The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on her disability and by retaliating against her, and if so, what, if any, relief is Petitioner entitled to receive.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Respondent's former employee who began working for Respondent in 1993. Petitioner was most recently assigned to the warehouse in eastern Jacksonville, Florida, where she worked from October 2000 until September 2007. When she first transferred to the warehouse, Petitioner worked as the Return-to-Vendor (“RTV”) Clerk. As the RTV Clerk, Petitioner was responsible for shipping out returned merchandise to vendors and shipping salvaged items to the salvage companies. In 2004, Petitioner transferred to the Receiving Clerk position. Petitioner remained in the Receiving Clerk position until September 19, 2007, when she began a medical leave of absence. Jason Zook became the manager of the warehouse in May 2005. As the Warehouse Manager, Mr. Zook is responsible for overseeing the entire warehouse, including the Receiving Department. Mr. Zook is familiar with the requirements of the Receiving Clerk position because he previously worked in that position at another warehouse. Michael Sinanian is one of the Assistant Warehouse Managers. Mr. Sinanian transferred to the warehouse as an Assistant Warehouse Manager in 2002. Prior to becoming an Assistant Warehouse Manager, Mr. Sinanian worked in the Receiving Department at other warehouses for a little over two and a half years. During that time, Mr. Sinanian worked as a Receiving Manager, a Receiving Supervisor, an RTV Clerk, and a Receiving Clerk. The Receiving Department is located at the back of the warehouse. The warehouse is approximately the length of a football field from front to back. At all times material here, the Receiving Department at the warehouse had four positions: Receiving Manager, Receiving Clerk, Receiving Secretary, and Forklift Driver. In 2007, Deborah Lenox was the Receiving Manager, an employee named Sonya was the Receiving Secretary, Petitioner was the Receiving Clerk, and an employee named Valdean was the Forklift Driver. The Receiving Secretary and the Receiving Clerk have different job responsibilities. The Receiving Secretary is responsible for answering the phone, making vendor appointments, logging the appointments, dealing with paperwork, creating and printing out receiving tags, and logging shipment information into Respondent's computer system. The Receiving Clerk is responsible for counting and checking merchandise against freight bills, opening boxes and cartons with a box knife to verify and count the product, stacking bed-loaded merchandise or merchandise from damaged or unacceptable pallets onto approved pallets, separating mixed items from pallets for checking, wrapping pallets with plastic wrap in preparation for movement onto the warehouse floor, loading merchandise and emptying pallets onto trucks using a manual pallet jack or hand cart, and cleaning and clearing the receiving dock of any debris and trip hazards. Each of these essential job functions requires standing, which is consistent with the job analysis for this position. Respondent has written job analyses, which identify the essential functions of each job and are used to assist the Company, the employee, and the employee’s doctor in determining if the employee can perform the essential functions of his/her job with or without reasonable accommodations. Respondent does not remove or eliminate essential job functions, but will sometimes modify the manner in which the function is to be completed. Respondent will not displace another employee from his position in order to accommodate a disabled employee. A pallet of merchandise can be as much as 60 inches high. A typical pallet coming in the warehouse is a 60-inch cube. An electric pallet jack is a double pallet jack and is approximately 18 feet long. In order to operate an electric pallet jack, an employee has to stand and lean in the direction that she wants the machine to go and turn the handle. There is no seat on an electric pallet jack. Petitioner’s original foot condition was due to osteomyelitis, an infection of the bone. Between 1998 and 1999, Petitioner had four surgeries to address her foot condition. A surgeon placed an artificial plastic bone in Petitioner's foot in July 1999. In September 1999, Petitioner returned to work with medical restrictions that prevented her from standing for long periods of time and from lifting more than 25 or 35 pounds. At some point thereafter, while Petitioner was working at one of Respondent’s warehouses in Memphis, Tennessee, her podiatrist changed her restrictions to add limitations against cashiering, stocking, and inventory. Petitioner understood that the reason for these additional restrictions was that she was not able to do these tasks to the extent they required her to stand for a prolonged period of time. Petitioner’s medical notes stated that she was able to use her discretion as to her limitations, which Petitioner understood to mean that she could sit and rest her foot as needed. Each of these restrictions was permanent. Mr. Zook, Ms. Lenox, and Mr. Sinanian were all aware that Petitioner had medical restrictions relating to her foot condition that prevented her from standing for prolonged periods of time. They were aware that Respondent had agreed to allow Petitioner to sit down when she felt it was necessary, without first having to ask for permission. Despite her restrictions, Petitioner is able to ride her bike, go the grocery store, and work out at the gym. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked out at the gym approximately four days a week. Her work-out routine included warming up on an elliptical machine for approximately 15-to-20 minutes or walking approximately one mile on the treadmill and using a leg press machine. Respondent performs inventory twice a year. It takes an inventory at all warehouses in February and August. The inventory process begins on Friday night and continues until the following Wednesday. The back-stock is counted on Friday night after closing and the stock on the sales floor is counted on Saturday night after closing. The post- audit process begins on Sunday morning before the warehouse opens to its members and continues on Monday morning. The Saturday night inventory count is more labor- intensive and is considered “all hands on deck.” The Saturday night inventory requires the staff to count approximately $9 million worth of inventory during roughly a five-hour period. On Saturday, Respondent assigns two employees to count the items in each aisle at the same time. The employees double- check each other’s counts. If there is a discrepancy between the employees’ counts, both will recount the items until their counts agree. If there are discrepancies after the Saturday counts between the physical counts and the computer records, the items are recounted during the Sunday post-audit. If variances still remain after the three counts, then the variances are researched during the Monday post-audit. For the Monday post-audit, Respondent only focuses on the larger-quantity, higher-dollar discrepancies. When researching the discrepancies from the variance reports, employees have to perform the following tasks: (a) count items on the floor or up in the steel racks; (b) verify bin tags; (c) research billing, shipment, and return-to-vendor records on Respondent’s computer system; and (d) check the receiving paperwork in an effort to locate and correct the source of the discrepancy. Some items will have been sold between the Saturday night count and the Monday post-audit process. Therefore, the Monday post-audit team also may have to research the sales history on a computer and back out the Sunday sales from the total count. The variance reports reflect the aisle where the item is located, the item count from the inventory count, the computer system count, and the amount of the variance. Employees are typically assigned to work in one department of the warehouse, which may require them to walk from aisle to aisle within that department. In order to assist the Monday post-audit team, the team is permitted to use computers throughout the warehouse. Employees can sit down at the computers when they are researching the variances in item counts. It can take anywhere from 15-to-30 minutes to research one item. The duties involved in the inventory post-audit process are similar to the job duties of the Receiving Clerk position. However, the post-audit does not require as much standing and is less physically demanding because the focus during post-audit is on researching the sources of the variances, rather than simply receiving, counting, and checking- in shipments. In selecting employees to work on the Monday post- audit team, Respondent prefers to schedule people who are familiar with Respondent’s return-to-vendor and receiving processes. Respondent also selects employees who are knowledgeable about Respondent’s AS-400 computer system. In February 2007, Petitioner worked the Saturday night inventory. During that time, she counted the bread then worked at the control desk. Petitioner's job at the control desk was to key-in inventory count sheets into Respondent’s computer system. Petitioner did not view this assignment as inconsistent with her restrictions against working inventory because she was seated for most of the time. In August 2007, Mr. Sinanian was responsible for the post-audit processes, including the scheduling of employees to work post-audit. Due to the requirements of post-audit, Mr. Sinanian selected people who, like Petitioner, were familiar with Respondent’s AS-400 computer system. Approximately 20 employees worked during the Monday post-audit. Mr. Sinanian and Ms. Lenox knew that Petitioner could use her discretion to sit down whenever she felt it was necessary. They had no reason to believe that the post-audit process was inconsistent with Petitioner’s medical restrictions. Therefore, she was selected to work the Monday post-audit. On Saturday, August 25, 2007, Petitioner was again assigned to count bread and then assist with keying inventory count sheets into the system. Petitioner was able to sit down while she was working at the control desk keying the inventory count sheets. Petitioner did not consider her Saturday assignments inconsistent with her restrictions. Petitioner did not work or perform any inventory or post-audit, inventory-related duties on Sunday, August 26, 2007. On Monday, August 27, 2007, the post-audit process lasted from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Petitioner’s shift began at 5:00 a.m. After Petitioner clocked in, she reported to the control desk, where Mr. Sinanian assigned her to check variances for approximately 6 items in Department 14, the sundries department. The sundries department runs along the back right side of the building near the Receiving Department. The sundries department includes items like paper towels, cleaning chemicals, laundry detergent, water, juice, and soda. Petitioner was assigned to research variances between the physical counts and the computer system’s counts for Swiffers, dog bones, dog beds, water, soda, and paper towels. During the August 2007 post-audit process there were at least 18 computers for the employees to use. The computers were located in the Receiving Department, the front office, at the membership desk, and at the podium on the front-end. Employees were free to use any available computer and were able to sit down at most of the computers while researching items. Petitioner never had to wait to use a computer. Petitioner went to whichever computer was closest to her at the time to verify items. After she finished researching all of the items on her variance sheet, Petitioner, like all of the other employees who worked post-audit, met with Mr. Sinanian at the control desk at the front of the store to explain her findings. There was a chair at the control desk for Petitioner to sit in while meeting with Sinanian. The process of meeting with Mr. Sinanian took anywhere from 10-to-30 minutes. Other than discussing her assignment for the day and the post-audit research results, Mr. Sinanian did not have any other discussions with Petitioner on August 27, 2007. Petitioner was able to use her discretion to sit down during post-audit. She was never told that she could not sit down nor was she reprimanded for sitting down. Petitioner admits that she used her discretion to sit down at least twice during post-audit and to kneel down a couple of times. Petitioner also took a 15-minute break during the post-audit process, during which she sat down. After Petitioner finished working post-audit at approximately 10:00 a.m. on August 27, 2007, she returned to the Receiving Department, but left shortly thereafter to take her lunch break. Petitioner’s lunch break lasted for approximately a half-hour. Petitioner walked from the back of the warehouse, where the Receiving Department is located, to the front of the warehouse, where the break room is located, to take her lunch and walked all the way back after the end of her break to return to work. After returning from lunch, Petitioner began working on the UPS shipment. It was a busy day in the Receiving Department, as the UPS shipment had arrived with approximately 72 packages stacked on one pallet that was taller than Petitioner. Because Petitioner felt unable to stand, she could not check in the entire UPS shipment. As a result, Petitioner took it upon herself to take the UPS invoices and input the invoices into Respondent’s computer system, which is one of the Receiving Secretary’s job responsibilities. At some point thereafter, Ms. Lenox asked Petitioner why she was logging in items into Respondent’s computer system, rather than receiving the UPS shipment. Petitioner told Ms. Lenox that her foot was hurting and that she could not stand. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner to take her break and, when she returned from break, they would see how Petitioner’s foot was feeling. Petitioner walked to the front of the warehouse, where she took her second 15-minute break in the break room. Petitioner was able to sit with her foot up during her break. After returning from her break, Petitioner reported to the Receiving Department and told Ms. Lenox that she did not feel she could not stand any longer that day. Petitioner asked if there was something she could do other than her receiving duties. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner that if she could not stand, then Ms. Lenox did not have any more work for her and told her that she should go home. Accordingly, Petitioner went home approximately one hour before her shift ended. Petitioner reported to work the following day, Tuesday, August 28, 2007, at 5:00 a.m. and worked her entire shift. At some point after her shift started that day, Petitioner told Mr. Sinanian that Ms. Lenox would not allow her to take a break during post-audit. Petitioner also told Mr. Sinanian that her foot was swollen and hurting. She took off her shoe to show him her foot. Mr. Sinanian did not see anything unusual about Petitioner’s foot. He did not see any swelling, graying, or a red bump. From the conversation with Petitioner, Mr. Sinanian did not understand that her foot was hurting due to a new injury. Therefore, Mr. Sinanian did not fill out an incident report. Petitioner’s and Mr. Sinanian’s conversation lasted approximately two minutes. At some point after speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Sinanian asked Ms. Lenox if, at any point during post-audit, she told Petitioner that Petitioner could not take a break. Ms. Lenox denied Petitioner’s allegation. Mr. Sinanian had no reason to doubt Ms. Lenox. Petitioner continued to work her job as Receiving Clerk after August 28, 2007. She continued to use her discretion to rest her foot on an as-needed basis. When possible she would sit in a chair to work. She used the electric pallet, letting her foot hang off the platform. Petitioner waited three weeks to seek medical treatment from her podiatrist in West Palm Beach, Florida. She finally saw her doctor on Monday, September 17, 2007. At her appointment, Petitioner’s podiatrist gave her a note that stated, “DUE TO ARTHRITIC CONDITION, CYNTHIA IS UNABLE TO STAND FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AND IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY FOR HER TO BE OFF HER FOOT FOR 3 WEEKS. DUE TO THE FLARE UP.” Petitioner understood that her podiatrist wanted her to stay off her foot for a few weeks and to be in a sedentary position during that time. Petitioner also understood that these temporary restrictions were more limiting than her prior permanent restrictions. Petitioner reported to work on September 18, 2007, and told Ms. Lenox that her doctor did not want her standing. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner that they would need to speak with Mr. Zook about her restrictions when he arrived at work that day. In the meantime, Ms. Lenox permitted Petitioner to sit down and work on summary sheets. After returning from lunch, Petitioner met with Mr. Zook about her new temporary restrictions. The meeting lasted about an hour or more. Based on Mr. Zook’s prior experience working as a Receiving Clerk, his understanding of the essential job functions of that position, and Petitioner’s podiatrist’s statement that she needed to be off her foot for three weeks, he did not believe that Petitioner could perform the essential functions of that position without violating her doctor’s restrictions. Mr. Zook, nevertheless, asked Petitioner how she thought she could do her job from a seated position. Petitioner did not have any suggestions. There were no available sedentary positions in the warehouse at that time that could have accommodated Petitioner’s no-standing restrictions. As a result, Mr. Zook explained to Petitioner that based on her doctor’s restrictions, which required her to be in a sedentary position, he did not have any work for her at that time. Mr. Zook did not believe that Petitioner’s temporary no-standing restrictions prevented her from working in any capacity. Mr. Zook explained to Petitioner that she could take a leave of absence and return to work after her temporary restrictions expired. Because Petitioner’s restrictions were temporary, Mr. Zook did not contact Respondent’s Human Resources Department to schedule a job accommodation meeting. Despite Mr. Zook’s statement, Petitioner returned to work the following day and performed some work for a period of time. After Mr. Zook arrived at the warehouse, he went back to the Receiving Department and asked Petitioner why she was at work. Mr. Zook reminded Petitioner that he did not have any work for her to do at that time and that he could not allow her to work in violation of her doctor’s restrictions. After speaking with Mr. Zook, Petitioner clocked out, signed some paperwork, and left the building. Petitioner did not return to work after September 19, 2007. On October 15, 2007, Petitioner saw her podiatrist again. Petitioner’s podiatrist extended her temporary no- standing restriction for another six weeks. Petitioner understood, however, that her no-standing restrictions remained temporary at that time. Petitioner applied for and received short-term disability (“STD”) benefits beginning around the end of September 2007. Petitioner used paid time off until the STD period benefits began.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Hnin N. Khaing, Esquire Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC 1648 Osceola Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Kathleen Mones, Esquire Seyfarth Shaw LLP 1545 Peachtree Street Northeast, Suite 700 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Larry Kranert, 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
The Issue Whether Respondent, Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what penalty should be assessed pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2016).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on or about January 1, 2015, which was engaged in the construction industry in Florida at all times relevant hereto. According to the record evidence, Respondent was administratively dissolved on September 23, 2016. No evidence of reinstatement was introduced. According to the Secretary of State’s database, Rasheem Kincey is Respondent’s President, Mecca Kincey is its Vice President, and Ulysses Kincey is its Treasurer. On January 23, 2017, Ms. Loy received a telephone call from Department Compliance Investigator, Carl Woodall, who was onsite at a restaurant undergoing renovations at the intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and Kraft Avenue in Panama City, Florida (the worksite). Mr. Woodall reported his findings to Ms. Loy from a random workers’ compensation compliance check he had completed at the worksite. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s verbal report, Ms. Loy instructed Mr. Woodall to issue the subject Order. According to Ms. Loy, Mr. Woodall observed several workers at the worksite, interviewed them, and recorded notes on a field interview worksheet. Ms. Loy had no personal knowledge of any of the workers at the worksite, did not observe the activities of anyone at the worksite, and did not interview anyone at the worksite. Mr. Woodall did not testify at the final hearing. The Department did not introduce Mr. Woodall’s field interview worksheet into evidence. Ms. Loy reviewed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is maintained by the Department, and confirmed Respondent did not have a valid workers’ compensation insurance policy. Mr. Hatten was assigned to calculate the penalty to be imposed for Respondent’s alleged failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. From Mr. Woodall’s field interview worksheet, Mr. Hatten retrieved the names Rasheem Kincey, Mecca Kincey, Ulysees Kincey, Brandon White, Mark Kim Wilson, Jerome Bradley, and Brandon Samuel Kincey Smith, and entered those names on his penalty calculation worksheet as Respondent’s uninsured employees for the penalty audit period. In this case, the penalty audit period included the two years immediately preceding the date on which the Order was issued: January 23, 2015 through January 23, 2017. Respondent did not comply with Petitioner’s BRR; therefore, the Department did not have sufficient records to establish Respondent’s payroll during the penalty audit period. Mr. Hatten reviewed CCAS and confirmed that Mecca Kincey, Ulysses Kincey, and Rasheem Kincey had valid workers’ compensation exemptions effective from February 3, 4, and 5, 2015, respectively, through February 2, 3, and 4, 2017, respectively. Respondent’s officers did not have exemptions from workers’ compensation insurance requirements during the audit period between January 26, 2015, and February 2, 3, and 4, 2017, respectively. Mr. Hatten entered these timeframes on the penalty calculation worksheet as periods of non-compliance for the three corporate officers. Mr. Hatten further found Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy effective February through July 2015. Mr. Hatten used this information to establish periods of non-compliance during the audit period. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s notes that he observed workers engaged in stucco application and repair at the worksite, Mr. Hatten assigned the classification code 5022, Masonry, for purposes of calculating the penalty. The classification code was derived from the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and adopted by the Department by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Hatten next applied the workers’ compensation insurance rates approved by the Department for workers’ compensation coverage by classification code to each worker during each period of non-compliance. Finally, because Respondent did not submit business records sufficient to establish its payroll during the audit period, Mr. Hatten assigned the statewide average weekly wage in order to calculate Respondent’s payroll to each “employee” and its corporate officers for the periods of non-compliance. Utilizing this imputed methodology, Mr. Hatten calculated a total penalty of $94,544.92 to be imposed on Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the periods of non-compliance. The Department served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 23, 2017, imposing the penalty of $94,544.92. Mr. Kincey testified on Respondent’s behalf. Mr. Kincey admitted that he, Ulysses Kincey, and Mecca Kincey were performing stucco work at the worksite on January 23, 2017. Mr. Kincey denied that any of the other individuals, purportedly identified at the worksite by Mr. Woodall, were his employees. As to the individuals named in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Kincey testified that Jerome Bradley was a cook at the restaurant; Mark Kim Wilson was painting at the worksite, and Mr. Kincey assumed Mr. Wilson was hired by the restaurant owner, Jerry Steele; Brandon Samuel Kincey Smith was Mr. Kincey’s cousin, and he had no idea who had hired Mr. Kincey Smith or what he was doing at the worksite; and that he had never heard of Brandon White and could not identify Mr. White. The Department offered no non-hearsay evidence to rebut Mr. Kincey’s testimony. The record evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Rasheem Kincey, Mecca Kincey, and Ulysees Kincey were performing stucco work at the worksite on January 23, 2017, and were not covered by either workers’ compensation insurance or a valid exemption therefrom, for the periods of non-compliance identified in the penalty calculation worksheet. Mr. Hatton correctly applied the imputed methodology and correctly calculated a penalty of $1,259.64, for Respondent’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three corporate officers. The evidence is insufficient to support the remaining imputed penalty calculation applied to Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc., failed to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and impose a penalty of $1,259.64. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 13th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Rasheem Kincey Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc. 129 Nann Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether Keith Jackson, Ph.D. ("Petitioner") should be required to pay FAMU's claimed overpayment of salary as calculated in the amount of $29,141.57, for the pay periods between July 11, 2008 and December 12, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 1, 2005, Petitioner executed an employment contract with FAMU to serve as Vice President for Research. The contract executed by Petitioner provides that Petitioner "is subject to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and the United States and the rules, policies, guidelines and procedures of the Board of Governors and the University as now existing or hereafter promulgated." On July 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted to the University a letter advising that he was resigning from his administrative position with the University as the Vice President for Research. Petitioner's letter of resignation was accepted by the University effective July 11, 2008. Tenure as a faculty member was granted to Petitioner by the University on May 25, 2007. 12 When Petitioner resigned from his administrative position on July 11, 2008, he was a tenured faculty member at the University. FAMU BOT Policy 2005-15, adopted June 30, 2005 and revised on February 12, 2008, requires that the salary for former administrators, such as Petitioner, be adjusted to "the median salary of the employees within the same professorial rank and discipline." On July 11, 2008, Petitioner's annual salary, based on his service as Vice President for Research, was $166,400.00. According to FAMU BOT Policy 2005-15, his salary, upon resignation from his administrative position as Vice President for Research and movement to his faculty position, should have been adjusted to $72,662.00 in that this amount reflected, at the time, the median salary of employees within Petitioner's rank and discipline. Due to administrative oversight, Petitioner, after the effective date of his resignation, continued to receive his full administrative salary of $166,400.00. Petitioner's salary was adjusted to the correct amount beginning with the biweekly pay period of December 12, 2008. Petitioner was erroneously paid his salary of $166,400.00 from July 11, 2008 through the biweekly pay period of December 12, 2008. This resulted in Petitioner receiving a salary overpayment in the amount of $29,141.27. Petitioner has not refunded any money to FAMU.
Conclusions This matter is now before Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees ("FAMU," "Respondent," or the "University") for final agency action.
Other Judicial Opinions This Order Constitutes Final Agency Action. A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing an original Notice of Administrative Appeal with the Agency Clerk of Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Office of the General Counsel, Lee Hall, Suite 300, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, and a copy of the Notice of Appeal attached to which is a conformed copy of the order designated in the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the First District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Administrative Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is rendered. Copy: Teresa Hardee, CFO and Vice President, Administrative and Financial Services Avery D. McKnight, FAMU General Counsel Linzie F. Bogan, Associate General Counsel, Director of Labor Relations Nellie C. Woodruff, Associate Vice President, Human Resources Robert E. Larkin, Ill, Esq. Jacqueline Lester, Associate Director of Payroll Claudio Llado, DOAH Clerk 16
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Division") is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement within the state that employers cover employees with workers' compensation insurance. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2009). Respondent, Jurgenson Trading Corporation, is owned, in part, by Julio Raudsett, and operates a "Subway" sandwich restaurant franchise in Hialeah, Florida. It is a family-owned business with a total of five employees, three of whom are related. Cesar Tolentino, an investigator for the Division, conducted a field interview of Raudsett, who admitted that he did not carry workers' compensation insurance. Tolentino checked the database in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), and there were no records showing workers' compensation coverage for the Subway employees, nor any notices of applicable exemptions. Martha Aguilar, Tolentino's supervisor authorized the issuance of a Stop-Work Order that was personally served on Raudsett by Tolentino by hand-delivery on April 17, 2009. At the same time, Tolentino served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Raudsett provided his business records, including payroll journals and unemployment tax returns. Based on Aguilar's review of the business records, the Division issued its Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on June 8, 2009, with an assessed penalty of $19,873.79. Aguilar determined the amount of the penalty, using the following steps: (1) assigning each employee the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code that was applicable for restaurant workers; (2) determining how much the employee had been paid from April 2006 to April 2009 (the period of non-coverage); and (3) assigning the rate to the gross pay to calculate the insurance premium that should have been paid, then multiplying that by 1.5, as required by rule. The NCCI class codes for employees administrative staff as compared to restaurant workers are lower and, therefore, their workers' compensation insurance premiums would be lower. The business records available to Aguilar did not distinguish among employee's responsibilities. Absent that information, the penalty is, by law, calculated using the highest NCCI class code associated with that kind of business, and was correctly done in this case. Raudsett has entered into a payment plan with the Division. He objected only to that portion of the penalty that was based on his earnings, and those of his wife, Maribel Medina, who works part-time, and his father-in-law, Rolando Medina. He claims an exemption for the three of them as owners and managers of the corporation. Excluding their salaries and associated penalties, according to Joseph Cabanas, Respondent's accountant, would reduce the penalty by $10,267.67, to $9,606.12. Cabanas testified that Raudsett, an immigrant from Venezuela, was not aware of workers' compensation laws, and that was why the three owners/officers of the Respondent's corporation failed to file a Notice of Elections to be Exempt from coverage until after the Division's investigation began.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, that upholds the assessment of a penalty of $19,873.79. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 15th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Douglas D. Dolan, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph Cabanas 10520 Northwest 26 Street, Suite C-201 Doral, Florida 33172
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration of and final agency action on the Written Report and Recommended Order entered on November 17, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes an informal hearing was conducted on September 14, 2010, heard before Hearing Officer Alan J. Leifer via telephone conference call. After review of the record, including testimony and admitted exhibits, and being otherwise fully apprised in all material premises: {T 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer are adopted in full as the Department's Findings of Fact, and the Conclusions of Law reached by the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department’s Conclusions of Law. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Penalty Only) is affirmed and that Cronin Porch & Patio, Inc. shall pay to the Department the assessed penaity of $10,084.00, within 30 days from the date hereof or enter into a Payment Agreement schedule. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that as long as Cronin Porch & Patio, Inc. is not in default of its payments, it may continue all business operations provided it demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation of having now complied with the workers’ compensation law by securing the necessary workers’ compensation insurance coverage for covered employees. Ca DONE and ORDERED this day of Dg ¢ ew ben, 2010. bain Dion Ben Diamond, General Counsel Office of Chief of Staff
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner's discharge by the Respondent constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Having considered all of the evidence in the record, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Petitioner was hired as a Mechanic II (Electrician) by Respondent on January 25, 1982 in the Plant Engineering Department. The term "Mechanic II" denoted Petitioner's pay grade. The term "Electrician" designated Petitioner's speciality. Petitioner's pay grade was changed to Electrician and the Mechanic II pay grade was eliminated by Respondent for all such employees on or about November 16, 1983. Petitioner's duties as an Electrician included ladder work, running conduit and wire, repairing laundry and laboratory equipment and appliances, changing ballasts, and repairing electrical beds and nurse-call equipment. Petitioner performed all of the duties of an electrician, including ladder work until approximately November 27, 1985. Three months after he was employed in 1982, Petitioner injured his back while repairing electrical beds. Repairing electrical beds required much bending and stooping. Petitioner filed for Worker's Compensation benefits for the injury he sustained in repairing electrical beds. Petitioner suffered an off-the-job injury in 1983. Respondent permitted Petitioner to go on medical leave for two months. Petitioner again injured his back while working at the Hospital on or about November 27, 1985. Due to his injury, Petitioner was on leave of absence from November 30, 1985, through December 11, 1985. Petitioner returned to work but again went on leave of absence from January 9, 1986, through February 17, 1986. Petitioner returned to work subject to a "light duty" restriction imposed by his physician. On or about June 10, 1986, Petitioner's physician released him for full duty subject to a 15 pound restriction on any lifting. In September, 1986, Petitioner's physician indicated that it was "probably best" for Petitioner to work only 4 hours per day. The Respondent again allowed Petitioner to work 4 hours per day even though he occupied a full-time, 8 hour per day position. In early October, 1986, Petitioner was released by his physician to perform full duty work, even though Petitioner was restricted to half days. Frank Kleese, Petitioner's foreman, asked Petitioner to investigate a problem with an overhead light. Petitioner refused Kleese's directive and stated that, even though he had been released for full duty work, he would not climb a ladder unless his doctor approved it. Petitioner argued with Kleese and used "strong language". Petitioner became belligerent. Petitioner received reprimands for insubordination. When Petitioner refused Kleese's second request to do ladder work, Petitioner received a reprimand for refusing to do the job assigned to him. Both reprimands were discussed with Petitioner. Petitioner later presented a doctor's note stating he could "return to full active duty," but could work only half days with no ladder work. As a result of Petitioner's half day schedule, other electricians were required to do more work. The department as a whole fell behind in its work. Furthermore, light duty work was not always available for Petitioner. While working half days in late 1986, Petitioner was late to work on three occasions. Petitioner's reason for being late, as explained to Frank Kleese, his foreman, was that Petitioner's injury made it difficult for him to get out of bed in the morning. In November, 1986, Clark, Kleese, and Kunz met with Petitioner and advised him that he could not remain on half days indefinitely. Petitioner was advised that unless his condition was found to have improved by his upcoming doctor's appointment on December 1, 1986, he would be placed on medical leave. On December 1, 1986, Petitioner visited his physician, Dr. Richard D. Strain, Jr. Dr. Strain stated that there was no reason to think that Petitioner's condition would change quickly. Dr. Strain was going to send Petitioner home and put him on physician therapy (i.e., not allow him to work at all). Petitioner asked Dr. Strain if he could work half days, and Dr. Strain agreed. Kleese, Kunz, and Clark met with Petitioner and informed him that he would be placed on medical leave as a result of the Petitioner's medical condition. Continuation of his half-day status without any foreseeable cutoff date was not acceptable to the Respondent. On December 4, 1986, Respondent Benefits Supervisor Ralph Rettig advised Dr. Strain that Petitioner had been placed on medical leave of absence because there were no part-time positions available in Petitioner's department. Rettig requested Dr. Strain to advise him as to whether Petitioner's condition was the result of his injury at work and whether Petitioner would ever improve to the level where he could work more than half day duty. Dr. Strain responded to Mr. Rettig in a letter dated December 22, 1986, which indicated that Petitioner's condition was partially caused by degenerative changes. Dr. Strain further stated: Mr. Cabany tells me he is unable to work more than a half day, and I think that is a reasonable thing for him to do. Certainly, a man of his elderly years with the degenerative changes that he has, with super imposed trauma, that would be a good way to go. Petitioner went on medical leave beginning December 17, 1986. Prior to the beginning of his leave, Petitioner failed to fill out the leave of absence request form. When this came to Rettig's attention, Rettig requested that Vernon Clark send Petitioner the form. Clark wrote to Petitioner and informed him that he must fill out the leave of absence request form Clark had enclosed. Clark further informed Petitioner that he would have to request renewal of his leave when it expired in mid-January, 1987, in accordance with Respondent policies. During a telephone conversation several days prior to the expiration of Petitioner's leave, Clark reminded Petitioner that he still had not sent in the original request form for the leave he was then under. Clark also reminded Petitioner that, if he wished to extend his leave, Petitioner would have to submit a written request for extension. Petitioner eventually sent in the signed request form for the leave of absence which he was then under. The signed form stated: "If I do not request an extension of my Leave prior to expiration . . . my employment at Memorial Respondent will be terminated. . . ." Petitioner never submitted a request for an extension of his leave, and Petitioner was terminated. In February, 1987, Ralph Rettig became aware of a part-time porter position in the Respondent's Dietary Department. Mr. Rettig contacted Petitioner and asked him to meet with Joseph Marino, Administrative Director of Food and Nutrition Services, with regard to a job in the Dietary Department. Marino offered Petitioner a porter position which required only half days and involved no bending or lifting of heavy objects. Marino explained the duties and responsibilities of the position to Petitioner and showed him the work area. Petitioner refused the position because he felt it was "beneath his dignity". Petitioner said virtually the same thing to Rettig. Hospital Benefits Supervisor Rettig, a quadriplegic, was involved throughout in dealing with Petitioner's medical situation. Rettig testified that he has never witnessed discrimination by the Respondent based upon handicap and felt that the Respondent reasonably accommodated Petitioner's back problem. Eighty percent of an Electrician's work at the Respondent involved the use of a ladder. Petitioner could not do ladder work. Petitioner also could not work on ceilings or do much bending or lifting. Petitioner cannot work at all now, still has pain, and has not worked since leaving the Respondent's employ. Petitioner did not know of any available half-day jobs he could have performed at the Hospital other than the porter position that was offered to Petitioner by Mr. Marino. Prior to his 1985 injury, Petitioner had repeatedly requested to work part time as an Electrician because his wife had arthritis and he needed to care for her. Petitioner was consistently turned down because no such part-time position existed in his department. During his employment with Respondent, a few half-day positions existed throughout the Hospital as PBX Operators, Cashiers, and Porters. No part-time Electrician positions in the Plant Engineering Department where Petitioner was employed were ever available. Petitioner occupied a full-time position even though he worked only part-time. Sandy McNeil, a former Electrician, is now a Systems Technician/Welder who works full days on a part-time basis. Mr. McNeil operates a lathe and works full weeks when needed. Petitioner is not a welder and could not perform the duties required of Mr. McNeil. Richmond Blatch is a painter who works a full week every other week. Petitioner is not a painter and could not perform Mr. Blatch's duties. Tom Nottage, another individual who had been working in the Engineering Department, obtained a courier position with the Hospital. For a brief period, Mr. Nottage worked 2 full days a week in the Engineering Department and 3 days week as a courier. Since mid-January, 1987, Mr. Nottage has worked full-time as a courier. His job requires driving over 25,000 miles per year, lifting mail tubs weighing between 20 and 50 pounds, often lifting heavier packages, and getting in and out of his car between 20 and 40 times per day. Petitioner could not perform the duties required of Mr. Nottage. A part-time position could not be created for an Electrician. Electricians are given jobs which frequently carry through from day to day. Permanently employing someone on a half-day, health-restricted basis presented scheduling and work load problems. Jobs that do not carry through from day to day are frequently comprised of so-called bench work. Some bench work requires an entire day to complete. There was not always a half-day's worth of bench work available. During his employment with the Respondent, Petitioner had been receiving Social Security pension benefits. In 1987, Petitioner would have been required to reimburse Social Security for a portion of his pension benefits if he earned more than $8,000,00. Half day employment would have afforded Petitioner the ability to earn the maximum allowed by Social Security. Because Petitioner refused to accept a job for which he was physically qualified, the worker's compensation benefits begun as a result of his injury on the job in 1982, were stopped. If Petitioner had accepted the porter position offered to him by Mr. Marino, his worker's compensation benefits would have compensated him for the wage loss resulting from the lower paying job. Petitioner's termination had no effect on the worker's compensation benefits Respondent was paying Petitioner. Respondent would have gained a financial benefit from retaining Petitioner as a part time Electrician because there would have been less of a wage loss to make up through worker's compensation benefits. Glen Mora and Luis Villanueva, two other Electricians, were injured while Petitioner was working half days. Both individuals were allowed to take medical leave, and return to work on light duty until they returned to full duty status. Both individuals in fact returned to full duty status. Petitioner received a merit pay check from Respondent in 1986 even though Petitioner had not achieved the requisite "fully proficient" rating in his evaluation. Vernon Clark, Director of Plant Engineering, intervened on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Clark recommended that Petitioner receive the merit pay because Petitioner would have received a higher rating had it not been for Petitioner's injury.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Human Rights Commission issue a Final Order that Respondent is not guilty of discharging Petitioner in violation of the Human Rights Act. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1989. DANIEL MANRY 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. APPENDIX Petitioner submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection NONE The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in Findings 1, 2 2-3 Rejected as irrelevant 4-9 Included in Findings 3-10 Included in Finding 35 Included in Finding 11 Included in Finding 25 Included in Finding 26 Included in Finding 31 15-17 Included in Findings 27-30 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 36 Included in Finding 32 21-28 Included in Findings 12-21 29 Included in Finding 22 30-31 Included in Findings 33-34 Included in Finding 22 Included in Findings 15, 17 34-35 Included in Findings 23, 24 COPIES FURNISHED: George Cabany 3905 Garfield Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 James S. Bramnick Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, P. A. Hollywood Memorial Respondent Suite 3600 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2338 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact 1. Mrs. Dunham began her employment with the Respondent School Board in 1959. When she began her first position was Accounting Clerk, Pay Grade 12. Presently, she holds the position of Accountant, Pay Grade 23. In August of 1972 the Petitioner was promoted to the position of Accounting Contract Specialist. The individual who had held this position, Mr. Ray Groseclose resigned and Petitioner was promoted to that position. While Mr. Groseclose was in that position it was classified as Pay Grade 26 with a salary of $3.90 per hour. When the Petitioner was promoted to that position she had been classified as Pay Grade 15. Shortly after the Petitioner's promotion to the Accounting Contract Specialist the position was downgraded from a Grade 26 to a Pay Grade Actually, the Petitioner was never paid at the Grade 26 level and her first increased pay check reflected the Grade 21 classification. The Petitioner contends that the failure to promote her into this position at the same pay grade that was enjoyed by her male predecessor indicates sexual discrimination against her for which she should be granted relief in the form of back pay due. The Accounting Contract Specialist position required one holding that position to monitor contracts entered into by the school board and determine that payments were made when required and that a bookkeeping system was maintained to keep track of the status of school board contracts. Ray Groseclose, who held the position prior to the Petitioner's appointment, had no formal education in the field of accounting or bookkeeping, however, he did receive some training in that area while with the Armed Forces. Likewise, the Petitioner had no accounting background, but her experience and initiative were enough for her to perform very satisfactorily in this position. All witnesses who testified regarding the Petitioner's ability stated that she did equally well, if not better, than Mr. Groseclose and assumed more duties than he had in that position. The Petitioner testified that she did not learn until September of 1973, a year after her promotion, that the position was previously classified as a Grade 26. However, when receiving her appointment papers in September of 1972, the Petitioner did sign a notice of reclassification for which indicated that the job was being downgraded. On behalf of the Respondent, testimony was received from Dr. D.J. Harrison, who was now the superintendent of the Savannah-Chatham School Board, Savannah, Georgia. Previously, between 1971 and 1973, he was employed by the Brevard County School Board and among his duties he was supervisor over the Accounting Contract Specialist. Dr. Harrison testified that while Ray Groseclose held that position he had intended to downgrade it, but had not done so before Ray Groseclose resigned. He stated that the position as originally assigned, included the administration of contracts. After Groseclose resigned it was decided to limit the job to accounting and that a Mr. Campbell would handle the administration of contracts. Other testimony, however, indicated that Ray Groseclose never handled the administration of contracts and that the Petitioner actually performed more responsibilities than were assigned to Ray Groseclose. In any case, it appears that the school board came to a realization that the Accounting Contract Specialist position could be filled by a competent individual at a Pay Grade 21 rather than Pay Grade 26 and that when Ray Groseclose resigned it appeared to be a convenient opportunity to downgrade the position. The evidence presented at this hearing does not affirmatively establish discrimination against the petitioner. It is possible the position in question was downgraded because of the petitioner's sex, but a finding of fact cannot be based on a mere possibility. All the evidence presented at this proceeding is consistent with valid administrative practiced on the part of the school board. No evidence was presented on behalf of the petitioner to indicate other examples of possible sexual discrimination on the part of the School Board which could establish a coarse of conduct. In fact, evidence was presented that the U.S. Department of Labor investigated the respondent school board and concluded, with the possible exception of the petitioner, there were no examples of sex discrimination evident. If there was any sexual discrimination practiced against the Petitioner, none was proven. All that is indicated by the evidence taken in this case is that the Petitioner was promoted from a position with the Brevard County Board from a Grade 15 to a Grade 21. The position to which she was promoted was downgraded at approximately the time of her promotion but it does not appear that the Petitioner's sex had anything to do with the downgrading of this position.
The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 25th day of November, 2013.
