The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner contrary to statute on the basis of Petitioner's disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was diagnosed with cancer in December of 2002, and was on sick leave off and on from the time of her diagnosis until the first part of 2004. Later, after surgery, the Petitioner was on extended leave while she recovered from surgery and later from chemotherapy. In June of 2003, Petitioner was rapidly approaching the end of her available leave, but, more significantly, the end of the leave required to be granted under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This situation resulted in correspondence between Petitioner and the Department about extension of her leave and her return to work. On June 17, 2003, Jeff Carr, Human Resources Manager for the Department, sent a letter to Petitioner in connection with her medical leave status. This letter advised Petitioner that an agreed-upon extension of leave would cover Petitioner until July 4, 2003. As the latest physician's statement submitted by Petitioner indicated that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, the letter from Mr. Carr advised Petitioner of options available to her: 1) a return to work on July 5, 2003, if she was released by her physician as able to perform the essential functions of her job; 2) resignation if she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job; 3) regular or disability retirement. If Petitioner did not choose one of the three options, she was advised she would be terminated. On June 23, 2003, Petitioner wrote to Beth Englander, District Administrator, requesting additional leave in accordance with her doctor's latest evaluation. A copy of a note from Petitioner's oncologist was attached which stated that Petitioner would need to be off at least six to eight weeks. In addition, Petitioner noted that following completion of chemotherapy she would need additional surgery and would need to make additional requests for leave. Petitioner e-mailed Ms. Englander on June 24, 2003, and Ms. Englander replied that same day. The reply again advised Petitioner of her three options to avoid termination for inability to perform her job. After having been twice advised of her options, Petitioner wrote Mr. Carr on June 27, 2003, advising that she would not finish her chemotherapy treatment until approximately September 1, 2003. However, no estimate was given for Petitioner's medical release to return to work following the additional surgery Petitioner said she would need in her letter to Ms. Englander of June 23, 2003. In her letter of June 27, 2003, Petitioner requested additional leave as what she claimed to be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Petitioner also said she wanted to work at home in lieu of leave. However, Petitioner provided no doctor's statement to contradict the one she submitted saying that she would be unable to work for six to eight weeks. On July 6, 203, Petitioner wrote Mr. Carr that she was accepting the alternative of retirement. In this letter, Petitioner again stated that she was not finished with treatment and would need additional time to complete the treatment. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she was unable to inspect daycare facilities to conduct the inspections required as an essential function of her position. In addition to the regular inspections, initial licensing and relicensing inspections, day care licensing counselors also have to make inspection in response to complaints received by the Department. Petitioner said that, as an accommodation, she wanted to be relieved from conducting inspections and be permitted to process the inspection reports prepared by other counselors and other paperwork. Although Petitioner contended at the hearing that she might have been able to work part-time, she admitted that after submitting the statement that she could not return to work for at least six to eight more weeks she had not gone back to her doctor to ask him to clear her for part-time work. Petitioner also speculated that she could have performed inspections on a part-time basis if she was provided with appropriate protective equipment and a mask. Petitioner stated her desire and request for more time off was because of fatigue. She did not request to work part-time, or protective devices as an accommodation at any time before she chose the option of retirement. Petitioner instituted an action before PERC contending that she was forced to either resign or retire in retaliation for her making of a complaint to Department's inspector general. That action resulted in a recommended order by the PERC hearing officer on April 21, 2004, that recommended that PERC dismiss Petitioner's claim. In that recommended order the hearing officer found as fact that: On June 23, 2003, Welch (Petitioner) sent a letter to District 13 Administrator Beth Englander, which included a doctor's note indicating she needed six to eight more weeks of leave. Englander responded to Welch and told her that, because her leave was exhausted and because of the operational needs of her unit, the Agency would not extend the leave. On June 27, Welch replied to Carr's June 17 letter and asked for accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The Agency did not specifically respond to this request. However, Welch was not entitled to ADA leave because she could not perform the essential functions of her job in June when she made her request. The full PERC in a final order of May 11, 2004, adopted the recommended order of the hearing officer, including this finding of fact. Petitioner had not been released by her doctor to return to work and perform her duties at the time she chose retirement in July 2003, and admitted that she was not able to come to work at that time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 25th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Melody Welch 34548 Oak Avenue Leesburg, Florida 34788 Carolyn Dudley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 6, Room 123 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9070 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a career-service employee of Respondent. She served as a health service representative assigned to the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Her specific task was to investigate and follow up on contacts for sexually transmitted diseases. Petitioner's Employee Handbook, which Respondent received when she was hired, states: You may request annual leave for any purpose desired, but you must obtain Your supervisor's approval before taking annual leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask for verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work, complete the leave request form for your supervisor's signature. The Handbook also Provides that certain employees are entitled to one eight-hour personal holiday "at a time which is mutually agreeable to the individual and the immediate supervisor." The local policy of the Seminole County Public Health Unit required each employee to request leave by filling out the back of a timesheet. In this manner, the employee would show the type of leave requested, the date and time of the leave, the employee's initials. The form provided spaces for the signature of the supervisor and the date described in detail in the Paragraph 5 below. The back of the timesheet states: "All Leave and Overtime must be requested and approved in advance." The Handbook requires advance approval of annual leave. Although the blanket statement on the back of the timesheet requires advance approval of all leave and overtime, the Seminole County Public Health Unit routinely did not require advance approval for all types of leave. For instance, sick leave, overtime, and annual leave for less than a few hours were normally approved after the fact. On at least two occasions, including one involving Respondent, annual leave for an entire day was also approved after it had beef taken. However, the Seminole County Public Health Unit normally requires advance approval of annual leave for a Period of one day or more. The instructions on the timesheet direct that the date next to the supervisor's signature indicate the date of the request for leave. Consistent with the varying policies governing leave, the date beside the supervisor's signature on the timesheet was used to show the date of approval of a request for annual leave and the date of the request for sick leave and certain other types of leave. By negative implication, the Handbook also requires written approval of annual leave for nonemergencies because it expressly permits "verbal approval" for annual leave for emergencies. There are no requirements in the Handbook or the timesheets for written approval of requests for other forms of leave, and the Seminole County Public Health Unit did not maintain enforceable policies to that effect. Two persons were authorized to approve requests of Respondent for annual leave. The first person was Charlotte Blades, who was the coordinator of the sexually transmitted disease program of the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Ms. Blades was Respondent's immediate supervisor The other person authorized to approve requests for annual leave was Bernice Duncan, who was the senior community health nurse of the Seminole County Public Health Unit and Ms. Blades' supervisor. In practice, the written approval of Ms. Blades could be revoked by Ms. Duncan. On one occasion, Respondent requested eight hours' annual leave to attend her son's high school graduation on June 9, 1989. Ms. Blades signed the timesheet on May 23, 1989. Between that date and the date of the leave, Ms. Duncan told Respondent that, although Ms. Blades had signed the timesheet, the leave was not approved. Ultimately, Respondent received approval for leave through 2:30 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m., on the day of the graduation. In late July or early August, 1989, Respondent submitted a timesheet requesting 32 hours' annual leave from August 28-31, 1989. About one week later, before Ms. Blades or Ms. Duncan had acted on the request, Respondent changed the request to September 1, which was the Friday before Labor Day weekend, and September 13-14, 1989. In addition, she requested leave with pay for September 15, 1989, as her personal holiday. According to the timesheets, Ms. Blades approved the September 1 leave request on August 25, 1989, which was a Saturday. She assured Respondent that she would discuss with Ms. Duncan the remaining requests for leave. Respondent followed up with Ms. Blades several times, explaining that she wanted the leave to attend her son's graduation ceremonies from military basic training in South Carolina. Despite her assurances, Ms. Blades had not mentioned Respondent's request to Ms. Duncan before Ms. Blades became sick and missed work from September 6-9. On the second day of Ms. Blades' absence, Respondent took her request to Ms. Duncan, who said that she had not been aware of Respondent's request. Ms. Duncan told Respondent that Ms. Blades was on sick leave and did not respond further. The following day, Respondent spoke again with Ms. Duncan, who this time assured her that if Ms. Blades were not at work on Monday, September 11, Ms. Duncan would sign the timesheet approving the leave requested for September 13-15. Ms. Blades returned to work on Monday, September 11. When Respondent asked her in the morning to sign the timesheet, Ms. Blades refused to do so and told her that it had not yet been approved. Consistent with her prior conversations with Respondent, though, Ms. Blades did not say that the request had been disapproved. Respondent then left the office for much of the day. When she returned, Ms. Blades and Ms. Duncan were both out. The next day, Tuesday, September 12, Ms. Blades spoke with Respondent, but still declined to say whether the request was approved or rejected. She continued to say merely that the request had not yet been approved. Tuesday afternoon, Respondent told a coworker to tell Ms. Blades that Respondent was going to South Carolina and would be back the following Monday morning. While still in town, Respondent telephoned both supervisors shortly after 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, but they had not arrived at work yet. Respondent asked the receptionist to remind Ms. Blades that Respondent had gone to South Carolina and would return the following Monday morning. Both messages were delivered to Ms. Blades, who relayed them to Ms. Duncan. Respondent then departed for South Carolina, where she remained through at least September 15. At the time of her departure, Respondent knew that her request for annual leave had not been approved and that she was taking unauthorized annual leave. When she arrived back in the office on September 18, Respondent received a copy of a letter dated September 15 that had been mailed to her the prior Friday. The letter states that Respondent had been separated from State service for abandonment of position, effective at the close of business on September 15, 1989. The second paragraph of the letter contains material misstatements of fact. It states that Respondent had been advised that, due to the present work situation, her leave could not be approved. The letter also states that she did not contact her supervisor that she would be absent. No one ever advised Respondent that her leave could not be approved or in fact was rejected until after her return from South Carolina. Also, Respondent informed both supervisors, directly and through third parties, that she would be absent, where she was going, why, and when she would return. However, she did not contact them during the three-day absence. Concerning the request for leave for a personal holiday, neither Ms. Blades nor Ms. Duncan ever informed Respondent that the date was inconvenient. Under the circumstances, Respondent could reasonably infer that the date was agreeable with Ms. Blades. At no time did Respondent intend to abandon her career-service position. The facts do not support a reasonable inference that Respondent abandoned her job during the three days in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not abandoned her position in Career Service employment with the State of Florida. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. Parkinson Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 701 Orlando, FL 32801 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Alva J. Barfield 1010 Locust Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Rivero was first employed by Miami-Dade County in November 1984, apparently as a security guard with the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department. He took a physical examination and informed the doctor conducting the examination that he suffered from cluster migraine headaches and that they occurred about six to eight times each month. Mr. Rivero subsequently left his employment with Miami-Dade County, but was re-hired in September 1986. At the time he was re-hired, he advised the recruiting officer that he suffered from migraine headaches. Mr. Rivero was employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department from September 1986 until August 10, 1999. From January 1996 through May 1999, Mr. Rivero was employed as a park ranger by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, and he worked at the Metrozoo. His job responsibilities included patrolling areas of the zoo, assisting in emergencies, providing information to patrons, and providing for the safety of patrons and security for Miami-Dade County property. Because of his migraine headaches, Mr. Rivero often was absent from work, and he was advised several times by his supervisors, in documents entitled Record of Counseling, that the frequency of his absences was unacceptable. The most recent Record of Counseling submitted at the hearing by Mr. Rivero was dated November 24, 1997. On January 10, 1995, Mr. Rivero consulted with Ray Lopez, M.D., a neurologist, about his recurring migraine headaches, which had become more intense and frequent after Mr. Rivero was involved in an automobile accident in November 1994. Dr. Lopez diagnosed Mr. Rivero with migraine headaches, with post-traumatic, likely cervicogenic, intensification. Dr. Lopez treated Mr. Rivero for his headaches from January 1995 until at least December 1999. During this time, Mr. Rivero was seen by Dr. Lopez approximately twice a month. Between 1995 and 1999, Mr. Rivero's migraine headaches continued to intensify in severity and frequency. By January 1999, Mr. Rivero found it increasingly more difficult to carry out his duties as a park ranger at Miami-Dade County's Metrozoo when he had a headache, and his headaches were occurring almost daily. Between January 1999 and March 1, 1999, Dr. Lopez wrote several notes documenting Mr. Rivero's inability to work on specified days because of the headaches. Effective March 29, 1999, Mr. Rivero's work schedule was cut from 39 hours per week to 16 hours per week. Mr. Rivero had previously worked Saturdays through Wednesdays, with Thursdays and Fridays off. As a result of the change, Mr. Rivero was assigned to work on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Mr. Rivero last reported for work at the Metrozoo on or about May 22, 1999. Mr. Rivero was unable to continue working because of the frequency and severity of his headaches. Nonetheless, Mr. Rivero called the Metrozoo office regularly between May 22, 1999, and July 18, 1999, to report that he was absent because of illness. He did not, however, have any intention of returning to work after May 1999 because he believed he could no longer perform the duties required of a park ranger.3 In July 1999, Diane Condon, the personnel manager for Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, was told by Mr. Rivero's supervisor at the Metrozoo that Mr. Rivero had been absent for quite some time, that he had exhausted his paid leave time, and that the reason for his absences was medical. It was suggested to Ms. Congdon that Mr. Rivero be offered leave under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. In a letter dated July 12, 1999, from John Aligood, Chief of the Human Resources Division of the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, Mr. Rivero was notified that he had been preliminarily granted family/medical leave but that he would have to present a certification from his doctor within 15 days of the date he received the letter in order for his eligibility for such leave to be finally determined. Mr. Rivero was advised in the July 12, 1999, letter that continuation of the leave was contingent on receipt of medical certification from his doctor; that he must furnish the certification within 15 days after he received the letter; and that "[f]ailure to do so will result in relinquishing FMLA leave; you will then be required to return to the full duties of your job or resign, or you will be terminated for abandonment of position." The July 12, 1999, letter was sent to Mr. Rivero via certified mail, and he picked it up on July 22, 1999. Mr. Rivero contacted Ms. Congdon on July 22, 1999, and told her that Dr. Lopez was unavailable at that time to complete the medical certification. Ms. Congdon advised him that the medical certification was required for the family/medical leave to continue.4 In a letter dated August 10, 1999, which was prepared by Ms. Congdon, Mr. Rivero was advised that his employment had been terminated for abandonment of position because he had failed to provide the medical certification required for continuation of family/medical leave by July 26, 1999, which was 15 days after July 12, 1999.5 Summary The evidence presented by Mr. Rivero is insufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that his employment as a park ranger with the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department was terminated because of his medical condition. Mr. Rivero himself testified that he believed he was unable to perform the duties required by his job as of May 1999 because of his migraine headaches and that he had no intention of returning to work subsequent to May 1999. The evidence presented by Mr. Rivero is sufficient to support the inference that, prior to July 12, 1999, Mr. Rivero did not advise his supervisor at the Metrozoo or anyone else in the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department that he did not intend to return to work after the end of May 1999. His being placed preliminarily on family/medical leave as of July 12, 1999, did not harm Mr. Rivero but, rather, resulted in his health benefits being continued until his termination on August 10, 1999.
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 of Ruben Rivero. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 12th day of November, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice (discrimination under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes) against Petitioner on the basis of his race (Black/African-American), handicap, or retaliation, and if so, what is the remedy? Although cases arising under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may be instructive for interpreting and applying the handicap provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's claim under ADA and any allegations of libel and slander are not within the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lawrence James, Jr., is a Black/African- American. Respondent, The Alachua County Department of Criminal Justice Service, is an "employer" within the definition in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent operates the Alachua County Jail. Respondent maintains a paramilitary command, advancement, and ranking system for its employees. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Sergeant. On March 2, 1994, an inmate escaped from the Alachua County Jail during the evening shift. As a result of the inmate's escape, several correctional officers were disciplined. Petitioner was disciplined by a reduction in rank April 26, 1994. (P-37) There were allegations that harsher discipline had been meted out to the Black/African-American officers, and the matter was arbitrated, pursuant to the union collective bargaining contract. As a result of the arbitration, in the summer of 1994, it was recommended that Petitioner be returned to his position at the Jail with restoration of rank, but without any back pay. However, at the time of that recommendation, Petitioner already had been terminated for "a non-related infraction of county policy." (P-37) The "non-related infraction of county policy" reason for Petitioner's 1994 termination was not established on this record, but neither was any discriminatory reason proven.2 After Petitioner's 1994 termination, further proceedings ensued, and Petitioner was ultimately restored to his rank and position at the Jail. As part of this restoration, it was agreed the Respondent employer would conduct training and re-orientation sessions for Petitioner, since he had not actively been performing his duties at the Jail for approximately two years. The present case only addresses the discrimination Petitioner allegedly suffered due to race, handicap, or retaliation concerning his leave requests in 1996, and his 1997 termination for unauthorized absence. After his second successful arbitration(s) and/or grievance procedure, Petitioner was eligible to return to work on February 19, 1996. He did not return on that date. Respondent ordered Petitioner back to work on March 13, 1996, at which time Petitioner requested, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It is not clear if Petitioner ever made Respondent aware that he suffered from high blood pressure, but from the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner notified Respondent in March 1996, that he was suffering from a prior on- the-job injury to his back, diabetes, and depression. Diabetes, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Clinical depression, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contended at hearing that his clinical depression in 1996 was due to his 1994 demotion and termination and the procedures to get his job back and also due to the hostile work environment he anticipated he would face if he returned to work daily in 1996 with people whom he perceived as having lied about him and who had tried to terminate him. It should be noted that Petitioner did not clearly include "hostile work environment" in either his 1998, Charge of Discrimination or his 2000, Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations only considered and referred the instant case upon allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, and retaliation. From Petitioner's description of his back ailment, it is found that condition also constituted a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. From Petitioner's description of how his back injury affected his daily life and job performance, it is very doubtful that Petitioner was able to physically fulfill the requirements of being a jailor at any time in 1996 until he was terminated in 1997. No evidence was presented with regard to the workers' compensation consequences of this situation. By an April 1, 1996, letter, Respondent's Interim Director of Criminal Justice Service, Richard Tarbox, informed Petitioner that he had exhausted his sick leave credits as of the pay period ending March 31, 1996; that based on Respondent's records, Petitioner would exhaust the balance of his accrued sick leave at the rate of forty hours per week during the pay period ending May 12, 1996; that he was expected to know his available accrued leave credits and to contact his immediate supervisor at least one week prior to the expiration of the current leave period to request leave without pay if he anticipated not returning to work; and that he had been placed on FMLA leave for an indefinite period, not to exceed twelve weeks, which would expire on June 6, 1996. (R-30) The April 1, 1996, letter specifically informed Petitioner that failure to come to work or contact Respondent could be considered abandonment of his position. (R-30) The foregoing instructions concerning "abandonment of position" parallel Alachua County's Personnel Regulations and Disciplinary Policy, hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as "personnel regulations." (P-1). Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; c. Group III Offenses No. 8, at pages 5-6, of the personnel regulations had existed prior to Petitioner's 1994 termination, and was in effect at all times material. It provided, Absence of three consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ. The personnel regulations also provided in Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; a. Group I Offenses No. 8, at pages 3-4, that the following offense would subject an employee to progressive discipline: Absence without authorization or failure to notify appropriate supervisory personnel on the first day of absence. (Emphasis supplied). This regulation also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994, and was in effect at all times material. Progressive discipline for the first such offense was written instruction, counseling and/or one-day suspension. For the second occurrence, one to five days' suspension was specified. For the third occurrence, up to five days' suspension or discharge was specified. These provisions also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994 and were in effect at all times material. Petitioner was also familiar with the long-standing progressive discipline system of Respondent's personnel regulations. Basically, this system required that discipline first be proposed in writing by a superior. The proposed discipline would go into effect and become actual discipline if the employee did not appear at a hearing to dispute the charges or the proposed discipline. If the employee prevailed at the hearing, the proposed discipline would be rescinded or altered. If the employee did not prevail, the proposed discipline would be reduced to writing in another document, and the employee then had the option of filing a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement or of appealing through the personnel system to a citizens' board. While Petitioner had been absent in 1994-1996, a new requirement had been added to the personnel regulations, under Chapter A-299, which required that employees who planned to be absent, must notify their immediate supervisor no later than 30 minutes from the time they are scheduled to report for work. (Emphasis supplied) The "immediate supervisor" or "appropriate supervisory personnel" in Petitioner's situation would have been the lieutenant on his shift. However, Petitioner and Lt. Little, who became his supervisor, concurred that the custom at the Jail always had been to require that employees contact the shift sergeant on the shift preceding an emergency absence, or if that were not possible, to contact the employee's own shift sergeant or anyone else on that shift. Jail custom also provided that the employee who was going to be absent could rely on any person on his shift to deliver his oral message to the employee's supervising lieutenant and that approval or disapproval paperwork would be handled by that lieutenant after notification. On June 6, 1996, Petitioner still had not returned to work. Instead, he requested leave without pay until June 15, 1996. Respondent granted Petitioner's request. This constituted an accommodation of Petitioner's handicap(s) in that he had no remaining earned leave or entitlement to FMLA leave, yet his employer held his position open for his return. On or about June 10, 1996, Anthony F. Greene, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Vista Pavilion, a free-standing psychiatric facility, released Petitioner to return to work. He wrote to Respondent's Risk Manager that Petitioner continued to have problems with depression, which might prove "volatile" in a work environment with superiors Petitioner believed had harassed him by terminating and blaming him for the 1994 escape. At approximately the same time, Richard Greer, M.D., medical specialty unexplained, also released Petitioner to return to work, upon the conditions that Petitioner continue to see Dr. Greene on a weekly basis and continue to take his prescriptive medications. By a July 17, 1996, letter (P-4), Interim Director Richard Tarbox notified Petitioner to report for work at the Jail on the evening shift of July 22, 1996. The letter required Petitioner to continue his sessions with Dr. Greene; to continue to take his prescriptive medications; and to take the re- training and re-orientation specified as a result of the resolution of his 1994 termination and return to work. (See Finding of Fact 7.) The July 17, 1996, letter also included the sentence, We are in the process of contacting Dr. Greene to establish a procedure to verify that you continue your sessions with him. Petitioner interpreted this sentence as the employer's promise "[T]o get all my leave slips, find out when I was going to the doctor, my mental condition, and also my medical condition." (TR-Vol.II, pages 175-176) Petitioner's interpretation of this sentence was unreasonable in light of its express language, the context of the remainder of the July 17, 1996, letter, the instructions of the April 1, 1996, letter (See Findings of Fact 16-17), and what Petitioner already knew of the County's personnel regulations and/or the Jail custom requiring him to call in and/or apply for leave to be subsequently approved or disapproved by his supervisor. Nothing in the July 17, 1996, letter altered the requirements of the personnel regulations or the April 1, 1996, letter. Petitioner bore the responsibility to ask for medical leave sufficiently in advance of his absences. On July 22, 1996, Petitioner reported for work at the Jail as instructed and was assigned to an evening shift supervised by Lt. Stover. According to Sgt. Babula, Petitioner also worked under Shift Sgt. Withey at some point in July 1996. However, by July 1996, Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. He needed to self-administer a shot of insulin each morning and night. To ensure ideal spacing of these two shots, Petitioner almost immediately requested to work the day shift. Respondent accommodated this request concerning Petitioner's handicaps and assigned him to the day shift under Lt. Little and Sgt. Babula, as shift sergeant. Petitioner claimed his handicaps were not accommodated by Respondent, but in addition to approving leave for him from February 19, 1996, to July 22, 1996, not replacing him during that period, and the change of shift made in July 1996, at Petitioner's request, Sgt. Babula testified to approving special shoes for Petitioner due to his diabetes. By September 1996, Petitioner again had used up all of his accrued leave. Accordingly, he had to ask for leave without pay to visit his various doctors, including Dr. Greene. On September 9, 1996, during a therapy session, Petitioner told Dr. Greene that he had been threatened on the job and that he was pursuing resolution of the incident through appropriate channels. The same day, Dr. Greene wrote to Lt. Little, telling him of the threat. The nature of this alleged threat or who made it was not stated in Dr. Greene's letter or at hearing. The letter cleared Petitioner to return to work September 12, 1996. This out-of-court statement to his psychotherapist at that time does not establish the truth of the statement or that Petitioner's superiors made the alleged threat. Also, the threat, if one existed, could not have related to Petitioner's written leave requests, because Petitioner's earliest dispute about leave did not occur until September 13, 1996. (See Finding of Fact 41). The September 9, 1996, date was not related by testimony to any oral or written request for leave or any disciplinary matter in evidence. Petitioner testified to having been threatened on the job sometime prior to September 9, 1996, but he never testified what the threat was, why the threat was made, or by whom the threat was made. Petitioner's witness, Alfred Dickerson, also is African-American. He testified generally that it was "pure hell" at the Jail for anyone who, like himself and Petitioner, had been disciplined due to the 1994 escape and who had prevailed in the resultant grievance activities, but he could not remember any specific incidents involving Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Dickerson was out of the Jail, on workers' compensation leave, from May 1996 to October 1997, the whole of the material time frame for this case.3 On September 16, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay to Lt. Little, his supervisor, for the previous dates of September 13 and 15, stating thereon that he had been ill those days and that the request was being made because his request to work his days off to make up for the 16 hours of leave he had used on September 13 and 15 had been denied. The request does not specifically mention "flex time." (P-6) "Flex time," as described by both Petitioner and Lt. Little, would have permitted Petitioner to work his days off, instead of taking time off without pay to make up time used to go to his doctors on days he was scheduled to work. However, if an employee asked to use flex time in this way, another employee had to trade days with him, and the exchange would be worked out by the supervising lieutenant. On October 1, 1996, Petitioner was given a "Letter of Warning" by Lt. Little. The Warning reflected that Petitioner's advising a sergeant other than his immediate supervisor, Lt. Little, on September 24, 1996, that he was not coming to work until some personal matters were taken care of, was insufficient notice and was being treated as "absence without authorization" in violation of the personnel regulations. It also stated, It has been standard practice and understood that you must notify your immediate supervisor . . . please be advised that any further violations of this nature may result in docked pay and progressive disciplinary action . . . Attached to this document was a Notice of Disciplinary Action, also prepared October 1, 1996, stating, Disciplinary action taken as a result of the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action dated blank not filled in. (Except for WARNING) WARNING (Reasons for warning): Violation of Alachua County Personnnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, a., Group I, Offense No. 8 'Absence without authorization'. (P-8) The same document notified Petitioner that he had a right to appeal the Warning pursuant to either the personnel regulations or the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt of this latter document until October 7, 1996. (P-8/R-19) Also on October 1, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay for September 23- 26 and for September 29-30, to Captain King. The reason for Petitioner's absence September 23-26 was not stated on the formal request, but Petitioner did again state thereon that his request to "flex" his days off had been denied, presumably by Lt. Little. The time for September 29-30 was requested for "personal business and emergency family leave without pay" due to his mother's seeing a doctor about her detached retinas. (P-7) Respondent is not obligated under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to accommodate Petitioner's family's handicaps.4 On October 21, 1996, a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action" was issued by Lt. Little, apparently covering the same date, September 24, 1996, as his October 1, Warning, and adding other dates. The reasons for the proposed discipline given in this October 21, 1996, Notice differ slightly from the content of the October 1, Warning. The October 21, 1996, Notice related that on September 23, Petitioner had spoken to Captain King and Lt. Little, and because his request for leave had been made in advance, Petitioner had been granted the day off; that on September 24, Petitioner had failed to report to work and failed to request an extension of leave, and he was therefore considered to be "absent without authorization" for September 24, 1996. The October 21, Notice further stated that on September 25, Petitioner had called Captain King, requesting leave without pay for September 25 and 26, and because Petitioner had requested leave in advance, Captain King had granted the request covering those two days, but that on his October 1, leave request (see Finding of Fact 44) Petitioner had included two more days, September 29 and 30, which had not been previously authorized. Finally, the October 21, Notice indicated that on September 30, Petitioner had called Lt. Stover to say that he would be reporting to work as soon as he was through testifying to the Grand Jury that afternoon, and that his failure to request leave in advance was being treated as "absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." As of this October 21, 1996, Notice, the proposed disciplinary action became suspending Petitioner without pay. Petitioner was offered an opportunity to contest the proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on November 19, 1996. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this document on October 24, 1996. (R-21) On October 22, 1996, Petitioner wrote to the Interim Director of the Jail, Richard Tarbox. In his letter, Petitioner complained that he had not yet received the agreed re- orientation and re-training. He also discussed his medical problems, including problems with recent changes in his medications and his five-year-old back injury. He requested flex time and related that his life had been threatened by employees on the job (see Findings of Fact 37-40), and that Lt. Little had been informed of the threats and flex time request, but the letter again did not indicate by whom Petitioner was threatened or why. (P-10) Despite Petitioner's after-the-fact written requests for flex time, Lt. Little had no recollection of Respondent ever asking him for flex time. There is no evidence that Lt. Little, Mr. Tarbox, or any other representative of Respondent contacted Petitioner concerning the alleged threat against him or specifically addressed the issues of re-orientation/re-training or flex time. On October 25, 1996, Dr. Greene also wrote Mr. Tarbox. He described Petitioner as cooperative and not evidencing any inappropriate behavior. He reported that Petitioner had voiced no homicidal or vengeance ideation to him. He felt that Petitioner's supervisors' requirement that Petitioner use leave to attend the mandatory therapy sessions with him constituted a paradox and a stressor for Petitioner. He felt that other stressors were the employer's failure to offer re-orientation/ re-training to Petitioner and the employer's failure to contact him, Dr. Greene, to verify treatment purposes and schedules. Dr. Greene requested that Mr. Tarbox clarify Petitioner's treatment and work status to both him and to Petitioner in a timely manner because not doing so was exacerbating Petitioner's physical condition, headaches, and diabetes. He further stated that he could release Petitioner for work without further psychological treatment and that further psychological treatment was not necessary to ensure Petitioner's fitness for work or to prevent his being a risk to others, but that Petitioner would continue in therapy for other purposes. (P-11) Neither Mr. Tarbox nor any other representative of Respondent specifically replied to Dr. Greene's October 25, 1996, letter. However, all leave disputes pending on that date were addressed in a November 22, 1996, letter to Petitioner from Captain King. (See Findings of Fact 57-59.) On October 31, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for eight hours leave without pay for leave he had taken on October 30, 1996, for "emergency dr. app't for work related injury, and lab work for diebetic [sic] condition." (P-14) At some point, a leave form for eight hours leave without pay on November 9, 1996, was prepared. It indicates that Petitoner was "unavailable to sign." This form was disapproved by Lt. Little and by Mr. Tarbox on November 12, 1996. Apparently Petitioner only signed the request on November 26, 1996. (P-21) On November 14, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 15, 1996, for "work related condition, Dr. Greene." (P-15) On November 19, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 22, 1996. The request was approved by a supervisor on November 19, 1996. (P-17) On November 22, 1996, Captain King issued a "Letter of Warning" to Petitioner. It stated that on November 19, 1996, a disciplinary hearing had been held (see Finding of Fact 47) regarding the October 21, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, addressing Petitioner's absences on September 29-30, 1996, and that because Petitioner had proven that he had attempted to contact his supervisor in advance of his absence, the September 29 violation was being withdrawn. With regard to the September 30 violation charged, it was found that Petitioner had contacted Lt. Stover and informed him that Petitioner would return to work after testifying before The Grand Jury, and since Petitioner had not returned to work on that day after testifying, he was being found guilty as charged for violation of Alachua County Personnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3. a. Group I, Offense No. 8, "Absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." The November 22, 1996, letter went on to warn Petitioner that future violations would be more carefully scrutinized for strict adherence to the policy of notification and that failures on Petitioner's part might result in progressive disciplinary action being taken. (P-20) Because prior discipline had been overturned or rescinded, the November 22, 1996, Letter of Warning was technically Petitioner's first violation/discipline. Also on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted to Lt. Little a leave request form, dated the same day, labelled "FOR INFO.," with supporting documentation, including Dr. Hunt's certificate showing Petitioner had been treated on November 4, and November 22, 1996, had office management of HTN/NIDDM hematuria, a pending IVP and urology consult, and would need to be seen again by Dr. Hunt in 4-6 weeks. The language of one attachment showed Petitioner "is under Dr. Hunt's continual care," but nothing specified any period of time Petitioner intended to take off from work for the pending consultation or any other purpose. (P-19) Petitioner testified that his November 22, 1996, leave request was not intended to request any leave at all when he submitted it, but that it should have alerted his supervisors that Petitioner had a growth between his legs that was potentially malignant and that he needed an operation sometime in the future. A reasonable person would not have concluded this from the four corners of the November 22, 1996, written request with attachments dated for past medical appointments. Petitioner also testified that by submitting the November 22, 1996, leave request "in blank" and explaining orally to Lt. Little what he intended to do was his effort to comply with the requirement that he ask for leave in advance of taking it. This testimony shows that Petitioner at this point understood the employer's prior instructions to request leave in advance. Apparently, Petitioner envisioned only having to phone in to get any member of his shift to fill in the blanks on his November 22, 1996, request form, but he admitted he had never before used a blank leave request in this way. Petitioner further testified that he had told Mr. Tarbox and other supervisors at a meeting (probably one of his disciplinary hearings) before Christmas 1996, that he "did not know how long he could work." While this representation of Petitioner is credible and it may be reasonably inferred that Mr. Tarbox understood Petitioner was debilitated to some degree by the growth and might need an operation sometime in the near future, it does not logically follow that all those hearing Petitioner at that time understood that his oral statement related to the November 22 blank leave request which had attached to it only information about past doctors' appointments and potential, undated, future consultations. Petitioner's vague statement at the meeting/hearing did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail for requesting leave. The blank November 22, 1996, leave request marked "FOR INFO" also did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail. There is no requirement that Respondent grant Petitioner an open-ended request for leave or one that specifies no time period at all. Petitioner's November 22, 1996, blank leave request was never approved. On November 26, 1996, Petitioner also acknowledged receipt of a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action," by which Lt. Little and Mr. Tarbox recommended that Petitioner be suspended without pay.5 Petitioner was again offered an opportunity to contest this proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on December 3, 1996. (P-18) The record is silent as to whether a disciplinary hearing was actually held on December 3, 1996. Petitioner submitted a leave form on December 6, 1996, for 2.5 hours "vacation" leave without pay on December 3, 1996, for a "Conference with doctor to try an [sic] stop continued disciplinary action because of illness doctor approved." (P-23) On December 3, 1996, Petitioner had telephoned Lt. Little to ask if his message had been received. He then reported to work at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's business records (P-22) show the following: Petitioner worked December 4-5, some of December 6, and all of December 7, 1996. He was not required to be at work on December 8-9. He called in sick on December 10-11. On December 12, he reported for work and attended five hours of drug policy training. Then he left for medical reasons and later called in to say he was too sick to return to work. On Friday, December 13, Petitioner called in sick, saying he was going to the doctor for a cut foot. He later called in again and was told that he needed to do his timesheet and it was agreed he would do it and have it in the following Monday. Petitioner was absent on Saturday, December 14. He was not required to be at work on December 15-16, 1996. On Monday, December 17, Petitioner did not phone or appear for work. On December 18, Petitioner phoned in, saying he had to wear bedroom slippers and had domestic problems. On December 19, Petitioner called in late and left a voice message on the Jail phone. On Friday, December 20, Petitioner called in on time but said he would not be in until Tuesday of the following week. He gave no reason. He was not required to be at work on December 22-23. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner did not come to work or call in. On Christmas Day, Petitioner called in before shift and stated he would not be in that day or the following day, December 26, 1996, until 10:00 a.m. On December 26, December 27, and December 28, Petitioner did not report for work or call in. Petitioner was not required to work December 29 or 30, 1996. On December 31, Petitioner called and said that he would not be in that day but would call back to talk to the shift lieutenant. He did not do so. Also, Petitioner did not report for work or call in for January 1 through 4, 1997. Most of this business record was substantiated by the direct testimony of Sgt. Babula and Lt. Little who observed the events and wrote most of the business record. The matters that were not confirmed in their direct testimony were supported by the type of hearsay that explains or supplements direct evidence and is admissible in this type of proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that the business record was essentially correct as to days he was absent in December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner's testimony only varies the foregoing business record to the effect that on December 10, 1996, not December 13, 1996, Petitioner called and spoke with Sgt. Withey, stating that he would not "be back [to work] until [he had] seen and heard from [his] doctors," and related to Withey that he had some problem with his foot. Petitioner assumed that his superiors would get this message and would understand that he meant he was exercising the blank November 22, 1996, leave request. (See Findings of Fact 60-66). His superiors did not infer from this message what Petitioner had hoped they would. A reasonable person would not infer all that from the information Petitioner says he provided Sgt. Withey. It is uncontested that Petitioner did have an injury to his foot at this time and that such injuries can be particularly hazardous to persons who, like Petitioner, suffer from diabetes. From December 4, 1996, onward, Petitioner did not speak directly with his lieutenant, although he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in order to request advance leave. Petitioner did not return to work after December 7, 1996. Despite the personnel rules, custom at the Jail, and prior direct orders by warning and disciplinary action letters, Petitioner submitted no leave slips directly to his superiors after December 6, 1996. Instead, he submitted them to his union shop steward and to a County Commissioner, although he had no reason to believe the Commissioner had any authority over Jail personnel matters. Respondent never authorized leave for Petitioner after December 13, 1996. Petitioner's extended absence without authorization was in violation of Respondent employer's long-standing "three day abandonment rule." There had been no word from Petitioner since December 31, 1996, so between January 17 and January 24, 1997, a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" was issued against Petitioner for [V]iolation of Alachua County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, c., Group III, Offense No. 8 'Absence of three (3) consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ.' The proposed discipline was termination, and again, Petitioner was offered the opportunity to contest the proposed final agency action at a hearing to be convened on February 18, 1997. (P-25) Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner saw a Master of Social Work, because Dr. Greene was on educational leave. Petitioner was so upset that the social worker advised him to focus on his medical problems. Apparently, Petitioner leapt to the conclusion that meant his doctors would handle all his leave-related problems. Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner had successful surgery on the growth between his legs. On January 27, 1997, Dr. Greene saw Petitioner in therapy and notified Mr. Tarbox in writing that, Mr. Lawrence James was seen for an appointment today in my office. He is apparently unable to continue working in what is perceived to be a hostile work environment at the jail. Compounded by his medical problems and what seems to be a lack of responsivity and accommodation by the administration, Mr. James' level of emotional distress has considerably increased since our last communication. It is strongly recommended that he take a leave of absence from the workplace until his condition is improved. He is scheduled to return next week for continued intervention. Thank you for your time and attention. (Emphasis supplied) (P-26) Dr. Greene testified that it was Petitioner's combined mental and physical circumstances which caused him to recommend the leave of absence. The January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action was mailed to the last address Petitioner had given Respondent. On January 30, 1997, Petitioner's mother signed the certified mail receipt for the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. Sometime thereafter, she delivered the Notice to Petitioner, who no longer lived with her. He refused to deal with it. Dr. Brient removed a suture from Petitioner's leg on February 4, 1997. This seems to have related to Petitioner's post-surgery release after removal of the growth between his legs. Petitioner did not then return to work. Because Respondent's principals had not recognized Petitioner's mother's name on the certified mail receipt, they caused the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to be served on Petitioner by a Deputy Sheriff. Petitioner received this personal service on February 5, 1997, and told the Deputy that he would not deal with the Notice of Disciplinary Action, but his doctors would. Having been released as a result of his operation, there was no physical reason Petitioner could not have appeared for the February 18, 1997, hearing to present any opposition to his proposed termination based on "the three day abandonment rule." He did not appear. On February 21, 1997, Petitioner was mailed a "Notice of Dismissal," effective that date and signed by Harry Sands, a new Interim Director, for abandoning his position, in violation of the personnel regulations. The Notice of Dismissal gave Petitioner the option of appealing his termination through the employee appeal system or the collective bargaining grievance procedure. Petitioner did not take either appeal route. However, Petitioner did suggest to another Jail officer that those who had done this to him might need to get a pine box, i.e. coffin. The threat was not deemed worthy of prosecution by the State Attorney's Office. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that he never received the promised re-orientation or re-training associated with re-instatement to his job. No witness gave any clear indication of what the re- orientation and re-training, as contemplated by the re- instatement agreement (see Finding of Fact 7) or as contemplated by Mr. Tarbox's July 17, 1996, letter (see Finding of Fact 29), was supposed to include. Lt. Stover did not remember any specific training he gave Petitioner, nor did Lt. Little, but Lt. Little testified that he was present when, before Petitioner first arrived on Lt. Stover's shift in July 1996, the Captain had ordered them both to "bring [Petitioner] up to speed." Petitioner suggested that failure to re-orient and retrain him evidenced Respondent's discrimination against him. His post-hearing proposal also asserts that due to Respondent's failure to train him in "new" personnel regulations, combined with Respondent's requirement that he adhere to those regulations which Jail custom did not normally follow, constituted disparate treatment and/or discrimination against him on the basis of his race or due to retaliation, and/or failure to accommodate his handicap. This perception is unpersuasive in light of the employer's repeated correspondence urging him to take the training, whatever that training might have been. Despite Mr. Tarbox's failure to reply to Petitioner's October 22, 1996, inquiry about training (See Finding of Fact 48), Petitioner's perception of discrimination was not established as fact. From the evidence as a whole, it is more probable that any failure to train Petitioner was the result of his request to change shifts, and thus, lieutenant-supervisors in July or his frequent absences. The record does not make clear whether the re-orientation/re-training requirement was unique to Respondent, who returned in 1996, or applied to all four of the returning African-American officers restored in 1994, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than he did. He did not establish that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than the other restored African-American officers, handicapped or otherwise. He also did not establish that any other restored African-American officer, handicapped or otherwise, received more re- orientation/re-training than he did. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Sergeant Babula testified credibly that he had at least instructed Petitioner with regard to the new payroll forms when Petitioner changed shifts in July 1996. Payroll forms include calculating hours worked and monies owed. Testimony and business records also show Petitioner had five hours of drug policy training. (See Finding of fact 72). Also, Respondent did not discipline Petitioner for his failure to request leave of specific personnel as required by the only new personnel regulation, until after Petitioner had been instructed in writing to do so. These written instructions may not have constituted complete "re-orientation" or "re- training," but they were direct orders sufficient to instruct Petitioner what was expected of him. (See Findings of Fact 16, 29, 43, 46-47, 57-59). Lastly, based on Petitioner's testimony that even if he had known he was required by a new regulation to request leave from his lieutenant-supervisor he would not have followed that regulation but instead would have considered himself bound by his union contract and by the custom of asking for leave of anyone on his shift at the Jail, it appears that any failure of Respondent to specifically "train" Petitioner concerning new personnel regulations had no effect on his subsequent failure to comply with the employer's expectations concerning its leave policy. Petitioner had admitted in evidence a certified copy of a "Second Superceding Indictment" issued by a federal Grand Jury on February 27, 2001. It was not established that this was the same Grand Jury before which Petitioner testified in 1996. (See Finding of Fact 47). The indictment (which is only a charging document, not a conviction) named Nate Caldwell, Respondent's former Director; Samuel Krider, Respondent's former Assistant Director; Garry M. Brown, a former Captain with Respondent; and Charles Scott Simmons, a former Lieutenant with Respondent, for conspiracy to obstruct justice by violating 18 USC Section 1503, by hindering the court and jury in a federal civil rights action brought by Mr. Dickerson against the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson's federal case arose out of Mr. Dickerson's demotion in rank with Petitioner in connection with the 1994 escape. It was not established that any of the indicted officials held office during the time material to Petitioner's instant case, 1996- 1997, or that any of them had anything to do with Petitioner's 1996 leave disputes or 1997 termination. Indeed, it was established that Sands or Tarbox was Interim Director at all times material. The indictment mentions Petitioner and Captain King, a superior of Petitioner at all times material, but neither Petitioner nor Captain King were indicted. Despite the lack of clarity of Petitioner's and Mr. Dickerson's testimony, the undersigned infers from their testimony and the indictment that Petitioner testified concerning the same matters before the Grand Jury in 1996 and that prior to 1996 Petitioner had been a witness in Mr. Dickerson's federal discrimination case against the County Commissioners. However, Petitioner testified that his retaliation allegation herein is not based on his 1996 testimony before the Grand Jury. Rather, Petitioner asserted at hearing that he believed he had been retaliated against by his superiors in 1996-1997 for speaking at 1993 meetings of the County Commission concerning structural and staffing problems at the Jail, and otherwise he did not know why he had been retaliated against. (TR-Vol. I pp. 229-233).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner has not proven discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 18th day of September, 2001.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her alleged disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Danette Marshall ("Marshall") was employed by Respondent Sam's East, Inc. ("Sam's Club") from October 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005. She worked at a store in Tallahassee and, at all relevant times, held the position of "greeter." The essential functions of a greeter were, then as now, constantly to (a) greet members (shoppers) and check membership cards, (b) keep the entrance area clean and organized by picking up after members and providing them with carts, and (c) resolve member concerns. It was (and is) important to Sam's Club that greeters be mobile at all times. While working on February 9, 2005, Marshall experienced such pain and swelling in her feet that she asked to leave work early to seek medical treatment. With her supervisor's permission, Marshall went to the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with bilateral plantar fasciitis and referred to a podiatrist. Marshall saw a podiatrist later that month. The evidence adduced at hearing is insufficient to make findings concerning the prescribed treatment and Marshall's prognosis.2 It is undisputed, however, that her doctor suggested Marshall should stand only for brief periods while working. Following the doctor's advice, Marshall asked her employer to either provide her with a stool on which to sit or, alternatively, transfer her to another position that would not require constant standing. Sam's Club refused to let Marshall sit on a stool while on the job because, in its view, greeters are supposed to be constantly moving about their work stations, keeping busy attending to shoppers and performing other duties. Sam's Club could not give Marshall a sedentary job because it did not have such a position available for her. Marshall's supervisor did, however, informally accommodate Marshall by letting her take an extra five-minute break most every hour, conditions permitting. Despite that, after February 21, 2005, Marshall effectively stopped coming to work, claiming inability to perform.3 In consequence of Marshall's repeated failures to report for work, Sam's Club informed her that she needed either to resume working immediately or take a medical leave of absence——and failing that, her employment would be terminated. Marshall was given a Leave of Absence form to complete and submit for approval if she were to opt for taking time off. To be eligible for a medical leave, a Sam's Club employee must obtain a certification from his or her doctor (or other health care provider) specifying, among other things, the dates during which the employee needs to be away from work. Marshall brought the Leave of Absence form to her podiatrist, who signed the document but failed fully to complete the certification, putting "X"s on the lines where the "begin leave" and "return date" information should have been inscribed. In early March 2005, Marshall submitted her Leave of Absence form. Sam's Club subsequently notified Marshall that the form was not in order because the doctor's certification was incomplete; it reminded her that leave could not be authorized unless she submitted a properly completed request. Thereafter, Marshall returned to her podiatrist and asked him to complete the required certification, but he refused to do so.4 Effective March 31, 2005, Sam's Club terminated Marshall's employment due to her chronic absenteeism and professed inability to perform the job of greeter without a stool on which to sit and rest from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding Sam's Club not liable to Marshall for disability discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2006, 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 3rd day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Burney was employed by HRS until 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 1988, when she was deemed to have abandoned her position. Her regular working hours were 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Burney was not at work on September 26, 1988. She maintains that she had someone call in for her to inform HRS that she would not be in that day. Burney does acknowledge that her supervisor, Sherry Martin, told the caller that she could not approve leave for that day. Burney did not report for work on September 27, 1988. Burney called her office and spoke with another clerk, not with her supervisor. Her supervisor was unavailable and the clerk did not have the authority to approve leave. Burney again failed to report for work on September 28, 1988. She called in and spoke with Mrs. McClenton, another supervisor. Burney informed Mrs. McClenton that she had a drug problem which was why she had not been at work. Burney asked her where she could get some help for her problem. Burney was told that her supervisor could not help her and that she would have to get help on her own. On October 4, 1988, HRS sent Burney a certified letter advising her that her absence from work on September 26-28, 1988, was not authorized and that she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have therefore resigned from Career Service, effective 5:00 p.m. September 28, 1988. On October 7, 1988, Burney returned to her office seeking her paycheck. She was told by the personnel office that leave was not approved for that period and that she was no longer employed there. Burney did not report for work on any day between September 26 and October 7, 1988. She had not requested leave on a leave request form and no leave was authorized by her supervisor for this period. Burney knew that she was not on approved leave and had been told that her supervisor would not approve leave for that period. Leave is only authorized when it is requested on an appropriate leave request form and is approved by a supervisor. Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An employee who is absent without authorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall be deemed to have abandoned the position and to have resigned from the Career Service...
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order and therein find that Angela B. Burney has abandoned her position, deem that Angela B. Burney has effectively resigned from Career Service, and dismiss the petition for review. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 20th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, 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 Angela B. Burney 1585 West 35th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Scott D. Leemis Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083
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 Michael J. Rodgers abandoned his position and resigned from the career service within the contemplation of Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact V. G. "Jerry" Collins, a DOT maintenance engineer for 14 years, was Michael Rodgers' supervisor in June of 1987, when DOT employed the latter as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard. While recovering from a job-related injury, Mr. Rodgers had been assigned to pump gas there. After Mr. Rodgers began work for DOT, he was furnished a copy of DOT's employee handbook. DOT's Exhibit No. 6. On page 12, the handbook states: If, for any reason, you are going to be late or absent when prior approval has not been obtained, you must notify your immediate supervisor within one hour of your regular authorized starting time. This will allow the Department to effectively schedule your work assignments on a daily basis. When you call in, you should give the reason(s) for your absence, type of leave requested and date and time you expect to report back to work. If you are unable to report back to work on the date and time given contact your supervisor, again, to explain why and request an extension of leave as needed. If you fail to contact your supervisor or other authorized person, within the first hour of absence, you will be placed on unauthorized leave of absence without pay for the entire period of time absent from work. If there were extenuating circumstances to keep you from making such contact, this will be taken into consideration at a later time. If you do not indicate on the first day of absence that you will be absent more than one day, then call in on each successive day to report your absence. Failure to provide such notice will result in your being charged unauthorized leave without pay for all days absent where proper notification is not given. DOT's Exhibit No. 4. On page 43, the handbook discusses the abandonment rule: JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. DOT's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Rodgers signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook on December 16, 1983. DOT's Exhibit No. 5. At about four on the afternoon of Monday, June 22, 1987, Mr. Collins asked Mr. Rodgers when his next doctor's appointment was. Mr. Rodgers replied, "I need to see him tomorrow." (T. 35) He did not "state that it would be for illness" (T. 53) or specify the reason for the visit. (T. 74) Believing Mr. Rodgers had an appointment to see his doctor the following day, Mr. Collins said, "That's fine, when you come back to work bring a doctor's certificate." (T. 17) But the leave Mr. Collins authorized Mr. Rodgers to take was "not a leave of absence for illness." (T. 53) On Tuesday, June 23, 1987, A DOT employee marked Mr. Rodgers absent for the day on "authorized leave" (T. 18) without pay. Mr. Rodgers, who lives about 60 miles from Perry, travelled to Dr. Hauser's office in Old Town on Tuesday morning "to sit down and talk with him about some information [he] needed," (T. 36-37) concerning an automobile accident's forensic sequelae. He was told to return later that day, because the doctor could not see him immediately. Although he returned at noon, and on four different occasions that afternoon, the doctor gave other patients priority. Mr. Rodgers then telephoned DOT's Perry yard, and "gave the secretary . . . the message that [he] was unable to see the doctor and . . . would still need to be off . . . to attempt to see him again on Wednesday the 24th." (T. 24, 38) When Mr. Collins learned of Mr. Rodgers' conversation with the secretary, he asked William S. Clark to telephone Dr. Hauser's office, at the Tri-County Medical Center. Betty in Dr. Hauser's office told Mr. Clark that, although Mr. Rodgers had in fact visited the office, he had no appointment. On Wednesday morning, DOT's attendance records were marked to reflect that Mr. Rodgers was absent on authorized leave without pay, although Mr. Collins testified that leave never was authorized for that day. (T. 19, 80) Later Wednesday, Mr. Collins, under the impression that Mr. Rodgers "had lied about going to the doctor for a doctor's appointment," (T. 82) ordered that the attendance records for Tuesday and Wednesday be altered to show that Mr. Rodgers' leave was not authorized on those days. (T. 19, 80, 82) On the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th, Mr. Rodgers, who had inquired at the office about Dr. Hauser's availability on two occasions earlier in the day, saw Dr. Hauser, discussed effects of the automobile accident, and made an appointment for the following day to have his back examined. (T. 38) On Thursday, the 25th, he kept the appointment, and obtained a slip of paper attesting the fact. But, in Mr. Collins' view, Mr. Rodgers' employment had ended before he saw the doctor that day: "He was considered to have abandoned his position by 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning since he had not called in [after Tuesday afternoon.]" (T. 79) When Mr. Rodgers returned to work on Friday, June 26, 1987, Mr. Collins read, then returned, the note from the doctor, informed Mr. Rodgers of the changes in the attendance records, and advised him that his employment had terminated.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT reinstate Michael J. Rodgers as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard, with back pay since June 26, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aaron A. Green, Esquire P. O. Box 1265 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
