The Issue The issue in the case is whether Vera Evans (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Life Care Center of Altamonte Springs (Respondent) on the basis of disability, in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since 1977, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner has been employed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN). In 2003, the Petitioner began her employment as an LPN with the Respondent in their skilled nursing unit, where she remained employed until her termination from employment on March 26, 2015. According to the formal job description adopted by the Respondent for its LPNs, persons employed as LPNs by the Respondent must “practice dependable, regular attendance” because the essential function of the LPN position is to provide patient care. The Respondent must insure that adequate staffing is available and present to provide such care. The failure of an LPN to be present for work and to be prepared to carry out the functions of the position increases the workload of other staff and can negatively affect patient care. The Respondent has adopted formal policies related to various forms of leave, including routine sick leave as well as extended requests for leave related to medical issues, such as Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. Additionally the Respondent’s formal policies encourage an employee to request an accommodation when medical impairments present challenges to the performance of the essential functions of an employee’s position. At the hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged that she was aware of the Respondent’s attendance and leave policies. The Petitioner previously requested and received a work accommodation in February 2014, when she was unable to work a full schedule due to a medical issue. In November 2014, the Petitioner took FMLA leave to address another medical issue. According to the documentation submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent as part of her FLMA leave request, the period of the Petitioner’s incapacity was November 17, 2014, through February 28, 2015. The Petitioner requested and was granted 12 weeks of FMLA leave, which commenced on November 17, 2014. The end of the Petitioner’s 12-week FMLA leave period was February 9, 2015. The Respondent’s FMLA leave policy specifically provides that an employee must return to work on the next scheduled workday after the expiration of the leave period, unless the employee provides a doctor’s note and receives approval from the Respondent. The Respondent’s FMLA leave policy also requires an employee to periodically contact the Respondent during the leave period and report her status, including her intention to return to work. During the time that the Petitioner was on approved FMLA leave, the Petitioner failed to contact the Respondent to indicate when she would be available to return to work. Several times during the Petitioner’s absence, Jermaine Morris, the Respondent’s staffing coordinator, contacted the Respondent and attempted to determine when she would be able to return to work. Mr. Morris did so at the direction of Astrid Lopez, the Respondent’s Director of Human Resources. Mr. Morris’ attempts were unsuccessful because the Petitioner was unable to identify an anticipated return date during their conversations. The Petitioner’s approved FMLA leave expired on February 9, 2015, by which time the Petitioner had failed to communicate to the Respondent her intention to return to work. The Respondent’s adopted leave policy specifically requires that non-FMLA leave requests must be submitted in writing to the requesting employee’s immediate supervisor, and must state the purpose of the request and the proposed dates of absence. Although the Petitioner had not filed a written request for additional leave or submitted the required documentation prior to the expiration of her FMLA leave, the Respondent granted non-FMLA leave to the Petitioner when the Petitioner did not return to work. At the same time, Ms. Lopez also placed the Petitioner on an “as needed” work status (also known as “PRN” status). The PRN classification allowed the Petitioner to remain on the Respondent’s employment roster and required only that she work a single shift during a 60-day period. The Respondent’s leave policy provides that non-FMLA leave is limited to no more than six weeks. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s non-FMLA leave period continued through March 26, 2015. Ms. Lopez testified that, despite the Petitioner’s failure to submit a written request for non-FMLA leave policy, she decided to grant non-FMLA leave because the Petitioner was a valued employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner never submitted a written request for non-FMLA leave, but apparently after Ms. Lopez had already approved the non-FMLA leave, the Petitioner had a doctor’s note delivered to the Respondent. After the Petitioner filed her complaint of discrimination with the FCHR, the Respondent, in preparing to respond to the Petitioner’s complaint, located a note in the Petitioner’s personnel file, purportedly written by a physician on a prescription pad and signed February 19, 2015. The note indicated that the Petitioner would require an additional three months of leave. The Petitioner’s approved FMLA leave had expired prior to the date of the note. For reasons that are unclear, the note was never delivered to Ms. Lopez for her review. Ms. Lopez had approved the non-FMLA leave for the Petitioner prior to the date of the note. The Petitioner never contacted anyone in the Human Resources office to follow-up on the note, and apparently assumed that an additional three months of leave had been approved. The Respondent’s failure to respond to the note was inadvertent. Had the Petitioner actually submitted a written request for non-FMLA leave as required by the Respondent’s policy, the Respondent would have been made aware of the note. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the note was purposeful or discriminatory against the Petitioner. The Respondent’s leave policy also sets forth the procedure and timelines by which the benefits of an employee on non-FMLA leave are suspended and a COBRA insurance notice issued. The Petitioner’s benefits were suspended and she received a timely COBRA insurance notice as provided by the policy. On March 26, 2015, at the conclusion of the approved non-FMLA leave period, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner’s employment. Prior to the termination, the Petitioner had failed to work a single shift as required by her PRN classification. Moreover, the Petitioner had failed to comply with state- mandatory LPN training requirements that had been imposed prior to the termination date. The Petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing that the Respondent’s decision to terminate her employment was at all related to disability. To the contrary, the Respondent approved the leave requested by the Petitioner, and in fact, granted additional leave to the Petitioner, without her request, so that she remained on the Respondent’s roster of employees. There is no evidence that the Respondent failed to provide any disability-related accommodation requested by the Petitioner. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that she was not interested in returning to work for the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding, under the relevant provisions of Chapter 760 Florida Statutes, concern whether the Petitioner was discriminatorily discharged because of her race and purported disability.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Escambia County Area Transit, Inc., operates a passenger bus service in the area of Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner was employed as a bus operator since August of 1999. On September 7, 2006, the Petitioner took FMLA leave for a condition involving migraine headaches. That leave extended through October 9, 2006. The Petitioner returned to work from that FMLA leave on January 9, 2007, however. A notice was sent to the Petitioner from Dawn Groders, an administrator with the Respondent, on April 19, 2007, informing the Petitioner that she had exhausted her FMLA leave for the twelve month "rolling calendar year" and that she would not begin accumulating additional FMLA leave until October 9, 2007. The Respondent's policy regarding FMLA leave is as follows: "If a family leave of absence exceeds 12 weeks on a rolling twelve month period, the employment status may be in jeopardy, which could result in termination of employment." There is a labor contract between the Respondent and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1395, the Petitioner's union. That contract contains no provision regarding warning or noticing an employee about obtaining exhaustion of FMLA leave. On October 19, 2007, the Petitioner commenced additional FMLA leave for an injury to her finger. The collective bargaining agreement contains a provision regarding a discretionary leave of thirty days which may be discretionarily granted by the employer. Because the Petitioner had previously exhausted her FMLA leave, based on the rolling twelve month calendar, and had yet to re-acquire any leave, the Petitioner was granted discretionary leave by the Respondent because of having exhausted her FMLA leave. The Petitioner contends that she should have been given alternative light-duty work by the Respondent. On December 3, 2007, however, the Petitioner received a letter from Richard Deibler, the Respondent's Director of Safety Training and Planning, which stated that there was no temporary alternative- duty work available at that time. (Respondent's Exhibit 4, in evidence). The witness for the Respondent established that there was no available part-time or light-duty work at the time the Petitioner was on FMLA leave or attempted to be on FMLA leave. The union contract does not require that part-time, light-duty work be available, with the exception of one individual who was so authorized and who was "grandfathered-in" in that status from a previous union contract. The Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence which would establish that light-duty, part-time work was available at the time in question, in late 2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner remained on re-activated FMLA leave due to her previous injury during the month of December 2007. On December 11, 2007, she received a notice from the Respondent to the effect that she must report for duty by December 27, 2007, because of exhaustion of her FMLA leave and was advised that her employment might be terminated if she were not at work by that date. On December 27, 2007, the Petitioner failed to return to work and her employment was terminated because of exhaustion of her FMLA leave, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. As of the date of her termination, the Petitioner had used a total of 64 days of FMLA leave during the course of the rolling calendar year, dating back to December 27, 2006. The Respondent was aware that the Petitioner had exhausted her FMLA leave based on a rolling calendar year in October 2007, and yet still extended her leave, not just for the referenced thirty days discretionary leave, but for nearly ninety additional days. The Petitioner has asserted no dispute with the number of days the Respondent contends (and the evidence supports) that she was not present at work due to using FMLA leave or other forms of leave, such as discretionary leave. The Petitioner offered no persuasive evidence to show that she was terminated from her employment due to her race or any other reason aside from exhaustion of her FMLA leave and the company's policy with regard thereto. The Respondent's representative and witness established, with her testimony, that the Petitioner was not terminated because of any perceived or actual disability. Although the Respondent knew of the medical reasons the Petitioner stated necessitated her absence, the Respondent was not aware that any physical impairment had resulted in an impairment of any major life activity of the Petitioner. The testimony of Ms. Chizek, is accepted as persuasive in establishing that the Petitioner was not terminated because of any perceived or actual disability or for reasons of her race, but rather was terminated solely because she had exhausted her FMLA leave and in fact the substantial amount of discretionary leave voluntarily granted to her by the Respondent. The Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that employees or former employees, outside her protected class (African-American) had been treated dissimilarly and more favorably, for the same or similar violations of company policy, to wit, the exhaustion of FMLA leave and subsequent continued failure to return to work. In fact, the persuasive, preponderant evidence shows that the Respondent uniformly applied its policy regarding FMLA exhaustion and subsequent termination of employment. Patty Chizek conducted an audit of all employee files in the fall of 2007 concerning the question of FMLA exhaustion. That audit was not an attempt to single out the Petitioner in any way due to her race or any disability, if one existed. Her investigation revealed that, in fact, a number of employees had exhausted their FMLA leave. They were all terminated during the month of December 2007, similarly to the Petitioner. Thus, Mary Nelson, Nadine Harris, Eurethia Davies, and Linda Donaldson, all of whom are Caucasian women, were terminated during December 2007 because of exhaustion of their FMLA leave. Derrick Roberts, an African-American male, was terminated during that month, for the same reason. All of these employees were terminated for that reason after not being able to return to work for a reasonable period of time after exhaustion of FMLA leave. Moreover, the Petitioner testified that she was first absent from work due to a migraine headache-related medical problem and, on the later occasion, due to injury of her finger, apparently caused by wrestling with the steering wheel of her bus, after it ran on the curb of a street she was traversing. Although it might be recognized, and indeed is undisputed, that these injuries or medical conditions were experienced by the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not establish that they truly impaired her in a major life activity. Even if they were significant, physical reasons for being absent from work for some of the time during which the Petitioner was absent, she did not establish, with persuasive evidence, that they impaired a major life activity and constituted any permanent, or relatively permanent, impairment of her ability to perform the duties of her job. Even if the Petitioner had established that there was a permanent impairment which might constitute a disability, she did not establish that the Respondent had refused a reasonable request for an accommodation therefor. Although the Petitioner requested light-duty employment, the Respondent established with persuasive evidence that, at the time it was requested by the Petitioner, there was no such employment available. Therefore, it was not an accommodation the Respondent could reasonably offer the Petitioner at that time, even if the Petitioner had a known, perceived or recognized disability at that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Marino, Esquire McMahon & Berger 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 James N. Foster McMahon & Berger 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63131 Tricia Dubose 1349 43rd Ensley Street Birmingham, Alabama 35208 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of her age or disability when Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a rehabilitation and nursing center located in Port Richey, Florida. Petitioner began her employment with Petitioner on August 2, 2004, as a dietary aide and remained employed as a dietary aide until the date of termination from employment on June 26, 2007. As a dietary aide, Petitioner provided assistance in the kitchen area before, during, and after meals. Petitioner cleaned tables, assisted with food carts, removed garbage, and performed other physical duties to assist with the meal service. Petitioner sustained a fractured wrist in an accident at her home on March 27, 2007. Respondent provided unpaid leave for Petitioner, pursuant to Family and Medical Leave Policy (the FMLA Policy). The leave to which Petitioner was entitled as a job benefit began on March 27, 2007. Petitioner was eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the FMLA Policy. On April 20, 2007, the treating physician for Petitioner at the Center for Bone & Joint Disease provided a note to Respondent stating that Petitioner was unable to return to work for eight weeks. Respondent correctly excused Petitioner from work until June 15, 2007. On April 24, 2007, the treating physician for Petitioner completed a Certification for Health Care Provider Form and presented the form to Respondent. The form indicated that Petitioner’s leave would expire on June 15, 2007. Petitioner completed, signed, and provided to Respondent a Request for Leave of Absence Form, indicating her anticipated return date to be June 15, 2007. Respondent provided leave for Petitioner until June 19, 2007. It is undisputed that, seven days before returning to work, the FMLA Policy required Petitioner to provide a medical clearance or a doctor’s statement that she was physically able to resume the normal duties of her employment. Shortly after May 1, 2007, Petitioner received a memo from the administrator for Respondent reminding Petitioner that her “FMLA leave EXPIRES on: 6/19/2007.” In late May 2007, Ms. Joann Robinson, a co- worker and former cook for Respondent, spoke to Petitioner by telephone and requested that Petitioner contact the supervisor about Petitioner’s return to work. Petitioner acknowledged to Ms. Robinson that Petitioner would contact the supervisor. Ms. Robinson informed the supervisor that she spoke with Petitioner and that Petitioner stated she would contact the supervisor. When the supervisor did not hear from Petitioner, the supervisor and Ms. Laura Gilbreath, payroll administrator for Respondent, attempted to contact Petitioner by telephone approximately one week prior to the expiration of the FMLA leave. The purpose of the telephone call was to confirm that Petitioner was able to return to work upon expiration of her FMLA leave. The supervisor and Ms. Gilbreath were unable to reach Petitioner because her telephone service was disconnected. Petitioner never contacted Respondent prior to the expiration of the FMLA leave on June 19, 2007. Petitioner never contacted her supervisor about returning to work and never presented a medical clearance or doctor’s statement that she was physically able to resume her normal duties. Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment on June 26, 2007, for exceeding the leave allocated under the FMLA Policy and failing to contact the facility or report back to work with proper documentation prior to the expiration of her FMLA leave. Respondent has terminated other employees who failed to contact the facility or return to work upon exhaustion of leave under the FMLA Policy, and there is no evidence to suggest Respondent treated Petitioner any differently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherry Malter 9415 Palm Avenue Port Richey, Florida 34668 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Benjamin D. Sharkey, Esquire Jackson Lewis St. Joe Building 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 450 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Rivero was first employed by Miami-Dade County in November 1984, apparently as a security guard with the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department. He took a physical examination and informed the doctor conducting the examination that he suffered from cluster migraine headaches and that they occurred about six to eight times each month. Mr. Rivero subsequently left his employment with Miami-Dade County, but was re-hired in September 1986. At the time he was re-hired, he advised the recruiting officer that he suffered from migraine headaches. Mr. Rivero was employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department from September 1986 until August 10, 1999. From January 1996 through May 1999, Mr. Rivero was employed as a park ranger by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, and he worked at the Metrozoo. His job responsibilities included patrolling areas of the zoo, assisting in emergencies, providing information to patrons, and providing for the safety of patrons and security for Miami-Dade County property. Because of his migraine headaches, Mr. Rivero often was absent from work, and he was advised several times by his supervisors, in documents entitled Record of Counseling, that the frequency of his absences was unacceptable. The most recent Record of Counseling submitted at the hearing by Mr. Rivero was dated November 24, 1997. On January 10, 1995, Mr. Rivero consulted with Ray Lopez, M.D., a neurologist, about his recurring migraine headaches, which had become more intense and frequent after Mr. Rivero was involved in an automobile accident in November 1994. Dr. Lopez diagnosed Mr. Rivero with migraine headaches, with post-traumatic, likely cervicogenic, intensification. Dr. Lopez treated Mr. Rivero for his headaches from January 1995 until at least December 1999. During this time, Mr. Rivero was seen by Dr. Lopez approximately twice a month. Between 1995 and 1999, Mr. Rivero's migraine headaches continued to intensify in severity and frequency. By January 1999, Mr. Rivero found it increasingly more difficult to carry out his duties as a park ranger at Miami-Dade County's Metrozoo when he had a headache, and his headaches were occurring almost daily. Between January 1999 and March 1, 1999, Dr. Lopez wrote several notes documenting Mr. Rivero's inability to work on specified days because of the headaches. Effective March 29, 1999, Mr. Rivero's work schedule was cut from 39 hours per week to 16 hours per week. Mr. Rivero had previously worked Saturdays through Wednesdays, with Thursdays and Fridays off. As a result of the change, Mr. Rivero was assigned to work on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Mr. Rivero last reported for work at the Metrozoo on or about May 22, 1999. Mr. Rivero was unable to continue working because of the frequency and severity of his headaches. Nonetheless, Mr. Rivero called the Metrozoo office regularly between May 22, 1999, and July 18, 1999, to report that he was absent because of illness. He did not, however, have any intention of returning to work after May 1999 because he believed he could no longer perform the duties required of a park ranger.3 In July 1999, Diane Condon, the personnel manager for Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, was told by Mr. Rivero's supervisor at the Metrozoo that Mr. Rivero had been absent for quite some time, that he had exhausted his paid leave time, and that the reason for his absences was medical. It was suggested to Ms. Congdon that Mr. Rivero be offered leave under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. In a letter dated July 12, 1999, from John Aligood, Chief of the Human Resources Division of the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department, Mr. Rivero was notified that he had been preliminarily granted family/medical leave but that he would have to present a certification from his doctor within 15 days of the date he received the letter in order for his eligibility for such leave to be finally determined. Mr. Rivero was advised in the July 12, 1999, letter that continuation of the leave was contingent on receipt of medical certification from his doctor; that he must furnish the certification within 15 days after he received the letter; and that "[f]ailure to do so will result in relinquishing FMLA leave; you will then be required to return to the full duties of your job or resign, or you will be terminated for abandonment of position." The July 12, 1999, letter was sent to Mr. Rivero via certified mail, and he picked it up on July 22, 1999. Mr. Rivero contacted Ms. Congdon on July 22, 1999, and told her that Dr. Lopez was unavailable at that time to complete the medical certification. Ms. Congdon advised him that the medical certification was required for the family/medical leave to continue.4 In a letter dated August 10, 1999, which was prepared by Ms. Congdon, Mr. Rivero was advised that his employment had been terminated for abandonment of position because he had failed to provide the medical certification required for continuation of family/medical leave by July 26, 1999, which was 15 days after July 12, 1999.5 Summary The evidence presented by Mr. Rivero is insufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that his employment as a park ranger with the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department was terminated because of his medical condition. Mr. Rivero himself testified that he believed he was unable to perform the duties required by his job as of May 1999 because of his migraine headaches and that he had no intention of returning to work subsequent to May 1999. The evidence presented by Mr. Rivero is sufficient to support the inference that, prior to July 12, 1999, Mr. Rivero did not advise his supervisor at the Metrozoo or anyone else in the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department that he did not intend to return to work after the end of May 1999. His being placed preliminarily on family/medical leave as of July 12, 1999, did not harm Mr. Rivero but, rather, resulted in his health benefits being continued until his termination on August 10, 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief of Ruben Rivero. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2002.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner, pursuant to Rule 6C-770 F.A.C., abandoned her position as a Secretary Specialist, thereby resigning from Florida State University by being absent without leave for three consecutive days.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner, Teresa Loewy, was employed as a Secretary Specialist in the Department of Educational Leadership at Florida State University (FSU). On October 22, 1989, Petitioner Loewy reported that she had suffered a head injury as a result of an on-the-job accident. That same day, she was seen at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center and released. On October 23, 1987, FSU placed Petitioner on administrative leave for 40 hours. Contact was made by Petitioner and her husband, Mr. Samuel Loewy, with Dr. David Leslie, Department Chairman, with Nina Mingledorff, Department Staff Assistant and Petitioner's immediate supervisor, and with Motney Gray, FSU Workers' Compensation Supervisor. The Loewys were informed that a worker's compensation report had been completed and forwarded by the Department to Ms. Gray. This is the first formal step in an employer acknowledging that workers' compensation or medical benefits may be due a worker pursuant to Chapter 440, F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Law." By letter dated November 3, mailed November 5, and received by Petitioner on November 10, 1987, Chairman Leslie informed Petitioner in pertinent part as follows: As you may be aware, you have been on disability leave for a 40 hour work period. Beyond that limit, this office will not certify any additional leave for you unless we receive medical proof that you are unable to return to work. Although you may apply for workers' compensation, I believe that similar proof will be required by that office. Absent any further communication from you and absent proof to the contrary, we assume that you are capable of returning to work and have elected not to do so (R-3). By letter of November 5, 1987, (R-9) Motney Gray notified Petitioner that Ms. Gray's communications with Joe D. Rawlings, M.D. had convinced Ms. Gray that Petitioner was not still impaired and was able to work and that Ms. Gray was terminating workers' compensation medical benefits and Petitioner's disability leave as of that date. By letter dated November 12 and received November 13, 1987, Robert L. Lathrop, Dean of the College, informed Petitioner as follows: Based on Motney Gray's letter of November 5, to you, we are hereby notifying you as of 8:00 a.m. November 6, you have been on unauthorized leave. Because of your unauthorized leave of absence, I am writing this letter to determine your intentions concerning continued employment at Florida State University. You must report for work immediately, or provide your supervisor, Mrs. Nina Mingledorff, with appropriate medical certification by 4:30 p.m., Monday, November 16, or it will be assumed you have voluntarily resigned due to abandonment of your position. (R-1) In response, on November 16, 1987, Mr. Loewy, on behalf of his wife, delivered to the Department a handwritten note from Dr. Rawlings, (R-2) which read: To whom it may concern: Mrs. Teresa Loewy is still under my care for headaches dating back to her injury on 10-22-87. At that point in time, Dr. Rawlings could be accurately characterized as Petitioner's primary treating physician pursuant to Chapter 440, F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Law". Copies of this letter were seen by Nina Mingledorff and by Annette Roberts, FSU Employee Labor Relations Coordinator. On November 17, 1987, Petitioner and Mr. Loewy, together with another couple, visited Petitioner's workplace. Their purpose was to have Petitioner physically on the employment premises to demonstrate that Petitioner was unable to work due to her injury. At that time, the Loewy faction spoke with Annette Roberts, with John Goldinger, Assistant Personnel Director, and with Dean Lathrop. Initially, Petitioner was given a termination letter prepared for the Dean's signature, based upon Petitioner's three consecutive days' absence without prior authorization, which letter was as yet unsigned. However, as a result of the Loewy faction's face-to-face interview with Dean Lathrop, a new memorandum was prepared and actually signed by the Dean. This second communication was addressed to John Goldinger and read as follows: I am hereby authorizing leave of absence for Ms. Teresa A. Loewy beginning November 16, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. and ending no later than 10:00 a.m. on November 20, 1987. The purpose of this leave is to provide time for Mrs. Loewy to secure medical certification that she is unable to drive herself to work. (R-4) The effect of this memorandum, signed by Dean Lathrop and handed to Petitioner, was to supersede his other unsigned/unconsummated correspondence attempting to terminate her under the three days' absence rule. On November 20, 1987, Mr. Loewy obtained a two page letter from Dr. Rawlings (R-6) dated the preceding day. That letter, which Mr. Loewy was unable to pick up at Dr. Rawlings' office in Thomasville, Georgia, until shortly after the 10:00 a.m. November 20 deadline established by Dean Lathrop's November 17 signed memorandum, may be summarized as follows: Dr. Florek, a board certified neurologist had diagnosed Petitioner as having post-concussive syndrome on October 29, 1987. Sometime between November 3 and 6, Dr. Bridges, an opthomologist had diagnosed her eye examination as "essentially within normal limits". With the concurrence of FSU's Motney Gray, Petitioner was scheduled for an MMPI (a psychological assessment), the results of which had not yet been received on the date of Dr. Rawlings' letter, November 19, 1987. She was also scheduled for an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging, a type of x-ray particularly helpful in determining head and soft tissue injuries) which was scheduled for November 24, 1987. Dr. Rawlings confirmed that the Petitioner continued to come to him with the subjective complaints of headaches, blurred vision, and diplopia. The overall tone of his letter is that Dr. Rawlings thought Petitioner could work as of November 19, 1987, although he did not specifically say so. His rather vague summation was, "I have relayed to Mrs. Loewy [on] a number of occasions that I feel this problem will be self limited and that all attempts will be made on my part to not give her any type medication which might be habit forming." (R-6) On his wife's behalf, on November 20, 1987, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Mr. Loewy presented Dr. Rawlings' November 19, 1987 letter in a sealed envelope to Evelyn Ashley, Dean Lathrop's Administrative Assistant, and also gave a copy of it to Nina Mingledorff. Dean Lathrop was not in the workplace that day. During the time he was at Petitioner's workplace on November 20, 1987, Mrs. Ashley presented Mr. Loewy with a request form for a leave of absence without pay. She and others emphasized to him that the completed form must specify a date the Petitioner could return to work, a fact clearly in contention at that point. He was requested to have Petitioner complete the form and return it. He was not told how long Mrs. Loewy would have in which to complete and return the form. From this point forward the testimony is in sharp conflict. It is debatable whether Mr. Loewy was concerned about the effect such a "form" request might have upon his wife's job status or her incipient workers' compensation claim, whether he merely felt she was entitled to leave with pay, or whether he was ever told he could sign the form for his wife. It is clear, however, that Mr. Loewy refused to complete the form on Petitioner's behalf and also refused to take it to her unless he could add a notation to the form that her job would not be jeopardized by requesting such voluntary leave. Having assessed the candor and demeanor of the respective witnesses and the internal and external credibility and consistency or lack thereof of their respective versions of the events and conversations of November 20, 1987, it is found that FSU personnel refused to permit any additions or deletions to the form. They also refused to permit Mr. Loewy to submit a separate explanatory note with regard to the Loewys' position on the subject, even though it was John Goldinger's view at the time of formal hearing that it had always been normal FSU procedure to permit attachments and addendums to other requests for leave without pay. The standard forms requesting leave without pay which were presented by FSU employees to Mr. Loewy therefore were never given to Petitioner, completed by her, or submitted by the Petitioner to the University, although Mr. Loewy was repeatedly told that Petitioner's job would not be held for her unless the forms were filled out and submitted. Dr. Rawlings' November 19 letter (R-6) was not transmitted by his subordinates to Dean Lathrop at or near the time Mr. Loewy submitted it to them. Neither did Chairman Leslie contemporaneously see Exhibit R-6. According to Dr. Leslie, no one below his administrative level had the authority to determine the sufficiency of that "excuse" and the appropriate person to have decided that issue would have been Dean Lathrop. Annette Roberts and John Goldinger agreed that leave requests often went through Dean Lathrop. Although the Dean might not vary duly promulgated rules, the evidence as a whole, including Dean Lathrop's prior informal extension of Petitioner's leave, supports Annette Roberts' assertion that Dean Lathrop had the discretion to either effect the abandonment or increase the grace/leave period he had previously granted Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner never did return to work. On Wednesday, November 25, 1987, Dean Lathrop, unaware of the contents of the November 19 letter from Dr. Rawlings, and therefore never having decided on its sufficiency or lack thereof, prepared the following termination letter to Petitioner: You have been absent without leave of absence for 3 or more consecutive workdays . . . [Rule 6C-5.770(2)(a) is quoted] . . . Based on the above stated rule, you are deemed to have resigned from your position. . . effective this date, November 25, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. (R-10) Bracketed material and emphasis provided] It is clear from the foregoing, that regardless of Petitioner's not having submitted any leave without pay request forms, and regardless of Petitioner's nebulous status as to leave after her initial 40 hours disability leave (See Findings of Fact 4-9 supra), Dean Lathrop counted toward implementation of the three days' abandonment rule only the three consecutive "working days" (presumably 24 work hours) elapsing after his own ultimatum time and date of 10:00 a.m., November 20. The Dean's reasoning, as explained by him at formal hearing, was that the Petitioner had not requested a leave of absence. Evelyn Ashley stated that she had told Dean Lathrop both that the doctor's letter (R-6) had been submitted and also that the Dean could do nothing about processing leave for Mrs. Loewy because R-6 had to be attached to a "request for leave form" and that "form" had not been submitted by the Petitioner. Dean Lathrop testified that if he had seen R-6 and still had any doubts of its sufficiency, he probably would have approved leave on the same basis as he had on November 17, at least until he had the opportunity to consult medical personnel further. It was never determined by FSU personnel prior to formal hearing whether the December 19 communication from Dr. Rawlings (R-6) was sufficient under the terms of the Dean's November 17 memorandum granting further leave up to 10:00 a.m., November 20, 1987. As of Friday, November 20, 1987, Petitioner had only 1.7 hours annual leave and 3.5 hours sick leave status to draw upon. After her separation date, Petitioner was paid for 1.7 hours of accrued annual leave; she was not paid for any accumulated sick leave. Subsequently, Petitioner and FSU became embroiled in workers' compensation litigation and entered into a "Stipulation and Joint Petition" which was adopted and approved by an Order of the Deputy Commissioner dated August 8, 1988. (P-3) 1/ Admitted facts found therefrom which are relevant, material, and significant to the instant cause and which are not cumulative to any of the facts found supra, are as follows: . . . She [Petitioner] was scheduled for an MMPI which was done on November 20, 1987. An MRI scan of the brain was done November 23, 1987 and was interpreted as normal. . . . Dr. Bridges examined the Employee [Petitioner herein] on 11/3/87 and found irregular visual fields, more constricted in the right eye, but otherwise normal examination. The employee was then seen by Dr. Thomas J. Perkins who diagnosed occipital syndrome on the right side and recommended treatment by Dr. Seay. . . . The employer/carrier and employee/claimant stipulate and agree that the maximum medical improvement date is April 25, 1988, pursuant to the medical report of Dr. James T. Willis. [Bracketted material provided] It is clear on the record that Motney Gray, FSU's Coordinator for Insurance Risk, informed Dr. Rawlings on several occasions that it was "possible" that workers' compensation would pay for another employee to transport Petitioner from her home in Thomasville, Georgia, to work at FSU in Tallahassee, Florida, but it is not clear that this offer was ever made any more concrete than as a "possibility", and the offer apparently was never made directly to the Petitioner by any representative of FSU. It is clear that, at some point, Dr. Rawlings conveyed this offer to the Petitioner, but it is not clear on the record that this information ever reached Petitioner at any time prior to November 25, 1987 and simultaneously with a period she also was not taking a drug prescribed by some physician. Petitioner was treated, not just by Dr. Rawlings, but by Doctors Florek, Bridges, Seay, Willis, Hogan, and Perkins. At some point in time, Dr. Willis, a chiropractic physician, became Petitioner's primary treating physician. Moreover, it is clear that Dean Lathrop, who was Petitioner's only superior with authority to determine the sufficiency of the letter of certification (R-6), was concerned about Petitioner's ability or inability to drive herself, not whether someone else could or would drive her to work. In addition to the oral communications to Mr. Loewy on November 20, FSU had directly advised Petitioner concerning the general nature of its abandonment rule and of FSU's requirements for prior approval of all leave requests, first by circulating standard informational documents to all employees, and secondly, by its various letters to Petitioner which are described supra. The parties stipulated that in the event abandonment was not proven, any back wages awarded to Petitioner should be subject to all appropriate class pay increases, and should be reduced by the workers' compensation and unemployment compensation already paid to Petitioner, and should be further reduced by any income earned by her.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Finding Petitioner has not abandoned her position. Reinstating Petitioner to her position. Ordering payment of backpay and emoluments from November 25, 1987, less unemployment and workers compensation paid by Respondent and less mitigation earnings of Petitioner, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Denying any attorney's fees. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1989. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 5th day of October, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice (discrimination under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes) against Petitioner on the basis of his race (Black/African-American), handicap, or retaliation, and if so, what is the remedy? Although cases arising under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may be instructive for interpreting and applying the handicap provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's claim under ADA and any allegations of libel and slander are not within the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lawrence James, Jr., is a Black/African- American. Respondent, The Alachua County Department of Criminal Justice Service, is an "employer" within the definition in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent operates the Alachua County Jail. Respondent maintains a paramilitary command, advancement, and ranking system for its employees. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Sergeant. On March 2, 1994, an inmate escaped from the Alachua County Jail during the evening shift. As a result of the inmate's escape, several correctional officers were disciplined. Petitioner was disciplined by a reduction in rank April 26, 1994. (P-37) There were allegations that harsher discipline had been meted out to the Black/African-American officers, and the matter was arbitrated, pursuant to the union collective bargaining contract. As a result of the arbitration, in the summer of 1994, it was recommended that Petitioner be returned to his position at the Jail with restoration of rank, but without any back pay. However, at the time of that recommendation, Petitioner already had been terminated for "a non-related infraction of county policy." (P-37) The "non-related infraction of county policy" reason for Petitioner's 1994 termination was not established on this record, but neither was any discriminatory reason proven.2 After Petitioner's 1994 termination, further proceedings ensued, and Petitioner was ultimately restored to his rank and position at the Jail. As part of this restoration, it was agreed the Respondent employer would conduct training and re-orientation sessions for Petitioner, since he had not actively been performing his duties at the Jail for approximately two years. The present case only addresses the discrimination Petitioner allegedly suffered due to race, handicap, or retaliation concerning his leave requests in 1996, and his 1997 termination for unauthorized absence. After his second successful arbitration(s) and/or grievance procedure, Petitioner was eligible to return to work on February 19, 1996. He did not return on that date. Respondent ordered Petitioner back to work on March 13, 1996, at which time Petitioner requested, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It is not clear if Petitioner ever made Respondent aware that he suffered from high blood pressure, but from the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner notified Respondent in March 1996, that he was suffering from a prior on- the-job injury to his back, diabetes, and depression. Diabetes, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Clinical depression, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contended at hearing that his clinical depression in 1996 was due to his 1994 demotion and termination and the procedures to get his job back and also due to the hostile work environment he anticipated he would face if he returned to work daily in 1996 with people whom he perceived as having lied about him and who had tried to terminate him. It should be noted that Petitioner did not clearly include "hostile work environment" in either his 1998, Charge of Discrimination or his 2000, Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations only considered and referred the instant case upon allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, and retaliation. From Petitioner's description of his back ailment, it is found that condition also constituted a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. From Petitioner's description of how his back injury affected his daily life and job performance, it is very doubtful that Petitioner was able to physically fulfill the requirements of being a jailor at any time in 1996 until he was terminated in 1997. No evidence was presented with regard to the workers' compensation consequences of this situation. By an April 1, 1996, letter, Respondent's Interim Director of Criminal Justice Service, Richard Tarbox, informed Petitioner that he had exhausted his sick leave credits as of the pay period ending March 31, 1996; that based on Respondent's records, Petitioner would exhaust the balance of his accrued sick leave at the rate of forty hours per week during the pay period ending May 12, 1996; that he was expected to know his available accrued leave credits and to contact his immediate supervisor at least one week prior to the expiration of the current leave period to request leave without pay if he anticipated not returning to work; and that he had been placed on FMLA leave for an indefinite period, not to exceed twelve weeks, which would expire on June 6, 1996. (R-30) The April 1, 1996, letter specifically informed Petitioner that failure to come to work or contact Respondent could be considered abandonment of his position. (R-30) The foregoing instructions concerning "abandonment of position" parallel Alachua County's Personnel Regulations and Disciplinary Policy, hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as "personnel regulations." (P-1). Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; c. Group III Offenses No. 8, at pages 5-6, of the personnel regulations had existed prior to Petitioner's 1994 termination, and was in effect at all times material. It provided, Absence of three consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ. The personnel regulations also provided in Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; a. Group I Offenses No. 8, at pages 3-4, that the following offense would subject an employee to progressive discipline: Absence without authorization or failure to notify appropriate supervisory personnel on the first day of absence. (Emphasis supplied). This regulation also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994, and was in effect at all times material. Progressive discipline for the first such offense was written instruction, counseling and/or one-day suspension. For the second occurrence, one to five days' suspension was specified. For the third occurrence, up to five days' suspension or discharge was specified. These provisions also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994 and were in effect at all times material. Petitioner was also familiar with the long-standing progressive discipline system of Respondent's personnel regulations. Basically, this system required that discipline first be proposed in writing by a superior. The proposed discipline would go into effect and become actual discipline if the employee did not appear at a hearing to dispute the charges or the proposed discipline. If the employee prevailed at the hearing, the proposed discipline would be rescinded or altered. If the employee did not prevail, the proposed discipline would be reduced to writing in another document, and the employee then had the option of filing a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement or of appealing through the personnel system to a citizens' board. While Petitioner had been absent in 1994-1996, a new requirement had been added to the personnel regulations, under Chapter A-299, which required that employees who planned to be absent, must notify their immediate supervisor no later than 30 minutes from the time they are scheduled to report for work. (Emphasis supplied) The "immediate supervisor" or "appropriate supervisory personnel" in Petitioner's situation would have been the lieutenant on his shift. However, Petitioner and Lt. Little, who became his supervisor, concurred that the custom at the Jail always had been to require that employees contact the shift sergeant on the shift preceding an emergency absence, or if that were not possible, to contact the employee's own shift sergeant or anyone else on that shift. Jail custom also provided that the employee who was going to be absent could rely on any person on his shift to deliver his oral message to the employee's supervising lieutenant and that approval or disapproval paperwork would be handled by that lieutenant after notification. On June 6, 1996, Petitioner still had not returned to work. Instead, he requested leave without pay until June 15, 1996. Respondent granted Petitioner's request. This constituted an accommodation of Petitioner's handicap(s) in that he had no remaining earned leave or entitlement to FMLA leave, yet his employer held his position open for his return. On or about June 10, 1996, Anthony F. Greene, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Vista Pavilion, a free-standing psychiatric facility, released Petitioner to return to work. He wrote to Respondent's Risk Manager that Petitioner continued to have problems with depression, which might prove "volatile" in a work environment with superiors Petitioner believed had harassed him by terminating and blaming him for the 1994 escape. At approximately the same time, Richard Greer, M.D., medical specialty unexplained, also released Petitioner to return to work, upon the conditions that Petitioner continue to see Dr. Greene on a weekly basis and continue to take his prescriptive medications. By a July 17, 1996, letter (P-4), Interim Director Richard Tarbox notified Petitioner to report for work at the Jail on the evening shift of July 22, 1996. The letter required Petitioner to continue his sessions with Dr. Greene; to continue to take his prescriptive medications; and to take the re- training and re-orientation specified as a result of the resolution of his 1994 termination and return to work. (See Finding of Fact 7.) The July 17, 1996, letter also included the sentence, We are in the process of contacting Dr. Greene to establish a procedure to verify that you continue your sessions with him. Petitioner interpreted this sentence as the employer's promise "[T]o get all my leave slips, find out when I was going to the doctor, my mental condition, and also my medical condition." (TR-Vol.II, pages 175-176) Petitioner's interpretation of this sentence was unreasonable in light of its express language, the context of the remainder of the July 17, 1996, letter, the instructions of the April 1, 1996, letter (See Findings of Fact 16-17), and what Petitioner already knew of the County's personnel regulations and/or the Jail custom requiring him to call in and/or apply for leave to be subsequently approved or disapproved by his supervisor. Nothing in the July 17, 1996, letter altered the requirements of the personnel regulations or the April 1, 1996, letter. Petitioner bore the responsibility to ask for medical leave sufficiently in advance of his absences. On July 22, 1996, Petitioner reported for work at the Jail as instructed and was assigned to an evening shift supervised by Lt. Stover. According to Sgt. Babula, Petitioner also worked under Shift Sgt. Withey at some point in July 1996. However, by July 1996, Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. He needed to self-administer a shot of insulin each morning and night. To ensure ideal spacing of these two shots, Petitioner almost immediately requested to work the day shift. Respondent accommodated this request concerning Petitioner's handicaps and assigned him to the day shift under Lt. Little and Sgt. Babula, as shift sergeant. Petitioner claimed his handicaps were not accommodated by Respondent, but in addition to approving leave for him from February 19, 1996, to July 22, 1996, not replacing him during that period, and the change of shift made in July 1996, at Petitioner's request, Sgt. Babula testified to approving special shoes for Petitioner due to his diabetes. By September 1996, Petitioner again had used up all of his accrued leave. Accordingly, he had to ask for leave without pay to visit his various doctors, including Dr. Greene. On September 9, 1996, during a therapy session, Petitioner told Dr. Greene that he had been threatened on the job and that he was pursuing resolution of the incident through appropriate channels. The same day, Dr. Greene wrote to Lt. Little, telling him of the threat. The nature of this alleged threat or who made it was not stated in Dr. Greene's letter or at hearing. The letter cleared Petitioner to return to work September 12, 1996. This out-of-court statement to his psychotherapist at that time does not establish the truth of the statement or that Petitioner's superiors made the alleged threat. Also, the threat, if one existed, could not have related to Petitioner's written leave requests, because Petitioner's earliest dispute about leave did not occur until September 13, 1996. (See Finding of Fact 41). The September 9, 1996, date was not related by testimony to any oral or written request for leave or any disciplinary matter in evidence. Petitioner testified to having been threatened on the job sometime prior to September 9, 1996, but he never testified what the threat was, why the threat was made, or by whom the threat was made. Petitioner's witness, Alfred Dickerson, also is African-American. He testified generally that it was "pure hell" at the Jail for anyone who, like himself and Petitioner, had been disciplined due to the 1994 escape and who had prevailed in the resultant grievance activities, but he could not remember any specific incidents involving Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Dickerson was out of the Jail, on workers' compensation leave, from May 1996 to October 1997, the whole of the material time frame for this case.3 On September 16, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay to Lt. Little, his supervisor, for the previous dates of September 13 and 15, stating thereon that he had been ill those days and that the request was being made because his request to work his days off to make up for the 16 hours of leave he had used on September 13 and 15 had been denied. The request does not specifically mention "flex time." (P-6) "Flex time," as described by both Petitioner and Lt. Little, would have permitted Petitioner to work his days off, instead of taking time off without pay to make up time used to go to his doctors on days he was scheduled to work. However, if an employee asked to use flex time in this way, another employee had to trade days with him, and the exchange would be worked out by the supervising lieutenant. On October 1, 1996, Petitioner was given a "Letter of Warning" by Lt. Little. The Warning reflected that Petitioner's advising a sergeant other than his immediate supervisor, Lt. Little, on September 24, 1996, that he was not coming to work until some personal matters were taken care of, was insufficient notice and was being treated as "absence without authorization" in violation of the personnel regulations. It also stated, It has been standard practice and understood that you must notify your immediate supervisor . . . please be advised that any further violations of this nature may result in docked pay and progressive disciplinary action . . . Attached to this document was a Notice of Disciplinary Action, also prepared October 1, 1996, stating, Disciplinary action taken as a result of the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action dated blank not filled in. (Except for WARNING) WARNING (Reasons for warning): Violation of Alachua County Personnnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, a., Group I, Offense No. 8 'Absence without authorization'. (P-8) The same document notified Petitioner that he had a right to appeal the Warning pursuant to either the personnel regulations or the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt of this latter document until October 7, 1996. (P-8/R-19) Also on October 1, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay for September 23- 26 and for September 29-30, to Captain King. The reason for Petitioner's absence September 23-26 was not stated on the formal request, but Petitioner did again state thereon that his request to "flex" his days off had been denied, presumably by Lt. Little. The time for September 29-30 was requested for "personal business and emergency family leave without pay" due to his mother's seeing a doctor about her detached retinas. (P-7) Respondent is not obligated under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to accommodate Petitioner's family's handicaps.4 On October 21, 1996, a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action" was issued by Lt. Little, apparently covering the same date, September 24, 1996, as his October 1, Warning, and adding other dates. The reasons for the proposed discipline given in this October 21, 1996, Notice differ slightly from the content of the October 1, Warning. The October 21, 1996, Notice related that on September 23, Petitioner had spoken to Captain King and Lt. Little, and because his request for leave had been made in advance, Petitioner had been granted the day off; that on September 24, Petitioner had failed to report to work and failed to request an extension of leave, and he was therefore considered to be "absent without authorization" for September 24, 1996. The October 21, Notice further stated that on September 25, Petitioner had called Captain King, requesting leave without pay for September 25 and 26, and because Petitioner had requested leave in advance, Captain King had granted the request covering those two days, but that on his October 1, leave request (see Finding of Fact 44) Petitioner had included two more days, September 29 and 30, which had not been previously authorized. Finally, the October 21, Notice indicated that on September 30, Petitioner had called Lt. Stover to say that he would be reporting to work as soon as he was through testifying to the Grand Jury that afternoon, and that his failure to request leave in advance was being treated as "absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." As of this October 21, 1996, Notice, the proposed disciplinary action became suspending Petitioner without pay. Petitioner was offered an opportunity to contest the proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on November 19, 1996. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this document on October 24, 1996. (R-21) On October 22, 1996, Petitioner wrote to the Interim Director of the Jail, Richard Tarbox. In his letter, Petitioner complained that he had not yet received the agreed re- orientation and re-training. He also discussed his medical problems, including problems with recent changes in his medications and his five-year-old back injury. He requested flex time and related that his life had been threatened by employees on the job (see Findings of Fact 37-40), and that Lt. Little had been informed of the threats and flex time request, but the letter again did not indicate by whom Petitioner was threatened or why. (P-10) Despite Petitioner's after-the-fact written requests for flex time, Lt. Little had no recollection of Respondent ever asking him for flex time. There is no evidence that Lt. Little, Mr. Tarbox, or any other representative of Respondent contacted Petitioner concerning the alleged threat against him or specifically addressed the issues of re-orientation/re-training or flex time. On October 25, 1996, Dr. Greene also wrote Mr. Tarbox. He described Petitioner as cooperative and not evidencing any inappropriate behavior. He reported that Petitioner had voiced no homicidal or vengeance ideation to him. He felt that Petitioner's supervisors' requirement that Petitioner use leave to attend the mandatory therapy sessions with him constituted a paradox and a stressor for Petitioner. He felt that other stressors were the employer's failure to offer re-orientation/ re-training to Petitioner and the employer's failure to contact him, Dr. Greene, to verify treatment purposes and schedules. Dr. Greene requested that Mr. Tarbox clarify Petitioner's treatment and work status to both him and to Petitioner in a timely manner because not doing so was exacerbating Petitioner's physical condition, headaches, and diabetes. He further stated that he could release Petitioner for work without further psychological treatment and that further psychological treatment was not necessary to ensure Petitioner's fitness for work or to prevent his being a risk to others, but that Petitioner would continue in therapy for other purposes. (P-11) Neither Mr. Tarbox nor any other representative of Respondent specifically replied to Dr. Greene's October 25, 1996, letter. However, all leave disputes pending on that date were addressed in a November 22, 1996, letter to Petitioner from Captain King. (See Findings of Fact 57-59.) On October 31, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for eight hours leave without pay for leave he had taken on October 30, 1996, for "emergency dr. app't for work related injury, and lab work for diebetic [sic] condition." (P-14) At some point, a leave form for eight hours leave without pay on November 9, 1996, was prepared. It indicates that Petitoner was "unavailable to sign." This form was disapproved by Lt. Little and by Mr. Tarbox on November 12, 1996. Apparently Petitioner only signed the request on November 26, 1996. (P-21) On November 14, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 15, 1996, for "work related condition, Dr. Greene." (P-15) On November 19, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 22, 1996. The request was approved by a supervisor on November 19, 1996. (P-17) On November 22, 1996, Captain King issued a "Letter of Warning" to Petitioner. It stated that on November 19, 1996, a disciplinary hearing had been held (see Finding of Fact 47) regarding the October 21, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, addressing Petitioner's absences on September 29-30, 1996, and that because Petitioner had proven that he had attempted to contact his supervisor in advance of his absence, the September 29 violation was being withdrawn. With regard to the September 30 violation charged, it was found that Petitioner had contacted Lt. Stover and informed him that Petitioner would return to work after testifying before The Grand Jury, and since Petitioner had not returned to work on that day after testifying, he was being found guilty as charged for violation of Alachua County Personnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3. a. Group I, Offense No. 8, "Absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." The November 22, 1996, letter went on to warn Petitioner that future violations would be more carefully scrutinized for strict adherence to the policy of notification and that failures on Petitioner's part might result in progressive disciplinary action being taken. (P-20) Because prior discipline had been overturned or rescinded, the November 22, 1996, Letter of Warning was technically Petitioner's first violation/discipline. Also on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted to Lt. Little a leave request form, dated the same day, labelled "FOR INFO.," with supporting documentation, including Dr. Hunt's certificate showing Petitioner had been treated on November 4, and November 22, 1996, had office management of HTN/NIDDM hematuria, a pending IVP and urology consult, and would need to be seen again by Dr. Hunt in 4-6 weeks. The language of one attachment showed Petitioner "is under Dr. Hunt's continual care," but nothing specified any period of time Petitioner intended to take off from work for the pending consultation or any other purpose. (P-19) Petitioner testified that his November 22, 1996, leave request was not intended to request any leave at all when he submitted it, but that it should have alerted his supervisors that Petitioner had a growth between his legs that was potentially malignant and that he needed an operation sometime in the future. A reasonable person would not have concluded this from the four corners of the November 22, 1996, written request with attachments dated for past medical appointments. Petitioner also testified that by submitting the November 22, 1996, leave request "in blank" and explaining orally to Lt. Little what he intended to do was his effort to comply with the requirement that he ask for leave in advance of taking it. This testimony shows that Petitioner at this point understood the employer's prior instructions to request leave in advance. Apparently, Petitioner envisioned only having to phone in to get any member of his shift to fill in the blanks on his November 22, 1996, request form, but he admitted he had never before used a blank leave request in this way. Petitioner further testified that he had told Mr. Tarbox and other supervisors at a meeting (probably one of his disciplinary hearings) before Christmas 1996, that he "did not know how long he could work." While this representation of Petitioner is credible and it may be reasonably inferred that Mr. Tarbox understood Petitioner was debilitated to some degree by the growth and might need an operation sometime in the near future, it does not logically follow that all those hearing Petitioner at that time understood that his oral statement related to the November 22 blank leave request which had attached to it only information about past doctors' appointments and potential, undated, future consultations. Petitioner's vague statement at the meeting/hearing did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail for requesting leave. The blank November 22, 1996, leave request marked "FOR INFO" also did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail. There is no requirement that Respondent grant Petitioner an open-ended request for leave or one that specifies no time period at all. Petitioner's November 22, 1996, blank leave request was never approved. On November 26, 1996, Petitioner also acknowledged receipt of a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action," by which Lt. Little and Mr. Tarbox recommended that Petitioner be suspended without pay.5 Petitioner was again offered an opportunity to contest this proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on December 3, 1996. (P-18) The record is silent as to whether a disciplinary hearing was actually held on December 3, 1996. Petitioner submitted a leave form on December 6, 1996, for 2.5 hours "vacation" leave without pay on December 3, 1996, for a "Conference with doctor to try an [sic] stop continued disciplinary action because of illness doctor approved." (P-23) On December 3, 1996, Petitioner had telephoned Lt. Little to ask if his message had been received. He then reported to work at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's business records (P-22) show the following: Petitioner worked December 4-5, some of December 6, and all of December 7, 1996. He was not required to be at work on December 8-9. He called in sick on December 10-11. On December 12, he reported for work and attended five hours of drug policy training. Then he left for medical reasons and later called in to say he was too sick to return to work. On Friday, December 13, Petitioner called in sick, saying he was going to the doctor for a cut foot. He later called in again and was told that he needed to do his timesheet and it was agreed he would do it and have it in the following Monday. Petitioner was absent on Saturday, December 14. He was not required to be at work on December 15-16, 1996. On Monday, December 17, Petitioner did not phone or appear for work. On December 18, Petitioner phoned in, saying he had to wear bedroom slippers and had domestic problems. On December 19, Petitioner called in late and left a voice message on the Jail phone. On Friday, December 20, Petitioner called in on time but said he would not be in until Tuesday of the following week. He gave no reason. He was not required to be at work on December 22-23. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner did not come to work or call in. On Christmas Day, Petitioner called in before shift and stated he would not be in that day or the following day, December 26, 1996, until 10:00 a.m. On December 26, December 27, and December 28, Petitioner did not report for work or call in. Petitioner was not required to work December 29 or 30, 1996. On December 31, Petitioner called and said that he would not be in that day but would call back to talk to the shift lieutenant. He did not do so. Also, Petitioner did not report for work or call in for January 1 through 4, 1997. Most of this business record was substantiated by the direct testimony of Sgt. Babula and Lt. Little who observed the events and wrote most of the business record. The matters that were not confirmed in their direct testimony were supported by the type of hearsay that explains or supplements direct evidence and is admissible in this type of proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that the business record was essentially correct as to days he was absent in December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner's testimony only varies the foregoing business record to the effect that on December 10, 1996, not December 13, 1996, Petitioner called and spoke with Sgt. Withey, stating that he would not "be back [to work] until [he had] seen and heard from [his] doctors," and related to Withey that he had some problem with his foot. Petitioner assumed that his superiors would get this message and would understand that he meant he was exercising the blank November 22, 1996, leave request. (See Findings of Fact 60-66). His superiors did not infer from this message what Petitioner had hoped they would. A reasonable person would not infer all that from the information Petitioner says he provided Sgt. Withey. It is uncontested that Petitioner did have an injury to his foot at this time and that such injuries can be particularly hazardous to persons who, like Petitioner, suffer from diabetes. From December 4, 1996, onward, Petitioner did not speak directly with his lieutenant, although he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in order to request advance leave. Petitioner did not return to work after December 7, 1996. Despite the personnel rules, custom at the Jail, and prior direct orders by warning and disciplinary action letters, Petitioner submitted no leave slips directly to his superiors after December 6, 1996. Instead, he submitted them to his union shop steward and to a County Commissioner, although he had no reason to believe the Commissioner had any authority over Jail personnel matters. Respondent never authorized leave for Petitioner after December 13, 1996. Petitioner's extended absence without authorization was in violation of Respondent employer's long-standing "three day abandonment rule." There had been no word from Petitioner since December 31, 1996, so between January 17 and January 24, 1997, a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" was issued against Petitioner for [V]iolation of Alachua County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, c., Group III, Offense No. 8 'Absence of three (3) consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ.' The proposed discipline was termination, and again, Petitioner was offered the opportunity to contest the proposed final agency action at a hearing to be convened on February 18, 1997. (P-25) Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner saw a Master of Social Work, because Dr. Greene was on educational leave. Petitioner was so upset that the social worker advised him to focus on his medical problems. Apparently, Petitioner leapt to the conclusion that meant his doctors would handle all his leave-related problems. Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner had successful surgery on the growth between his legs. On January 27, 1997, Dr. Greene saw Petitioner in therapy and notified Mr. Tarbox in writing that, Mr. Lawrence James was seen for an appointment today in my office. He is apparently unable to continue working in what is perceived to be a hostile work environment at the jail. Compounded by his medical problems and what seems to be a lack of responsivity and accommodation by the administration, Mr. James' level of emotional distress has considerably increased since our last communication. It is strongly recommended that he take a leave of absence from the workplace until his condition is improved. He is scheduled to return next week for continued intervention. Thank you for your time and attention. (Emphasis supplied) (P-26) Dr. Greene testified that it was Petitioner's combined mental and physical circumstances which caused him to recommend the leave of absence. The January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action was mailed to the last address Petitioner had given Respondent. On January 30, 1997, Petitioner's mother signed the certified mail receipt for the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. Sometime thereafter, she delivered the Notice to Petitioner, who no longer lived with her. He refused to deal with it. Dr. Brient removed a suture from Petitioner's leg on February 4, 1997. This seems to have related to Petitioner's post-surgery release after removal of the growth between his legs. Petitioner did not then return to work. Because Respondent's principals had not recognized Petitioner's mother's name on the certified mail receipt, they caused the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to be served on Petitioner by a Deputy Sheriff. Petitioner received this personal service on February 5, 1997, and told the Deputy that he would not deal with the Notice of Disciplinary Action, but his doctors would. Having been released as a result of his operation, there was no physical reason Petitioner could not have appeared for the February 18, 1997, hearing to present any opposition to his proposed termination based on "the three day abandonment rule." He did not appear. On February 21, 1997, Petitioner was mailed a "Notice of Dismissal," effective that date and signed by Harry Sands, a new Interim Director, for abandoning his position, in violation of the personnel regulations. The Notice of Dismissal gave Petitioner the option of appealing his termination through the employee appeal system or the collective bargaining grievance procedure. Petitioner did not take either appeal route. However, Petitioner did suggest to another Jail officer that those who had done this to him might need to get a pine box, i.e. coffin. The threat was not deemed worthy of prosecution by the State Attorney's Office. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that he never received the promised re-orientation or re-training associated with re-instatement to his job. No witness gave any clear indication of what the re- orientation and re-training, as contemplated by the re- instatement agreement (see Finding of Fact 7) or as contemplated by Mr. Tarbox's July 17, 1996, letter (see Finding of Fact 29), was supposed to include. Lt. Stover did not remember any specific training he gave Petitioner, nor did Lt. Little, but Lt. Little testified that he was present when, before Petitioner first arrived on Lt. Stover's shift in July 1996, the Captain had ordered them both to "bring [Petitioner] up to speed." Petitioner suggested that failure to re-orient and retrain him evidenced Respondent's discrimination against him. His post-hearing proposal also asserts that due to Respondent's failure to train him in "new" personnel regulations, combined with Respondent's requirement that he adhere to those regulations which Jail custom did not normally follow, constituted disparate treatment and/or discrimination against him on the basis of his race or due to retaliation, and/or failure to accommodate his handicap. This perception is unpersuasive in light of the employer's repeated correspondence urging him to take the training, whatever that training might have been. Despite Mr. Tarbox's failure to reply to Petitioner's October 22, 1996, inquiry about training (See Finding of Fact 48), Petitioner's perception of discrimination was not established as fact. From the evidence as a whole, it is more probable that any failure to train Petitioner was the result of his request to change shifts, and thus, lieutenant-supervisors in July or his frequent absences. The record does not make clear whether the re-orientation/re-training requirement was unique to Respondent, who returned in 1996, or applied to all four of the returning African-American officers restored in 1994, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than he did. He did not establish that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than the other restored African-American officers, handicapped or otherwise. He also did not establish that any other restored African-American officer, handicapped or otherwise, received more re- orientation/re-training than he did. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Sergeant Babula testified credibly that he had at least instructed Petitioner with regard to the new payroll forms when Petitioner changed shifts in July 1996. Payroll forms include calculating hours worked and monies owed. Testimony and business records also show Petitioner had five hours of drug policy training. (See Finding of fact 72). Also, Respondent did not discipline Petitioner for his failure to request leave of specific personnel as required by the only new personnel regulation, until after Petitioner had been instructed in writing to do so. These written instructions may not have constituted complete "re-orientation" or "re- training," but they were direct orders sufficient to instruct Petitioner what was expected of him. (See Findings of Fact 16, 29, 43, 46-47, 57-59). Lastly, based on Petitioner's testimony that even if he had known he was required by a new regulation to request leave from his lieutenant-supervisor he would not have followed that regulation but instead would have considered himself bound by his union contract and by the custom of asking for leave of anyone on his shift at the Jail, it appears that any failure of Respondent to specifically "train" Petitioner concerning new personnel regulations had no effect on his subsequent failure to comply with the employer's expectations concerning its leave policy. Petitioner had admitted in evidence a certified copy of a "Second Superceding Indictment" issued by a federal Grand Jury on February 27, 2001. It was not established that this was the same Grand Jury before which Petitioner testified in 1996. (See Finding of Fact 47). The indictment (which is only a charging document, not a conviction) named Nate Caldwell, Respondent's former Director; Samuel Krider, Respondent's former Assistant Director; Garry M. Brown, a former Captain with Respondent; and Charles Scott Simmons, a former Lieutenant with Respondent, for conspiracy to obstruct justice by violating 18 USC Section 1503, by hindering the court and jury in a federal civil rights action brought by Mr. Dickerson against the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson's federal case arose out of Mr. Dickerson's demotion in rank with Petitioner in connection with the 1994 escape. It was not established that any of the indicted officials held office during the time material to Petitioner's instant case, 1996- 1997, or that any of them had anything to do with Petitioner's 1996 leave disputes or 1997 termination. Indeed, it was established that Sands or Tarbox was Interim Director at all times material. The indictment mentions Petitioner and Captain King, a superior of Petitioner at all times material, but neither Petitioner nor Captain King were indicted. Despite the lack of clarity of Petitioner's and Mr. Dickerson's testimony, the undersigned infers from their testimony and the indictment that Petitioner testified concerning the same matters before the Grand Jury in 1996 and that prior to 1996 Petitioner had been a witness in Mr. Dickerson's federal discrimination case against the County Commissioners. However, Petitioner testified that his retaliation allegation herein is not based on his 1996 testimony before the Grand Jury. Rather, Petitioner asserted at hearing that he believed he had been retaliated against by his superiors in 1996-1997 for speaking at 1993 meetings of the County Commission concerning structural and staffing problems at the Jail, and otherwise he did not know why he had been retaliated against. (TR-Vol. I pp. 229-233).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner has not proven discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed a unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent initially hired Petitioner as a legal secretary in 1997. At that time, Petitioner worked in Respondent's office in Chipley, Florida. Petitioner suffered no continuing medical problems in 1997. In a memorandum dated April 17, 2001, Respondent's staff advised Petitioner that employees using more leave than they had earned would have to be place on "leave without pay" for the time used in excess of time earned. In a letter dated May 14, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that she intended to resign her position as a legal secretary effective May 25, 2001. Petitioner wrote the letter because she was moving to Apalachicola, Florida. Instead of accepting Petitioner's resignation, Respondent offered and Petitioner accepted a transfer as a legal secretary in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was able to continue working for Respondent without a break in service. In the summer of 2002, Petitioner began to suffer from an unexplained shortness of breath. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent knew the cause for the symptoms Petitioner was experiencing. By letter dated October 9, 2002, Respondent once again advised Petitioner that she could not use more leave time than the amount she earned. On at least one occasion, Petitioner's excessive time-off caused a reduction in her salary for "leave without pay." In a memorandum dated October 11, 2002, Respondent's staff documented concerns about Petitioner's attendance and performance. One of the concerns was Petitioner's chronic failure to file reports in a timely manner. Petitioner was late in filing the reports even though Respondent allowed her to prepare them at home and send them to Respondent by facsimile transmission from her husband's place of business. In February 2003, Petitioner still did not have a medical diagnosis to explain why she was sick and unable to work. On or about February 13, 2003, Petitioner and her supervisor agreed that Petitioner would take leave without pay pending an excuse from a doctor that she was unable to work. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent offered to let Petitioner have an indefinite leave of absence is not persuasive. On March 12, 2003, Petitioner provided Respondent medical documentation, excusing her from work due to unspecified illness through March 17, 2003. On or about March 14, 2003, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital. Subsequent medical tests revealed blood clots in Petitioner's lungs. Petitioner was eventually released from the hospital with prescriptions for blood thinning medication and oxygen. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor's note, dated March 18, 2003, excused Petitioner from work for two weeks. On or about April 2, 2003, Petitioner sent Respondent a doctor's excuse by facsimile transmission. The doctor stated that Petitioner had been hospitalized with a serious condition called pulmonary embolus and that she continued to have significant symptoms of shortness of breath and fatigue. The doctor's note stated that Petitioner would not be able to work for six weeks. On May 5, 2003, Jackie Pooser, Respondent's Administrative Director, talked to Petitioner by telephone. Ms. Pooser advised Petitioner that she needed to provide another doctor's excuse by May 8, 2003, if she was still under a doctor's care and unable to return to work. Otherwise, Respondent expected Petitioner to resume her duties in Respondent's office in Port St. Joe, Florida. Petitioner was Respondent's only secretary in Port St. Joe, Florida. That office was in dire need of a performing secretary. However, apart from her illness, Petitioner was not anxious to return to work in the Port St. Joe office because she had a personality conflict with the only full-time attorney who worked there. During the May 5, 2003, telephone conversation, Petitioner did not tell Ms. Pooser that she was disabled or request any on-the-job accommodation. Instead, she led Ms. Pooser to believe that she intended to return to her job when authorized to do so by her doctor, hopefully in June 2003. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she never requested that Respondent provide her with any type of accommodation. In a letter dated May 6, 2003, Ms. Pooser confirmed the May 5, 2003, phone conversation. In the letter, Ms. Pooser further reminded Petitioner that her medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. The letter referred to the Public Defender Classification & Pay Plan requirements for a doctor's excuse without which an employee is considered to have abandoned his or her employment position. Petitioner's medical excuse expired on May 8, 2003. Petitioner did not return to work or provide Respondent with further medical documentation. On May 16, 2003, Respondent verbally terminated Petitioner by telephone. A follow-up letter dated May 19, 2003, stated that Petitioner's work performance had not been satisfactory for some period of time. The letter also stated that Petitioner had abandoned her position by failing to provide Respondent with a doctor's excuse. Petitioner's testimony that she requested her physician to send the medical excuse directly to Respondent by facsimile transmission is not persuasive. Petitioner did not call Respondent to inquire whether Respondent received the excuse or to offer any other explanation for failing to send medical documentation to Respondent. Petitioner's doctor subsequently released her to return to work. Petitioner received unemployment compensation for at least one month. In August 2003, Petitioner began working for a real estate company, checking guests into resort rentals. She resigned that job after working for one month. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not disabled when she worked for Respondent. According to Petitioner, she was diagnosed as being disabled in October 2003, after experiencing further medical problems. However, Petitioner has provided no competent (non-hearsay) evidence of that diagnosis. Respondent's attendance and leave policy states as follows in relevant part: STATEMENTS OF POLICY * * * The granting of any leave of absence with or without pay shall be in writing and shall be approved by the proper authority within the Public Defender Office. An employee who is granted leave of absence with or without pay shall be an employee of the Public Defender while on such leave and shall be returned to the same position or a different position in the same class and same work location upon termination of the approved leave of absence, unless the Public Defender and the employee agree in writing to other conditions and terms under which such leave is to be granted. Any leave of absence with or without pay shall be approved prior to the leave being taken except in the case of an emergency where the employee must be absent prior to receiving approval from the proper authority for the absence. * * * (b) If an employee's request for leave of absence is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the Public Defender may place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays may consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Public Defender's Office. * * * 3.14 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE In accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor, eligible employees can receive up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the following reasons: . . . taking care of one's own serious health condition. Employees are not required to take all 12 weeks at once. The employee may request a few days or weeks off at a time (referred to as intermittent leave) or continue to work on a part-time basis (reduced leave). Unless written medical justification deems it necessary, the Public Defender is not required to grant intermittent or reduced leave. * * * (4) Employees must provide reasonable notice (30 days if possible) and make an effort to schedule their leave so as not to unduly disrupt agency operations. The Public Defender may request progress reports from the employees regarding leave status. * * * (7) The Public Defender may require certification from a healthcare provider regarding the need for medical leave, as well as certification of an employee's fitness to return to work. From August 1, 2002, through May 16, 2003, Respondent approved 518 hours or 12 weeks and 38 hours of leave without pay. During the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she received the leave without pay. Her testimony that she was not familiar with the above-referenced policies is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Public Defender, Fourteenth Circuit Jackson County Courthouse Post Office Box 636 Marianna, Florida 32447 Christian C. Griggs 130 25th Avenue Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections as a Correctional Officer I in the Food Service Department at the Union Correctional Institution. Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed by the Department of Corrections for approximately four years. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Norman Hedding, Food Service Director II at Union Correctional Institution. Sometime in April or May, 1987, Petitioner filled out a request for leave, requesting three weeks annual leave to be taken in July, 1987. The request for leave was placed on Mr. Hedding's desk. Mr. Hedding told Petitioner he would see what he could do and mentioned that other officers needed to take vacation time or they would forfeit the time. However, no other officer asked to take leave during the same period of time requested by Petitioner. On various occasions during May, June and July, Petitioner asked Wanda Phillips, Mr. Hedding's assistant, whether his leave had been approved. Ms. Phillips told him she had not heard anything. During one of the conversations with Ms. Phillips, Petitioner told her that he had purchased round-trip airline tickets to California. Petitioner and Mr. Hedding did not speak about the leave request until the Petitioner's last day at work prior to having two scheduled days off and then starting the 3-week period for which leave time had been requested. During this conversation, the Petitioner informed Mr. Hedding that he had confirmed round-trip tickets to California and his grandson had surgery scheduled for the time period in question. The testimony is conflicting as to what was said during this conversation. Mr. Hedding testified that he told Petitioner that the leave was not authorized. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hedding told him that the leave "had not been approved yet." Based on the testimony given at the hearing and the actions of Petitioner after his conversation with Mr. Hedding, I find that Petitioner was never told in unequivocal and clear terms that his leave had been disapproved. Petitioner assumed his leave would be approved and, before leaving work on his last day, he filled out pay slips in advance so that his payroll records would be accurate and told people at the office that he was going on vacation. Petitioner remained in town for the next four days, without reporting for work, and left for California. On August 6, 1987, upon his return from California, Petitioner received a certified letter from Mr. Hicks, an Assistant Superintendent II at Union Correctional Institution, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System. Petitioner then spoke with Mr. Ellis, the Superintendent at Union Correctional Institution, who told Petitioner he needed to talk with Mr. Hedding about getting his job back. Petitioner told Mr. Hedding he had not intended to abandon his position. The next day Mr. Hedding told Petitioner he would not take him back.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented in this case do not constitute abandonment as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and directing that Petitioner be reinstated to his former position as of July 20, 1987. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3828 The parties submitted-proposed findings of fact, which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's posthearing filing is a document titled "Petitioner's Argument and Citation of Law." The first three paragraphs consist of factual information and will be considered as proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings are generally accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact to conform to the testimony and evidence presented at hearing. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's Paragraph Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Accepted. RO 1. Accepted, as modified to reflect approximate dates. RO 2, 3. Rejected. Mr. Hedding assumed this to be the case. Accepted, generally as modified. RO 4. Accepted, generally. RO 5. Accepted, as modified to reflect approximate dates. RO 6. Accepted, as modified. RO 6, 7. First sentence accepted. RO 9. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Accepted, generally. RO 10. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Louis A. Vargas, Esquire 409 North East First Street General Counsel Post Office Box 628 Department of Corrections Alachua, Florida 32615 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Perri M. King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Richard Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Adis Vila, Secretary 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of religion and national origin and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lalla is Hindu, and his religion is Hinduism. Mr. Lalla was employed in the County’s Enterprise Technology Services Department (ETSD). ETSD provides information technology (IT) services supporting the operations of other departments in the County. ETSD manages and maintains the IT infrastructure, including computer hardware and software, and the County’s electronic communications network. On January 31, 2005, Mr. Lalla was hired as an Operating Systems Programmer (OSP) in the Enterprise Security Office (ESO) of the County’s ETSD. An OSP is an advanced level technical professional, who may have duties in a number of different infrastructure support areas within ETSD. On December 18, 2007, Mr. Lalla received a written reprimand as a result of his failure to report a suspected security breach of the County’s computer security system. The written reprimand was for incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duty, negligence or willful misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a County employee. Further, connected to the reprimand, Mr. Lalla was reassigned within the IT infrastructure area to another division, the Data Center Division, at which he had new duties and responsibilities. His new supervisor was Adrienne DiPrima. In an email dated December 17, 2008, from Ms. DiPrima to Mr. Lalla, among other things, Ms. DiPrima welcomed Mr. Lalla, indicating that their group was “hoping for a new person to work with [them] on mainframe security” and acknowledging that he had a very limited background in mainframe security. Further, among other things, she advised him that, because it was “a difficult time of year to get started on anything long-term,” for now, he would be working closely with another employee to handle the “day-to-day RACF administration tasks” so that the employee could “concentrate on the upgrades being done for the new operating system release.” On or about January 15, 2008, Mr. Lalla’s reassignment was effective and that was when Ms. DiPrima first met with him. She was leaving the next day for a vacation. Ms. DiPrima met with Mr. Lalla briefly. During the meeting, among other things, she indicated to him that, during her absence, she wanted him to become familiar with the day-to-day operations and work with the person in the particular area that he (Mr. Lalla) was assigned, with that person also being Mr. Lalla’s mentor. Additionally, they discussed the potential for training Mr. Lalla in his new area and the possibility of the Data Center Division funding the cost for training courses. When Ms. DiPrima returned from vacation, she and Mr. Lalla also reviewed the procedure for requesting leave time. Among other things, she advised him that she does not generally deny leave if coverage for the absent person’s duties and responsibilities is available; but for extended leave, for instance a week or two, advance request/notice and approval were required in order to make sure that a person was available for coverage and to make arrangements for the coverage. For several months, Ms. DiPrima saw nothing in Mr. Lalla’s work performance that suggested any disciplinary issues might arise. Therefore, no disciplinary action was contemplated against him. At no time in the reassignment did anyone suggest or did Mr. Lalla believe that he was going to be subjected to any disciplinary action. However, having gone through the previous disciplinary action, together with learning new responsibilities and duties in what he believed to be a short period of time, Mr. Lalla was feeling pressured. The perceived pressure affected him mentally and physically. On April 3, 2008, Mr. Lalla submitted a leave of absence form to ETSD’s Personnel Officer, Shanda Mazzorana, for an unpaid leave of absence for the period from April 9, 2008, through April 9, 2009. The form contained, among other things, a section for the reason for the request, with one of the reasons being “Personal Reason” and subcategories being “Religious holidays,” “Education not related to the job,” and “Other.” He checked “Personal Reason,” “Education not related to the job,” and “Other.” Also, among other things, the leave of absence form provided two lines for the explanation for the request. Mr. Lalla provided as an explanation for the one-year leave of absence that the request was for “Religious and spiritual pursuits of Buddhism at overseas Monastery.” Mr. Lalla did not attach any documents to his request. Ms. Mazzorana asked Mr. Lalla to further explain why he wanted the unpaid leave. He informed her that he was seeking leave to study Buddhism. She requested him to provide some written information to supplement his request. In response to Ms. Mazzorana’s request, Mr. Lalla provided a single page informational sheet about the Buddhist Monastery that he had obtained from his mother. She attached the informational sheet to his request and forwarded the entire packet to the Director and Chief Information Officer, Donald Fleming, for his review and decision. Buddhism and Hinduism are interrelated. Mr. Lalla believed that the religion of Buddhism provided him a remedy to deal with the mental pressures that he was experiencing at work, instead of seeking medical or psychological assistance either privately or through his employer, the County. Nowhere in his request did Mr. Lalla express this reasoning for his request. Mr. Lalla’s religion of Hinduism did not require him to study Buddhism at a monastery for a year. Ms. DiPrima was unaware that Mr. Lalla wanted or had requested an extended leave of absence. Before making a final decision, Mr. Fleming inquired of Ms. Mazzorana whether any prior employees had requested an extended leave of absence that was non-health or non-medical related. Ms. Mazzorana provided two precedents that had occurred over a 25-year period. One situation involved a full- time employee who requested a leave of absence for six months in order to obtain an advanced degree, a Ph.D. The request was denied. Another situation involved a probationary employee who requested a six-week leave of absence to attend a religious retreat. A probationary employee did not have the right to request a leave of absence, and, as a result, his request was also denied. The County’s Leave Code, Section 8, Leave of Absence is applicable to the instant case. Section 08.01.01, as to a leave of absence generally, provides, among other things, that “A leave of absence is an approved absence without pay for a maximum period of one year.” No dispute exists that Mr. Lalla was eligible for a leave of absence as a permanent employee pursuant to Section 08.02.01. Also, Section 08.03.01 sets forth the reasons that a leave of absence may be granted, i.e., medical reasons, job- related reasons, personal reasons, and military, and provides in pertinent part: A leave of absence may be granted for the following reasons: Medical Reasons * * * Job-related Reasons Education related to the job . . . To serve as a full-time representative of an organization composed entirely of County employees To accept an exempt position For other job-related reasons in the best interest of the County service . . . Personal Reasons Education not related to the job . . . Dependent care for a child, spouse, parent or other dependent for federal income tax purposes who is physically or mentally incapable or caring for himself . . . For other personal reasons in the best interest of the County service . . . Military . . . . Additionally, Section 08.04.00 sets forth the application procedure for a leave of absence and provides in pertinent part: 08.04.01 Employees seeking a leave of absence must make a written request to their department director . . . * * * 08.04.03 The department director may request any additional information supporting the request for the leave of absence . . . 08.04.04 The department director may approve or deny requests based on the facts of each case. Approval or denial by the department director must be applied consistently and on the same terms within categories a, c and d of Leave of Absence (Section 08.03.01) although the terms for each separate category may be different. . . 08.04.05 Approval may be for the full period requested by the employee or any portion of such period. Further, Section 08.05.00 sets forth the benefits period for a leave of absence and provides in pertinent part: 08.05.01 A leave of absence may be granted for a maximum period of one year . . . and a minimum period of one pay period. Mr. Fleming considered the staff situation at the County. The County was in a hiring freeze and had lost positions. Mr. Fleming also considered the staff situation at the Data Center Division. A review by him showed that the Data Center Division was understaffed. Mr. Fleming was unable to determine how he would be able to burden the staff with the additional work, if Mr. Lalla’s request was granted, and get the work completed. Additionally, Mr. Fleming considered Mr. Lalla’s request as an academic request, with a religious course of study. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, as to the staff situation at the County and, in particular, at the Data Center Division, the inability to effectively and efficiently re-assign Mr. Lalla’s duties and responsibilities, during his one-year leave of absence, and the precedent of requests for extended leave of absence, Mr. Fleming determined that there was no reasonable basis to grant Mr. Lalla’s request. On April 7, 2008, Mr. Fleming denied Mr. Lalla’s request. Even if Mr. Lalla’s request were considered a religious request, the result would have been the same. Based on the same reasoning, Mr. Fleming would have denied a religious request. Mr. Lalla would have agreed to a shorter period of time as an accommodation to what he (Mr. Lalla) was requesting. However, neither Mr. Fleming nor Mr. Lalla suggested an accommodation of a shorter period of time for the leave of absence. Additionally, Mr. Lalla was aware that a Buddhist monastery was located in Homestead, Florida. He did not suggest to Mr. Fleming, as an option, attending the Buddhist monastery in Homestead, instead of in India. No evidence was presented that Mr. Fleming was aware of the monastery in Homestead. Ms. Mazzorana advised Mr. Lalla of the denial of his request for a leave of absence by Mr. Fleming and the reasons for the denial. She provided Mr. Lalla a copy of the completed leave of absence form that was signed by Mr. Fleming. Ms. DiPrima was also advised of the denial of Mr. Lalla’s request for the extended leave of absence. On April 14, 2008, Mr. Lalla requested approval from Ms. DiPrima for a two-week vacation beginning the next day on April 15, 2010. Among other things, he advised her that the union was attempting to get the one-year leave of absence approved; that there were certain things that he wanted to do in preparation for the one-year leave of absence; that the two-week vacation would provide him that preparation time; and that two co-workers were available to and had agreed to perform his duties during his absence. Ms. DiPrima denied Mr. Lalla’s request for the two- week vacation. She pointed out to him that there were assignments that he had not completed and that the request was not submitted sufficiently in advance to make sure that his work duties and assignments were covered. Mr. Lalla decided that he could no longer remain with the County. He decided to resign. Mr. Lalla did not discuss with anyone at ETSD that he was contemplating resigning or his decision to resign. On April 15, 2008, Mr.Lalla sent a memorandum to Human Resources regarding his resignation. He indicated, among other things, that, due to recent workplace circumstances, which “severely impacted [his] mental and spiritual health” and the denial of his request for a leave of absence, he was “forced to tender [his] resignation under duress, effective immediately.” Further, among other things, he set forth the workplace circumstances, which were, in essence, how ETSD handled the suspected security breach in the Security Office and handled him and his fellow employees in the Security Office; and set forth the circumstances of the denial of his request for a leave of absence, which he sought for “Religious and Spiritual pursuits,” attempting “to rebuild and repair [his] damaged mental and spiritual health.” Furthermore, on April 15, 2008, among other things, Mr. Lalla sent an email to Ms. DiPrima, while she was at lunch, indicating that, having reviewed what had occurred over the past 12 months, he was “forced” to resign, effective immediately, “under duress.” Further, he cleared his desk; reformatted his computer; and walked out of ETSD without speaking to anyone. The County’s policy required Mr. Lalla to give at least two weeks notice before resigning if he wanted to resign in good standing. By failing to give at least two-weeks notice, he did not resign in good standing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the County of Miami-Dade, FL ETSD did not commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Delano Lalla on the basis of religion and national origin and retaliated against Delano Lalla in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Delano Lalla 8051 Southwest 159th Court Miami, Florida 33193 Lee Kraftchick, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1993 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Respondent has been a permanent full-time employee of petitioner's for over 22 years and at the time of the alleged abandonment was employed as a Engineer Technician III in petitioner's Second District and is subject to the Career Service rules of Chapter 22A, Florida Administrative Code. Walter Henry Skinner, III, is the District Engineer, Second District, with offices in Lake City, Florida, covering a 16 county area over northeast Florida. In this instance, directly below Mr. Skinner in the chain of command is Raymond O. Humphreys, Resident Construction Engineer. His is a supervising position as contract administrator for road and bridge contracts let by the petitioner to private contracting firms for construction of roads and bridges within 9 counties of the second district. Respondent has worked within Mr. Humphreys' jurisdiction since March, 1976. The record is not clear, but apparently there is at least one other supervisor between Mr. Humphreys and respondent, the position of survey crew chief. Respondent was granted leave of absence without pay on Humphreys' recommendation on May 1, 1983 through July 12, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9); October 3, 1983 through April 2, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8); and again on April 3, 1984 for 6 months (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). Respondent returned to work before the end of this 6 months leave of absence without pay. The record does not reflect when respondent returned to work but apparently he returned to work sometime after his release from the Hamilton County Jail on July 9, 1984. The record shows that respondent was working on September 21, 1984 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). Respondent was granted 4 hours annual leave on September 24, 1984, 8 hours of annual leave on September 25, 1984 and 8 hours annual leave on September 26, 1984. On September 27, 1984 petitioner placed respondent on unauthorized leave of absence without pay. On September 27, 1984 petitioner was advised by Roger Tanner, respondent's probation officer, that respondent had bean incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail on September 26, 1984. Petitioner knew that respondent had 78.2 hours of accrued annual leave and 524.0 hours of accrued sick leave. Petitioner did not notify respondent that he had been placed on unauthorized leave without pay on September 27, 1984 until October 4, 1984 when petitioner delivered to respondent a letter from Skinner advising him that he had abandoned his position with the petitioner. Respondent had been incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail on: (1) April 22, 1983 to July 5, 1983; (2) July 23, 1983; (3) August 11, 1983 to August 12, 1983; (4) September 22, 1983 to July 9, 1984; and (5) September 26, 1984 to October 6, 1984. The evidence reflects that respondent had a "drinking problem" of which petitioner was aware but did very little "counseling" with respondent in this regard. On October 1, 1984 Mr. Markham, Humphreys Resident Office Manager, contacted Judge John Peach's office and was informed by his secretary, after she discussed the matter with Judge Peach, that respondent's "problem would be resolved in a few days" or at least "by the weekend." Respondent worked with a survey crew taking final measurements and checking work in the field completed by the contractors. Respondent was assigned to this survey crew by Humphreys because respondent did not have a valid driver's license. Walter H. Skinner had been delegated authority to take this type action against respondent by Mr. Pappas, Secretary of the Department of Transportation and such delegation was in effect at all times material herein.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that it be found that respondent did not abandon his position and resign from the Career Service as contemplated under Rules 22A-7.1O(2)(a) and 22A-8.O2, Florida Administrative Code and that respondent be reinstated to his position of Engineer Technician III as of September 27, 1984. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald K. Hudson, Esquire Post Office Box 948 Jasper, Florida 32052 Daniel C. Brown Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel 562 Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
