th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Case Number 88-0798 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2-3 4. 4-5 5. 6 7. 7 11. 8 13. 9 11-15. 10 16. Hereby accepted. See 17. 13 13. 9. But see 16. Mr. Watson attempted to return to work on November 17, 1989. Hereby accepted. 16 18. 17-18 2. 19-20 Although generally true, the Department failed to present evidence sufficient to support these policies. See Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 3-6. 2 7. 3 9. 4 11. 5 12. Except for the last three sentences, these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last three sentences are accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant in this de novo proceeding. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. See 20. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant in this de novo proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS #58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination against Petitioner on the basis of handicap.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination arises out of her employment with Respondent Children's Home Society (CHS) and a series of medical leaves in the years 2000-2001, which ultimately resulted in loss of her position. Respondent CHS is a non-profit social service organization established over 100 years ago. It is the oldest private child welfare service in Florida. It provides a range of services for the benefit of children and families throughout the state, including but not limited to counseling and support services, adoption, residential care, and home-based services. Petitioner appeared at the November 7, 2003, disputed- fact hearing using a cane. The undersigned observed that she seemed to experience pain at movement of her back and one leg. She presented no supportive medical evidence that she is currently disabled/handicapped and little to explain the cause of her present mobility problems or when they first appeared, except that one of her explanations for her current condition is that she was held against her will in a psychiatric center, in June 2002, pursuant to a circuit court Order, and at that time she fell and broke her back and leg. This occurred a year after Respondent had declared Petitioner's position vacant. Petitioner also testified that on March 29, 1999, on her way to work with CHS, her back and legs were injured, her face was crushed, and her teeth were shattered in an automobile accident that totaled her car. There is no evidence that she was off work with CHS for any period of time in 1999 or that any workers' compensation claim was made by her to CHS at that time. Petitioner did request a wage statement from CHS in connection with some automobile insurance claims in 1999. Also, in 2001, Petitioner also made a claim to CHS's insurance company for long-term disability benefits on the basis of this automobile accident, as more fully described below.3/ It is significant that her September 29, 2001 Charge of Discrimination did not list her back and legs as her handicap. Her November 14, 2002 Petition for Relief mentions the 1999 automobile accident. In 2000-2001, Petitioner was Program Supervisor I for CHS's Healthy Families Program in the Lake County area of CHS's Mid-Florida Division. She was in charge of the North Lake area, which encompasses Fruitland Park, Tavares, Leesburg, Lady Lake, Mt. Dora, Astor, Paisley, Sorrento, and other unincorporated areas of North Lake County. The Healthy Families Program is a very demanding one. Its Program Supervisors I have multiple and complicated responsibilities. As a Program Supervisor I for the Healthy Families Program, it was Petitioner's job to provide hands-on supervision to six paraprofessional Family Support Workers (FSW); ensure that rigorous program standards were maintained by them and other paraprofessionals and interns through weekly (two-hour minimum) formal staffings of each case; conduct ongoing case file reviews for quality of documentation; conduct year-end performance evaluations of supervised staff through information gained during the weekly staffings, file reviews, data related to stated objectives, home visits, and telephone quality assurance contacts with all clients; coordinate activities among and between staff (such as Christmas food and toy drives); coordinate comprehensive training and orientation for staff; provide staff with ongoing coaching throughout program implementation; oversee new case staffing and assignments with Family Assessment Workers (FAW); provide professional intervention for difficult cases; conduct joint home visits with all case load families every quarter; generate and/or oversee the reporting of program data; provide monthly comprehensive regular reports to a Program Manager on the status of all program activity; provide home visits and documentation in the absence of an FSW; cross-train to be an FAW; and assume new case assessment and documentation in the absence of an FAW. Program supervisors, with peers, conduct six to eight weeks of intensive training for each new FSW. After the initial training, the Supervisor is responsible for an additional 40 hours of ongoing training. The weekly staffing on every case is mandatory. Healthy Families Florida allows no excuses for a missed staffing on even one case in one caseload in one week. The program either meets the standard or it does not. This is also true for program objectives in which seventeen measurable goals must be met for every case. Program supervisors are required to assure constant and accurate data entry of all program information. Accuracy and timeliness of the data provide a measure of the program's success or failure in achieving program objectives. Program supervisors must meet every new family within the first month of service and conduct joint home visits with each family each quarter. Quality assurance telephone calls must be conducted with each family every quarter. Case files must be reviewed constantly to assure that the required documentation is in place. Finally, program supervisors must meet with the Health Families Program Specialist each quarter for a file audit and program review. In June 2000, Petitioner took her first Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. She was out on FMLA leave for four weeks and two days, returning in July 2000. During this period of time, Petitioner gave birth to a live male infant. The child died while Petitioner was strapped to the table in the delivery room and hospital personnel dropped the infant. Quite naturally, this tragic event, over which she had no control, caused Petitioner psychological trauma and enormous grief. She also maintained that the lack of appropriate after-care at that time might have resulted in her subsequent need for FMLA leave and a hysterectomy, as more fully described below. CHS's FMLA policy was contained in its Employee Handbook. In 1995, Petitioner acknowledged, in writing, receipt of the Employee Handbook. In 1996, CHS's leave policies were amended, and a clear equal employment opportunity and anti- discrimination policy was added to the Handbook. Petitioner maintained that she had signed the receipt for the Handbook before the foregoing amendments. That testimony by Petitioner is credible, but it is also clear that Petitioner subsequently became aware of CHS's leave policy via explanations in a series of letters to her from CHS's Human Resources Department over the course of her second FMLA leave of absence, which began in November 2000. FMLA leave is calculated on a twelve-month rolling calendar period. Under the FMLA, Petitioner was guaranteed reinstatement to her former position as Program Supervisor I or an equivalent job with the same pay, benefits, terms, and conditions of employment as long as her total FMLA leave (including all leave periods) did not exceed twelve weeks in a twelve-month period. CHS characterizes all medical leave as FMLA leave if the employee is eligible for FMLA leave. CHS requires that accrued paid vacation and sick leave be utilized before utilizing unpaid FMLA leave. This allows the employee to draw full salary and continue to receive health insurance benefits as long as possible before having to resort to unpaid leave, but it means that FMLA leave, vacation leave, and sick leave are depleted simultaneously. CHS automatically offers any employee who is on FMLA leave for a serious health condition an opportunity to convert the leave to disability leave after his or her FMLA leave expires. Under this CHS leave policy, an employee does not have to be handicapped or disabled to qualify for disability leave. At all times material, Julie Ormond, Healthy Families Program Manager, was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Ms. Ormond reported to Glenna Osborne. Glenna Osborne was the Director of Program Operations for CHS's Mid-Florida Division. She supervised three programs: Family Builders, Healthy Families, and Responsible Fatherhood. Ms. Osborne was in charge of 77 employees and 10 supervisors. Ms. Osborne has a Master's Degree in Human Development and 25 years' experience in management. On or about October 11, 2000, Ms. Ormond wrote a memo to two Healthy Families supervisors, one of whom was Petitioner. The memo detailed certain problems with both supervisors' areas: supervision duties, data entry requirements, and report completions. Ms. Ormond requested that the problems be corrected and in place no later than October 30, 2000. On November 3, 2000 and November 7, 2000, Ms. Ormond copied Ms. Osborne with memos sent only to Petitioner on the same dates, detailing that some of Petitioner's programs had serious problems, now including complete absences of some data entry, late data entry, and both failure to classify and inaccuracy of classification of some clients. There also were problems in Petitioner's area with meeting State requirements and registering childhood immunizations. Petitioner was instructed to resolve the problems in her area as soon as possible. Ms. Ormond also copied Ms. Osborne with a memo along the same lines, dated November 7, 2000, from another CHS employee, Jean Plescow. When data entry is incomplete or late, it is not always possible to readily determine whether the problem is just a delayed data entry or if there also has been an actual failure to accomplish the act, plans, staffings, trainings, and immunizations for which the data was supposed to be entered. Over time, as related more fully below, it appeared that there were more problems with Petitioner's job performance, and the performance of the staff she supposedly had trained, than merely a failure to transpose information to a computer from other records. Before her work problems had been resolved, Petitioner went out a second time on leave associated with a medical problem. It was Petitioner's affirmative duty to apply for leave initially and to seek extensions, if necessary, of any leave granted. Although Petitioner testified that she filled out all the vacation and sick leave forms necessary before going out on "medical leave"; that she left in October 2000; and that when she left, she fully intended to be back at work before her accrued vacation and sick leave ran out, the following facts are found upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. At Petitioner's request dated November 21, 2000, CHS again placed her on FMLA leave as of that date. Petitioner's last day of work before this second period of FMLA leave was November 19, 2000. On November 21, 2000, Petitioner informed CHS that she expected to return to work on or about January 23, 2001. Ms. Osborne's testimony was credible to the effect that she believed that Petitioner was going out on leave in November 2000 for surgery related to the June 2000 birth of Petitioner's child and not for surgery related to any prior automobile accident. Ms. Osborne is also credible that although she knew that Petitioner had been in an automobile accident in 1999, she never knew the extent of Petitioner's injuries from that accident and had never received any doctors' reports or any requests for accommodation of a handicap from Petitioner. Ms. Osborne did not perceive Petitioner as handicapped for any reason at any time between 1999 and November 19, 2000. Petitioner claimed that she only took the Program Supervisor I job on the condition "that if it were too hard, I could have my old [CHS] job back." Petitioner testified about how excellent she believed she performed her Program Supervisor I job prior to November 19, 2000, and that her work was up to date and commendatory when she took her second medical leave. She further stated that, as of November 19, 2000, she had accrued enough vacation and sick leave to cover the time she expected to be out on her second medical leave. Upon the facts found in Findings of Fact 23 and 24, it is further found that Petitioner never requested or received from CHS any workplace accommodations for a handicap dealing with her back or legs prior to her absence beginning in November 2000. Furthermore, all the medical excuses Petitioner supplied to CHS after November 19, 2000, support a finding that iron deficiency anemia from a uterine fibroid and a surgical hysterectomy with resultant recovery time caused Petitioner's absence from work after November 19, 2000, even though Petitioner supplied a different explanation to CHS's long-term disability insurance company after her leave ran out, as more fully discussed below. As Director of CHS's Mid-Florida Division's Human Resources Department, Linda Barry was responsible, in 2000-2001 for implementing and interpreting CHS's policies and procedures; benefits administration; approving transfers and promotions; approving and administering FMLA leaves and other leaves of absence; making termination decisions; and keeping apprised of CHS's hiring needs. On November 28, 2000, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter advising that because of her June 2000 leave, only seven weeks and two days remained of Petitioner's FMLA leave and requesting that Petitioner complete and return the FMLA paperwork. In the meantime, Ms. Osborne assessed the North Lake staffing situation and documented her concerns in a November 30, 2000 memo to Ms. Ormand. Ms. Osborne noted some of Petitioner's program documentation was satisfactory and some was exemplary, but that there still existed serious problems with missing, incomplete, or inaccurate program documentation and inadequate training and supervision of Petitioner's team. Ms. Osborne requested that Ms. Ormand bring these deficiencies to Petitioner's attention as soon as Petitioner returned from FMLA leave, and that if Ms. Osborne's observations were confirmed by Ms. Ormand, the problems should be addressed at that time by Ms. Ormond in Petitioner's evaluation. During Petitioner's absence beginning November 19, 2000 and continuing into 2001, three other area supervisors performed their own full-time responsibilities and divided Petitioner's job responsibilities among themselves. Janie Counts, Sumter County Supervisor, traveled several times a week to provide fill-in supervision for two of Petitioner's FSWs. The South Lake Supervisor, Stephanie Ellis, provided fill-in supervision for two more of Petitioner's FSWs. Ms. Ormand traveled from Tavares to Leesburg to provide fill-in supervision for Petitioner's two remaining FSWs. If one of the three fill- in supervisors was ill or on leave, the remaining two fill-in supervisors oversaw Petitioner's two remaining FSWs, continued to cover their own teams, and covered the other absent supervisor's six FSWs. In the course of scrambling to carry on CHS's regular workload in Petitioner's absence, these three supervisors reported to Ormand and Osborne more problems they uncovered in Petitioner's operation. Ms. Counts sent Ormand and Osborne written reports. Her December 10, 2000 report reflected that Petitioner had left behind inadequate program documentation, had failed to prepare her supervision notes, had missing family support plan updates, had late data and missing data, and had failed to provide adequate training to her FSWs. Ms. Counts reported to Ormand and Osborne in a December 15, 2003 memo that she had uncovered even more problems that had existed in Petitioner's program before Petitioner went on leave. She also related that Petitioner had come to the office that day for the office's Christmas Lunch. CHS's FMLA leave policy required the existence of a "serious health condition." A doctor's certification supporting an FMLA leave is required. Physicians are provided an instruction sheet explaining the definition of "serious health condition", so they can categorize the patient's illness. Sometime in December 2000, Petitioner's doctor, Dr. Grousse, provided Ms. Barry with medical certifications to support Petitioner's then-current FMLA leave. Dr. Grousse listed Petitioner's condition as severe iron deficiency anemia and stated that she needed a hysterectomy soon. Dr. Grousse advised that Petitioner could not perform any work at that time. On December 20, 2000, Ms. Barry sent Petitioner a memo explaining her FMLA leave rights and requesting a medical certification from her surgeon. She also informed Petitioner of CHS's policy of applying vacation and sick leave concurrent with FMLA leave and stated the balance of Petitioner's FMLA leave remaining after her leave in June 2000 had been seven weeks and three days. She noted that as of CHS's December 15, 2000 payroll, Petitioner had 313.32 hours accrued vacation time and 124.22 hours accrued sick time. On December 27, 2000, Dr. Boggus provided Ms. Barry with medical certification to support Petitioner's FMLA leave. He indicated that Petitioner needed pelvic surgery, that she could not perform any work at that time, and that she would need six weeks off work after the surgery for recovery. He categorized Petitioner's condition as a "1" and "2", which meant that her condition required a stay in the hospital and a work absence plus treatment. He did not categorize her condition as "chronic" (requiring periodic treatment), nor did he categorize her condition as "permanent/long term" (requiring supervision). In the meantime, Petitioner's job duties still had to be covered and her team re-educated and brought up to grade if CHS's program objectives were to be met. Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter dated January 10, 2001, advising Petitioner that her FMLA leave would expire on January 12, 2001; extending her leave to January 22, 2001, as unpaid disability leave; advising her that she could continue to use any remaining accrued vacation time; and requesting that she submit a physician's statement for any leave she would require beyond January 22, 2001. The FMLA does not require that employees who are absent more than 12 weeks in a 12 month-period be returned to the same or a comparable position. Significantly, Ms. Barry's January 10, 2001 letter stated that although it was not guaranteed that Petitioner's Program Supervisor I position would be available when she was ready to return from leave, an effort would be made to place Petitioner in her previous position or a comparable one, or if no such position were available when Petitioner was ready to come back, she might be eligible for re- hire should a position later become available and her past work history warranted re-hire. The crucial point here is that CHS expressed no obligation to hold Petitioner's job for her after her FMLA leave ran out, but stated that it would try to give her a job in the same capacity when she returned. In fact, on January 12, 2001, Petitioner had her hysterectomy, which, according to Dr. Boggus's December 27, 2000 certification, meant that Petitioner would have then needed an additional six weeks, or until approximately February 23, 2001, before she could return to work in any capacity. However, Petitioner's FMLA leave expired on January 12, 2001. She did not contact CHS until after that date, and only then did she send in medical information about the date of her surgery. (See Finding of Fact 45.) By the time Petitioner's FMLA leave had expired on January 12, 2001, the fill-in supervisors had reported to Ms. Osborne that they were burned out with having to work their own full loads and also deal with the deficiencies left behind by Petitioner. One fill-in supervisor found it impossible to find the time to retrain the two FSWs assigned her from Petitioner's team while trying to maintain her own workload as a full-time supervisor. Another fill-in supervisor requested a transfer to a less demanding program and a demotion. By the middle of January 2001, Osborne and Barry had concluded that the undue hardship on the fill-in supervisors was so great that it was impossible to hold Petitioner's position open any longer. They felt to do so would seriously compromise the extent and quality of services that CHS could offer its clients and would jeopardize the well being of the other supervisors who were covering for Petitioner. Faced with Petitioner's not returning to work in any capacity for an indeterminate period of time, Barry and Osborne decided they had no choice but to replace Petitioner when her FMLA leave expired. According to Ms. Barry, Dr. Neil Finkler provided a medical certification update on behalf of Petitioner to her "toward the end of January 2001." Because Dr. Finkler's undated certification is referenced in her January 23, 2001 letter to Petitioner (see Finding of Fact 46), it is concluded that Ms. Barry received Dr. Finkler's certification before January 23, 2001, and probably received it by the January 22, 2001 date she had required in her January 10, 2001 letter for a reply from Petitioner. Dr. Finkler's certification advised that surgery had been performed on January 12, 2001, and that Petitioner would be incapacitated until February 23, 2001. Dr. Finkler categorized Petitioner as a "1", which is defined as requiring a stay in the hospital and a work absence plus subsequent treatment. Dr. Finkler did not categorize Petitioner's condition as chronic, requiring periodic treatment or as a permanent/long term condition requiring supervision. On January 23, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter confirming that CHS had received Dr. Finkler's certification; notifying Petitioner that CHS had extended her leave to February 23, 2001, as unpaid disability leave, but that Petitioner could continue to use any remaining accrued vacation time; notifying her that as of CHS's January 15, 2001 payroll, her vacation balance was 269.54 hours; and advising that when Petitioner was ready to return to work she would have to provide a fitness-for-duty certification. The letter also stated: Because the operations of CHS require that vacant positions be filled, a disability leave of absence does not guarantee that your job will be available when you return. An effort, however, will be made to place you in your previous position or a comparable one. If no such position is available, you may be eligible for re-hire should a position become available for which you are qualified and your work history warrants rehire. The representation that an effort would be made to return Petitioner to her former position was probably untrue, given that Ms. Barry already knew that a replacement had to be hired soon. However, comparable positions might be available. (See Findings of Fact 48 and 49.) On January 26, 2001, Ms. Counts submitted a report of her fill-in supervision for Petitioner to Ms. Ormand. She reported that Petitioner's subordinates had not been trained by Petitioner on charting requirements and had not even been given certain forms. Effective January 29, 2001, after the automatic extension to January 22, 2001, given Petitioner in Ms. Barry's January 10, 2001 letter, had expired, but before the February 23, 2001 extension specified in Ms. Barry's January 23, 2001 letter, had been reached, CHS selected Belinda Henson to replace Petitioner as the Program Supervisor I for the Healthy Families Program in Lake County. Ms. Hensen would be on probation for six months, but she was considered a permanent employee as of her date of hire, to the extent that she would not be ousted from Petitioner's old Program Supervisor I position even if Petitioner chose to return to work. Although Petitioner was replaced as Program Supervisor I in her area on January 29, 2001, CHS still considered Petitioner to be an employee on leave status. CHS did not foreclose the possibility that it could have other Program Supervisor I openings available when Petitioner was ready to return from her leave. On February 16, 2001, Ms. Ormand sent a memo to Ms. Barry and Ms. Osborne, stating the problems with Petitioner's past job performance as expressed by the fill-in supervisors. When Petitioner's extended leave expired on February 23, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter of that date, stating that CHS had not received any further medical certification to authorize leave beyond February 23, 2001, and that if Petitioner needed to continue her leave, she must provide an updated physician's statement showing such leave to be necessary. Ms. Barry's letter also informed Petitioner that her previous position had been filled, but Should you be able to return to work, an effort will be made to place you in a comparable position, should one be available. If no such position is available, you may be eligible for rehire as a new employee if you should apply for an available position in the future. On February 27, 2001, Petitioner faxed Ms. Barry a copy of a note from Dr. Boggus, advising, "No lifting over 5 lbs for one month. She may return 25 hours/wk for next one month." Dr. Finkler also provided a note stating that Petitioner could return to work on February 27, 2001, "but only work up to 25 hours/week with no heavy lifting for the next 1 month." There were no part-time openings in the Mid-Florida Division as of February 27, 2001. Petitioner's accrued paid vacation leave must have run out at about this time. Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a certified letter dated March 5, 2001, advising Petitioner that Ms. Barry had received the two doctors' notes restricting Petitioner to part-time work and that there were no part-time positions currently available in CHS's Mid-Florida Division. However, Ms. Barry extended Petitioner's leave for one month to March 27, 2001, the time period of her restriction to part-time work. Petitioner could have applied in other CHS divisions for any available part-time position for which she was qualified. The record is silent as to whether there were any such part-time positions available then, but it affirmatively appears that Petitioner did not inquire into, or apply for, any part-time positions that may have been available outside of the Mid-Florida Division. Petitioner testified that she drove to a CHS office in Orlando either to get copies of her records or to apply for a position (her purpose is not entirely clear from her testimony). Because the parking lot was undergoing excavation, she just drove away. This is not a reasonable explanation for not applying for a position.4/ As set out above, Petitioner had established a pattern of not taking affirmative action to timely supply the necessary medical information to Ms. Barry. Petitioner repeatedly had waited until her leave expired before submitting any medical documentation. Nonetheless, CHS still considered her an employee through March 27, 2001.5/ Petitioner testified that she made an unemployment compensation claim and CHS fought it. She further testified that she was denied her unemployment compensation benefits, but someone in the Governor's Office intervened and she was then paid one unemployment compensation check only. The testimony concerning the Governor's Office is uncorroborated and not credible. However, Exhibit P-7, shows that on January 3, 2002, an Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee entered a "Decision", which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Issues involved: SEPARATION: Whether the claimant [Petitioner] was discharged for misconduct connected with work or voluntarily left work without good cause (including cause attributable to the employing unit or illness or disability of the claimant requiring separation); pursuant to Sections 443.101(1), (9), (10), (11); 443.036(29), Florida Statutes; and Rule 38B- 3.020, Florida Administrative Code. LEAVE: Whether the claimant's unemployment is due to a leave of absence voluntarily initiated by the claimant, pursuant to Sections 443.036(28) and 443.101(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Findings of Fact: the claimant became employed by a children's home in August, 1994. Her last position was program supervisor. The employer was subject to the terms of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In June, 2000, the claimant used four weeks and two days of FMLA leave. That left a remaining balance of FMLA leave of seven weeks and three days to be used within 12 months. Effective November 21, 2000, the claimant again began FMLA leave which expired on January 12, 2001. At that time the claimant was unable to return to the full duties of her position because of a temporary disability. The employer had no part-time, light duty work for the claimant. The employer did not terminate her employment, but could no longer guarantee the claimant her position would be held open for her after the FMLA leave expired. The claimant underwent surgery on January 12, 2001. When she was released by her physician for full duty work, her position had been filled. The claimant filed an initial claim for unemployment benefits effective March 18, 2001. Conclusions of law: The law provides that a claimant shall be disqualified for benefits for any week of unemployment due to a leave of absence, if the leave of absence was voluntarily initiated by the claimant. A bona fide leave of absence exists only when the employer and claimant have agreed upon a specific term and the claimant is guaranteed reinstatement to the same or a substantially similar position upon expiration of the leave. The testimony in this case shows that the employer did not guarantee reinstatement to the clamant after her FMLA leave expired on January 12, 2001. Therefore, the claimant was not on a bona fide leave of absence after January 12, 2001, and she was not on a bona fide leave of absence when she filed her initial claim for unemployment benefits. When the claimant did not return to work upon the expiration of the bona fide leave of absence, she became separated from her employment. Because it was the claimant who did not return to her full duty position at that time, and not the employer preventing her from returning to her full duty position, the job separation is considered a voluntary leaving. The law provides that a claimant who has voluntarily left work without good cause as defined in the statute shall be disqualified from receiving benefits. "Good cause" includes only such cause as is attributable to the employing unit or which consists of an illness or a disability of the claimant requiring separation from the work. The term "work" means any work, whether full- time, part-time or temporary. The record and evidence in this case show that the claimant voluntarily separated from her employment on January 13, 2001, because she underwent surgery on January 12, 2001, and she was unable to return to work due to a temporary disability. Thus, the claimant became separated from her employment due to a disability requiring separation. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause consisting of a disability requiring separation, and she is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Decision: The determination of the claims adjudicator dated April 16, 2001, is MODIFIED to hold that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause consisting of a disability requiring separation. [Bracketed material and emphasis supplied] It is not certain from the record herein that the foregoing January 3, 2002, unemployment compensation decision ever became final, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Even if final, and therefore binding on the parties, the decision was made under statutory definitions and tests different from those found in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and therefore, the decision is not binding in this case. However, the decision remains instructive as to matters of timeline, such as when CHS knew that Petitioner was claiming to be handicapped and from what cause. (See, below.) Clearly, it appears that Petitioner was not acknowledging any back and leg trouble to the unemployment compensation forum at least as late April 16, 2001, and probably not as of January 3, 2002. Accordingly, it is found, on the basis of Exhibit P-7, that on March 18, 2001, Petitioner filed an initial claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Exhibit P-7 shows that the claim was apparently defended through CHS's Winter Park Office, and the record is unclear as to when Ms. Barry, whose office was located in Jacksonville, or Ms. Osborne, whose office was located in Tavares, found out about the claim. (However, see Findings of Fact 67 and 74.) Because Ms. Barry had not received any further medical certification from Petitioner before Petitioner's leave extension expired on March 27, 2001, she legitimately could have terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis that Petitioner had neither returned to work nor requested an extension of her leave. Instead, On April 3, 2001, Ms. Barry sent, and Petitioner received, a letter advising that CHS had not received any further medical certification indicating Petitioner needed leave beyond March 27, 2001, and stating that Petitioner needed to provide medical certification if she had a continued medical need preventing her from returning to work or that required continued restrictions in the type of work she could perform. The letter further stated that if Petitioner were able to return to work, she must submit a fitness-for-duty certification. Ms. Barry requested that Petitioner submit any documentation regarding her medical status no later than April 16, 2001. On April 4, 2001, Ms. Barry received a telephone call from an attorney, Mr. Larry Colleton, requesting information on how Petitioner could apply for long-term disability insurance benefits. Ms. Barry did not believe Petitioner was eligible for long-term disability benefits because Petitioner had already been released for part-time work (see Finding of Fact 52), but she sent Petitioner an explanation of long-term disability benefits, including information that they applied to any employee who was disabled for six months or longer; an explanatory booklet; and forms to apply directly to the insurance company for that type of benefit. Ms. Barry copied Mr. Colleton with her explanatory cover letter to Petitioner. Exhibit P-7 shows Mr. Colleton as Petitioner's lawyer in the unemployment compensation case. The record is silent as to whether Ms. Barry knew, on April 4, 2001, that there was an unemployment compensation claim or of Mr. Colleton's involvement therein. Ms. Barry testified that she did not interpret Mr. Colleton's telephone request concerning long-term disability benefits to be notification of a handicap or a request for an accommodation for a handicap. On April 11, 2001, Petitioner faxed Ms. Barry a March 28, 2001 letter from Dr. Boggus advising that although Petitioner had been "completely and totally disabled from her usual occupation through March 23," she was now cleared to return to work. The fax also included a copy of Petitioner's completed application form for long-term disability benefits directed to CHS's insurance company. This form, signed by Petitioner, represented that she was disabled due to the 1999 automobile accident and the absence of any jobs within CHS that fit her limitations. Upon receiving the application for long-term disability benefits signed by Petitioner, Ms. Barry assumed that Petitioner would thereafter deal directly with CHS's insurance company to support her application for long-term disability benefits, including sending it a medical excuse dated after the March 28, 2001 release by Dr. Boggus, which Ms. Barry had received. Ms. Barry submitted the employer portion of the long- term disability paperwork to the insurance company on April 30, 2001. Exhibit P-7 shows that on April 16, 2001, an unemployment compensation claims adjudicator entered an order, which held Petitioner ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The undersigned is persuaded that this would be the last date reasonable to suppose that Ms. Barry did not know about the unemployment compensation claim. By letter dated May 9, 2001, the long-term disability insurance company sent Petitioner a letter requesting a statement from her doctor to support her long-term disability application. Ms. Barry received a copy of this letter. By letter dated June 4, 2001, the insurance company advised Petitioner that because Petitioner had previously been asked for proof of disability, and disability documentation had not been received, the insurance company was closing her file on long-term disability benefits. Ms. Barry received a copy of this letter, too. The last medical release that Ms. Barry ever received from Petitioner was Dr. Boggus's unrestricted return to work release, dated March 28, 2001, which Ms. Barry received on April 11, 2001. (See Finding of Fact 65.) By letter dated June 11, 2001, Ms. Barry notified Petitioner that she was being removed as an active CHS employee and that CHS was closing her personnel file because she had not submitted any doctor's certification indicating a medical need for a continued leave of absence and she also had not applied for any vacant open positions within CHS. This letter was the effective termination of Petitioner by Respondent. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by Ms. Barry and Ms. Osborne. There is no persuasive evidence that, between March 28, 2001, when she was medically released to return to work and June 11, 2001, when she was terminated, Petitioner had applied for any CHS positions. Barry and Osborne each credibly testified that they had no reason to believe at any time material that Petitioner was handicapped, because Petitioner's physician, Dr. Boggus, had released her as being fully able to perform the functions of her job on March 28, 2001, and as of the date of her termination, Petitioner had never complained to Barry or Osborne that she believed that she was being discriminated against on any basis. On June 19, 2001, after the first unemployment compensation decision which apparently went against her (see Finding of Fact 67), Petitioner wrote Heidi Burkett, an employee in the same Jacksonville CHS Human Resources Office as Ms. Barry. The letter referenced Petitioner's unemployment compensation claim number. By this letter, Petitioner requested reinstatement to the position of "Program Supervisor in the Lake County area or an elevated position." This letter mentioned nothing about any handicap. On June 19, 2001, there were no Program Supervisor I openings in CHS, and Petitioner was not qualified for a position above Program Supervisor I. Petitioner testified that she had a "Paralegal Master's," but in Ms. Osborne's view, that degree would not render Petitioner eligible for any open elevated position. Petitioner would have had to have an advanced degree in a field related to childcare or in social work in order to fit the qualifications of any higher position with CHS. Furthermore, Petitioner would not have been promoted to an elevated position until her supervisors had an opportunity to work with her to make sure she had resolved the performance issues which were uncovered in her Program Supervisor I position while she was on leave. There is no evidence that Petitioner made any further contacts after her June 19, 2001 letter in an attempt to return to CHS, or that she applied for, or expressed any interest in, any positions below Program Supervisor I inside or outside of Lake County. The September 29, 2001 Charge of Discrimination was the first notice Ms. Barry had that Petitioner was claiming discrimination. Petitioner claims that after June 2001, she was gainfully employed as a teacher "for a while" by the Lake County School Board and/or a technical institute. She did not demonstrate that any accommodation for handicap was necessary in these employments. The record is silent as to her earnings since her separation from CHS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner, either on account of her age or on account of an alleged handicap, in violation of Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (1989), in terminating her employment?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Doris Stephens, a woman now approximately 56 years of age, began working for respondent Tom's Foods, Inc., on June 30, 1981, sweeping floors at its plant in Perry, Florida. After various intervening assignments, she ended up as a packer on the potato chip line. Packers remove packages of potato chip bags from a conveyor belt and deposit them in cardboard boxes, which they form by folding. As a packer on the potato chip line, her duties included keeping a record of how many boxes she packed in the course of the shift, and cleaning up at the end of the shift. Headquartered in Columbus, Georgia, respondent Tom's Foods, Inc., employed 15 or more people in Florida for a period in excess of 20 weeks this year and last. On March 6, 1989, respondent fired Ms. Stephens, who has arthritis, for "excessive absenteeism." By all accounts, she was a good employee for her almost eight years with respondent, whenever she was at work. Petitioner's arthritis has not interfered in any way with her ability to perform her work when she was well enough to be at work. Petitioner attributes the absences on account of which she was discharged to visits to the doctor in Gainesville who treated her for arthritis, to certain side effects of medicine she took for arthritis, and to visits to a doctor in Perry, on account of the side effects. Company Policy People who work for Tom's Foods, Inc. as packers are paid nothing when sickness keeps them away from work for periods of up to four days. Without regard to the length of their service, moreover, they are discharged if illness (among other causes) occasions too many absences. The company's written attendance policy provides: 5. Definitions: A period of absence counts from the day an employee stops work until the day he/she returns to work. (This could include one day or three days, but would still count as one period.) If the employee is going to be absent beyond the seventh (7th) day (eight days or more), he/she must request and be granted a Leave of Absence and must provide a doctor's release before returning to work. The six-month period in which an employee's attendance is measured dates from the current date back six months, dropping off the oldest date and adding the newest date. Classification of absences: In order to define "excessive absenteeism" and deal with it in a fair and consistent manner, absences will be classified as either chargeable or non-chargeable: Non-chargeable absences are certain specifically identified absences which will not be charged against an employee's overall attendance record for the purpose of determining excessive absenteeism. These are absences due to: Jury duty. A death in the immediate family which qualifies the employee for funeral leave pay. (Absences due to other family deaths require prior approval from the plant manager.) An on-the-job injury. An official and formally-granted leave of absence (see Policy Statement A-204, Leave of Absence). Chargeable absences are all other absences for any reason; these will be charged against the employe's attendance record and will be used to determine excessive absenteeism. Excessive tardiness/early departure Because of production requirements, employees are expected to be present and at their work stations at the beginning and the end of their shifts. Failure to comply with these requirements will be a basis for disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of this policy. Definition of tardiness: Any employee not present in his/her department and ready for work on his/her job scheduled starting time is considered "late for work" or tardy. . . . 3. Excessive tardiness/early departure. Excessive tardiness/early departure will be cause for discipline of the employee and may ultimately result in discharge. Tardies or early departures of less than three (3) hours are non-chargeable if prior notice is given to and approval obtained from the supervisor. Prior notice for a late start should be given at the end of the employee's previous shift. Prior notice for an early departure should be given four (4) hours before the end of the shift. Three (3) separate tardies and/or early departures will be counted as one (1) chargeable absence and will be applied in conjunction with all other chargeable absences as outlined in Sections B and D of this policy statement. Excessive absenteeism Excessive absenteeism is defined as six (6) chargeable periods of absence - or a maximum of eighteen (18) days of absence for chargeable reasons - within any six-month period. Excessive absenteeism cannot be tolerated and any employee guilty of such will be discharged under the following procedures: A verbal warning will be issued upon the fourth (4th) period of absence within any six-month period. A written warning will be issued upon the fifth (5th) periods of absence within any six-month period. Termination will occur upon the sixth (6th) period of absence within any six-month period. Respondent's Exhibit No. 12. This version of respondent's policies has been in effect since August 1, 1987, although similar policies have obtained at all pertinent times. An absence of less than five days, although for medical reasons, counts as a chargeable period of absence, if it lasts three hours or longer. A shorter absence, even a few minutes' tardiness, counts as one-third of a period of absence. In the event of a medical disability lasting five or more days, an employee is eligible for a formal leave of absence; and, when an employee obtains such leave, his absence is not charged against him for purposes of the absenteeism policy. Three Minutes Late Ms. Stephens missed work on September 26 and 27, 1988, because she was ill; she attributed her illness to arthritis medication she took. She was absent on October 17, 1988, when she went to Gainesville to see the doctor who treats her for arthritis. She was absent three days running on December 16, 17 and 18, again on account of illness she claimed her arthritis medicine caused. On December 27, 1988, going to see a doctor, because she was ill, made her 2.5 hours late. She missed three hours' work on January 3, 1989, again on account of illness. The next day she was three minutes late to work. Because she did not obtain permission to miss work, either before she was too sick to work or before she was tardy, each incident counted as a third of a chargeable absence. In accordance with company policy, Don Cook, the supervisor who recorded petitioner's three-minute peccadillo on January 4, 1989, spoke to her two days later. He told her she had the equivalent of four periods of absence within less than a six-month period, and that "[t]wo additional chargeable POA before March 26, 1989, will warrant termination of employment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. The day Ms. Stephens returned from a two-day absence occasioned by her illness on February 13 and 14, 1989, she received a written warning that a single additional period of absence "before 3/27/89" would result in termination. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. A final absence, this one also attributed to illness, lasted three days, March 1, 2 and 3, 1989, and resulted in her discharge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Betty Davis, who "may be in her 50s," (T.92) and who may or may not have arthritis, filled the vacancy petitioner's discharge created. Because Ms. Davis, who had been doing similar work on another shift, was "the most senior person with that job classification," (T.91) company policy gave her the choice of taking petitioner's place. Consistent Application In the last two years, respondent has fired a number of other employees for violating its absenteeism policy. At the time of petitioner's discharge, no employee with six periods of absence in six months' time had been retained. Subsequently, however, two employees who had been absent six times in six months were not discharged, because supervisors had neglected to give warnings required by company policy after earlier absences. Although respondent had recently agreed to modify its absenteeism policy to accommodate an employee whose child suffers a "more than likely fatal" (T.98) illness, it was not shown that this employee had been absent six times in a six-month period. On more than one occasion, petitioner denied having any handicap, when asked on company forms. At no time before her discharge did petitioner seek accommodation on account of her arthritis, T.84, 135.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR deny the petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 31st day of December, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Acting Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 William S. Myers, Esquire 3800 One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Doris Stephens Route 4, Box 397 Perry, FL 32347
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's national origin is Spanish. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Customer Service Representative (CSR) at its West Palm Beach-Okeechobee branch (Branch Office) and was the only CSR at the Branch Office whose national origin was Spanish. A CSR is commonly known as a teller. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a single parent. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. In December 1994, Fran Bessent became the branch manager at the Branch Office. At that time and before she became branch manager, the Branch Office was extremely busy on Saturdays, and on a per-hour basis, Saturday was the busiest time of the week. Five to seven CSRs were employed at the Branch Office. In January 1995, Ms. Bessent met with the entire staff of the Branch Office. The meeting was mandatory. At the meeting, she informed the CSRs that, among other things, they would be required to work each and every Saturday and that, in return for working on Saturdays, the CSRs would be given a day off during the week. Petitioner was present during this meeting. At the mandatory meeting, Ms. Bessent also informed the CSRs that, if any one of them had a problem with working on Saturdays, he or she could seek a vacant position at and transfer to another branch office that was not as busy. She further informed the CSRs that, if any of them wanted a transfer, they had the responsibility of applying for the position and requesting the transfer. As branch manager, Ms. Bessent was responsible for preparing the work schedule for all employees. She prepared the work schedule between the tenth and the 15th of each month. Before making the change in the work schedule, reflecting CSRs working all Saturdays, she waited 30 to 45 days before implementing the change. Petitioner had a problem with coming to work each Saturday. She had a child and had problems getting a babysitter each and every Saturday. At all times material hereto, Petitioner had two supervisors, Namrata Gupta and Richard Danca,2 who were assistant branch managers at the Branch Office. The undersigned finds Petitioner's testimony credible that, after the mandatory meeting, she informed a supervisor as to her problem with reporting to work on Saturdays. Petitioner did not inform Ms. Gupta as to the problem with reporting to work on Saturdays. However, an inference is made that she informed Mr. Danca. Even though Petitioner had a problem with coming to work on Saturdays, the responsibility was still upon Petitioner to apply for a position at a branch not as busy and to seek a transfer. At no time did Petitioner apply for a position at another branch or seek a transfer. One CSR, Wendy Morgan, expressed difficulty with working on Saturdays and actively sought a position at another branch office. She was eventually transferred. Prior to her transfer, Ms. Morgan had no unexcused absences. Ms. Bessent made the work schedule available one month in advance. This advance notice provided employees an opportunity to make appropriate arrangements to accommodate the work schedule. Any employee who was not able to work on a particular Saturday in a month was required to notify Ms. Bessent in writing no later than the tenth day of the prior month. Shortly after the new Saturday schedule was implemented, Petitioner failed to report to work on three Saturdays, for which she was scheduled to work, in less than one month. Those Saturdays were March 31, 1995 and April 15 and 29, 1995. She was unable to obtain the services of a babysitter on those Saturdays. Petitioner did not notify Ms. Bessent in advance of her inability to work on those Saturdays. If an employee, including a CSR, at the Branch Office was going to be absent from work, the employee was required to contact his/her supervisor. Petitioner maintains that she contacted her supervisor or “somebody” on the day of the absences in March and April 1995 and informed the person that she was not reporting to work. Even though Petitioner called the Branch Office on the day of her absences, she was unsure as to whether she spoke with one of her supervisors, which was the required procedure. The undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony credible, and the testimony of Ms. Gupta credible that Petitioner did not contact her regarding the absences. An inference is made that Petitioner spoke with "somebody" who was not one of her supervisors. Petitioner's absence on the aforementioned Saturdays placed a hardship on the Branch Office. The assistant branch managers and the remaining CSRs were forced to cover Petitioner’s position and their own positions and to accommodate the customers. Branch managers had the authority to discipline employees for excessive absences. In making such a determination, the branch managers looked for a pattern of absences, focusing on how the absences impacted a branch office and customer service. The decision was made that Petitioner’s absences were excessive and to verbally counsel Petitioner regarding her absences. On May 11, 1995, the assistant branch managers verbally counseled Petitioner about her excessive absences. The branch managers questioned Petitioner at the counseling session as to whether she had an explanation for her absences. Petitioner failed to provide an explanation. After only two days following the verbal counseling, Petitioner again failed to report to work on Saturday, May 13, 1995. Petitioner called the Branch Office on the same day and indicated that she was not reporting to work. The undersigned again finds Petitioner's testimony credible that, when she called, she spoke with her supervisor or somebody. However, Petitioner did not speak to Ms. Gupta. The absence on May 13, 1995, was Petitioner's fourth absence. The decision was made by Petitioner's supervisors to give her a written warning and place her on a 90-day probation. On May 26, 1995, in a document entitled "Formal Performance Documentation" (FPD), Petitioner's supervisors gave her the written warning and placed her on the probation. In the FPD, the supervisors stated, among other things, that "Improvement is expected immediately" and that "any further incidents involving absences may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination". Petitioner's supervisors discussed the FPD with her. Petitioner was informed that she could make any comments that she desired to make. The FPD contained a section for Petitioner to make comments, but she did not make any comments on it. Petitioner also refused to sign the FPD. After having been counseled, given a written warning, and placed on probation, Petitioner again failed to report to work. Petitioner was absent on June 16 and 17, 1995. Petitioner admits that she was absent on June 17th but does not recall being absent on June 16th. The undersigned again finds Petitioner's testimony credible that she called the Branch Office on the day of the absence acknowledged by her, and spoke with her supervisor or "somebody." Petitioner did not speak to Ms. Gupta, and an inference is made that Petitioner spoke with "somebody" who was not one of her supervisors. Petitioner violated the terms of her probation. Even if Petitioner was absent only on June 17th, she violated her probation. After the June absences, Petitioner's supervisors discussed the absences with Ms. Bessent. They decided that Petitioner exhibited a pattern of absences in March through June 1995, which constituted excessive absences. They further decided that Petitioner should be terminated. On June 21, 1995, Petitioner's supervisors terminated her employment with Respondent for excessive absences. The termination was memorialized in a document entitled "Termination of Employment and Exit Interview" (TEEI). In addition to the TEEI, Petitioner was verbally informed of the reason for her termination. The TEEI contained a section for Petitioner to make comments, but she did not write any comments. Further, Petitioner refused to sign the TEEI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the discrimination complaint of Chiara T. Spradlin against Washington Mutual Bank, f/k/a Great Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 March, 2001.
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner was formerly employed as an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Adjudicator in Respondent's Miami UC office. In this capacity, he interviewed claimants seeking unemployment compensation and made initial determinations regarding the validity of their claims. Petitioner was often absent because of illness. When he was at work, however, he performed his duties competently. Petitioner and his fellow employees at the Miami UC Office were required to notify supervisory personnel no later than the beginning of the workday if they were going to be absent that day. Petitioner was made aware of this requirement on various occasions prior to the absences that led to the termination of his employment with Respondent. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, Petitioner telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be absent that day because of an ankle injury he had sustained. He did not indicate during the conversation whether he would be at work the following day. On Wednesday, September 6, 1989, and Thursday, September 7, 1989, Petitioner neither reported to work nor contacted his supervisor at any time during the day to give notification of his absence. On Friday, September 8, 1989, Petitioner again failed to report to work. He did, however, telephone his supervisor concerning his absence, but he did not do so until 4:50 p.m., 20 minutes after the shift to which he was assigned had ended. By letter dated September 11, 1989, Respondent notified Petitioner that it had determined that Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective the close of business September 8, 1989, in view of his unauthorized absence from work on September 6, 7, and 8, 1989. It is this determination that is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his UC Adjudicator position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1990. STUART H. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his letter that he contacted his supervisor on September 5, 1989, and again on September 8, 1989, his proposed findings of fact have been accepted and incorporated in substance in this Recommended Order. To the extent that he claims that he "did not have 3 consecutive days of unauthorized absences," his proposed factual findings have been rejected because they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact First Sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second Sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First and second sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Cooper 1601 Northwest 17th Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33125 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. operated a meat packing plant in Plant City, Florida. Hennis Washington, III was employed by Respondent at that plant as a utility worker. Petitioner, Hillsborough County, through its Human Resources and Equal Opportunity Department, had the authority to investigate and administratively enforce County Ordinances relative to unlawful discrimination in employment. Respondent is 5'1/2" tall and weighs about 114 pounds, much the same as at the time in issue. He is a power lifter and claims to be able to lift 405 pounds in a dead lift. He was employed at the Respondent's plant from July, 1991 to May, 1993, when he was terminated in the action which is the subject of this hearing. On May 24, 1993, while in the performance of his duties, Mr. Washington was carrying a stack of empty boxes from one place to another through the plant's bacon curing department. The stack of boxes he was carrying extended above his head and as a result he was unable to see in front of him. As he proceeded down the aisle, he ran into some resistance which prevented him from going further. He changed direction to the side where he could see, and which, he believed, was clear, and again ran into resistance which, this time, caused him to drop the boxes. After the boxes fell, and he could see in front of him, he observed Mr. Romero, a sanitation worker, in front of him, smiling. There is some question whether or not Mr. Romero took a step toward Mr. Washington. At hearing, Mr. Washington said he did and that he felt threatened by Mr. Romero's advance, though at his grievance hearing he did not indicate that. In response, howevever, Mr. Washington moved toward Mr. Romero, a man approximately 5'8" tall and weighing approximately 175 pounds, picked him up, and dropped him on the floor. As a result of that, Mr. Romero claimed to have injured his back and reported to the medical office by which he was released from duty for the evening. After this action, Mr. Washington was terminated from employment with the company. He is of the opinion it was because of his race, but admits he was advised by his supervisor, Mr. Freeman, it was because it was felt he had over- reacted to the situation with Mr. Romero. Nonetheless, an employee action request initiated by Mr. Freeman, dated May 24, 1993 reflected that Mr. Washington was administratively terminated. Administrative termination deals with unauthorized absences, according to the company's Employee Handbook. Mr. Freeman, himself African-American, was not present at the time of the incident, but was informed of it shortly thereafter, and called Mr. Washington to his office. Mr. Washington admitting picking up Mr. Romero, whom he did not previously know, and thereafter dropping him to the floor. Mr. Freeman, after finding out what happened, referred the matter to Mr. Harris, the employee relations manager, who is also African-American. Mr. Freeman did not interview Mr. Romero. He prepared the administrative termination notice upon direction of his supervisors. He claims the termination was based on Mr. Washington's fighting and not on the basis of his race. Mr. Harris, over a period of the next several days, conducted his independent investigation into the incident which investigation included speaking with Mr. Washington, Mr. Romero, and several other witnesses. During this period, both Mr. Washington and Mr. Romero were suspended. Mr. Harris' investigation confirmed there had been an incident, but he could find no evidence that Mr. Romero had pushed the boxes Mr. Washington was carrying. It was for that reason that Mr. Romero was not disciplined. The termination of Mr. Washington was predicated upon the fact that he had been engaged in a fight with another employee. The Respondent's personnel rules indicate that fighting, as opposed to mere horseplay, is a Class I infraction, the punishment for which can include dismissal. It includes the throwing of punches, the use of weapons, and the threat of injury. Horseplay, on the other hand, usually amounts to no more than pushing, tugging, and actions which are not likely to result in injury. In the instant case, Mr. Washington's actions constituted a direct battery of Mr. Romero which resulted in injury. It was, therefore, properly considered fighting. Mr. Harris concluded that Mr. Washington had reacted to the situation improperly. If, as he claimed, Mr. Washington felt he was being harrassed by Mr. Romero and Mr. Barbosa, who was with Mr. Romero at the time of the incident, he should have reported the matter to his supervisor rather than taking matters into his own hands. Employees are given an Employee Handbook when they begin employment with the company, and they are taught, in a four hour orientation course given to all employees, to back off from incidents of this nature - not to fight. Because he felt Mr. Washington had overreacted, Mr. Harris recommended termination, even though a check of both employees' personnel records indicated neither had any previous incidents. At the time of the incident, Lykes had approximtely 750 production maintenance employees, (Mr. Washington's category). Of this number, between 30 and 35 percent were African-American, 15 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were other minorities, and between 45 and 50 percent white. Mr. Hampton, Lykes' Vice-President for Employee Relations, was made aware of the situation involving Mr. Washington by Mr. Harris, who recommended termination. Mr. Hampton agreed with this recommendation because Mr Washington had thrown Mr. Romero down and injured him. The recommendation for termination was not based on race and was consistent with discipline taken in prior incidents. Specifically, Mr. Hampton referred to a situation occuring not long before the instant case in which two white employees were initially terminated for an altercation they had. In that case, the investigation showed the employees had been fighting and both initially were fired. However, the union filed a grievance. A hearing was held and the decision to terminate was upheld. Thereupon, the union indicated its intent to take the matter to arbitration, and as a result of a meeting held on that issue, it was determined that the incident was more horseplay than fighting and there was little likelihood the company could prevail at arbitration. That conclusion was based on the fact there were no blows struck, there was no injury, and the incident stopped immediately upon the arrival of the supervisor. The employees thereafter were disciplined and reinstated. Mr. Washington also filed a grievance regarding his case. A hearing was held persuant to the union contract. Based on the information presented at the hearing, the grievance committee, made up of two African-American employees and one white employee, concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the issue to arbitration. This committee included the same individuals who heard the previously noted grievance, regarding the white employees. Mr. Washington asserts that because he had been assigned to a position previously held by Mr. Romero, who, he claimed, was demoted from utility to sanitation, Mr. Romero was angry with him and was looking for trouble. The evidence of record indicates that in March, 1993, Mr. Romero was transferred to another position on a different shift from that he was then occupying. The evidence also indicates the position to which Mr. Washington was assigned cannot be considered to be Mr. Romero's old position. Utility and sanitation jobs are, purportedly, on a par. Mr. Washington was assigned to a job identical to that which Mr. Romero had vacated, but on a different shift. Mr. Romero would have had no reason to think Mr. Washington took his job any more than any other utility employee. Further, there is no evidence, save the claim by Mr. Washington, that Mr. Romero acted in a threatening manner. Mr. Glisson, a witness to the incident, indicated the two "tangled". but there was no indication of aggressiveness by Mr. Romero. Taken together, while Washington may have believed Mr. Romero was threatening him, there was insufficient provocation for him to react in the way he did. Under the terms of the Employee Handbook, he should have retreated, and his actions constituted fighting which is grounds for discipline. It is impossible to conclude, from the evidence of record, that the termination of Mr. Washington resulted from anything other than a reaction to his demonstrated misconduct. Only one question remains unanswered. On June 1, 1993, an Employee Action Request was prepared, purporting to administratively terminate Mr. Washington because of fighting on the job and threats of violence. Counsel for the County claims this is an alteration of that action form prepared on May 24, 1993. Both exhibits were photo copies and it is impossible to tell, with certainty, that an alteration occurred. However, a close comparison of the copies leads to the conclusion that the latter dated form is, in reality, an alteration of the former with the dates changed, and an addition of fighting and threats with a direction to remove Mr. Washington from the payroll. No evidence was presented regarding a reason for the alteration, and nothing improper can be legitimately inferred therefrom. Counsel representing Mr. Washington makes reference to the opinion of an Appeals Referee of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, dated July 30, 1993, which, in reversing the determination of the claims examiner in Mr. Washington's unemployment compensation claim, determines that he was not the aggressor in the incident that led to his discharge, and that his involvment was merely for self-protection. The Referee also finds that Mr. Washington's actions could not be viewed as misconduct connected with his work, and he is, therefore, not disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The Referee concludes, as a matter of law, that inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, and/or good faith errors in judgement or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct" "within the meaning of the statute, (Chapter 443, Florida Statutes). The finding of the Appeals Referee is not binding on the undersigned in this action. Mr. Washington was deemed by his employers to have, by fighting, overreacted in the confrontation with Mr. Romero. Overreaction can be equated with poor judgement which, in an industry as hazardous as is meat packing, may well serve as appropriate grounds for discharge even if not classified as misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Determination of No Cause be entered by the Hillsborough Human Relations Board concerning the termination from employment of Hennis Washington, III by the Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorported herein. Second sentence rejected as a being more a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. - 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. 2. & 3. 4. 5. & 6. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted and and and and incorporated incorporated incorporated incorporated herein. herein. herein. herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine P. Teti, Esquire Office of the County Attorney Hillsborough County P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael D. Malfitano, Esquire Malfitano & Campbell, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1080 P.O. Box 1840 Tampa, Florida 33601-1840 Daniel A. Kleman County Administrator Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
