Findings Of Fact On July 9, 1986 Petitioner, a Clerk Typist Specialist employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, signed a receipt acknowledging that she had received a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains the information that an employee who is absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization may be considered to have abandoned his or her position and thereby to have resigned. On September 3, 1987 Petitioner telephoned her supervisor to advise him that she had an interview scheduled and that she would be at work by 9:30 a.m. She, however, thereafter failed to appear at work and failed to make any further contact with her supervisor on September 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1987. On September 11, 1987 by certified letter the Department advised Petitioner that, as of the close of business on September 9, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service due to her unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, i.e., September 3, 4, and 8, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered deeming Petitioner to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Holloway-Jenkins 649 West 4th Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 K. C. Collette, Esquire District IX Legal Counsel 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondent in violation of the Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70 (“Chapter 70"). Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a bus operator by Respondent because of his disability in violation of Chapter 70.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard Mastromarino, is a resident of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, is publicly funded transit agency and is an employer under Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from May 7, 1979, until June 10, 1997, as a bus operator. The position of bus operator requires a commercial driver’s license. After experiencing vision problems, Petitioner visited his primary physician in February 1997. The primary physician diagnosed Petitioner with diabetic retinopathy and referred him to an ophthalmologist. After his diagnosis, Petitioner informed his immediate supervisor of his condition and availability to do light-duty work, and requested a medical leave form to take with him to his appointment with the ophthalmologist. On March 3, 1997, Petitioner visited ophthalmologist Dr. William T. Cobb, who confirmed the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, a condition that causes the blood vessels in the retina of the eye to excrete liquid and blood, thus impairing vision. Dr. Cobb informed Petitioner that as a result of his diabetic retinopathy, his vision was insufficient to drive any vehicle, including PSTA buses. In a Progress Report dated March 3, 1997, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner “works as a bus driver and his occupation is threatened by his ocular disease.” Dr. Cobb also completed Petitioner’s medical leave form entitled Certification of Health Care Provider. On the form, Dr. Cobb described Petitioner’s vision as “limited to less than required for driving a bus.” The form also inquired whether Petitioner was able to perform any one or more of the essential functions of his job. In response, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner was “unable to see to drive.” With regard to the probable duration of Petitioner’s incapacity, Dr. Cobb stated that the duration was “unknown.” Petitioner was referred by Dr. Cobb to Dr. W. Sanderson Grizzard for laser surgery. The first of several surgeries were performed in May and June of 1997. During this time, Petitioner was extremely concerned about the outcome of the surgeries. He understood from his physicians that there was a chance that his visual limitations could worsen and that there was a possibility that he might lose his eyesight altogether. Therefore, his immediate goal was to obtain medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in order to have the surgeries performed. He also desired light-duty work in order to stay employed while he scheduled the surgeries. He was hoping that when his surgeries were complete, he could discuss his future with PSTA as far as which other jobs he could perform. He estimated that he would be able to discuss future work with PSTA in August or September of 1997. This information, however, was not conveyed to PSTA. Petitioner’s inquiries to his immediate supervisor regarding light-duty were referred to Gail Bilbrey, Benefits Specialist. Bilbrey administers a program instituted by Respondent, although not in writing, that assigns eligible employees on workers’ compensation leave to available temporary, part-time light-duty positions that accommodate their physical restrictions. In administering the program, Bilbrey reviews the medical documentation of an employee on workers’ compensation leave and determines if an existing position is vacant within one of several PSTA departments that the employee may be able to perform given the employee’s physical limitations. Because the positions available under this program are existing positions and are part of a bargaining unit of a labor union, light-duty assignments are not created for individual employees. Light- duty positions are extremely limited in number and are often not available for all employees injured on the job. The purpose of PSTA's light-duty program is to save costs of workers' compensation injuries by utilizing employees on workers' compensation leave, whom PSTA is required to pay, in vacant light-duty positions. Temporary light-duty positions, thus, are given to employees on workers' compensation by PSTA. The intent of the program is for the employee to occupy the position only on a temporary basis; thus, light-duty assignments are only granted to employees who are expected to return to work in their regular job. Since Petitioner was not on workers' compensation leave and was not expected to return to his bus-driving job, Petitioner was not eligible for a light-duty assignment. Even if Petitioner had qualified for light-duty, no light-duty positions were available at PSTA at the time of his request. Petitioner was informed of the lack of light-duty work during several conversations with Bilbrey. In response to his request, Bilbrey also prepared a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, indicating that no light-duty was available at that time. The main light-duty positions available at PSTA involved money-counting and ride surveying. Petitioner’s vision impairment prevented him from performing the functions of ride surveying, which includes observing passengers boarding and exiting PSTA buses at each bus stop and recording the results in writing. The money-counting light-duty position required the use of money-counting machines, checking bills, handling coins, and delivering/picking up tickets and money at Respondent’s remote terminals. Despite his vision limitations, Petitioner claims to have been aware of several full-time positions that he alleges he would have been able to perform in June 1997. First, Petitioner claims to have been able to perform the position of fueler/cleaner, which requires a valid Florida Class “B” Commercial Driver’s license, with passenger endorsement and air brakes, the ability to clean buses, and the ability to check coolant and oil levels. However, Petitioner had relinquished his commercial driver’s license in 1997, his physicians had stated he could not drive a bus, and, as observed by Bilbrey, his vision was insufficient to perform the job duty of checking coolant and oil levels. Two other positions became available at PSTA during the time in question which Petitioner now contends he would have been able to perform with adaptive equipment. First, the position of Customer Service Representative was posted by PSTA in early March 1997. This position involves selling tickets and passes, giving route and scheduling information to the public, and delivering supplies to three of Respondent’s remote locations. In 1997, maps and route schedules were not computerized and involved reading very small print. In addition, if Petitioner had qualified for and had been awarded the position, as the least senior Customer Service Representative, Petitioner likely would have been assigned as a “floater,” requiring Petitioner to be able to “float” between different remote terminals at different times to relieve other Customer Service Representatives. The shift of Customer Service Representatives begins at 6:00 a.m., prior to regular bus service. Given the fact that Petitioner was unable to read the fine print of the maps and schedules in a timely fashion and because transportation to deliver supplies, to float between terminals, and to report to work at 6:00 a.m. prior to bus service would have been a significant issue, Petitioner would not have been able to perform the job of Customer Service Representative. Also, in June 1997, the position of Clerk Risk Management became available. Petitioner had limited computer and clerical experience. Therefore, because this position requires extensive typing, computer work, and proofreading, Petitioner did not qualify for the position due to his limited vision and lack of computer experience. Petitioner was unable to perform these functions. After several surgeries, Petitioner's vision has stabilized but he is still legally blind by Social Security disability standards. Regardless of whether Petitioner would have been qualified, Petitioner did not apply for a request consideration for any of these positions or provide any documentation to Respondent indicating his ability to perform these jobs. Instead, in May 1997, Petitioner applied for long-term disability benefits. He completed the application in Bilbrey’s office with the aid of a magnifying glass. Attached to the application for long-term disability benefits was an Attending Physician’s Statement dated April 30, 1997, which was also provided to Respondent by Petitioner. On the form, Dr. Cobb indicated that the approximate date Petitioner would be able to resume any work was “indefinite” and that his prognosis for work was secondary to vision. Petitioner was granted and accepted long-term disability benefits. Pursuant to the long-term disability policy, Petitioner was found totally disabled and could not work. In addition, in April 1997, Petitioner requested an extended leave of absence beyond his FMLA leave that was due to expire in June 1997. However, when applying for the extended leave of absence, Petitioner was unable to specify a time frame in which he would be able to return to work. In fact, in a letter dated May 28, 1997, provided to Bilbrey on June 9, 1997, in support of Petitioner’s request for extended leave, Dr. Grizzard indicated that he “would expect [Petitioner] to not be able to work for at least 3 months.” Because Petitioner’s physicians were not able to provide a specific date when he could return to work, Petitioner’s request for extended leave was denied in accordance with Respondent’s policy. Thereafter, since Petitioner had exhausted all FMLA leave, was unable to perform the essential functions of his job as a bus operator, even with reasonable accommodations, and was unable to provide a definite date of return, Petitioner was terminated from his position as a bus operator on June 10, 1997, in accordance with PSTA policy. After his termination, Petitioner filed a grievance wherein he again requested an extended leave of absence until September 9, 1997, so that he could concentrate on his surgeries and to determine if he would be able to return to work at PSTA. A grievance hearing before Executive Director Roger Sweeney was held on June 30, 1997. At that hearing, Petitioner did not request light-duty assignment or reassignment to a new permanent position. Petitioner’s grievance was denied since Petitioner was unable to perform the duties for which he was hired, had been absent from employment with PSTA in excess of three months, had exhausted all FMLA leave, and was unable to provide a definite date of return. Following the grievance hearing, Petitioner was referred by the Division of Blind Services to Abilities of Florida for vocational rehabilitation training in January 1998. An assessment of his abilities indicated that Petitioner had limited keyboarding, computer, and clerical experience and was unable to score high enough on the 10-key calculator test to qualify for clerical training. Approximately three years after his termination, Petitioner also requested an evaluation to determine whether he could count money. In an informal test, Petitioner counted $55 in petty cash. However, no vocational report was ever provided to PSTA by Petitioner. The evidence fails to prove that Respondent’s employment decisions toward Petitioner were based upon or influenced by his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig L. Berman, Esquire Berman Law Firm, P. A. 360 Central Avenue Suite 1260 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stephanie N. Rugg City of St. Petersburg 175 Fifth Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman & Feldman, P.A. Two Prestige Place 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33759
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner can rescind his election to join the Deferred Retirement Option Program and return to the status quo ante such election so that he can opt instead to participate in the Public Employee Optional Retirement Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Dennis Valdez ("Valdez") began working for Miami-Dade County ("County") as a paramedic/firefighter in 1979. As a county employee, he became a member of the Florida Retirement System, which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"). Firemen such as Valdez are assigned to the Special Risk Class, whose members are eligible for enhanced retirement benefits under the FRS. One advantage of being in the Special Risk Class is that the member's normal retirement date arrives after 25 years of service, rather than 30. Each year the County sends its employees a statement showing the value of their employment benefits, including retirement benefits. Valdez received such a statement for 2004. The statement informed him, among other things, that the County offered "pre-retirement counseling" to help "plan for those years ahead." In pertinent part the statement explained: Miami-Dade offers you assistance in applying for retirement with the Florida Retirement System, in reviewing your options and in selecting appropriate payment options for your Deferred Compensation account. Contact the Employee Benefits Unit . . . before you expect to retire to request an estimate of your FRS benefit. Early in 2004, Valdez began thinking about retirement because he would have 25 years of service at the end of July 2004. He decided to make an appointment for pre-retirement counseling through the County's Employee Benefits Unit. It was arranged for him to meet with Marti Garcia ("Garcia"), a Senior Employee Benefits Specialist, on April 15, 2004. When Valdez met with Garcia as scheduled on April 15, he was a participant in the defined benefit program ("Pension Plan") of the Florida Retirement System.1 He was also eligible to participate, upon reaching his normal retirement date, in the Deferred Retirement Option Program ("DROP"). A member who elects to participate in the DROP is allowed to continue working (and drawing his salary) for up to 60 months after his retirement date, during which time the member's pension is paid into a trust fund where it earns interest at a fixed statutory rate. At the conclusion of the member's participation in the DROP, the Division distributes to him the retirement benefits that have accrued. Valdez told Garcia that he was concerned about providing for his family, including his wife, who is younger than he, and their young children. Though Valdez had just turned 53, he advised Garcia that he did not want to remain employed as a fireman for much longer. He also asked Garcia if he could control the investment of his retirement benefits. Garcia explained to Valdez that, if he entered the DROP, he would be able eventually to invest his DROP benefits, when he terminated his employment with the County, at which point the Division would distribute the funds which had accumulated for his benefit while he was in the DROP. In Garcia's presence on April 15, 2004, Valdez signed an application to participate in the DROP, using the Division's required Form DP-11. The application specified a DROP begin- date of August 1, 2004, and a DROP termination-date of July 31, 2009. At the same time, Valdez executed a notice of election to participate in the DROP, using the Division's Form DP-ELE. The notice likewise specified a DROP begin-date of August 1, 2004, and a DROP termination-date of July 31, 2009. Valdez signed the application and the notice before a notary public (Garcia). Each form required Valdez to acknowledge that he could not "add additional service, change options, or change [his] type of retirement after the DROP begin date." Garcia counter-signed both instruments and submitted them to the Division. Thereafter the Division sent Valdez an Acknowledgement of DROP Application and/or Notice of Election Form confirming the Division's receipt of his DROP application paperwork on April 21, 2004. Valdez entered the DROP in August 2004. Valdez claims that some months later, he discovered that the Florida Retirement System offers another plan that provides participants a menu of market-based investment products and options in which they can invest their retirement benefits. Valdez decided that he preferred this plan——which is called the Public Employee Optional Retirement Program ("Investment Plan")——to the Pension Plan and the DROP. Therefore, in November 2004, Valdez wrote a letter to Garcia requesting that he be allowed to quit the DROP and switch to the Investment Plan. Garcia responded in writing to Valdez's letter, telling him that what he had requested was not an available option. Valdez then took his case directly to the Division, which turned him down as well. The Division's denial of Valdez's request to rescind his decision to participate in the DROP is the preliminary agency action that opened the door to this formal administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Valdez's request to rescind his election to participate in the DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 26th day of September, 2005.
Findings Of Fact On July 8, 1986, Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, sent Petitioner, Shirley Johnson, a letter to confirm her separation from employment as a Human Services Worker II in Pierce Cottage, Unit II, Facility IV, at the Gulf Coast Center in Ft. Myers. At the time, Johnson was a permanent employee of HRS. Her job at Pierce Cottage was to help care for 29 severely profoundly mentally retarded persons. On or about May 6, 1986, HRS' Gulf Coast Center instituted new policies for applying for authorization for leave from work. /1 No longer would Petitioner and fellow employees be required to notify their immediate supervisor, Twila Bevins, of their absence or tardiness. Instead, the employees are responsible only to notify the group shift supervisor on duty at Pierce Cottage. The employee only advises the group shift supervisor of the employee's intent to apply for authorization for leave and the amount and time the leave would be taken. The group shift supervisor does not approve leave. Authorization for leave must be obtained directly from the immediate supervisor, Twila Bevins, by explaining the reasons for the leave request which would entitle the employee to authorization for leave. Application for authorization for leave can be made either before or after the group shift supervisor is notified. However, no leave can be authorized for an employee who did not personally give notification of anticipated absence unless the employee is incapacitated. Petitioner is a mother of six. She also cares for her father, who has heart disease, and for her mother, who is overweight and has limited mobility. After a separation she has been reconciled with her husband, who, after being out of work, is now employed and contributes to the support of the family. On July 2, 1986, Petitioner and her immediate supervisor agreed that Petitioner would have July 3 and 4 off, but would work from 6:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. on July 5. Petitioner also was scheduled to work on July 6, 7 and 8, 1986. During the early morning hours of Saturday, July 5, between approximately 1:00 A.M. and 4:30 A.M., Petitioner's father had a heart attack and Petitioner and her husband went with him to the hospital and stayed there while he was being cared for. When they returned home at approximately 4:30 A.M., they were told by Petitioner's mother that Petitioner's brother was in jail in Ocala and that she was very concerned about her son. At her mother's request, Petitioner and her husband agreed to drive to Ocala to bail her brother out of jail. When they arrived in Ocala, Petitioner's husband, who was driving when they arrived in Ocala, was arrested for driving with a license under suspension and was himself put in jail. Petitioner herself then had to drive back to Ft. Myers to get money to bail her husband out of jail, drive back to Ocala to bail him out, and drive her husband back to Ft. Myers, a drive of a total of approximately 600 miles. Petitioner did not work and did not call in to work on Saturday, July 5. She was absent without authorized leave. On Sunday, July 6, 1986, Petitioner called into work at 6:30 A.M. to explain to the shift supervisor why she had been absent the previous day, and to notify him that she would not be in until approximately 10:00 A.M. However, tired from her ordeal the previous day and developing a severe headache, Petitioner did not work on Sunday, July 6. She called in later in the morning and spoke to one of the women working in Pierce Cottage but did not speak to the group shift supervisor. She was again absent without authorized leave. On the following morning, Monday, July 7, 1986, Petitioner called in at 6:25 A.M. to tell the group shift supervisor she would be late getting in to work. However, her headache got worse, and the pain traveled down to her neck and down one side of her body. The pain was so severe that she was crying uncontrollably. Although she still told her husband that she wanted to go to work to avoid any disciplinary problems, he talked her into letting him telephone Pierce Cottage to say that she would not be able to work on July 7. At approximately 6:45 A.M., her husband telephoned the group shift supervisor and told him that Petitioner would not be at work at all that day because of her physical condition. On Tuesday, July 8, 1986, Petitioner still was in approximately the same physical condition. At approximately 7:00 A.M., her husband telephoned the group shift supervisor at Pierce Cottage, reported her physical condition, and reported that Petitioner would not be in to work on July 8. Petitioner's husband also reported that Petitioner would probably have to see a doctor that day. Petitioner did indeed go to the Lee County Health Department on July 8, 1986, to be seen for her physical condition. Petitioner went to the Lee County Health Department because she and her husband could not afford to pay a private doctor. When Petitioner arrived at the Health Department at approximately 2:00 P.M., there was no doctor available to see her. She left at approximately 3:00 P.M. with a note confirming the she had been at the Health Department between 2:00 and 3:00 P.M., and that she needed a follow-up appointment. Although Petitioner still was suffering from a severe headache on Wednesday, July 9, 1986, she went to work, turning in her note from the Health Department. However, upon arriving, she was advised of HRS' July 8 letter confirming her separation from her employment. After reciting the grounds upon which HRS had taken the position that Petitioner should be deemed to have abandoned her position, the letter stated: "In the event it was not your intention to resign from employment, you are instructed to immediately contact me and provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for your unauthorized absence from your employment." Petitioner was absent without authorized leave on July 5 and 6, 1986. Petitioner was not incapacitated from telephoning her group shift supervisor on July 7 and July 8, 1986. However, under the circumstances, it was reasonable for her to have her husband telephone for her. She did not intend to abandon her position. As of July 2, 1986, Petitioner had 27 hours of annual leave and 8 hours of compensatory time in her accumulative leave records and available for use July 5 - 8, 1986. She also would earn an additional 5 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave by July 10, 1986. This would have been enough to cover her absences and permit her to be paid during her absences if authorized and approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact' and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order granting the petition in this case and ruling that the circumstances of this case do not constitute an abandonment of Petitioner's position. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1986.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners' layoffs from employment by the Respondent were lawful and if not, what remedies should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that their positions were recommended for transfer from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. On July 1, 2001, the Petitioners' positions were transferred from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. Prior to Special Legislative Session C of 2001, the Department's Office of Prevention and Victim Services consisted of 94 positions, organized into four bureaus: the Office of Victim Services; the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services; the Prevention Office; and the Intensive Learning Alternative Program. During Special Legislative Session C, the Florida Legislature passed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2-C, which reduced appropriations for state government for fiscal year 2001-2002. This special appropriations bill was approved by the Governor on December 13, 2001, and was published as Chapter 2001- 367, Laws of Florida. As a result of Chapter 2001-367, 77 positions were cut from the Office of Prevention and Victim Services budget entity. The appropriations detail for the reduction from the legislative appropriations system database showed that the reduction of positions was to be accomplished by eliminating the Intensive Learning Alternative Program, which consisted of 19 positions; eliminating the Office of Victim Services, which consisted of 15 positions; eliminating the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services, which consisted of 23 positions; and by cutting 20 positions from the Office of Prevention. Seventeen positions remained. Immediately after conclusion of the Special Session, the Department began the process of identifying which positions would be cut. A workforce transition team was named and a workforce transition plan developed to implement the workforce reduction. The workforce reduction plan included a communications plan for dealing with employees; an assessment of the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the residual program; a plan for assessment of employees, in terms of comparative merit; and a placement strategy for affected employees. Gloria Preston, Stephen Reid and Carol Wells were Operations and Management Consultant II's and worked in the Partnership and Volunteer Services Division. According to the budget detail from Special Session C, all of the positions in this unit were eliminated. Titus Tillman was an Operations and Management Consultant II and worked in the Prevention and Monitoring division. According to the budget detail provided from Special Session C, 20 of the positions in this unit were eliminated. On December 7, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that effective January 4, 2002, each of their positions were eliminated due to the Florida Legislature's reduction of staffing in a number of Department program areas during the special session. Petitioners were provided with information regarding what type of assistance the Department would provide. Specifically, the notices stated that the employees would be entitled to the right of a first interview with any state agency for a vacancy to which they may apply, provided they are qualified for the position; and that they could seek placement through the Agency for Workforce Innovation. The notice also provided information regarding leave and insurance benefits, and identified resources for affected employees to seek more clarification or assistance. At the time Petitioners were notified that their positions were being eliminated, Florida Administrative Code Rules 60K-17.001 through 60K-17.004 remained in effect. These rules required agencies to determine the order of layoff by calculating retention points, based upon the number of months of continuous employment in a career service position, with some identified modifications. However, by the express terms of the "Service First" Legislation passed in the regular session of 2001, the career service rules identified above were to be repealed January 1, 2002, unless otherwise readopted. § 42, Ch. 2001-43, Laws of Fla. Consistent with the legislative directive new rules had been noticed and were in the adoption process. On January 4, 2002, each of the Petitioners were laid off due to the elimination of their positions. At the time the layoff became effective, new rules regarding workforce reductions had been adopted. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60K-33, effective January 2, 2002, did not allow for the "bumping" procedure outlined in Rule 60K-17.004. Instead, it required the Department to appoint a workforce transition team for overseeing and administering the workforce reduction; assess the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the remaining program after the deletion of positions; identify the employees and programs or services that would be affected by the workforce reduction and identify the knowledge, skills and abilities that employees would need to carry out the remaining program. The workforce transition team was required under one of the new rules to consider the comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience of each employee, and consider which employees would best enable the agency to advance its mission. Although the Department created a workforce reduction plan and Career Service Comparative Merit Checklist, it did not complete a checklist for any of the Petitioners because it had previously reclassified their positions as Selected Exempt Service. No checklist is expressly required under Rule 60L-33. While no checklist was completed on the Selected Exempt Service employees, each employee in the Office of Prevention and Victim Services was assessed based on the positions remaining and the mission of the Department in order to determine which employees to keep and which to lay off. Of the 17 remaining positions, the Department considered the legislative intent with respect to the elimination of programs and the individuals currently performing the job duties that were left. It also evaluated the responsibilities remaining, which included overseeing the funding of statewide contracts and grants. The Department also considered which employees should be retained based upon their ability to absorb the workload, their geographic location, and their skill set. The Department determined that the employees selected for the remaining positions were the strongest in their field, had fiscal management and programmatic experience, and were best equipped to undertake the workload. At the time of the layoff, Petitioners were each long- serving, well-qualified and highly rated employees of the State of Florida. Each was prepared to move in order to retain employment. In April 2002, AFSCME Florida Public Employees 79, AFL- CIO (AFSCME), filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) against the Departments of Management Services and Juvenile Justice. AFSCME alleged that the Department failed to bargain in good faith over the layoff of Department employees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, effective June 28, 2002. The settlement agreement required the Department to provide timely notice to AFSCME of impending layoffs, bargain over the impact of workforce reductions, and provide assistance for employees who were laid off between December 31, 2001, and January 4, 2002, but who had not attained other full-time Career Service employment. There is no evidence the Petitioners in this case were members of AFSCME. Nor is there any evidence that the Department failed to assist Petitioners in seeking new employment. In July of 2003, the First District Court of Appeal decided the case of Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), wherein the court held that employees whose employee classifications were changed from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service must be afforded a clear point of entry to challenge the reclassification of their positions. The Department notified those persons, including Petitioners, whose Career Service positions had been reclassified to Selected Exempt Service, that they had a right to challenge the reclassification. Each of the Petitioners filed a request for hearing regarding their reclassifications, which was filed with the Agency Clerk in August of 2003. However, the petitions were not forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings until May 2007. All four cases were settled with an agreement that their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt Service positions in error, and that they should have been considered Career Service employees at the time their positions were eliminated. Petitioners and the Department also agreed that any challenge by Petitioners to the layoffs would be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Gloria Preston began work for the State of Florida in 1975. Her evaluations showed that she continuously exceeded performance standards, and she had training and experience in managing and monitoring grants and contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, and it is unclear whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Stephen Reid began work for the State of Florida in 1977. He left state government for a short time and returned in 1984. With the exception of his initial evaluation with the Department of Corrections, he has received "outstanding" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Reid has experience in contract creation and management. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Carol Wells began employment with the State of Florida in 1975. Similar to Mr. Reid, all of her evaluations save her first one were at the "exceeds" performance level, and she has experience in writing and managing contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Titus Tillman began employment with the State of Florida in 1993. He was subject to a Corrective Action Plan in May 2000, but received "above average" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Like the other Petitioners, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Likewise, no evidence was presented regarding the retention points that were earned by any of the people who were retained by the Department to fill the remaining positions. No evidence was presented regarding the qualifications of those retained employees, in terms of their comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience in the program areas the Department would continue to implement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the petitions for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 5th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100 Lezlie A. Griffin, Esquire Melissa Ann Horwitz, Esquire AFSCME Council 79 3064 Highland Oaks Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a claim by petitioner, Robert Jones (Jones or petitioner), that he was denied employment by respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES), on account of his handicap. It is undisputed that Jones has diabetes, he is insulin-dependent, and he has had at least one toe amputated because of the disability. As such, he does not enjoy, in some measure, the full and normal use of his physical facilities, and he is accordingly deemed to be a handicapped person within the meaning of the law. The parties also agree that DLES is an employer subject to the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, which governs this dispute. DLES denies it acted in a discriminatory manner and contends generally that (a) the handicap played no role in its employment decision since it was unaware that Jones was a disabled person when the employment decision was made, and (b) a more qualified person was hired for both positions sought by Jones. A preliminary investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Since October 3, 1982, petitioner has been employed as an investigator specialist II at the Commission. He also worked for DLES from May 1980 until October 1981, and at the Florida State Employment Service from October 1981 until April 1982. Prior to working with the state, Jones served in the U. S. Marine Corps from which he was honorably discharged with a medical disability in 1977. He is a graduate of Florida State University having received a degree in political science in December 1985. Between 1982 and 1991, respondent made application for employment at DLES on at least four or five occasions but was never hired. On July 16, 1991, he wrote a letter to the agency head, then Frank Scruggs, complaining about his inability to get a job, advising that he was a disabled veteran, and asking for a "fair shake" on his applications. Later that year, he applied for the positions of management review specialist and senior management analyst II. Although he was interviewed for one of the two positions, he was not selected for either job. In his application filed with DLES, Jones described his health as "excellent." Attached to his application papers was a certification from the Veterans Administration indicating he had a service-related disability rated at 30 percent or more. Also, he included a handwritten statement that he was a "veteran with a compensable service-connected disability." There was no indication, however, as to the nature of the disability. After receiving two rejection letters from DLES on February 10, 1992, regarding his job application, Jones filed a complaint of discrimination with the Commission on July 23, 1992, alleging he had "been discriminated against because of (his) Handicap, Diabetes." He later filed a petition for relief in which he charged that DLES' employment decision was based not only on his handicap, but also on account of his "gender, race, veteran status or any other unlawful reason." As to the grounds raised after the Commission had concluded its initial investigation, they have been disregarded as being untimely. Senior Management Analyst II Position On January 9, 1992, respondent published a job opportunity announcement for the position of senior management analyst II in the office of civil rights and minority affairs. The position had been created to assist the director of that office, Deidre Kyle, in her day-to-day responsibilities. Kyle was also the individual responsible for the hiring decision. The advertised position required as minimum qualifications that the applicant have "a bachelor's degree and four years of professional experience in systems administrative work, employment and training, employment security, grants management, education, vocational counseling, vocational placement, occupational analysis, employment selection and referral activities, program planning, program evaluation or program monitoring." Petitioner met the minimum qualifications. Besides Jones, approximately fifty persons applied for the position of senior management analyst II, including Carolyn W. Franklin, a non-handicapped African-American female then working under Kyle's supervision and filling an Other Personal Services (OPS) slot as a civil rights specialist III in Kyle's office since September 1991. Franklin had previously worked for over twelve years in the Governor's Office, principally as a governmental analyst in the Citizens Assistance Office, and mostly under the direct supervision of Shirley Gooding, who later served as inspector general, and then assistant secretary, and finally as secretary of DLES in July 1992. She had also served as the affirmative action officer for the Governor's Office for four years. Except for these latter duties, Franklin had no experience in equal employment or civil rights. Out of the fifty applicants, only four were selected for an interview with Kyle, and none was handicapped. Jones was not selected for an interview. In choosing the top candidates for an interview, Kyle relied upon the duties and responsibilities contained in the career service system position description as well as certain review criteria which she had prepared. The review criteria were: (a) extensive knowledge of equal employment and affirmative action rules and regulations, (b) thorough knowledge of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, (c) knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (d) experience in conducting federal program compliance reviews, (e) familiarity with American Standards Institute standards, (f) effective oral and written communication skills, and (g) personal computer experience (Word Perfect and/or Lotus Preferred). The qualifications of the three individuals other than Franklin selected for the final interview are not of record. Also, the record does not show how Jones' qualifications compared with those of the final candidates (other than Franklin). Thus, there is no way to determine if Jones was more or less qualified than the others on the final list, or whether he ranked fifth or even fiftieth out of all of the candidates filing applications. Kyle made no effort to determine whether any of the applicants, including petitioner, had a handicap. Therefore, when she made the decision to reject Jones and the other forty-five candidates through the initial screening process, she was unaware of the fact that he had diabetes. Indeed, she did not learn of this fact until Jones filed his complaint. The position sought by Jones was ultimately filled by Franklin. In selecting Franklin, Kyle noted that Franklin had served in an OPS position with "similar" job responsibilities, she had worked under Kyle's direct supervision for the preceding four months, and she had working knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of the position "that would allow her to begin work immediately." Contrary to petitioner's assertion, Kyle was not told by her superiors to hire Franklin. She concedes, however, that there were "suggestions" by then inspector general Gooding to hire Franklin, a former colleague of Gooding at the Governor's Office. In considering DLES' assertion that the reason for hiring Franklin was that she was the most qualified person, it is noted that earlier that year Franklin had applied for a lower-graded career service position in Kyle's office but was rejected because Kyle was unimpressed with Franklin's "communicative skills." After her rejection, Gooding "suggested" that Kyle hire Franklin for the OPS slot, a suggestion which Kyle followed. Based on these facts, it may be reasonably inferred that Kyle's true motive in hiring Franklin was to satisfy, albeit reluctantly, the wishes of her superior, Gooding, who wanted to place her friend in the agency, rather than hiring the best qualified person for the job. While friendship or even cronyism was the decisive factor in Franklin getting the job, there is insufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would support an inference that petitioner's handicap was the reason why he was not selected. Indeed, there is no evidence to support a finding that Jones would even have made the short list had Franklin not applied for the job, or would have been considered if Kyle had rejected the suggestions of her superior. Therefore, while the final employment decision may not have been fair, it is found that there was no discriminatory animus in DLES' employment decision to reject Jones. Management Review Specialist Positions On October 17, 1991, respondent published a job opportunity announcement for two management review specialists (position numbers 1158 and 5420) in its office of inspector general, then run by inspector general Gooding. At that time, the office had two sections: management review and investigations. When the announcement was published, the office was unsure whether both positions would be used for management reviews or whether one would be management review and the other for investigations. The minimum qualifications for the positions were a bachelor's degree and 4 years of professional experience in systems analysis, management analysis, program planning, program research, program evaluation, engineering or administrative work. Petitioner met the minimum qualification requirements. The management review slot required the successful applicant to be experienced in management reviews, which are very comprehensive and involve an evaluation of the following management functions: planning, organization, staffing, directing and controlling. The specialist is also required to prepare rather comprehensive reports. On the other hand, the specialist in the investigative section performs more traditional investigative duties with a much more narrow focus than management review. The record shows that Jones was not fully qualified to fill a slot in the management section since his main experience had been investigating discrimination complaints for the Commission for the preceding ten years. Jones and some ninety other persons filed applications for these positions. A preliminary screening process of all applications was conducted by Kitty J. Convertino, who headed the management review section, and Gary Sanford, who headed the investigation section. Because of his investigative experience with the Commission, Jones was placed on the list of some fifteen to seventeen persons to be initially interviewed. It was contemplated that after these initial interviews were conducted, a short list of five candidates would be picked from those interviewed, and they would be invited back for a second interview. Although Convertino ostensibly had authority to make a hiring decision, the final say-so rested with her superior, inspector general Gooding. During the initial interview, each candidate was asked "interview questions" from a list prepared by Convertino. Among other subjects, the applicants were asked about their computer skills since specialists were required to prepare much of their own work. Although Jones says he uses a microcomputer in his present work, his computer skills did not meet Convertino's expectations. At the conclusion of the interview, Jones was asked to provide a writing sample, and he later funished a copy of an investigative report he had written for the Commission in 1986. This writing sample reinforced Convertino's opinion that Jones was more qualified for the investigation section than the management review section. During the selection process, a member of Convertino's management review team was transferred from her team to Sanford's investigation team. When this occurred, the management review specialist vacancy on Sanford's investigation team was eliminated leaving both vacancies in the management review section. The decision to transfer the position was made by inspector general Gooding. Because no position was open in the investigation section, and the qualifications of the chosen candidates for the management section exceeded those of petitioner, Jones was not invited back for a second interview. There is no evidence to support a finding that the transfer was made to prevent petitioner from being considered for the vacant position in the investigative section. Among the candidates for the two management review positions was Jane Steele, a former collegue of Gooding at the Governor's Office, who had performed administrative work for the City of Altamonte Springs for some eighteen months prior to seeking employment with DLES, and who had prior stints with the Department of Insurance, Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting. When Steele's qualifications did not initially comply with the job description for position 5920, the job description was rewritten midway through the evaluation process so that Steele could satisfy the qualifications. Whether this change was made at the behest of Gooding is not of record. In any event, there is no evidence to show that this manipulation in the qualification process was for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. Steele was ultimately selected to fill one of the two management review specialist positions. According to Convertino, Steele was selected because of her prior experience in performing compliance audits for a state agency and writing audit reports. In addition, she was computer literate, was a "good" writer, having published several articles, and had a masters degree in public administration. Although Steele once worked with Gooding at the Governor's Office, there is no evidence that Convertino consulted with Gooding prior to making her employment decision. Indeed, Convertino flatly denied that any conversations took place. Ronald J. Rigby, an African-American who also has diabetes and is hearing impaired, was selected for position 1158. He had previously performed compliance reviews for DLES in the Job Training Partnership Act program, which experience Convertino believed would be compatible with the work required of position 1158. Although Rigby was placed under investigation by the State Controller in mid-January 1992 for "wage claim discrepancies," and this prevented him from assuming the job for several months, the matter was resolved sometime after April 10, 1992, and he was then allowed to report to work. When the decision to hire Rigby was made, Convertino did not know that Rigby had diabetes, although she knew that he was hearing impaired. Jones says his medical condition was discussed during the interview process, and he advised the interviewers that the disability was controlled by medication. Neither Convertino nor Sanford recalled any such discussion, and Convertino says she was unware of Jones' condition until the complaint was filed. In any event, there is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would support a finding that Jones' handicap played any part in the employment decision. While the investigative slot may have been filled through a transfer on account of friendship or cronyism, that decision was not predicated on a desire to keep a handicapped person from being considered for the job. Moreover, the evidence shows that both Steele and Rigby had more experience in performing compliance audits than did Jones, and thus they were the more qualified individuals to fill those positions. Miscellaneous Employment records received in evidence show that petitioner's annual pay was $22,000 at the time his application was filed in October 1991. His salary since that time is not of record. The position of management review specialist paid in the range of $2,407.49 to $4,056.63 per month while the position of senior management analyst II paid in the range of $2,740.51 to $4,653.39 per month. Respondent apparently did not document, nor could it produce, the written basis for its hiring decisions, as required by its own personnel manual. Even so, this lack of documentation is insufficient to raise an inference that an unlawful discriminatory animus motivated DLES in its employment decisions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2754 Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 11. Rejected as being cumulative. 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 17-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 25. Rejected as being unnecessary. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 30-34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 35-39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 40. Rejected as being unnecessary. 41-44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 46. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. 48-55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 57-59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 60-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 62-63. Rejected as being unnecessary. 64-67. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 68. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 69. Rejected as being unnecessary. 70. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 71. Rejected as being unnecessary. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 78. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 79-81. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 82. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 83-84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 85-87. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 88. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 89-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 91-92. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 97-98. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 3-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5-7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the unused part has been rejected as being unnecessary to reach a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, cumulative, subordinate, not supported by the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire Pamela H. Page, Esquire Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3127 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent properly secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage, as delineated by Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if not, what penalty for such failure is warranted. Whether Respondent conducted business operations in violation of a stop-work order, and, if so, what is the correct penalty for such violation, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the business of roofing, which is a construction activity. On December 21, 2004, Petitioner's investigator, Hector Vega, visited 951 North Park Avenue, Apopka, Florida, the site of a church, on a referral from his supervisor. Five men were observed engaged in roofing work. William Sims, Respondent's president, agreed to meet at the worksite. Sims, upon inquiry, informed Petitioner's investigator that he had not secured the payment of workers' compensation for the workers. However, Sims testified that for Respondent to re-roof the Apopka Church of God, Sims had to calculate the amount of roofing shingles needed, which proved to be difficult due to the architecture of the church's specialty roof. The amount of shingles needed for the job was overestimated in order to avoid running out of shingles during the job. As of December 21, 2004, the Apopka Church of God roofing job was done, so Respondent sold the extra, unused shingles to D&L Trucking, owned and operated by David Lorenzo, who was paying the five men found working on the roof on December 21, 2004. A check of Petitioner's Compliance and Coverage Automated System ("CCAS") database, which contains information on all workers' compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured, determined that Respondent did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy to provide workers' compensation coverage of the five workers. Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, allows an individual to apply for an election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application is exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner, which maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida, found a current, valid exemption only for William R. Sims in December 2004. On December 21, 2004, Petitioner issued and served on Respondent a stop-work order for failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Insurance Code. Also at that time, a Request for Production of Business Records was issued to Respondent. Employers employing workers on job sites in Florida are required to keep business records that enable Petitioner to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued, and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, Petitioner had in effect Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, which requires employers to maintain certain business records. Respondent failed to comply with the Request for Production. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida workers' compensation policy or endorsement for such employees which utilizes Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as well as the Florida Insurance Code. See § 440.10(1)(g), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.019(2) requires that in order for an employer to comply with Subsections 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Florida Statutes, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove the fact of workers' compensation coverage for employees engaged in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. 12. Subsections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorize Petitioner to issue stop-work orders to employers unable to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage. Failure to provide such proof is deemed "an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare " § 440.107(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Following the follow-up efforts by Sims that extended until February 2005, Respondent believed that the Stop Work Order had been lifted by February 2005. Later in 2005, after Sims understood the Stop Work Order to be lifted, he pulled some permits from Orange County. The permits were called "a permit to work" and this supported, in Sims' mind, the conclusion that the Stop Work Order had been lifted. On November 1, 2005, Petitioner received a referral to investigate Respondent. Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's worksite on November 1, 2005, and observed six men engaged in roofing work. Sims, upon inquiry, informed the investigator that he secured the payment of workers' compensation coverage for the workers through Emerald Staffing Services, an employee leasing company. Chapter 468, Part XI, Florida Statutes, governs employee leasing companies. Respondent contracted with Emerald Staffing for its services in October 2005 and became the client company of Emerald Staffing. Respondent paid invoices for its employees, thus indicating that it was engaged in business activities in October 2005 and November 2005. On November 2, 2005, Petitioner issued a Request for Production of Business Records to Respondent. The request was for business records from December 21, 2004, through November 2, 2005. Respondent remained under the belief that the Stop Work Order had been lifted until Sims was approached by Petitioner's inspector, Robert Cerrone, on November 4 or 5, 2005, and was told by Cerrone that Respondent was still under the Stop Work Order. Respondent thereafter stopped working at Cerrone's request. Although Respondent asserts it did not know the Stop Work Order was in place between December 21, 2004, and December 19, 2005, and therefore Respondent believed it appropriate to continue working during that time, Sims testified there was a health problem in his immediate family that slowed down his business from working in 2005. His wife was diagnosed with cancer, and this made him very distracted from work. Although Sims pulled a few permits in 2005, he reviewed all those permits in his testimony, and it became clear to him that all those permits were for work previously done during the hectic clean-up from the hurricanes. This testimony is not credible. Respondent acknowledges the issuance and receipt of the Stop Work Order, but alleges in its petition that the Stop Work Order should never have been issued because the men at the worksite were not performing roofing work. On November 10, 2005, however, Sims provided a statement to Petitioner's investigator wherein he admitted to having employed four individuals on December 21, 2004, without securing the payment of workers' compensation for any of them. However, Respondent admitted, through its president, by letter, dated November 10, 2005, and signed in the presence of Cerrone that four of the persons observed on the Apopka Church of God work site on December 21, 2004, were Petitioner's employees and they were not covered by workers' compensation insurance. Sims' testimony that he was forced to sign the letter or that he was tricked or mislead into signing it, is not credible. From the evidence presented, the four identified men found on the roof of the Apopka Church of God on December 21, 2004, were the employees of Respondent, and Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the workers' compensation law. Therefore, the Stop Work Order was not erroneously issued against Respondent on December 21, 2004. After learning from Cerrone that the Stop Work Order was in place, Respondent worked with Petitioner to come into compliance and agreed to the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order that Cerrone signed on December 19, 2005, under it, Respondent has been making payments to Petitioner to satisfy the penalty Petitioner has levied against Respondent. On November 16, 2005, Petitioner issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment, in which Petitioner requested business records from Respondent for the period of December 21, 2001, through December 21, 2004. Respondent complied with the records requests and provided Petitioner with tax ledgers and documents for the years 2002 through 2004, along with permits. Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides: "The department shall assess a penalty of $1,000 per day against an employer for each day that the employer conducts business operations that are in violation of a stop-work order." Documentation specifically showed Respondent was engaged in business activities after December 21, 2004. The Orange County building department records indicate that a number of roofing permits that had been pulled by Respondent after December 21, 2004, the date the Stop Work Order was issued. Sims also stated that he was aware of the need to pull permits as part of his job as a roofer in Orange County, Florida. He alluded at the hearing that Orange County should have informed him of the existing Stop Work Order. Darlene Elaine Talley, contractor certification coordinator with the Orange County building department, testified that Respondent, through Sims, pulled a number of permits after December 21, 2004. Some of the permits were pulled for work performed prior to December 21, 2004. Although Respondent alleges that much of the actual roofing work was done prior to pulling permits and, thus, prior to the issuance of the Stop Work Order, the act of pulling a permit is considered "conducting business operations," which is prohibited by Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, when a stop-work order is in effect. A-1 Construction ("A-1"), a Georgia company, performed roofing services for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, from September 2004 to November 2004, and was paid remuneration for those services. Although Respondent sought to prove that A-1 had Florida workers' compensation coverage through its Georgia workers' compensation and should not be included in the penalty calculation, the credible evidence showed that Georgia workers' compensation coverage, with Key Risk, did not extend to Florida, nor did A-1 purchase extra Florida coverage. Subsection 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes, states, "A contractor shall require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers' compensation insurance." Respondent did not request evidence of workers' compensation coverage from A-1, and Respondent was not aware whether A-1's Florida workers' compensation coverage was purchased or not. Under the Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the penalty period, a subcontractor becomes an "employee" if the subcontractor has not validly elected an exemption as permitted by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, or has not otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. § 440.02(15)(c)2., Fla. Stat. The entities listed on the Amended Order's penalty worksheet, including the employees of A-1, were Respondent's employees during the relevant period, all of whom Respondent paid, and all of whom had neither valid workers' compensation exemptions nor workers' compensation coverage. To determine the number of days that Respondent was in violation of the Stop Work Order, the payroll records for Respondent were obtained from Emerald Staffing, and the permits pulled by Respondent were gathered. The investigator further discussed the matter with Respondent to determine the number of days Respondent worked in violation of the Stop Work Order. It is determined that Respondent worked for 10 days in violation of the Stop Work Order. Utilizing the records provided, in evidence, the penalty is calculated for Respondent by assigning a class code to the type of work utilizing the SCOPES Manual, multiplying the class code's assigned approved manual rate with the wages paid to the employee per one hundred dollars, and then multiplying all by 1.5. The penalty for violation of the Stop Work Order is $1,000.00 per day for each day of violation, which for 10 days amounts to $10,000.00. The Amended Order, which assessed a penalty of $49,413.18, was personally served on Respondent on December 19, 2005. Sims was not personally calculated into the penalty because he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption. On December 19, 2005, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by Petitioner. Respondent made a down payment of 10 percent of the assessed penalty; provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by securing the payment of workers' compensation through Emerald Staffing; and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in 60 equal monthly payment installments.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and that assesses a penalty of $49,413.18. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Graham is employed by USF as a police officer at the Tampa campus and was so employed on December 18, 1976, at 1:30 a.m. On that date it was the policy of the campus police department that prior authorization be obtained from immediate supervisors prior to the taking of any time off from scheduled duties. Graham was fully aware of this policy. Graham was scheduled to appear for duty at 1:30 a.m., on December 18, 1976. At 8:46 p.m., December 17, 1976, Graham telephoned the dispatcher on duty and advised him to relate to Graham's supervisor that he would not be in for work at 1:30 a.m., the following day. Graham then failed to appear at the appointed hour and performed no duties during that scheduled shift. During his employment with USF, Graham has been disciplined five (5) previous times for being absent without authorized leave.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), for the period September 1, 1998, through and including September 30, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County (School Board) and is a retired member of FRS. In September 1998, Petitioner became eligible to participate in DROP by virtue of reaching 30 years of service with the School Board. In September 1998, Petitioner asked Respondent for an estimate of her retirement benefits. In January 1999, the estimate of Petitioner's retirement benefits was prepared by Respondent and mailed to Petitioner. During the 1998-99 school year, Petitioner had difficulties in her dealings with a new school principal. 1/ Petitioner testified that she delayed applying for DROP because she believed that her relationship with her employer would improve and she could continue to work as a teacher. Petitioner also testified that School Board administrators gave her erroneous information and misled her as to their intention to permit her to continue to teach. Petitioner argues that she would have elected to participate in DROP beginning September 1, 1998, had her employer told her the truth about her employment status. In this proceeding, Petitioner argues that she be permitted to participate in DROP effective September 1, 1998, on equitable grounds, without specifying the equitable principles upon which she relies. On October 27, 1999, Petitioner completed her application to participate in DROP and filed the application with the School Board's personnel office. Respondent received the completed application via facsimile on November 3, 1999. The first application sent in by Petitioner requested that her DROP participation start retroactive to September 1, 1998. Respondent, through its staff, denied that request and informed Petitioner that she would have to submit a second application, referred to by staff as a corrected application, requesting a start date of October 1, 1999. Pursuant to those instructions, Petitioner submitted a second application requesting that her start date be October 1, 1999. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's denial of her request to accept her participation in DROP retroactive to September 1, 1998, was timely. Petitioner was later terminated from her position with the School Board. 2/ Respondent has been paid her drop benefits for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and ending when the School Board terminated her employment. Petitioner has not been employed by a FRS employer since the School Board terminated her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under DROP for the period September 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of August, 2001
Findings Of Fact The Respondent YWCA is a nonprofit corporation that sponsors educational, social, and recreational programs. The YWCA's purpose states that it is a "movement rooted in the Christian faith"; however, expressed belief in Christianity is not required for membership in the YWCA or for employment by the YWCA. Its membership is comprised of adult women seventeen years of age and older. The personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action will be applied in recruitment, hiring, compensation, fringe benefits, staff development, and training, promotion, and any other condition of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, national origin, or any other nonperformance factors." (Emphasis added.) Regarding termination, the personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Reasons for staff termination must be carefully documented. They should be based upon objective performance appraisals, which in turn are based upon job descriptions, work plans, and performance standards. Except in cases of reorganization/retrenchment or termination for cause, a probationary period for work improvement must be provided, followed by another performance appraisal." The YWCA of West Palm Beach operates three facilities: Central and Residence, the Mamie Adair Branch, and the Recreation Center. The Mamie Adair Branch primarily serves the black community in West Palm Beach and includes a day-care facility. The Petitioner, Davis, was hired as the Branch Executive of the Mamie Adair Branch of the YWCA, effective July 21, 1980, at a starting salary of $12,000.00. The Petitioner was given copies of the YWCA's personnel policy, affirmative action plan, and job description. She was not given notice of particular standards of behavior to which she was required to conform away from the job. As branch Executive she was supervised by the Executive Director, Jo Prout. The Petitioner successfully completed her initial 90-day probationary period, and her annual salary was increased by five percent to $12,600.00. In October 1981, however, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation and was again placed on three months probations due primarily to an unsatisfactory working relationship with the Branch Committee. The Petitioner had a bad attitude and was antagonistic. The Petitioner became pregnant but did not immediately disclose the fact of her pregnancy. In approximately December, 1981, the Petitioner confided to a coworker that she was pregnant and the coworker, in turn, told the YWCA's Executive Director, Jo Prout, that the Petitioner was pregnant. The YWCA's Executive Director was concerned that the Petitioner's relationship with the Branch Committee would be severely adversely affected if the Committee found out the Petitioner was pregnant and unmarried. Because of this concern, the Executive Director removed the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, effective December 31, 1981. The Petitioner would not have been removed from her position on December 31, 1981, but for the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Prior to removing the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, the Executive Director did not attempt less drastic alternatives such as asking the Petitioner not to discuss or disclose her marital status or asking the Petitioner to take a leave of absence. Prior to her removal, the Petitioner had not discussed the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried with members of the Branch Committee or with the YWCA membership in general. At no time had the Petitioner advocated unwed motherhood as an alternative life- style or otherwise advocated or espoused principles contrary to her understanding of Christianity. In the past, certain employees of the YWCA whose on-the-job behavior was contrary to Christian principles received job discipline but were not removed from their positions. A desk clerk at the YWCA's residence, for example, who was found to have stolen property from residence guests was not discharged. The removal of the Petitioner from her position by the YWCA because she was pregnant and unmarried was not justified by the business necessity rule because: A requirement to conduct one's life, including one's off-the-job activities, according to Christian principles, was not disclosed to the Petitioner or to other employees; The YWCA did not discipline or discharge other employees for conduct which conflicted with the YWCA's alleged requirement to conduct one's life by Christian principles; and The YWCA did not show that a requirement of all employees to conduct their lives by Christian principles has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Then the Petitioner was removed from the Branch Executive position, she was transferred to the position of center consultant for gymnastics. The position of the center consultant for gymnastics to which the Petitioner was transferred was a demotion in that the Petitioner went from an administrative to a non-administrative position. The transfer also changed the Petitioner's employment status from full-time employee to part-time employee with a 25 percent decrease in earned income and a lunch "hour" reduced to 30 minutes. The petitioner's new position as center consultant was a temporary one designated to last no longer than five months. Petitioner was removed from probationary status as a result of the transfer. The position of center consultant to which the Petitioner was transferred was not a legitimate position. The position did not exist prior to December 31, 1981, the date the Petitioner was transferred. No job description was ever written for this position, despite the fact that the YWCA personnel policy required job descriptions. The Petitioner was verbally assigned job tasks inconsistent with her title of center consultant, including cleaning toilets at the gymnastics center. The position was eliminated on February 16, 1982, approximately six weeks after it was created, allegedly due to financial streamlining. The YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, discriminating against her on the basis of sex and marital status by removing her from her position as Branch Executive because she was pregnant and unmarried. Moreover, this transfer was not justified by business necessity. Because the YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, the Petitioner could be entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to a comparable position and could also be entitled to recover lost wages and fringe benefits, plus interest thereon, from the date of the wrongful act, December 31, 1981, to November 31, 1982, the date she was hired by the Lutheran Ministries, set off by any interim earnings and reduced by the Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits plus her reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Regarding reinstatement, the Petitioner has been and is now willing and able to be reinstated to her former position as Branch Executive or to a comparable administrative position. The employer's argument that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement because she was an unsatisfactory employee is rejected for the following reasons: The employer's allegations that the Petitioner will not satisfactorily perform her job if reinstated are too speculative and any doubts about the Petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement should be resolved in favor of the victim of discrimination; and In the event that the Petitioner's job performance upon reinstatement is not satisfactory, the employer may avail itself of the procedures set forth in its personnel policy to improve the Petitioner's performance or discharge her for unsatisfactory job performance. However, reinstatement may not be feasible in this case due to the fact that another employee has been placed in the Petitioner's former position. If the Petitioner is not reinstated to a comparable administrative position, then she should be compensated by the award of six months front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner is entitled to damages in the amount of $13,551, which represents a back pay award of $11,000 plus 10 percent interest, six months front pay in the amount of $6,000, minus $1,575 for salary paid from January 1, 1982 - February 16, 1982, including two weeks severance pay and $2,974 in unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner is also entitled to costs of $232.65 and attorneys fees totaling $5,000.
