The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a correctional officer in the State of Florida have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, the following facts are found: The Respondent, James L. Jackson, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer in 1981. At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Respondent was a correctional officer sergeant employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. In late July or early August of 1989, during the course of investigating illegal conduct by other employees of the Broward County Sheriff's Department, a Detective Dansky, then working in the Internal Affairs Office of the Broward County Sheriff's Department, was told by one of the admitted wrongdoers that he had heard that several employees of the Sheriff's Department, including the Respondent, were involved in criminal activity related to the possession, use, or distribution of controlled substances. Shortly after receiving that information, Detective Dansky contacted the Respondent and requested that he provide a statement in response to the allegation that he had been involved in illegal drug activity. On August 8, 1989, the Respondent reported to the Internal Affairs Office, where he met with Detective Dansky. After being advised of the specific allegations that had been made against him, the Respondent gave a statement to Detective Dansky. The Respondent's statement consisted of a denial of all allegations of misconduct. After taking the Respondent's statement, Detective Dansky offered the Respondent the option of furnishing a urine sample for drug testing in order to resolve the issue. The Respondent voluntarily agreed to provide a urine sample. Detective Dansky initiated the drug testing process by asking the Respondent if he had been using any drugs that might show up on the test. The Respondent stated that he had not used any drugs. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent provided a urine sample. The sample was collected under circumstances which verified that the sample was actually provided by the Respondent and the sample was promptly sealed in a manner which made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. The sample was also given a unique identifying number. The urine sample was properly protected until it was turned over to the forensic laboratory, where it was received in good condition with no evidence of tampering. At the laboratory the Respondent's urine sample was kept in a secure manner during the testing process. At the laboratory, adequate procedures were used to ensure that the Respondent's urine sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the sample had not been tampered with. A portion of the Respondent's urine sample was submitted to an immunoassay screening analysis. The screen analysis indicated the presumptive presence of benzoyleconine, a unique metabolite of cocaine. Following the screen analysis, a second portion of the Respondent's urine sample was submitted for analysis by means of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, which is the most reliable and accurate method for confirmatory drug testing. The gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis of the Respondent's urine sample was positive for the presence of benzoyleconine in a concentration of 4903.5 nanograms per milliliter. That concentration of benzoyleconine is consistent with, and indicative of, the Respondent's voluntary ingestion of cocaine within a time frame of approximately one to four days prior to the collection of the urine sample. The Respondent's positive drug test results were received by the Internal Affairs Office of the Broward County Sheriff's Department on August 15, 1989. On that date, Detective Dansky again met with the Respondent. Detective Dansky told the Respondent that the Respondent's urine sample had been confirmed positive for cocaine. The Respondent told Detective Dansky that he does not do things like that and that it could not be him. 1/ As a result of the positive drug test results, the Respondent was suspended and ultimately terminated from his position as a correctional officer sergeant with the Broward County Sheriff's Department. At the time of his suspension, the Respondent had worked for the Broward County Sheriff's Department for approximately nine and a half years. Prior to August of 1989, the Respondent had an excellent work record with the Broward County Sheriff's Department.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character and revoking the Respondent's certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1991.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Humberto Jimenez (Jimenez), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately two and one-half years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Jimenez. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Jimenez had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Jimenez and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Jimenez filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Jimenez denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.OO11 Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Jimenez on July 24, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used cocaine and marijuana in the past. His use of cocaine occurred in 1983, when he was 19 years of age, and consisted of using the drug twice on the same day. His use of marijuana occurred in 1981 or 1982, while he was a high school student, and occurred on no more than four occasions. But for these isolated occasions, Jimenez has not used cocaine or marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Jimenez's background, that Jimenez possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of cocaine and marijuana. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Jimenez, born January 1, 1964, used marijuana infrequently, the last time being about 7 years ago when he was 17 years of age and a high school student. His use of cocaine occurred on but one day in his life, and at the time he was 19 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Jimenez is married and the father of a fourteen-month-old daughter. He has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately two and one-half years. His annual evaluations demonstrated that his performance has been above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Jimenez has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Humberto Jimenez, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Jorge Cobas (Cobas), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since April 6, 1987, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Cobas. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Cobas had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Cobas and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Cobas filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Cobas denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Cobas on May 1, 1986, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana "one time years ago." Other than this isolated occasion, there is no proof that Cobas otherwise used any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Cobas' background, that Cobas possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Cobas, born December 29, 1956, admitted to having used marijuana one time, years ago. Such isolated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Cobas has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over two years. His annual evaluations have ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Cobas has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Jorge Cobas, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 June, 1989.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a certified corrections officer. As a certified corrections officer employed by the Department of Corrections, Respondent was subject to random drug testing. On or about December 9, 2011, Respondent was selected for random drug testing and directed to provide a urine sample. He reported to Labcorp in Pensacola, Florida, to provide a urine specimen for testing. Respondent gave the specimen by urinating in a specimen cup provided to him by Juston Day, an employee of Labcorp. Respondent delivered the cup containing his urine to Mr. Day, who read the temperature strip on the cup, sealed the cup, and had Respondent initial it and sign the chain of custody form. Mr. Day labeled Respondent's specimen with his social security number, and assigned to the specimen a unique specimen number, in this case number 0758562291, which would not be used for any other specimen. The chain-of-custody form was then signed and dated by Mr. Day. The container with Respondent's urine specimen was sealed with a label that prevented the specimen from being opened without breaking the seal. Mr. Day packaged Respondent's urine specimen in a bag which was also sealed and labeled. Mr. Day put the bag with Respondent's urine sample in an area for pick up by Labcorp courier. The specimen was transported to a Labcorp facility in Southaven, Mississippi. The specimen was assigned a unique laboratory accession number, which was the same as the accession number used when the sample was drawn. The urine sample supplied by Respondent was received by and analyzed by Labcorp, and the report generated is for the sample provided by Respondent. Labcorp maintained the required chain-of-custody procedures in handling Respondent's specimen. The package received by Labcorp was unsealed by laboratory personnel qualified to receive it and the specimen was subjected to screening and confirmatory analysis for evidence of the presence of controlled substances in the urine. The initial test performed by Labcorp is an immunoassay test used to screen all samples. Any sample that is a presumptive positive by that screening method is then tested by a confirmatory method, i.e., gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Respondent's urine sample tested presumptive positive for marijuana metabolite, and the confirmatory test results were consistent with those obtained for the screening test. The final report for marijuana metabolite was reported at a concentration of 48 nanograms per milliliter. The cutoff for a positive result for marijuana metabolites in the immunoassay screening test is 50 nanograms per milliliter. The cutoff for the confirmatory test is 15 nanograms per milliliter. The urine specimen also indicated the existence of other drugs of Respondent's system. However, those results were consistent with therapeutic levels, as opposed to abusive levels, and were below the relevant cutoff for those substances. The test results were reviewed by Dr. Neil Dash, M.D., the Medical Review Officer for Doctors Review Service. A physician in Dr. Dash's office then called Respondent with the results and asked him if there was any substance he was taking that could contribute to a positive result. He reported no such substance. Dr. Dash then reported the ultimate results of the testing to the Department of Corrections. Respondent claims that when he was given the cup for collection of the urine specimen, it was already open, and that contamination of the container must be the basis for the positive test. However, the Chain of Custody Form that Respondent signed states in part: I authorize the collection of this specimen for the purpose of a drug screen. I acknowledge that the specimen container(s) was/were sealed with tamper-proof seals in my presence and that the information provided on this form and the labels affixed to the specimen container is correct. I authorize the laboratory to release the results of the test to the company identified on this form or its designated agents. Respondent testified at hearing that he had been tested many times before, but had never been given an open container before. However, he did not indicate that he questioned the testing procedure at the time, nor was there any evidence that he reported any perceived irregularity to Dr. Dash or any of his staff. His testimony in this regard is not credited.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in Florida Administrative Law Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d). It is further recommended that Respondent's certification as a corrections officer be suspended for a period of 90 days, followed by probation for a period of two years. As condition of probation, it is recommended that the Commission require random drug testing and substance abuse counseling, as contemplated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.005(7)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 lintoneason@fdle.state.fl.us Anthony Wayne Hatcher Jennifer Cook Pritt, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Steven Albert (Albert), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 19, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Albert. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Albert had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Albert and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Albert filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Albert denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Albert on July 23, 1987, at which time he admitted that during the course of his military service he had been involved with controlled substances. Here, the proof demonstrates that Albert joined the United States Air Force on March 31, 1975, at the age of 19, following his graduation from high school. During the course of such service, he experimented with cocaine, qualudes and "speed" a few times, the last time being in 1980 or 1981; used marijuana occasionally, the last time being in 1981; and sold or attempted to sell one ounce of marijuana on three separate occasions, the last being in 1981. On January 2, 1981, following his receipt of an Article 15, an administrative form of discipline, for possession of marijuana, Albert received a general discharge, under honorable conditions, from the military. Since that time, Albert has not used, bought or sold any controlled substance. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Albert's background, that Albert possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing events. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Albert used controlled substances, and sold or attempted to sell marijuana on 3 occasions, the last time being over 8 years ago when he was 26 years of age. Since that time he has had no contact with controlled substances. Under such circumstances, his prior contact with controlled substances is not proximate within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Albert has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. His performance has ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory, he has received two commendations, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, and of good moral character. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Albert was employed as a security guard for a private company, and was duly licensed by the State of Florida as an unarmed officer. Overall, Albert, now 34 years of age, has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Steven Albert, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent may be disciplined for failure to maintain the qualifications established by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which requires that a correctional officer have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Kalangie J. Serrano, is a state certified correctional officer holding certificate No. 186788. In the early morning hours of February 9, 2002, Respondent was observed by Orlando Police Department Officer Jonathan Cute sitting in the driver's seat of Respondent's automobile. As Officer Cute approached the vehicle, he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle and observed smoke in the passenger compartment of the automobile. As Officer Cute approached the vehicle, he noticed Respondent place something onto the center console of the vehicle. As Respondent exited the vehicle at Officer Cute's request, Officer Cute observed and smelled a cloud of marijuana smoke in the interior of the vehicle and determined that the object placed on the vehicle's console was a red metal pipe typical, in his experience, of the type of pipe used for smoking marijuana. Noting the presence of a burning residue in the pipe and suspecting it to be marijuana, Officer Cute performed a field test on the substance which tested positive determining that the substance was cannabis. Officer Cute arrested Respondent and charged him with possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. No admissible evidence was received as to any determination of the charges filed against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Kalangie J. Serrano, violated Subsection 893.147(1), Florida Statutes, and, as a result, failed to demonstrate good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that he be placed on probation for two years, be required to submit to drug testing, be enrolled in drug prevention education, and such other associated penalties as Petitioner deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 19th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kalangie J. Serrano 4340 Lauren Lane Titusville, Florida 32780 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Andrew Pollock (also known as Antone Pollock), should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) after testing positive for cocaine, while on duty, as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated March 7, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for the City in August 2001. In November 2012 he was reclassified as a Stormwater Technician II. Pursuant to federal Department of Transportation (DOT) safety regulations, this position is considered a safety- sensitive position and requires that Respondent have a commercial driver's license (CDL) and that he submit to random drug testing. The City has a zero tolerance for drug and alcohol use while on the job. This is explained in the City's Drug/Alcohol Program Policy, also known as Policy No. 3401.2. See City Ex. 3, p. 5 ("Any employee covered by this policy who . . . fails an alcohol or drug test . . . will be immediately removed from active duty and subject to discipline, including termination."). Respondent signed documents acknowledging that he was given a copy of the policy and was responsible for complying with its terms and conditions. See City Ex. 1 and 2. Various rules, standards, and policies have been adopted by the City to govern the conduct of its employees. Specifically, the City has adopted a Performance and Behavior Management Program (PBMP) manual, which includes Personal Responsibility, Integrity, Excellence, and Citywide Standards. Pursuant to authority in the Code of Ordinances (Code), the Civil Service Board has adopted Rules and Regulations governing the conduct of all positions in the civil service. Relevant to this case is chapter 13, section 3, Rules and Regulations, which spells out grounds for suspending, demoting, or dismissing an employee. Also, as noted above, DOT safety regulations apply to employees such as Respondent who are performing safety-sensitive functions on the job. Finally, the City has adopted Policy 3401.2, which establishes guidelines and procedures regarding the use or abuse of illegal drugs by employees. Notably, these standards, rules, policy, and DOT regulations apply only to the use of drugs and alcohol by an employee while on duty. With certain exceptions not relevant here, there is no City prohibition against the use of drugs or alcohol while off-duty. But if an employee fails a drug test administered during regular working hours, it is presumed he is using, or under the influence of, drugs while on the job. In accordance with DOT regulations, on February 17, 2015, Respondent was selected for a random drug test and willingly submitted to the collection procedure that morning. See City Ex. 4, p. 5. Respondent acknowledges that he participated in the collection procedure on that date. The results of the test, conducted by Largo Medical Center, are shown on a copy of a barely legible Verification Report (Report) received in evidence as Exhibit 4. No individual from the testing facility testified, the Report is not signed by the medical review officer, and several significant sections in the Report are not completed or signed. Given these deficiencies, the City agrees that it does not have "admissible drug lab evidence." Tr., p. 77. Without objection the Report was offered only for the purpose of showing "what action [the City took] upon receipt of this document," and not to prove that Respondent failed the drug test. Tr., p. 18. On February 23, 2015, Respondent was notified that he tested positive for cocaine. While he disputes the laboratory results, he does not dispute the laboratory collection procedure. A recommendation was then made by his department head that he be terminated for violating City rules, policies, and standards, and DOT regulations. Civil Service Board regulations allow an employee to explain the circumstances which led to the positive test results and to provide mitigating facts. See ch. 13, § 8, Rules and Regs. An employee may request a disciplinary determination meeting with the Department of Human Resources; an adverse decision is then subject to review by a hearing officer (administrative law judge). Alternatively, an employee may file a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement. If the grievance is denied, the employee may have the matter heard by an arbitration panel, but the cost of arbitration is borne by the employee. Because of financial constraints, Respondent elected to have the matter reviewed by the Department of Human Resources. A disciplinary determination meeting was conducted on March 3, 2015. Respondent was represented at the meeting by a member of his union. After Respondent's explanation was not deemed to be plausible, on March 7, 2015, the City Manager formally notified Respondent that he was being terminated effective March 11, 2015. See City Ex. 6. Respondent then requested a hearing to contest that action. At hearing, Respondent essentially repeated the explanation he gave at the disciplinary determination meeting. He testified that while at a local bar with his brother on the evening of February 15, 2015, or two days before the random drug test and while off-duty, he asked a long-time friend, Eric "Red Rock" Gibson, for a "black and mild" (a cigar). After smoking the cigar, Respondent said that something seemed different about the cigar, his tongue was numb and tingling, and he was mumbling words. However, he attributed this to being drunk at the time and gave it no further thought. After receiving the results of the random drug test, and being told that he was terminated, Respondent spoke to Gibson and learned that Gibson always laced his cigars with cocaine, including the one given to Respondent. The City relies on this admission, and not the drug test, to prove the charges in the Notice. Thus, the sum of the case is that Respondent admitted that he unknowingly smoked a cigar laced with cocaine on February 15, 2015. There is, however, no competent evidence to support the charge that he flunked a drug test two days later, as charged in the Notice, or that cocaine was in his system when he reported to work that day. Respondent testified credibly that he does not use drugs and he unknowingly injested the cocaine. He pointed out that, except for this test, he has never failed a drug test while employed by the City. Shortly after the random testing, he paid for a follow-up drug test, which produced negative results. He desires to return to work in order to reinstate his health insurance benefits and to provide a source of income for his family. It is undisputed that Respondent has a blemish-free record working for the City over the last 14 years and, among other awards, he has received over 17 certifications for exceling in his work. His last evaluation in February 2015 was "Excellent." Policy 3401.2, the City's Administrative Policy and Procedure Manual, states that an employee in a safety-sensitive position who fails a drug test "may be demoted to a non-CDL or non-safety sensitive position in accordance with the procedures outlined in this document." City Ex. 3, p. 6. Even assuming arguendo that Respondent failed a drug test, which has not been proven here, Respondent testified that he is willing to accept a demotion to a non-CDL position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board enter an order dismissing all charges against Respondent and reinstating him, with back pay, to his position as a Stormwater Technician II. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether there was just cause to terminate Respondent’s annual employment contract during the term of the contract.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades kindergarten through 12) in Charlotte County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school-aged children in the county. Art. IX, § (4)b, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2016). During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner employed Respondent as a classroom teacher working pursuant to an annual contract. Between the years 1986 through 2000, Respondent worked as an educator for the School District of Hillsborough County, Florida. During the late 1990s, Respondent had multiple surgeries on her lungs and jaw. Respondent was prescribed various pain medications following her surgeries, and unfortunately she became addicted to the medication. Around 1998, Respondent’s addiction to pain medication caused her to engage in criminal activity (i.e. attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud), which resulted in her arrest. Respondent, at the time of her arrest in 1998, was employed as a teacher by the Hillsborough County School District. As a result of her arrest, Respondent resigned from employment with the Hillsborough County School District. Additionally, the Florida Department of Education (DOE) was notified of Respondent’s arrest and as a result thereof suspended Respondent’s teaching certificate for two months, imposed a two-year probationary period, and required Respondent to submit to substance abuse treatment. Respondent left the teaching profession in 1998 and did not return to the profession until 2014, when she became employed by Petitioner. When Respondent returned to the profession in 2014, she still needed to complete the two years of probation imposed against her teaching certificate by DOE. As part of her probation, Respondent was required to submit to two years of random drug testing. For the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, Respondent passed each of her randomly imposed drug tests and has subsequently been released from probation by DOE. Respondent has suffered from migraine headaches for several years and would often miss work due to migraine-related symptoms. Although Respondent missed several days of work during the 2016-2017 school year as a result of migraine headaches, her absences did not rise to the level to where it became necessary for her school principal to speak with her regarding the issue. On the morning of January 3, 2017, which was a teacher planning day, Respondent awoke with a migraine headache. Teachers are expected to report to work by 6:35 a.m. on teacher planning days. Respondent and Lisa Pellegrino were colleagues and friends. On January 3, 2017, at 7:16 a.m., 7:20 a.m., and at 10:29 a.m., respectively, Respondent called Ms. Pellegrino, who was at work. Respondent’s calls were not answered by Ms. Pellegrino because at the time, Ms. Pellegrino did not have her phone in her possession. At 9:01 a.m., on January 3, 2017, Respondent sent a text message to Ms. Deb Capo, who is the school’s secretary. The text message states: “Woke up with a headache . . . will be in ASAP.” At 10:36 a.m., Ms. Capo responded to the text message asking: “Are you here yet. Lou needs to see you.” Respondent replied and stated, “Not yet . . . I’ll be there by noon. All ok?” Ms. Capo then replied, “Yes. See you then.” At approximately 10:50 a.m., Ms. Pellegrino retrieved her cellphone and noticed that she had missed three calls from Respondent. Fearing a possible emergency, Ms. Pellegrino immediately called Respondent. Ms. Pellegrino testified during the final hearing as follows: I just called her because I wanted to see what was going on. I figured I had three missed calls; maybe there was an emergency. And when I spoke with her, she informed me that she had a really bad migraine, she didn’t think she was going to be able to make it, or she was trying to get pain pills because she couldn’t get her Imitrex prescription for a couple of days, and she was having a hard time getting to work to get her grades completed by the end of the day. And she asked me for pain pills or if I had any, and I said no.[1/] Within an hour or so of speaking with Respondent, Ms. Pellegrino and a few of her colleagues were preparing to leave for lunch when the question was asked, “did Lori [Respondent] come in yet?” One of the teachers in the lunch group was Amy Haggarty, who is the chairperson of the school’s math department and was aware of Respondent’s history of addiction to pain medication. Ms. Pellegrino, in response to the question about Respondent’s whereabouts, mentioned to Ms. Haggarty that she had just gotten off the phone with Respondent and that it was a weird conversation because Respondent said, according to Ms. Pellegrino, “that she has a bad migraine headache and she can’t fill her pain medication,” and asked her [Ms. Pellegrino] “if she had any pain medication.” Ms. Haggarty, because she knew of Respondent’s history with addiction to pain medication, became alarmed by Ms. Pellegrino’s statement and she immediately arranged to meet with the school principal, Mr. Long, to discuss what she had been told about Respondent. During her meeting with Mr. Long, Ms. Haggarty informed him of what she had been told by Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Long, upon concluding his meeting with Ms. Haggarty, then met with Ms. Pellegrino. Upon questioning by Mr. Long, Ms. Pellegrino confirmed that she had spoken with Respondent that morning and that Respondent asked her for pain medication. Mr. Long then contacted the school board’s office of human resources to report what he had been told by Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Long was advised by a representative from the office of human resources that Dave Carter would report to the school on the morning of January 4, 2017, to “possibly place Ms. Lorenz on administrative leave.” Dave Carter is a “human resources investigator” for the Charlotte County School Board and he reports to, among others, Mr. Chuck Breiner, assistant superintendent for the school board. According to Mr. Carter, his job responsibilities include conducting “personnel investigations based on allegations of misconduct or violations of school district policies, rules, or the Department of Education code of ethics.” During his testimony, Mr. Carter explained that when Mr. Breiner, or others as appropriate, believes that reasonable suspicion exists to subject an employee to drug testing, he [Mr. Carter] will go to the employee’s worksite, perform “an on- scene concurrence evaluation” of the employee, and, if necessary, transport the employee to the drug testing facility. Mr. Carter testified that an on-scene concurrence evaluation consists of him “interview[ing] the principal, call[ing] the employee down, [and] mak[ing] a physical observation of [the employee].” Mr. Carter testified that upon completion of the concurrence evaluation, if he believes that reasonable suspicion does not exist for drug testing, he will contact Mr. Breiner who will then make the final determination of whether the employee should be subjected to drug testing. Respondent arrived at the school around 6:15 a.m. on the morning of January 4, 2017. Soon after arriving at the school, Respondent saw Mr. Long who informed Respondent that he needed to meet with her during the “second hour” of the day, which is her planning period. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Respondent taught her first-period class before meeting with Mr. Long and Mr. Carter at 8:10 a.m. There is no evidence indicating that Mr. Long took any steps to observe Respondent’s “performance, appearance, or behavior” in preparation for his January 4, 2017, meeting with Respondent and Mr. Carter, or that Mr. Long reasonably believed that Respondent was under the influence of drugs such that she should be prevented from teaching her class.2/ At about 8:00 a.m. on the morning of January 4, 2017, Mr. Carter reported to Port Charlotte High School for the purpose of interviewing Respondent as part of an investigation into an unrelated matter. When Mr. Carter checked in at the school, he met with Mr. Long who informed him of the allegations concerning Respondent’s solicitation of pain medication from Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Carter immediately contacted Mr. Breiner and informed him of the allegations against Respondent. Mr. Breiner, when he spoke with Mr. Carter, was not aware of Respondent’s history of drug addiction and, consequently, this was not a factor that he considered when ordering that Respondent be drug-tested. Mr. Breiner, based on the information that Respondent allegedly solicited pain medication from Ms. Pellegrino, as reported by Mr. Long, and the fact that Respondent, like a number of other employees, had multiple absences from work, directed Mr. Carter to terminate the investigation into the unrelated matter and to proceed with taking Respondent to an authorized facility for reasonable suspicion drug testing. At no time prior to directing Mr. Carter to subject Respondent to drug testing did Mr. Breiner instruct Mr. Carter to personally interview Ms. Pellegrino regarding her conversation with Respondent. Additionally, at no time prior to Respondent’s drug test did Mr. Carter even attempt to question Ms. Pellegrino about her conversation with Respondent and the circumstances related thereto. It was only after Respondent had been drug tested that Mr. Carter interviewed Ms. Pellegrino. Mr. Carter, after receiving direction from Mr. Breiner, and with the assistance of Debbie Anderson, who works as a personnel analyst in Respondent’s department of human resources, met with Respondent and explained that she was required to submit to drug testing pursuant to the school board’s drug-free workplace policy. Reasonable Suspicion Indicators Petitioner uses a form titled “Reasonable Suspicion Indicators Checklist” (checklist), when evaluating employees for suspicion of violating Petitioner’s Drug and Alcohol Free Work Environment Policy. The checklist provides as follows: Manager/Supervisor: This form is to be used to substantiate and document the objective facts and circumstances leading to a reasonable suspicion determination. After careful observations of the employee’s performance, appearance or behavior, please check all the observed indicators that raised the suspicion that the employee may have engaged in conduct which violates the Drug- and Alcohol-Free Work Environment Policy. Incident or reason for suspicion Apparent drug or alcohol intoxication Nausea or vomiting Abnormal or erratic behavior Evidence of possession, dispensation, or use of a prohibited substance Industrial accident requiring medical attention Physical altercation or assault Odors and/or Appearance Odor of alcohol (on breath or person) Distinctive, pungent aroma on clothing Excessive sweating or skin clamminess very flushed very pale Jerky eye movements Unfocused, blank stare Dilated or constricted pupils Dry mouth, frequent swallowing or wetting lips Bloodshot or watery eyes Behavior and Speech Slurred or incoherent speech Breathing difficulty or irregularity Loss of physical control, dizzy or fainting Unsteady walk, poor coordination Euphoric, fidgety, agitated or nervous affect Shaking hands/body, tremors, twitches Extreme fatigue or sleeping on the job Lackadaisical, apathetic attitude Irritable, moody, belligerent or aggressive demeanor Nausea or vomiting Suspicion of others; paranoia; accuses others Physical and/or verbal abusiveness Rambling, loud, fast, silly or repetitious speech Talkative, cursing, other inappropriate speech Diminished (or lack of) concentration Delayed or faulty decision making Impulsive, unsafe risk-taking Inappropriate response to instructions Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson each completed a checklist. None of the indicators listed above were checked by either Mr. Carter of Ms. Anderson as it pertains to their evaluation of Respondent. There is, however, an “indicator” appearing on the respective forms that is different in substance when comparing the form completed by Mr. Carter with the one completed by Ms. Anderson. On the form completed by Mr. Carter, there is a marked indicator that reads “Colleague disclosed that employee solicited ‘pain medication’ (controlled substance) during a teacher work day.” By comparison, the form completed by Ms. Anderson notes a different indicator which states “Employee discloses that he or she has consumed alcohol, used or ingested a controlled substance during or immediately prior to duty.” Neither party offered an explanation regarding the differences between the forms. Nevertheless, both Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson attached a narrative to the checklist regarding the circumstances surrounding Ms. Pellegrino’s statement about Respondent allegedly soliciting Ms. Pellegrino for pain medication. Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson each completed their respective checklist on January 11, 2017, which coincidentally, was the same date that Respondent’s lab results from her drug test were received by Petitioner.3/ The evidence does not explain why both Mr. Carter and Ms. Anderson waited several days to complete their respective checklists. Mr. Carter testified that when he performed his concurrence evaluation of Respondent on January 4, 2017, the only indicator present for subjecting Respondent to reasonable suspicion drug testing was the statement of Ms. Pellegrino indicating that Respondent solicited pain medication from her on January 3, 2017. Ms. Anderson did not testify at the final hearing. Mr. Breiner, who made the ultimate decision to subject Respondent to reasonable suspicion drug testing on January 4, 2017, testified that two factors drove his determination: the first being Ms. Pellegrino’s statement, and the second being Respondent’s history of absenteeism from work during the 2016- 2017 school year.4/ On cross-examination, however, Mr. Breiner admitted that in Respondent’s notice of termination he made no reference to absenteeism being a factor in his decision to subject Respondent to reasonable suspicion drug testing. Morphine and Imitrex Respondent admits that on January 3, 2017, she took morphine in order to get relief from her migraine headache. Respondent testified that she typically takes Imitrex to treat her migraines, but when that drug is ineffective she takes morphine for relief of her symptoms. According to Petitioner, she has been taking Imitrex since about 2007 and she suffers no side effects from the medication. Respondent testified that she typically takes morphine about once or twice a year “when the Imitrex [is not] working” and that the effects of the morphine last “[a]nywhere from four to six hours, sometimes eight, but nothing after that.” Petitioner did not rebut Respondent’s statement and offered no evidence regarding the effects of morphine and the period of time after ingestion that a person is typically under the influence of the drug. According to medical records from Peace River Medical Center, Respondent was discharged from the hospital on August 23, 2007, following treatment for: 1. “[c]hest pain, myocardial infarction protocol; 2. [p]leuritic pneumonia; [and] [m]igraine.” At the time of release from the hospital, Respondent was “discharged home with Morphine 60 mg p.r.n.” According to Respondent’s unrefuted testimony, the morphine pill that she took on January 3, 2017, was part of the batch of pills that she received when discharged from the hospital in 2007. Petitioner, when first interviewed by Respondent on January 13, 2017, denied soliciting pain medication from Ms. Pellegrino.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Charlotte County School Board enter a final order finding that there was no just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment during the term of her 2016-2017 annual contract with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2017.
