Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. : Page 2 of 4 Final Order No. DCA-GM-211 TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished bo, bbe persons listed below in the manner described, on this — day of May, 2009. Paula Ford Agency Clerk David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Sandra Lee Snyder 4851 164° Avenue North Clearwater, Florida 33762 David S. Waddell Pinellas Grove’s Hamlet Citizens Committee 4851 164 Avenue North Clearwater, Florida 33762 Page 3 of 4 Dennis G. Ruppel, Esquire Johnson, Pope, Bokor Ruppel & Burns LLP 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Page 4 of 4 Final Order No. DCA-GM-211
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Steve E. Montgomery, committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Steve Montgomery has been employed with the School Board since May 13, 1988. He last held the position of a Plumber II Journeyman in Miami-Dade County Florida. Montgomery's job description and the maintenance employee's handbook mandated that he maintain a valid driver's license and Certificate of Competency in order to remain employed by the School Board. During the hearing, Montgomery admitted that he was aware that he had to maintain such minimum qualifications for his job. Montgomery started a pattern in 2003 of his driver's license getting suspended and then being reinstated again. Montgomery admitted during hearing that his driver's license had been suspended at least four times. Each time, the School Board notified Montgomery that his license was not valid and provided him five working days to get a valid license. Montgomery was placed in an alternative work assignment whenever he did not have the valid credentials. The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Montgomery's personnel file. The file contained a December 15, 2003, memorandum entitled "FAILURE TO MAINTAIN QUALIFYING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY JOB DESCRIPTION" directing Montgomery that his license was suspended and/or revoked and detailing that his job description requires that he maintain a valid State of Florida Class D license as one of the minimum qualifications of the position. The memorandum also stated that Montgomery had five days until December 22, 2003, to present evidence of a valid license. A May 24, 2004, memorandum almost identical to the one dated December 15, 2003, except for the deadline dates, was also in Montgomery's personnel file. The memorandum provided a deadline of June 1, 2004, to present evidence of a valid driver's license and indicated that, if there was a failure to satisfy the requirement in the allotted time period, a Conference-for-the Record ("CFR") would be scheduled to discuss the matter further. A July 26, 2005, memo identical to the two previous memorandums except for the dates was also in Montgomery's personnel file. The memorandum gave a deadline of August 2, 2005, to present evidence of a valid driver's license. Mr. Palacio personally gave the invalid driver's license memorandums to Respondent and verbally notified Montgomery of the requirement to get a valid license. Montgomery signed the memorandum dated September 15, 2005, entitled "FAILURE TO MAINTAIN QUALIFYING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY JOB DESCRIPTION." As in the previous memos, it stated: Attached please find a report dated September 15, 2005 that indicates your driver's license has been suspended and/or revoked. Your official job description requires you to maintain a valid State of Florida CDL Class D* driver's license as one of the minimum qualifications of this position. (Effective July 1, 2005, Class D licenses were converted to Class E.) You are advised that this requirement is a condition of your continued employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Without a valid driver's license you are no longer qualified to perform the requirements of your position with the District. Effective immediately, you are being placed on an alternate work assignment. Accordingly, you are directed to present evidence of this required license to your Satellite Director or designee within five (5) working days from the date of this memorandum, which will be September 23, 2005. Until such time, you are not authorized to operate any District vehicle or motorized equipment that requires possession of a driver's license. If you fail to satisfy this requirement within the allotted time period, a Conference-for-the-Record will be scheduled to address this matter further. Please review your Maintenance Operations handbook (Trades Chapter, Page 4) for further details. A CFR was held with Montgomery on September 30, 2005, because he did not obtain a valid driver's license by September 23, 2005. Montgomery was provided a copy of the job description for plumber II and the September 15, 2005, memorandum. At the CFR, Montgomery was again informed that maintaining his valid driver's license is a minimum qualification of his position and that "Without a valid driver's license, you are no longer qualified to perform the requirements of your position with the District." Montgomery signed the summary of the CFR on October 3, 2005. On October 13, 2005, the School Board notified Montgomery by memorandum that he had failed to maintain his Certificate of Competency and it had expired on August 31, 2005. Montgomery signed the memorandum and was instructed to present a valid certificate no later than October 17, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. Montgomery was aware that it was his responsibility to know when his qualifying documents expired and keep them valid as a minimum requirement for his job. A CFR was held on February 11, 2006, regarding Montgomery not possessing a renewed Certificate of Competency and a valid driver's license. At the CFR, Montgomery produced a renewed certificate but did still did not have a valid license. On May 4, 2006, Montgomery still did not have a valid driver's license and Mr. Palacio recommended Montgomery's termination. In Palacio's memorandum, the grounds for such discipline were as follows: Mr. Montgomery is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, members of the non-instructional staff shall maintain all certifications, licenses and job requirements as a condition of employment. Failure to do so shall warrant disciplinary action. On May 9, 2006, Mr. Brown and the maintenance officer signed a memo entitled Recommendation for Termination Mr. Steve E. Montgomery Employee # 169252 Plumber II, Region Maintenance Center II providing grounds for disciplinary measures inasmuch as Montgomery was unable to produce a valid Florida's driver's license, a condition of employment. The memo stated: As a Plumber II, Mr. Montgomery must maintain all certifications, licenses and job requirements. Failure to comply with minimum job requirements warrants dismissal. Montgomery let the Certificate of Competency expire again on August 31, 2007. Subsequently, on September 17, 2008, another CFR was held with Montgomery notifying him of the recommendation for suspension and termination because Montgomery's license and Certificate of Competency were not valid. During the CFR, Montgomery did not offer any explanation as to why his license was still suspended or submit proof of his Certificate of Competency but only commented he "will have [both] soon."4 Montgomery also did not complain about any working conditions during the CFR. At a regularly scheduled meeting on January 14, 2009, the School Board suspended Montgomery without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools for just cause, including, but not limited to: violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics, and Sections 1001.32(2), 1012.22(1)(f), 1012.40, and 447.209, Florida Statutes. Montgomery's license was suspended at the time of his suspension and termination. Likewise, Montgomery's Certificate of Competency had still not been renewed at the time of his suspension and termination. No other School Board employee had his/her license suspended as many times as Montgomery with an expired Certificate of Competency at the same time. Further, the School Board has disciplined employees by termination for having a suspended driver's license. Montgomery had a valid Florida driver's license and a renewed valid Certificate of Competency at the hearing. On August 20, 2009, the School Board filed its Second Amended Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and State Board Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006 by failing to maintain a valid driver's license and Certificate of Competency.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order that: (a) dismisses Count I; (b) finds Respondent in violation of Count II as charged; and (c) upholds Respondent's suspension without pay and termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Sections 120.569(2)(e) and 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, in what amounts.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 2001, AHCA served three Administrative Complaints on HHCI, apparently intending to revoke HHCI's licenses to operate nursing homes on the basis of a retroactive application of Section 400.121(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2001). The statute states in pertinent part: (3) The agency shall revoke or deny a nursing home license if the licensee or controlling interest operates a facility in this state that: * * * (d) Is cited for two class I deficiencies arising from separate surveys or investigations within a 30-month period. HHCI filed petitions challenging AHCA's allegations in the Administrative Complaints. On October 12, 2001, HHCI filed a challenge to the non- rule policy of retroactive application (DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU) and a hearing was scheduled for October 23, 2001. The Petitions in the Administrative Complaint cases were forwarded by AHCA to DOAH on October 19, 2001, and were consolidated under DOAH Case No. 01-4124. The Final Order in Case No. 01-3935 RU, declaring AHCA's policy of retroactive application invalid, was issued on October 31, 2001. HHCI filed a Motion for Award of Attorney's fees in DOAH Case No. 01-4124 on November 2, 2001. That motion forms the basis for the instant case. At the time the Administrative Complaints were filed, the three HHCI facilities held standard licenses and were apparently operating in compliance with applicable law, with no unresolved survey violations pending. The day after the Administrative Complaints were served, AHCA issued a press release and scheduled a telephonic "media call-in" to reply to questions from interested press representatives. The result of the media attention was to cause great concern to both HHCI and the residents of their facilities as to the proposed closure of the facilities. AHCA distributed a letter to residents indicating that unless HHCI challenged the action, the facility would be closed in approximately 60 days. The AHCA letter advised residents that if HHCI challenged the proposed action, the proposed action "may be delayed." The AHCA letter did not indicate that any resolution of the dispute other than facility closure was possible. The result of the attention and statements by AHCA's representative was to cause great concern among residents and their families as to what living arrangements would be available for residents of the facilities. AHCA also placed monitors in each facility to discuss the pending action with residents and their families, as well as to observe the facility operations. There is no evidence that the placement of monitors in the facilities offered any level of comfort to residents or families. The monitors also apparently began citing the facilities for alleged additional violations of various regulations. In response, HHCI officials immediately sought legal counsel to address the situation. Counsel at the Washington, D.C., law firm, Proskauer Rose, became involved in representing HHCI. HHCI also retained Counsel in the Tallahassee office of the Broad and Cassel law firm, with whom it had no prior relationship. HHCI directed its legal team to review all possible options to resolving the matter expeditiously. Counsel considered both federal and state court action and filed a request for injunction in state court. HHCI also attempted to resolve the matter informally. On October 8, 2001, HHCI obtained an opinion from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC), a standing committee of the Florida Legislature, which concluded that "a strong legal argument" could be made that the retroactive application of the statute was improper. There is no evidence that AHCA considered the JAPC opinion. In any event, because informal attempts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful, HHCI legal counsel began an intensive effort to defend the company against the AHCA action. The Final Order in Case No. 01-3935RU held that there was an absence of legal authority to apply the new law retroactively. There was no appeal of the Final Order. After the Final Order was issued, AHCA abandoned the Administrative Complaints that sought to revoke HHCI's licenses and close the facilities. In this proceeding, HHCI seeks fees it incurred for the Broad and Cassel and the Proskauer Rose law firms and for presentation of the testimony of Al Clark at the fee hearing. HHCI presented nine invoices from Broad and Cassel that were admitted as HHCI Exhibit 1. The invoices submitted in this case do not duplicate time that was invoiced as part of the rule challenge-related fee case. Invoice #469914 dated November 1, 2001, is for a total of $23,835.87, including fees of $23,565 and costs of $270.87. The majority of the work in these cases was performed in October. The invoice indicates time spent considering several theories of defense to the complaints. Invoice #474211 dated December 1, 2001, is for a total of $2,282.02, including fees of $1,981.50 and costs of $300.52. Invoice #479185 dated January 2, 2002, is for a total of $257.59, including fees of $245 and costs of $12.59. Invoice #491866 dated February 9, 2002, is for a total of $5,463.05, including fees of $5,116.50 and costs of $346.55. Invoice #496833 dated April 3, 2002, is for a total of $161.74, including fees of $147 and costs of $14.74. Invoice #505207 dated June 7, 2002, is for a total of $738.68, including fees of $735 and costs of $3.68. Invoice #507485 dated July 2, 2002, is for a total of $296.17, including fees of $294 and costs of $2.17. Invoice #515997 dated October 2, 2002, is for a total of $1,625.93, including fees of $1586 and costs of $39.93. Invoice #516952 dated October 16, 2002, is for a total of $2,903.35, including fees of $2878 and costs of $25.35. HHCI presented the testimony of Al Clark, who was accepted as an expert on the issue of attorney fees. Mr. Clark testified as to the reasonableness of the fees and costs charged to HHCI by the Broad and Cassel law firm. Mr. Clark's testimony was not contradicted and is credited. The time and labor expended by employees of the Broad and Cassel law firm were reasonable in light of the legal issues presented by the administrative actions proposed by AHCA. The presumed goal of AHCA's action was to revoke the licensure of HHCI's three nursing homes. Broad and Cassel provided the substantial skill and expertise required to supply the necessary legal services. Broad and Cassel billed HHCI at an hourly rate. The hourly rates charged by Broad and Cassel personnel are reasonable. The rates ranged from $245 per hour for lead counsel to $90 per hour for support counsel. There was no prior business relationship between Broad and Cassel and HHCI. Broad and Cassel counsel has significant experience and skill in health care law and provided their services efficiently throughout the dispute. Because the proposed sanction was severe, and because the agency publicized its legal action, HHCI required an immediate legal response resulting in an intense initial amount of work by Broad and Cassel. Broad and Cassel personnel represented HHCI legal interests throughout the administrative proceedings and prevailed in defending against the proposed administrative action. Subsequent to the hearing, HHCI submitted Mr. Clark's invoice for $1,012.50. Mr. Clark's invoice reflects a reasonable effort expended in addressing the costs and fees at issue in this case. At the hearing, Mr. Clark further testified that an amount up to $10,000 would be possible for the resolution of this fee case. At this time, none of this expense has been incurred and is not properly awarded. Based on the foregoing, HHCI has satisfied the factors set forth in Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(b) related to awards of fees and costs in this case, and is entitled to an award of fees and costs for the Broad and Cassel billing and for Al Clark's invoice. Mr. Clark was not asked for, and did not offer, an opinion about the reasonableness of the Proskauer Rose fees. There is no credible evidence supporting an award of fees for work performed by the Proskauer Rose firm. Based on the testimony presented during the hearing, the evidence fails to establish that the charges by the Proskauer Rose firm as set forth on the exhibit are reasonable. Billing records admitted into evidence as HHCI Exhibit 3 contain references to regulatory matters not directly at issue in the proceedings giving rise to this request for fees. Such additional matters include nursing home surveys performed in October 2001, preparations for informal dispute resolution (IDR) meeting related to survey issues, and regulatory matters occurring in other states. The IDR preparations, although apparently prompted by alleged problems identified by the monitors, were not at issue in the Administrative Complaints that form the basis for this fee request. Although HHCI asserts that an Administrative Law Judge, hearing the Administrative Complaints seeking license revocation, could have considered the alleged problems, such allegations would have required amendment of the pending Administrative Complaints. More likely, the allegations would have been the subject of new Administrative Complaints that would have been litigated separately, and, as such, costs related to IDR preparation are not properly awarded in the instant case. Further, the Proskauer Rose invoices indicate that hours billed on one invoice in "File #84028.0014" for October 12 (description beginning with "review faxed 256") and October 22 (description beginning with "Meeting with S. Davis and C. Schessler re preparation for IDR") were also billed on another invoice in "File #84028.0015." Duplicate billings would not support an award of attorney fees. AHCA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On April 9, 2002, HHCI, a foreign limited partnership operating in the State of Florida, canceled the registration of HHCI Limited Partnership with the Florida Department of State. HHCI Limited Partnership continues to operate in other states and is registered in Massachusetts.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner provided reasonable notice to Respondent of its intent to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent's employment, and whether Respondent could unilaterally resign to retire while the Superintendent's pending recommendation to terminate Respondent was before Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Sarasota County School Board, employed Respondent as a teacher and principal of Garden Elementary School in Venice, Florida, for 29 years. Respondent was employed under an annual contract throughout each year of employment, the last of which began July 1, 2002, scheduled to end June 30, 2003. In February 2002, Respondent was arrested and charged with seven counts of Sexual Battery by a Person over Eighteen (18) Years of Age upon a Child Eleven (11) Years or Younger. On March 5, 2002, Respondent was suspended with pay by Petitioner. While suspended with pay, Respondent's annual contract expired on June 30, 2002, and was renewed by Petitioner for the 2002-2003 school year. Respondent remained suspended with pay and did not perform any services for Petitioner during the 2002-2003 school year. On or about April 28, 2003, Respondent completed, but did not file, an application to retire from the Florida State Retirement System and executed a Durable Family Power of Attorney to his wife, Mrs. Cook. The power of attorney empowered Mrs. Cook to make decisions on behalf of Respondent for all personal, legal, and financial matters. On May 2, 2003, Respondent was found guilty of two counts of Sexual Battery by a Person over Eighteen (18) Years of Age upon a Child Eleven (11) Years or Younger by a jury in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Sarasota County, Florida. Respondent was immediately taken into custody and placed in the Sarasota County Jail. Three days later, on May 5, 2003, notwithstanding Respondent's incarceration in the Sarasota County Jail, Superintendent Hamilton misdirected a certified letter to Respondent's home address, attempting to advise him of her intent to recommend to Petitioner on the following day, May 6, 2003, that Respondent be suspended without pay. Hamilton's letter further sought to notify Respondent that she intended to recommend that he be terminated from his employment at the School Board meeting scheduled for May 20, 2003, due to his recent conviction. pay. On May 6, 2003, Petitioner suspended Respondent without On the following day, May 7, 2003, Mrs. Cook received Superintendent Hamilton's certified letter dated May 5, 2003, but did not open it nor become fully aware of its contents until a later time. Respondent was and remains incarcerated. There is no evidence that he ever received actual notice of the Superintendent's certified letter of May 5, 2003. In addition to the untimely and misdirected notice, the Superintendent's certified letter failed to advise Respondent that he could contest the proposed suspension without pay. Respondent's wife credibly testified that if she had received notice of Petitioner's intent prior to the School Board's meeting of May 6, 2003, she would have attended the meeting and attempted to submit Respondent's resignation. On May 7, 2003, Petitioner mailed a follow-up letter to Respondent's home address, via standard U.S. mail, attempting to notify him that the Board had suspended him without pay. Respondent remained incarcerated and did not receive this letter. It is unknown whether Mrs. Cook ever received the letter or when she became aware of its contents. On May 9, 2003, Mrs. Cook invoked her power of attorney on behalf of Respondent and submitted his resignation from employment to Petitioner, effective immediately, in order to retire. On that day, Mrs. Cook attempted to hand-deliver Respondent's retirement/resignation letter to Petitioner's personnel office, along with Respondent's previously executed retirement papers, however, the personnel office staff refused to accept the paperwork. Instead, Mrs. Cook was immediately directed to speak with Allen Wilson, Executive Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations for Petitioner, but he was unavailable. Later that same day, Mrs. Cook met with Mr. John Zoretich, Petitioner's Director of Instruction/Curriculum. Mr. Zoretich agreed to receive Respondent's letter of resignation/retirement from Mrs. Cook, but instructed her to deliver Respondent's executed retirement papers to the payroll department. Mrs. Cook complied, but again, payroll staff refused to accept the retirement papers and instructed her to contact Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Cook's repeated efforts to communicate with Mr. Wilson were unsuccessful. Petitioner's personnel and payroll departments refused to accept Respondent's executed retirement papers due to Petitioner's pending consideration of Superintendent Hamilton's termination recommendation. The parties agree that the amount of terminal pay at issue, based upon Respondent's effective daily rate of pay, is approximately $60,000.00. On May 12, 2003, Mrs. Cook forwarded Respondent's previously executed retirement application by facsimile and U.S. Mail to the Florida Retirement System. The Florida Retirement System acknowledged its receipt in correspondence dated June 18, 2003, indicating a date of receipt of May 13, 2003, an employment termination date of May 3, 2003, and a retirement date of June 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter an order finding: Respondent has materially violated the terms of his employment contract. Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment. Respondent's offer to resign has not been accepted by Petitioner and is ineffective until accepted or denied by Petitioner. Respondent is not entitled to terminal pay. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with reasonable notice of its intent to consider the Superintendent's suspension recommendation at the public meeting, and Respondent was deprived his substantive right to contest the recommendation and the Board's determination. Respondent is entitled to remain on paid suspension from May 6, 2003, the date of the effective suspension, through May 20, 2003, the date of Petitioner's properly noticed public meeting to terminate him. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 7th day of January, 2004.
