Findings Of Fact John Stewart is a correctional officer with permanent status. He filed a timely appeal on his five-day suspension with the Career Service Commission. Franklin Ashe, Assistant Food Service Director, was Stewart's immediate supervisor and rater at the time in question. Stewart had transferred to kitchen duties shortly after his initial rating as a Correctional Officer I in March, 1976. Ashe prepared Stewart's first rating as a Correctional Officer I working in the kitchen as a steward on April 25, 1977. At that time Stewart had worked in the southwest unit kitchen since the and of March, 1977. His duties in the southwest unit kitchen were direction and supervision of inmate cooks and cook's helpers. Prior to his transfer, Stewart's duties were to take the noon meal to the prisoners working on work details outside the prison. However, Ashe had also supervised Stewart prior to his transfer to the southwest unit kitchen. His performance of his initial duties were presumably satisfactory because this was apparently a good assignment and Stewart performed these duties until March, 1977. The benefits of this job included no shift work and weekends off. In late March, 1977, Stewart who was active in a union organizational effort received oral warning from D. E. Carter concerning passing out union material on the premises of the prison. Shortly thereafter, Stewart who was an alternate to the bargaining talks, was moved from his duties serving prisoners on work detail and assigned to shift work. Shortly after that he was moved to the southwest unit kitchen. The evaluation involved in this case followed shortly thereafter. Ashe's evaluation of Stewart was delivered to Ashe by one of the Correctional Officers II or sergeants who were assigned duties in the kitchen. Ashe was displeased about the rating and asked the sergeant about speaking to Ashe. A meeting occurred between Ashe and Stewart in Ashe's office shortly after Stewart came to work on May 23, 1977. This meeting lasted about five minutes. Stewart states that he asked Ashe about the rating and Ashe replied that it was self-explanatory and that he just called the facts the way they were. Beyond this Ashe gave no explanation of the basis for his rating of Stewart. Ashe does not deny this, but alleges that Stewart was abusive and insubordinate by stating that he (Ashe) was full of shit. Ashe then attempted to terminate the meeting by leaving. Ashe stated that Stewart blocked his way out of the door and told him that he was a baby not a man and that if they met on the street, Ashe had better move over. Stewart denies having used vulgar or threatening language with Ashe, but admits that be did stand in the door way and did say Ashe was a baby not a man. Stewart never received an explanation of his rating. Based upon the foregoing Stewart was suspended for five days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer finds that good cause existed for disciplinary action against Stewart. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Gearey, Esquire Department of Offender Rehabilitation 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Walter Thomas, Esquire Voyager Building 2255 Phyllis Street Jacksonville, Florida Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the February 28, 2007, State Officer Certification Examination for Correctional Officers should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner sat for the State Officer Certification Examination for Correctional Officers administered on February 28, 2007 (February 2007 Certification Examination). To attain a passing score on the February 2007 Certification Examination, candidates needed to answer 199 questions correctly. Petitioner did not attain a passing score. He received credit for answering 198 questions correctly, one shy of the 199 needed to pass the examination. One of the questions he was not given credit for answering correctly was Question 162. Question 162 was a clear and unambiguous multiple choice question with four possible answers to choose from ("a," "b," "c," or "d"). The correct answer to Question 162 was "d." Approximately 80 percent of the candidates who sat for the February 2007 Certification Examination gave this answer. The answer that Petitioner selected, "c," was incorrect. Had this answer contained the prefatory language, "basis for," or other words to same effect, it too would have been correct. Such language, however, was missing from "c," making it an incorrect choice.2 Question 162 has appeared on prior Certification Examinations. Over the years, it has been answered a total of 1,422 times, with answer "d" having been selected 1,192 of these occasions and answer "c" having been selected a mere 206 times. Because Petitioner selected an answer to Question 162 that was incorrect, he appropriately received no credit for his answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the February 2007 Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for his answers to certain examination questions on the State Officer Certification Examination ("SOCE") administered November 11, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility for administering officer certification examinations and for establishing "standards for acceptable performance on each officer certification examination." § 943.1397(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). The SOCE is a multiple-choice examination, and there are four answer choices for each question. Mr. Page was a certified police officer in New Jersey for approximately three and one-half years before moving to Florida. Pursuant to Section 943.13(9), Florida Statutes (2004), Mr. Page was not required to attend a full six-months' basic recruit training program because of his background in law enforcement. Mr. Page did, however, attend a two-week, 80-hour state-certified training program in preparation for taking the SOCE, and he was provided a loose-leaf notebook containing written course materials. The course materials reflect the Commission's curriculum, and these materials are provided to the training institution, which is responsible for copying the materials and providing them to the students. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 47 is "C"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 47 describes the statutory elements of a crime, and the examination candidate must choose the answer that identifies the crime fitting the statutory elements set forth in the body of the question. Question 47 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the answer choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 55 is "D"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 55 describes a scenario, and the answer choices set forth various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate action. Question 55 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately difficult question; the correct answer was included among the answer choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 63 is "D"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 63 describes the actions of a person, and the answer choices set forth conclusions a law enforcement officer could draw from these actions. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate conclusion. Question 63 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a difficult question3; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 159 is "B"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 159 requires the examination candidate to fill in the blank in the body of the question. The examination candidate must choose the answer that accurately completes the statement contained in the body of the question. Question 159 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 195 is "A"; Mr. Page chose answer "B." Question 195 describes an activity in which a law enforcement officer might engage, and the examination candidate is asked to choose the answer that best describes the consequences of the officer's engaging in such an activity. Question 195 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as an easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 248 is "B"; Mr. Page chose answer "C." Question 248 describes a scenario, and the answer choices set forth various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the answer describing the appropriate action. Question 248 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and is classified as an easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 251 is "C"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 251 describes a scenario, and the answer choices provide various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate action. Question 251 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and is classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. The specific curriculum materials referred to by the Commission as supporting what it deemed to be the correct answers to questions numbered 47, 63, 159, and 195, were not included in the loose-leaf notebook provided to Mr. Page as part of the 80-hour training program in which he participated prior to taking the SOCE.4 These omissions are not sufficient of themselves, however, to justify giving Mr. Page credit for his answers to these four questions. Because Mr. Page failed to establish either that the questions were ambiguous or that the answers he gave on the examination questions were correct, he is not entitled to credit for his answers to these questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order dismissing the challenge of Jason R. Page to the scoring of his answers on the SOCE administered on November 11, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact William H. Mathias was initially employed by SWFWMD as Director of Employee Relations on January 30, 1980, at pay grade At the time of Petitioner's employment William C. Tatum was Executive Director of SWFWMD. Petitioner has over ten years' experience in personnel relations and security and holds two master's degrees. Due partly to Petitioner's aggressiveness and strong personality, he began exerting influence in the personnel division in pushing the Personnel Department in directions not necessarily approved by Tatum. Tatum wanted to reduce the influence the Personnel Department was having on SWFWMD. On July 26, 1982, Petitioner was transferred to the Field Operations Division with no change in grade. Exhibit 5, which announced this transfer, stated Petitioner was transferred as Assistant Director. On July 28, 1982, a subsequent memorandum, Exhibit 6, was issued by Tatum changing Petitioner's title from Assistant Director to Acting Administrative Assistant. Prior to this transfer Tatum spoke with William F. Sietman, Director of Field Operations, who advised Tatum that he had no need for Petitioner in the Field Operations Division however, Tatum insisted that Petitioner, with his two master's degrees, could make a valuable contribution to SWFWMD if placed in the right niche. Shortly thereafter, Tatum was replaced as Executive Director by Gary W. Kuhl, who was promoted to that position from Assistant Executive Director. The first evaluation report submitted by Sietman on Petitioner, at the end of his first six months on the job, was unsatisfactory. Petitioner appealed to Kuhl, who withdrew his evaluation partly because no job description had been prepared for the position occupied by Petitioner. Kuhl directed the preparation of a job description for the work to be done by Petitioner. When the job description_ was prepared, the position was given the title of Program Management Analyst and the duties to be performed are as contained in Exhibit 1. Principally, Petitioner's function was to do some coordinating of the budgets prepared by the various sections in Field Operations, coordinate planning and negotiate and oversee the building maintenance contract. This position was a staff function as opposed to a line function in which the incumbent would exercise direction, or command, over the section heads. As a staff function his duties were coordination as opposed to direction. Subsequent to his initial unsatisfactory evaluation at the end of his six months probationary period, Petitioner's evaluations improved each evaluating period and at the time of his termination his performance can be described as very good. However, on several occasions complaints about Petitioner giving personnel advice to Respondent's employees regarding overtime, job classifications, and pay grades reached Kuhl. This was the subject of a memorandum addressed to Petitioner and Sietman by Kuhl on May 15, 1984 (Exhibit 7). Petitioner was told to leave personnel matters and advice to the Personnel Department or face disciplinary action. Changes in the functions imposed on Respondent in 1984 necessitated the employment of additional technical people and the establishment of additional technical positions at SWFWMD. The Governing Board indicated to the Executive Director that the budget could not be raised by the amount needed to fund all of these positions and that cuts would have to be made. Kuhl met with the various division heads to require more justification for the proposed new positions and to ascertain which existing positions they could eliminate. This resulted in a proposed list of positions including the librarian, Petitioner's position, and other positions currently unoccupied. As a result of these discussions it was concluded the unfilled positions and the position of Program Management Analyst could be eliminated. By memorandum dated August 17, 1984 (Exhibit 4), Kuhl advised the Governing Board of the proposed reduction in work force. By letter dated August 20, 1984 (Exhibit 15), Kuhl advised Petitioner that the position of Program Management Analyst was eliminated effective immediately and that he was eligible to apply for any other position in SWFWMD for which he was qualified. Petitioner appealed the termination to the Governing Board and, when the Board affirmed his termination, he filed the instant petition. Prior to the transfer of Petitioner to the Field Operations Division, the budget was prepared by each section chief for his section, and the division director coordinated the budgets. While Petitioner was assigned to Field Operations, he performed this budget coordination role previously taken by the director. When Petitioner's position was eliminated, the division reverted to the way it operated before Petitioner's arrival, with little, if any, noticeable effect. The role Petitioner had assumed in supervising the maintenance contract also reverted back to where it was before Petitioner's arrival, again with no noticeable effect.
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 Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs against Respondent and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, Ron D. Baker (Petitioner), was the personnel director for Indian River County (County or Indian River County). Petitioner was hired to this position by Respondent, James E. Chandler (Respondent), the administrator for Indian River County, on March 18, 1996. As personnel director for Indian River County, Petitioner is a public employee and, thus, subject to the Code of Ethics. Prior to Petitioner's being hired as personnel director for Indian River County, he had served as personnel director for the City of Melbourne from 1989 to 1996. On May 15, 1997, Respondent was contacted by a reporter of the Vero Beach Press Journal and asked to comment on allegations of impropriety that had surfaced with respect to Petitioner. The allegations were that improper procedures had been followed in the County's awarding a contract to Brevard Drug Screening; that Petitioner had requested that the owner of Brevard Drug Screening, Jon Peterson, hire Petitioner's son; and that Petitioner had directed a subordinate to call the City of Melbourne to obtain personal information about the director of aviation of the Melbourne International Airport. With one exception, Respondent was unfamiliar with the allegations. The one allegation raised by the newspaper reporter that had previously been brought to Respondent's attention involved Petitioner's utilizing the services of his subordinate, Colleen Peterson, to make inquiries to the City of Melbourne for personal information about the aviation director for the Melbourne International Airport. The day after the news reporter met with Respondent, in the May 16, 1997, edition of the Press Journal, Indian River County's local newspaper, an article was published that made allegations of impropriety against Petitioner. The allegations included in the newspaper article were the same ones the newspaper reporter discussed with Respondent the preceding day. Because the allegations appeared to relate to Petitioner's employment with Indian River County, after Respondent received information regarding alleged improprieties by Petitioner from the newspaper reporter, he immediately conferred with Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien. Later that same day, because of the seriousness of the allegations, O'Brien set up a meeting for Respondent with Indian River County Assistant State Attorney Lynn Park, to review the information that had been provided. Thereafter, Respondent met with both Assistant State Attorney Park and Assistant County Attorney O'Brien concerning the allegations raised by the newspaper reporter. After Respondent conferred with Assistant County Attorney O'Brien and Assistant State Attorney Park, a recommendation was made that the allegations against Petitioner be investigated by the Indian River County Sheriff's Office because of potential criminal violations. On May 22, 1997, Detective Lewis Beckerdite of the Indian River County Sheriff's Office was assigned to investigate the allegations involving Petitioner. Prior to commencing the investigation, Detective Beckerdite requested that Respondent Chandler prepare a memorandum summarizing the information and allegations relative to the matter. In response to Detective Beckerdite's request, Respondent prepared a memorandum detailing the information and allegations that had been presented to him regarding Petitioner and other parties. The memorandum stated that on May 15, 1997, a newspaper reporter raised three issues of alleged impropriety by Petitioner. First, the memorandum noted that the reporter advised Respondent that according to Jon Peterson, Petitioner had requested that Peterson hire Petitioner's son. This was possibly significant because Peterson was owner of Brevard Drug Screening Services, Inc., a firm that had a contract with Indian River County. A second issue raised by the newspaper reporter and addressed in the memorandum was whether proper purchasing procedures were followed in issuance of the Brevard Drug Screening contract. Third, Respondent's memorandum noted that the reporter had made an inquiry concerning Petitioner's directing Colleen Peterson, the County's personnel assistant and his subordinate, to call the City of Melbourne's personnel office to obtain personal information about the director of aviation at the Melbourne International Airport for potential litigation involving Petitioner's wife. With regard to the issuance of the contract to Brevard Drug Screening, Respondent's May 22, 1997, memorandum indicated that he had previously looked into the matter and determined that there was no violation of County policies. Further, the memorandum noted that Respondent had spoken to Petitioner about the call made to the City of Melbourne seeking personal information about the aviation director. According to the memorandum, during that discussion, Petitioner had agreed that it was improper to use County personnel for personal matters and had said it would not happen again. In addition to information described in paragraph 10 above, Respondent's memorandum indicated that on May 16, 1997, he received a call from a County employee who said that he had heard that Jon Peterson had either sold Human Resource Health Care Group or his client list to Mackie Branham of O'Neil, Lee, and Wood, the County's health insurance firm, and that Petitioner was allegedly involved and may have received some monetary gain. The County employee also told Respondent he had heard that Petitioner had made a trip to North Carolina and stayed at a cabin or condominium either paid for or owned by Markie Branham. After receiving Respondent's May 22, 1997, memorandum, Detective Beckerdite commenced an investigation which included his interviewing and taking sworn statements from various persons, including Petitioner, Colleen Peterson, and her husband, Jon Peterson. In addition to giving sworn statements, the Petersons provided Detective Beckerdite with documents to support the allegations that they made against Petitioner. Detective Beckerdite also interviewed James "Jaime" Carraway and County employees, Beth Jordan, Tobi Erts, and Joe Baird. Detective Beckerdite presented his preliminary investigative report, including the documents obtained during the course of the investigation, to the Indian River County State Attorney's Office. The report was reviewed by State Attorney Bruce Colton and Assistant State Attorney Park, who determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge Petitioner with any criminal violation. In light of this determination, Detective Beckerdite concluded his investigation and finalized the investigative report, which included attached documents. The Beckerdite report recommended that Indian River County conduct either an internal investigation of the allegations involving Petitioner or refer the matter to the Ethics Commission. After consulting with legal counsel for the County, Respondent determined that the matter should be referred to the Ethics Commission. The primary reason for this decision was that the Ethics Commission, unlike Indian River County, had the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. Respondent believed that by having subpoena power, the Ethics Commission could address the contradictory and conflicting testimony and statements of individuals by compelling the testimony of witnesses and the production of documents that might support or refute the allegations. Respondent prepared a formal ethics complaint on the form required by and obtained from the Ethics Commission. A narrative was prepared by Respondent and a specification of charges, based upon the Code of Ethics, was prepared by Deputy County Attorney Will Collins. These two parts were combined into one document titled, "Narrative Addendum to Sworn Statement." The narrative portion prepared by Respondent detailed the events that resulted in the decision to file the complaint with the Ethics Commission and expressly stated the basis upon which the allegations against Petitioner were made. In the "Narrative Addendum to Sworn Statement," Respondent stated: On May 15, 1997, I received information regarding allegations concerning Personnel Director Ron D. Baker. The information is reflected in the attached investigative report generated by Indian River County Sheriff's Department. * * * The report summarizes the statements taken by the Sheriff's Department. I believe the report is self-explanatory. In essence there are strong allegations with respect to Mr. Baker and various individuals or firms doing business with Indian River County. As reflected in the report Mr. Baker denies the allegations. The report draws no conclusions other than it is being transmitted to me to determine whether to handle this matter internally or to contact the Florida Commission on Ethics. After a thorough review of the report, it is my opinion and our attorney's office that the allegations are very serious and, if true, would be a violation of [the Code of Ethics]. * * * As a result, as County Administrator, I am requesting an investigation by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics. The Complaint consisted of the complaint form, the "Narrative Addendum to Sworn Statement," a copy of the Beckerdite report and attachments thereto, and a copy of a May 16, 1997, article from the Press Journal. The Complaint form and these attachments were filed with the Ethics Commission on June 30, 1997. Respondent did not publicize the filing of the Ethics Complaint or desseminate it to anyone other than County employees involved in its preparation and to County commissioners. Since no criminal prosecution was to ensue and the Sheriff's Department's investigation was complete, the Beckerdite report became a public record. In light thereof, a copy of the Beckerdite report was provided to Petitioner and to a newspaper reporter. Although the newspaper reporter was provided with a copy of the Beckerdite report, Respondent did not discuss the Beckerdite report with any reporter. After Petitioner received a copy of the Beckerdite report, he requested and was granted an administrative leave of absence with pay. Several weeks after filing the Complaint, Respondent contacted the Ethics Commission Office and asked about the status of resolution of the Complaint. Respondent was advised that it would be a matter of months before a determination would be made as to whether an investigation would proceed. Because Petitioner's administrative leave with pay was scheduled to end in August 1997, Respondent believed immediate action needed to be taken to resolve the issues before that time. To accomplish this, Respondent enlisted the assistance of Robert Von Buelow, a fire investigator employed by the County, to pursue further investigation of the allegations and charges against Petitioner. Investigator Von Buelow immediately commenced his investigation by conferring with Detective Beckerdite and reviewing the Beckerdite report. As a part of his investigation, Investigator Von Buelow took sworn statements and/or interviewed several individuals and reviewed documents. Investigator Von Buelow took sworn statements from both Colleen Peterson and her husband, Jon Peterson. The Petersons also provided Investigator Von Buelow with numerous documents which appeared to substantiate their claims or allegations. However, Von Buelow's investigation was limited because of his inability to compel statements of individuals who did not want to provide statements or produce documents. On or about August 1, 1997, the results of Investigator Von Buelow's investigation were presented to Respondent for review. Based upon the investigations of Investigator Von Buelow and Detective Beckerdite and the evidence collected, Petitioner was notified of Respondent's intent to terminate his employment with the County. Petitioner was also provided with all information collected as of that date. After receiving the notice regarding the County's intent to terminate his employment, Petitioner requested a pre- determination hearing. On August 13, 1997, a nine-hour pre- determination was held during which sworn testimony and documentation pertinent to the allegations were presented. This included the sworn testimony of Petitioner, Investigator Von Buelow, Detective Beckerdite, Jon Peterson, Colleen Peterson, Lea Keller, Zander Carraway, and Ron Baker, Jr. Also, a number of evidentiary documents were received into evidence at the proceeding. On August 15, 1997, Respondent determined to terminate the employment of Petitioner based upon the evidence, the documents and sworn testimony, received and reviewed at the pre- termination hearing. However, in his decision on termination, Respondent found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain several of the charges against Petitioner and thus, those charges were not the basis of Petitioner's being terminated. After the decision to terminate Petitioner was rendered, pursuant to County personnel procedures, Petitioner requested a post-termination hearing. The post-termination hearing was held on October 16, 1997, before an appointed hearing officer. At this hearing, sworn testimony was taken from Petitioner, Mackie Branham, James Carraway, Douglas Wright, Elizabeth Jordan, Deborah Archer, Colleen Peterson, and Jon Peterson. The deposition testimony of Dr. Leo Bradman was submitted and a number of exhibits were introduced and received into evidence, including documentary evidence that had been obtained between the pre-termination hearing and post-termination hearing. On November 17, 1997, the hearing officer who presided at the post-termination hearing issued his opinion in which he found that there was insufficient evidence to terminate Petitioner. The Indian River County Commission appealed this decision to the Circuit Court of Indian River County. In November 1997, after the post-termination hearing, Thomas Reaves, the investigator with the Ethics Commission assigned to investigate the Complaint, requested that Respondent provide him with a list of potential witnesses and any documentation relevant to the Complaint. In response to this request, on December 22, 1997, County representatives delivered to Investigator Reaves all the information generated since the Complaint was filed in June 1997. This information included the Von Buelow investigative report and attached documents, transcripts of the pre-determination and the post-termination hearings, depositions, and documentary evidence presented at those hearings or other legal proceedings. Additionally, copies of the hearing officers' decisions in both the pre-determination hearing and the post-determination hearing were provided to Investigator Reaves. Some of the information provided to Investigator Reaves on December 22, 1997, contained information that had not been developed or known at the time the initial complaint was filed. Accordingly, that information was not included in the initial Complaint. After the records had been delivered to Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent spoke to Investigator Reaves by telephone and was advised that allegations or information not included in the original complaint could not be investigated unless an amended complaint was filed. Respondent informed one of the assistant County attorneys of his conversation with Investigator Reaves and discussed the apparent necessity of filing an amendment to the Complaint. Following his discussion with one of the County's assistant attorneys, Respondent prepared an amendment to the Complaint. The Amended Complaint, filed on January 28, 1998, included additional allegations and information based on Investigator Von Buelow's report, depositions, and transcripts of the pre-termination and post-termination hearings. The Amended Complaint included a completed Ethics Commission complaint form and a letter to Investigator Reaves, both which were prepared and signed by Respondent. The letter listed several additional allegations not included in the Complaint that represented potential violations of the Ethics Code. Each of the allegations was based on the testimony or statements of individuals given during the pre-determination or post-determination hearings, depositions, or Investigator Von Buelow's investigation and on documents received during the aforementioned proceedings or investigation. Prior to listing the allegations and the basis thereof, the letter stated: By letter dated November 7, 1997, you advised that the complaint had been forwarded to the Investigative Section. Additionally, a list of potential witnesses and any relevant documentation was requested. Since the original June 30, 1997, transmittal to the Commission, a substantial amount of information and documentation has been developed. This information was presented to you by County Representatives at the December 22, 1997, meeting at your office in Tallahassee. The entire file was presented including additional investigative reports, transcripts, depositions, etc. The files include information that was not known or confirmed at the time the original complaint was filed. This information and documentation appear to represent potential violation of F.S. 112.313(2), (4), (6), (7), and (8). . . . The Ethics Commission determined that the Complaint and Amended Complaint were legally sufficient. On September 29, 1997, Bonnie Williams, Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, entered a Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate which authorized Investigator Reaves to investigate allegations in the Complaint. Thereafter, on February 9, 1998, an Amended Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate was entered authorizing Investigator Reaves to investigate the allegations in the Amended Complaint. In conducting the investigation, Investigator Reaves took sworn statements from witnesses who had not been questioned during the pre-determination and post-termination proceedings, including Catherine Wendt and Christopher Matteson. He also reviewed and considered the investigative reports of Detective Beckerdite and Investigator Von Buelow; the pertinent transcribed testimony and evidence presented in the nine-hour pre- determination hearing conducted on August 13, 1997; the testimony presented in the ten-hour post-termination hearing on October 16, 1997; the sworn deposition testimony given by Petitioner in a civil action between Jon Peterson and James Carraway; and a sworn statement that Investigator Reaves obtained from Petitioner. Investigator Reaves' findings were summarized in a single-spaced typed, 60-page Report of Investigation which included numerous attached exhibits. At its June 3, 1999, meeting, the Ethics Commission concluded that there was no probable cause found that Petitioner had violated the Code of Ethics. The Ethics Commission's public report memorializing its decision was rendered on June 8, 1999. In this proceeding, the presentation of Petitioner's case centered mainly on the assertion that the alleged violations of the Ethics Code were not proven. However, the standard for this proceeding is not whether a violation of the Ethics Code has been proven. That issue has already been determined by the Ethics Commission in its dismissal of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Rather, the issue is whether Respondent filed the Complaint and Amended Complaint with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of Petitioner by filing the Complaint and Amended Complaint with knowledge that they contained one or more false allegations, or with reckless disregard for whether they contained false allegations of fact material to a violation of the Ethics Code. Respondent did not file the Complaint or Amended Complaint to injure the reputation of Petitioner, but to carry out the responsibilities of the job as appointed County administrator. As County administrator, Respondent could not reasonably nor justifiably ignore the serious allegations of impropriety made against Petitioner merely because Petitioner denied or disputed the allegations. As described below, the allegations included in the Complaint and Amended Complaint were based upon sworn testimony, interviews, and documents obtained during investigations by trained investigators and confirmed by documentary evidence and sworn testimony presented at official proceedings. One of the allegations in the Complaint was that James Carraway, who had an ownership interest in a company providing contractual services to the County, provided Petitioner's daughter with an airline ticket to travel from Colorado to Florida. Although Baker initially denied that this occurred, in a sworn statement to Detective Beckerdite, Jon Peterson swore that this occurred. During Investigator Reaves' investigation and in this proceeding, Catherine Wendt, secretary to James Carraway, stated under oath that she arranged such a trip in the spring of 1996 using Carraway's frequent flyer miles. This fact was significant because Petitioner admitted that at or near this time, he had contacted Jon Peterson and requested that he submit a bid for the Indian River County drug screening contract and that Peterson, who was a partner with James Carraway in Brevard Drug Screening, was awarded the contract. Thus, the allegation that Peterson made and included in the Complaint, was not false, but was corroborated by Wendt. A second allegation in the Complaint was that Petitioner used a cabin, chalet, or condominium in North Carolina owned by James Carraway. In a sworn statement to Beckerdite and at the pre-determination hearing, Jon Peterson testified that arrangements had been made for Petitioner to use the Carraway cabin or chalet in North Carolina. Although, Petitioner denied that this occurred, Investigator Reaves determined that Carraway owned a cabin, chalet, or condominium in North Carolina that was available for use by friends and associates and that a request was made for Petitioner to use it. Thus, there was evidence to support this allegation. The Complaint also alleged that Petitioner received stock car race tickets from James Carraway. Jon Peterson gave sworn statements to Detective Beckerdite and testified under oath that he had received stock car race tickets from James Carraway and had given the tickets to Petitioner. James Carraway admitted to Investigator Reaves that he had given stock car race tickets to Peterson and that such tickets may have been given to Petitioner. Thus, there was evidence to support this allegation. The Complaint contained an allegation related to the hiring of Petitioner's son, Ron Baker, Jr., by James and Zander Carraway and Jon Peterson. This allegation was based on sworn statements made by Colleen and Jon Peterson and supporting documentation provided by the Petersons, both of which were included in the Beckerdite report. According to the sworn statements given by the Petersons, Petitioner asked Jon Peterson to hire Baker, Jr. and Peterson had agreed to do so. Furthermore, Jon and Colleen Peterson told Beckerdite that they hired Baker, Jr., to work for Brevard Drug Screening. However, the Petersons admitted that in lieu of paying Baker, Jr., a salary for his services, they paid the rent on his apartment, his utility bills and phone bill, and provided him with spending change. The Petersons provided cancelled checks to substantiate these statements. Petitioner's statement to Detective Beckerdite conflicted with the statements given by the Petersons. Contrary to the Petersons' statements, Petitioner denied that he ever asked Peterson to hire Baker, Jr., but indicated that he had asked James Carraway to "help" his son so he could "get on his feet." Notwithstanding Petitioner's denying that he asked Jon Peterson to hire his son, the statements of the Petersons, and the documents they furnished provided some evidence to support the allegation concerning the hiring of Petitioner's son. Another allegation in the Complaint related to Petitioner's potential involvement in a joint venture with James Carraway, owner of a County vendor, and his son, Zander Carraway, and Dr. Leo Bradman. Based on Jon Petersons's statements to Detective Beckerdite and documents Jon Peterson gave to Investigator Beckerdite, it appeared that the joint venture between the aforementioned parties contemplated and would result in their taking over the County's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) contract. The allegation involving the possible joint venture was based on the Beckerdite report, which included Peterson's sworn statement relative to that matter and the substantiating documentation provided by Peterson. Moreover, as noted in the Amended Complaint, the allegation concerning the possible joint venture appeared to be confirmed by the testimony of Dr. Leo Bradman taken on October 13, 1997, and a letter from Zander Carraway to Dr. Bradman. There was evidence to support this allegation at the time the Complaint was filed, as well as additional evidence that appeared to substantiate the allegation at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. The Amended Complaint alleged that, in a deposition taken in a civil action on September 5, 1997, Petitioner admitted that while serving as Personnel Director for Indian River County, he negotiated for the purchase of the EAP business from James Carraway. At the time of these negotiations, Petitioner knew that James Carraway and Jon Peterson were owners of Human Resource Health Care Group, the County's EAP provider, and Brevard Drug Screening, the County's drug screening contractor. Although Petitioner initially claimed to have been a mediator in the negotiations, Peterson testified that if Carraway agreed to sell his interest in the business to Peterson, Peterson and Petitioner would be partners in the EAP. In light of Petitioner's admission and Peterson's sworn statement that Petitioner was, in fact, negotiating a deal involving the purchase of the vendor providing the EAP to Indian River County, there was evidence to support this allegation. The Amended Complaint also alleged that Petitioner co- signed on a credit card application with Colleen Peterson, Petitioner's subordinate and the County's personnel administrator and wife of Jon Peterson, owner of Brevard Drug Screening, a Indian River County vendor. This allegation was based on sworn statements made by Colleen Peterson as well as documents provided by the Petersons to Investigator Von Buelow reflecting that such an application was completed. One of the documents provided by the Petersons was a copy of the completed credit card application. The application appeared to be signed by Petitioner and listed Petitioner's address as the business address of Florida Occupational Health Group in Melbourne, Florida, the entity owned by the Petersons that was vying for the Indian River County EAP contract. According to sworn statements made by the Petersons to Investigator Von Buelow, the application for the credit card was made to fund a joint venture between Petitioner and the Petersons to obtain employee assistance provider contracts, including the one for Indian River County. Notwithstanding Petitioner's testimony at this proceeding that the credit card was never issued, the statements of the Petersons and the substantiating documents they provided to Investigator Von Buelow provided a reasonable basis for Respondent's including this allegation in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleged that Petitioner hired Colleen Peterson as personnel assistant and advised her not to disclose that she was married to Jon Peterson, a County vendor. Furthermore, it was alleged that prior to hiring Colleen Peterson to this position, Petitioner directed her to change her resume knowing that she had insufficient experience to meet the advertised job requirements and hired her without interviewing other applicants who had substantial education, qualifications, and experience. These allegations were based on statements made by Colleen Peterson and documents provided to Investigator Von Buelow during his investigation. According to Mrs. Peterson, after Petitioner became personnel director for Indian River County, he invited her to apply for the position of personnel administrator for Indian River County. In her statement, Colleen Peterson indicated that she later met with Petitioner and asked him to review her cover letter and resume; that he reviewed her resume and cover letter; and upon such review, he directed her to change her resume and/or cover letter to be misleading as to her qualifications. Petitioner was aware of Mrs. Peterson's professional experience because she had worked for Petitioner when he was personnel director for the City of Melbourne. In addition to Mrs. Peterson's statements, a review of Mrs. Peterson's resume compared to her actual experience indicated she may not have met the advertised job requirements, education, or experience as a grievance adjudicator. Also, a review of the applications of other applicants for the position of personnel assistant reflected that some of those individuals, none of whom were interviewed, had the required education and experience. Based on the findings in paragraphs 48 and 49, there was evidence to support the allegation relative to Petitioner's hiring of Colleen Peterson. The Amended Complaint further alleged that Petitioner directed an Indian River County employee with a substance abuse problem to Heritage Hospital for an in-patient treatment program at a cost of $12,930.61. This allegation was based on statements Jon Peterson made to Investigator Von Buelow. According to Jon Peterson, when a County employee required an in-patient treatment program for substance abuse, the employee was given three facilities from which to select. However, in this instance, Peterson stated that his job was to convince the employee to go to Heritage Hospital, even though that facility was not pre- certified by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the County's insurance company; was not on the County's preferred provider list; and was approximately 200 miles from Vero Beach. A facility not on the preferred provider list was allowed to charge 20 percent more than a facility on the list. At the time the County employee was referred to Heritage Hospital, James Carraway was owner of and had a financial interest in Heritage Hospital and Petitioner was aware of Mr. Carraway's ownership interest in that facility. The apparent significance of the referral was that, as noted above, it had been alleged that Petitioner had been negotiating with James Carraway about a possible joint venture involving an EAP and the purchase of an EAP which may have served Indian River County. The allegation in the Amended Complaint relative to Petitioner's referring a County employer to Heritage Hospital was based on statements Jon Peterson made to Investigator Von Buelow and the deposition testimony of Dr. Leo Bradman. Accordingly, there was evidence to support this allegation. Additional allegations in the Amended Complaint concerned Petitioner's requesting that Peterson and the Carraways, both County vendors, make certain payments to Petitioner or Petitioner's relatives. First, it was alleged that Petitioner was paid to perform certain construction work on a bathroom at the Brevard Drug Screening Office. Second, it was alleged that Peterson's company, Brevard Drug Screening, paid medical expenses for Petitioner's wife. These allegations were based on statements Jon Peterson made to Investigator Von Buelow and on substantiating documents that Peterson provided, both of which were included in Investigator Von Buelow's investigative report. Although it was later determined that the alleged payments were not improperly made, at the time the Amended Complaint was prepared and filed, there was evidence to support these allegations. The Amended Complaint alleged that the Carraways, County vendors, had advanced Petitioner's son, Baker, Jr., $2,000 to move from Jacksonville to Melbourne. This allegation was based on statements made by Jon Peterson during the Von Buelow investigation and during the August 1997 pre-determination hearing. Thus, there was evidence to support this allegation. The Amended Complaint alleged that Jon Peterson, a County vendor, paid the cellular telephone bill for Petitioner and expressly noted that this allegation was based on "testimony" of Colleen Peterson. In addition to Mrs. Peterson's statement, this allegation was supported by Jon Peterson's testimony at the August 13, 1997, pre-determination hearing and by a copy of a canceled check given to Detective Beckerdite by the Petersons. At hearing, Petitioner testified that Jon Peterson had, in fact, paid his cellular bill as indicated by the cancelled check provided by the Petersons. However, Petitioner explained that Jon Peterson asked to borrow Petitioner's cellular phone and that he had allowed Peterson to do so on the condition that Peterson pay the bill for the time period that he had the telephone in his possession. Notwithstanding Petitioner's testimony explaining the reason for the payment, at the time Respondent completed the Amended Complaint, there was evidence to support this allegation. Another allegation in the Amended Complaint was that Petitioner directed Colleen Peterson, a County employee, to prepare personal letters for him during business hours using County equipment. This allegation was based on statements Colleen Peterson made to Investigator Von Buelow and on supporting documentation, copies of the letters, that Mrs. Peterson gave to Investigator Von Buelow. In view of Mrs. Peterson's statements and the substantiating documentation, there was evidence to support this allegation at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. Finally, the Amended Complaint alleged that Petitioner utilized the research resources of the Indian River County Attorney's Office to obtain information and materials for his son for a project unrelated to Indian River County business. This allegation was based on statements Jon Peterson gave to Investigator Von Buelow and documents Peterson provided to Investigator Von Buelow. The documents that Petitioner provided were WestLaw documents and research materials which Peterson stated were found in Petitioner's son's office at Brevard Drug Screening after he was no longer employed there. Investigator Von Buelow interviewed a legal assistant in the County Attorney's Office who confirmed that she had conducted the subject research for and at Petitioner's request. The allegations in the Complaint and Amended Complaint could not be substantiated and/or did not constitute violations of the Code of Ethics. Nonetheless, the inclusion of those allegations were reasonably based on information that Respondent obtained from reliable sources, including the Beckerdite and Von Buelow's investigative reports, the records of the pre- determination and the post-termination hearings; and depositions from other legal proceedings. On or about July 9, 1997, Respondent retained Jack B. Nichols, Esquire, to represent him in the defense of the Ethics Complaint and Amended Complaint 97-103. Mr. Nichols' regular hourly rate is $225. However, trial time is billed at $450 an hour and travel time is billed at one-half of the hourly rate or $112.50 an hour. For the period July 9, 1997, through March 23, 2000, Mr. Nichols has expended 233.70 hours on this matter. As a result of Mr. Nichols' representation, Petitioner has incurred total attorney's fees and costs of $55,576.25 and $10,296.83, respectively. These attorney's fees and costs are reasonable. However, based on the foregoing findings, it is clear that Respondent did not file the Complaint and the Amended Complaint against Petitioner with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of Petitioner by filing such complaints with knowledge that the complaints contained one or more false allegation or with reckless disregard for whether the complaints contained false allegations of fact material to a violation of the Ethics Code. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs from Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent, James E. Chandler, is not liable for attorney's fees and costs and dismissing the Petition for Attorney's Fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack B. Nichols, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue Suite 414 Orlando, Florida 32803 George P. Roberts, Jr., Esquire Roberts and Reynolds, P.A. 470 Columbia Drive Suite 101C West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Sheri L. Gerety, Complaint Coordinator and Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The issues for consideration in this hearing are whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in employment because of his national origin, and whether Respondent unlawfully retaliated against Petitioner by discharging him from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, CCCS, was a nonprofit charitable corporation engaged in providing personal financial and credit counseling in Tampa, affiliated with the United Way. It is an employer within the meaning of the Human Rights Act of 1977 and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. CCCS has adopted, and had in effect at all times pertinent herein, a written policy of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. This policy is outlined in a personnel policy manual prepared by CCCS which is provided to all employees and which was provided to Petitioner. In August, 1991, CCCS management decided to hire an individual to fill the vacant accounts manager position. Initial screening of applicants was conducted by Gloria Jackson who interviewed several candidates, including Petitioner, and recommended three of these to the President, Diane Trithart. Petitioner, Emmanuel Ebeh, was one of the three recommended and was the successful candidate selected by Ms. Trithart. At the time, Petitioner, who is black and a native of Nigeria, was residing, with his family, at Metropolitan Ministries because he was unable to provide housing and sustenance for his family without employment. He had no experience in either personal financial management or employee supervision. Up until that time, he had worked as a cook, a kitchen helper, a mail room clerk, and a pipe-fitter's helper. However, even with his lack of supervisory experience and an absence of supervisory training, Ms. Trithart felt he should be afforded this opportunity. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Ms. Jackson. She assisted Petitioner and his family in their move into government assisted housing, even to the extent of having her husband rent a truck to help move Petitioner's personal belongings and the furniture donated by Metropolitan Ministries to their new home. Once installed in the job, Petitioner was provided with a six weeks training program, including a syllabus, to assist him in making the transition into his new position. Nonetheless, it appears that during his training period, Petitioner had difficulties accomplishing his job tasks. Within six weeks, Ms. Jackson met with him to discuss errors made in client deposit entries and at that time, provided him with written procedures to follow. She gave him a two week warning confirmed in a written memorandum dated September 17, 1991, the date of the counseling. On September 26, 1991, Ms. Jackson followed up the two week warning period with another memorandum which noted the continuation of existing problems in Petitioner's department and which extended the warning period to October 4, 1991. Mr. Ebeh continued to experience job difficulties. At first, one of his employees, Ms. Warhul, tried to cover for him, but was unable to continue to do both her own job and his. As a result, she contacted Ms. Jackson and described the situation as she saw it. Ms. Jackson then tried to discuss the matter with Mr. Ebeh. However, whenever she did, he would insist on speaking with Ms. Trithart about the issues, claiming he felt it necessary to resist Ms. Jackson's directions. Ms. Trithart promptly and explicitly explained to Mr. Ebeh that his unjustified resistance of Ms. Jackson's direction constituted insubordination and would not be tolerated. Nonetheless, he continued to resist any guidance from Ms. Jackson, whether in the form of direction or constructive correction, becoming defensive and contending that his intentions were good and he was being misunderstood. He claims that Ms. Jackson was always on his back. Petitioner's performance problems were not isolated however, nor were they restricted to incidents with Ms. Warhul. He frequently had problems with misplaced files, posting entries to wrong accounts and other errors of a similar nature which were observed by other CCCS employees. On one occasions, Ms. Jackson asked Petitioner to prepare a letter to creditors who had worked with CCCS in the past but who were not currently participating in their program. She specifically requested that Petitioner let her review a draft of the letter before it was dispatched. Notwithstanding that direction, Petitioner prepared a letter, dated March 4, 1992, which contained a number of grammatical errors and misstatements of procedure and policy, and dispatched it to approximately 2,500 creditors without allowing Ms. Jackson or anyone else in authority to review or approve it. He thereafter left a note on the desk of Mary Jennus, CCCS' education coordinator, advising her that Ms. Jackson and Ms. Trithart wanted her to make changes in the letter and enclosures. This was not so. On March 19, 1992, Ms. Trithart called a meeting with Petitioner, Ms. Jackson and Ms. Jennus to discuss this letter, and at which she orally reprimanded Petitioner both for sending it out without authority and for the inappropriate use of her name in giving false instructions to Ms. Jennus. This meeting was subsequently memorialized by memorandum. Though management contended Petitioner's letter adversely impacted on the agency's image, he asserts it had good results in that some income was realized. On March 30, 1992, Ms. Jackson prepared a written evaluation covering Petitioner's performance for the prior six months. This report indicated Petitioner had continuing problems in the performance of his duties and in his supervision skills. It also called for a further review in 90 days to assess his progress in meeting the requirements of his job. Petitioner refused to sign this evaluation and requested a meeting with Ms. Trithart. Though a note by Ms. Jackson on the evaluation indicates she would arrange that meeting, it cannot be determined if, in fact, such a meeting took place. However, on April 13, 1992, Petitioner prepared a memorandum to operations personnel in which he alludes to "miserable and harsh treatment from management and especially our boss." He also noted the possibility his employees might not be satisfied with his treatment of them and solicited their comments and complaints to him or to the assistant director. This memo discomfited at least one of his employees, Ms. Warhul, who took exception to it in writing. Ms. Mosley also disagreed with his conclusions regarding a harsh working environment and thought it inappropriate for him to send out such a memo without consulting the other employees in the department. He was the department head, however, and his memo, though it might be considered ill advised and somewhat inflammatory, was from him to the people in his department. He did not claim his conclusions were theirs nor did his comments accuse them of misconduct. A meeting of all operations personnel was called by Ms. Trithart for April 13, 1992, the date of that memo. All employees were given the opportunity to express their concerns and it became apparent that not all operations personnel agreed with Petitioner in his characterization of their work environment. The memorandum of that meeting indicates his subordinates see Petitioner as an individual who broods over situations and lets things build up to a point where he writes a memo rather than discussing the problem. An example of this is Petitioner's note on a memo dated April 13, 1992 encouraging all employees to take their lunch break and reminding them that only time before and after normal duty hours may be considered for compensatory time off. Petitioner describes this memo as "inconsiderate treatment" and concludes it was directed at him because he was not taking lunch breaks because he "was sad and depressed because of how [he] was constantly humiliated." After the meeting on April 13, 1992, Ms. Trithart again reviewed Petitioner's file and determined that in light of his most recent infractions, including the unauthorized creditors letter and the false instructions to Ms. Jennus, and his continuing performance mistakes, it would be best to terminate his employment. Her rationale was that he could not be an effective supervisor if he felt, as he clearly did, that he did not have the support of either his employees or his supervisors, and this was compounded by his insubordination which, she believed, undermined the morale in his department and Ms. Jackson's authority as his supervisor. He was, therefore, discharged on April 13, 1992. None of the employees who testified indicated, nor was there any other independent evidence to establish, that Petitioner had been treated any differently while employed by CCCS than any other employee. By the same token, save the personal impressions testified to by Petitioner, there was no indication that either race or national origin played any part in the decision to terminate his employment and it is found they did not. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment with CCCS was based on his failure to meet required standards in the performance of his duties and nothing more. The same is true regarding his claim that his discharge was in retaliation to his complaint in his April 13, 1992 memo regarding what he perceived as the harsh working environment both he and his subordinates had to endure. In that regard, it is found that the memo in question is, in itself, insubordination and evidence of the improper work climate created by the Petitioner rather than his employers. Had he truly felt the treatment given him was harsh, miserable and unfair, the grievance procedures outlined in the personnel manual he had been given would have provided an appropriate avenue for adjustment as opposed to the inflammatory and insubordinate action he took. Petitioner claims his supervisors did not uniformly apply company standards. He asserts he has been treated differently from white employees who were treated with kindness and politeness and when found to have committed errors in their performance, were given time to improve. For example, he cites the case of a Ms. Sweeny who refused to sign an acknowledgment of error and who was merely demoted instead of discharged. In his case, he notes, he met with hostility. He claims no concern was given to the legal issues involved in his situation and he was discharged right away. This is, however, not the case. The evidence is quite clear that Petitioner was counselled on several occasions and evaluated formally during his period of employment with no discipline taken against him. Only when he published the insubordinate memo of April 13, 1993 was action taken. On the basis of that memo and the record of his substandard prior performance, Ms. Trithart decided to discharge him. Petitioner also claims that Ms. Warhul and others who testified against him were engaged in a conspiracy to hide the unhealthy atmosphere which existed. He asserts he was told by Ms. Warhul she would not support him when he wrote his memo because she was afraid of losing her job. It is his contention that she and he were previously close. In actuality, though she was under his supervision, she gave him much of the training he received. He believes that she and many other employees do not like Ms. Jackson but are afraid to say so. Petitioner offered no independent proof of this contention, however, and it is found to be unsupported. Petitioner also takes exception to the claim by CCCS's management that his English was hard to understand. He claims that during the entire 8 months he worked there, his English was never criticized until such time as the decision was made to discharge him. At that time, he contends, he was told that he did not project the proper image the company desired. Mr. Ebeh also notes that he was constantly confronted with a situation where his immediate supervisor would approve something he did and then deny it. Ms. Jackson would approve in advance something his department proposed and then, when it was not well received, deny approving it. Petitioner claims that because of the actions of CCCS's management, he has undergone great stress. When he applied for the position with the firm he and his family were homeless and he admits he was helped considerably by the job and the company personnel. However, he claims he did not get all the help for free and asserts he has paid back for what he received during those first few weeks. He also claims that he has been maligned by company personnel who reported to his job service counsellor that he was soliciting money from coworkers and that he had a bad body odor. These comments humiliated him and he notes that they did not come about until after he complained to Ms. Trithart. Petitioner has no job now and no income and claims to be suffering from health problems. As of April, 1993, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services physician noted that he is suffering from raised cholesterol which interferes with his employment "for the present." His total monthly income for himself, his wife and his four sons is $600.00, out of which he must pay approximately $300.00 in rent and $113.00 for utilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Emmanuel Ebeh's Petition for Relief from the alleged unlawful employment practices of discrimination based on race or national origin, and of retaliation filed against the Respondent CCCS. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 25th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Emmanuel B. Ebeh 4002 East Pocahontas, #110 Tampa, Florida 33610 James R. Freeman, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4149
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer, holding certificate #11-89-002-01. In February 1990, Samuel O. Best was employed as a police officer by the City of Port St. Joe Police Department. During the early part of February, Respondent accompanied a woman to a local motel where the two shared a room and engaged in sexual intercourse. While the two were in the room, the Respondent thought the woman smoked two and one-half cigarettes. The items she smoked looked like normal cigarettes. However, Respondent was not paying close attention to the woman's activities or any odor of the smoke because he had his mind on more prurient matters. As the two prepared to leave the room, the Respondent, as was his habit, straightened the motel room. The woman had dropped one of her cigarettes on the floor and Respondent picked up the cigarette and placed it in his pocket. The Respondent forgot about the cigarette in his pocket and kept it for approximately two or three days. Around February 8, 1990, the afternoon of the second or third day after his liaison with the woman in the motel, Respondent went to his father's home and sat on the front porch. The Respondent was on duty. While contemplating the bleakness of his life, in part due to the intense personal problems he was having with his wife, Respondent, who was a heavy smoker, began looking for a cigarette to smoke. He found the motel woman's cigarette in the pocket of a shirt he had worn for three days. He pulled it out, looked at it and lit it. During this activity the "insurance man" was walking up to the house. Officer Best thought the substance in the cigarette was tobacco. However, it tasted like perfume and he put the cigarette out after one puff. He then left the porch to get his father for the insurance man. There was an absence of any competent and substantial evidence reflecting the identifying the substance contained in the cigarette as marijuana. Additionally, no changes in Respondent's behavior were noted by any of his fellow officers or supervisors at any time surrounding the events on February 8, 1990. On February 22, 1990, Chief Richter of the Port St. Joe Police Department received a citizen complaint regarding the Respondent. The insurance agent complained that he had observed the Respondent in police uniform on the porch of the Respondent's father's home smoking. That same day, Chief Richter contacted the Respondent and directed him to come to Chief Richter's office to discuss the complaint. Upon his arrival in Chief Richter's office, Chief Richter told the Respondent what the citizen had alleged. 1/ Chief Richter asked the Respondent if he would answer questions regarding the allegation. The Respondent voluntarily agreed. The initial discussion between Officer Best and Chief Richter lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Officer Best's interpretation of what Chief Richter told him was that the Chief had decided that Officer Best had been smoking marijuana. Officer Best thought his Chief would not misinform him, and he did not argue with Chief Richter over the issue of whether or not the substance was marijuana. However, Officer Best did not know with any certainty what the substance was that he had inhaled briefly while sitting on his father's front porch. After the initial discussion, Chief Richter then placed the Respondent under oath and began to question him while tape recording the interrogation. From Respondent's point of view, the reference to marijuana during the interrogation was merely a convenient label for referring to the cigarette he briefly puffed on his father's front porch. Neither the reference or his responses to questions using the term marijuana was intended to be an admission of knowing drug use. Given the Respondent's demeanor at the hearing, it is understandable under the facts of this case, that even with some training in drug identification, Respondent was not able to identify the substance in the cigarette and that he was also very submissive to what he believed to be a superior officer's view of the matter. As a result of the Respondent's statement, he was discharged from his employment with the Port St. Joe Police Department. However, even with the dismissal, the overwhelming evidence in this case is that Respondent remains of good moral character and remains capable of performing his duties and working with his fellow officers. Moreover, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent at any time knowingly possessed or ingested marijuana. Given these facts, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the amended Administrative Complaint filed against Samuel O. Best be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1991.
