Findings Of Fact Petitioners, High Point of Orlando/Calton Homes (High Point) and Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. (BDA) were among named Respondents in a petition for formal hearing filed by Central Florida Wetlands Society, Inc. (CFWS) in DOAH Case number 91-8339. High Point was a Respondent in DOAH Case number 92-0364, also initiated by a CFWS petition. BDA was retained as consultant for High Point for a project in Orange County involving wetlands and requiring the evaluation of impact and the mitigation of that impact on the wetlands. A permit for the project was granted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). In late 1991 High Point requested a permit modification when it was determined that mitigation could not be accomplished within the deadlines in the permit conditions. There had been delays in planting caused in part by delays in construction of the project's stormwater management system and it was apparent that the required plantings could not grow fast enough to comply with the mitigation conditions. The technical staff report recommending approval describes the modification as extensions of the deadlines for successful establishment of forested and herbaceous mitigation. CFWS is a Florida nonprofit corporation according to its articles of incorporation filed with the Secretary of State on August 3, 1990. Article III provides these purposes for the corporation: To educate on the roll [sic] of wetlands with emphasis on the values of preservation of wetlands and the prevention of destruction of same. To implement the national policy of no loss of wetlands. To coordinate with other environmental groups to focus attention on wetland preservation. All other things that are lawful under the charter of this corporation and under the laws of the State of Florida. (Exhibit filed at DOAH 8/21/92) On October 7, 1991, CFWS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the SJRWMD in opposition to the district's proposed grant of permit modification to High Point. The petition was verified and signed by Michael W. Mingea as President of CFWS. The petition did not identify CFWS as a corporation, but rather "a not-for-profit private organization under the laws of the State of Florida". The petition named as Respondents, High Point, SJRWMD, DBA and another alleged consultant for High Point, Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc., (DRMP). The petition was forwarded by SJRWMD to the DOAH for hearing on December 30, 1991, and was assigned DOAH Case number 91-8339. On January 8, 1992, CFWS filed a petition for formal administrative hearing with the SJRWMD disputing a proposed consent order between High Point and SJRWMD assessing $2,463.60 penalty and costs for violation of the mitigation conditions and requiring a mitigation survey. Like the petition described in paragraph 4, above, this petition was signed and sworn by Michael Mingea and did not identify CFWS as a corporation. The Respondent named in the petition was SJRWMD. This petition was forwarded to the DOAH by the district and was received at DOAH on January 21, 1992. It was assigned DOAH Case number 92-0364. A motion in opposition to the petition was filed on January 28, 1992 by counsel for SJRWMD requesting dismissal based on Petitioner's lack of standing, as the consent order does not authorize any activity subject to the district's permitting authority. Further, the motion argued, any issues regarding the proposed permit modification would be addressed in pending case number 91-8339. In an order dated January 28, 1992, the two cases, 91-8339 and 92-0364 were consolidated and set for hearing in Orlando, Florida on June 16 and 17, 1992. On March 5, 1992 a telephone conference hearing was conducted on various pending motions and an order was entered on March 6, 1992 granting motions to dismiss the two consultant parties, BDA and DRMP. The order denied BDA's and DRMP's motions for fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5., F.S., based on a finding that the error in including the consultants as Respondents did not rise to the level of bad faith required for an award under 120.57(1)(b)5, F.S. The order granted SJRWMD's motion in opposition to the petition in number 92-0364 and closed the file in that case with remand of the petition to the agency. And finally, the order granted High Point's motion for a more definite statement in Case number 91-8339. The order required CFWS to file its amended petition within thirty days stating how the proposed permit modifications would adversely affect the waters of the state or otherwise violate statutes and rules governing management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) permits. On April 14, 1992 Karen West, Esquire, filed her notice of appearance on behalf of CFWS and a motion for extension of time of fourteen days to file a more definite statement. On April 21, 1992 Ms. West filed the Petitioner's notice of voluntary dismissal of the petition in number 91-8339, and an order closing file was entered. On April 28, 1992, High Point and BDA filed with the SJRWMD their motion for remand which resulted in the district's order of remand discussed in the preliminary statement, above. The sole issue for remand was these Respondents' entitlement to attorneys fees and costs. High Point and BDA also filed separate motions for sanctions dated May 21, 1992 requesting fees and costs of $6,766.88 for High Point and $1,096.49 for BDA. A telephone conference was conducted on June 11, 1992 on Karen West, Esquire's, motion to withdraw as counsel for CFWS. Michael Mingea, President of CFWS participated and stated that the society had no opposition to the motion. The Hearing Officer and parties then discussed procedural matters related to resolution of the fees case, DOAH Case number 92-3010F. Mr. Mingea asked for, and was given, two weeks to obtain substitute counsel prior to Petitioners commencing discovery. The parties agreed to conduct the final hearing by telephone on August 10, 1992. An order and notice of hearing was entered confirming these matters on June 17, 1992. Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, the August 10th hearing was continued because Petitioners were unable to effectuate discovery or serve subpoenas on Michael Mingea or Todd Swearingen, another CFWS board member. Despite frequent filings of well-drafted requests for extensions, responses to Petitioners' pleadings and similar documents, Michael Mingea never appeared at any of the several hearings scheduled in this case after his initial appearance on June 11th. Despite several explicit orders Mr. Mingea never appeared for deposition by Petitioners, either in person or by telephone. Yet, according to the testimony of other board members, Todd Swearingen and Marty Sharpe, only Michael Mingea initiated the petitions involving High Point and he, alone, was cognizant of the specific basis for those petitions. Marty Sharpe who appeared consistently on behalf of CFWS in this proceeding became a board member in February 1992, several months after the petitions were filed. Petitioners were wholly frustrated in their effort to obtain the discovery to which they were entitled with regard to the bases for the CFWS petition in Case number 92-8339 and its abrupt dismissal. In various written documents and attempts to provide evidence through affidavit CFWS argues that its motives were not bad faith; however, throughout this proceeding CFWS has effectively prevented Petitioners from testing those bare assertions through discovery or cross examination. Mr. Mingea apparently travels extensively with his regular employment and the organization's mail goes to a post office box where it is picked up by volunteers. Contact with the organization was most effectively made through Marty Sharpe who attempted, in turn, to reach Mr. Mingea and convey messages. In the absence of competent evidence to the contrary, the record in this and in the underlying cases, number 91-8339 and 92-0364 support a reasonable inference that the petition in number 91-8339 was filed for a frivolous purpose. The order granting CFWS leave to amend its petition acknowledged that the original petition was legally insufficient. The petition was not amended within the allotted period; but rather was voluntarily dismissed shortly after legal counsel appeared on behalf of the organization. This dismissal reduces, but does not eliminate exposure to liability for filing the initial petition. The fees and costs requested by the Petitioners here are reasonable. Those fees are supported by billing logs attached to the motions for sanctions and reflect an hourly rate of $100.00 for BDA and $160.00 for High Point. Douglas Rillstone testified to the reasonableness of a total of $9,592.00 for High Point, and $2,495.00 for BDA. Those totals are not supported by billing logs and it is not possible to determine the basis for those amounts beyond the original amounts requested.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lori Goldston, was employed by the Petitioner, City of Clearwater, for approximately seven and one-half years as a Building Construction Inspector II. On April 13, 1994, Respondent was placed on administrative leave and on April 21, 1994, she was terminated and all pay and other benefits were terminated as of 4:00 p.m. on April 21, 1994. Specifically, Respondent was terminated for alleged violations of Rule 14, Sections 1(b), (d), (k), and (1) of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of Respondent, to-wit: (b) Is incompetent in the performance of the specific duties of [her] position. (d) Has been careless or negligent in the care of the property of the City; or has participated in the unauthorized use thereof. Has been . . . guilty of conduct un- becoming a City employee defined as scandalous or disgraceful conduct while on or off duty where such conduct tends to embarrass the City or bring its service into public disrepute. Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction made and given . . . by [her] superior officer when such violation or failure to obey amounts to insubordination or serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in a lower morale in the department or to result in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City or the public. During the week of April 4, 1994, Tom Chaplinsky received two complaints that a City vehicle was observed leaving the city limits with a magnetic sign covering the City seal. The complainants related that the driver appeared to be Respondent and that the vehicle was heading north on alternate route 19 when it was so observed. Vick Chadora, assistant central planning director, requested that Chaplinsky investigate the complaints. Chaplinsky along with Kevin Garriot, a building code analyst, initiated an investigation to check Respondent's inspection schedule and job sites for the day of April 11, 1994. Chadora and Chaplinsky reviewed Respondent's inspection schedules and job sites on April 11, 1994, and discovered that most of Respondent's inspections were completed by mid-morning. Chadora then instructed Chaplinsky to check Respondent's residence which is located north of Palm Harbor, approximately 8 to 10 miles outside of the city limits. During mid-morning on April 11, 1994, Chaplinsky parked near the end of the dead end street on which Respondent's residence is located. He saw what appeared to be her city vehicle but was unable to make a positive identification. On Tuesday, April 12, 1994, Chaplinsky again found that a majority of Respondent's inspections had been completed by mid-morning. Chaplinsky contacted her by radio at approximately 11:00 a.m., to determine her location and she replied that she was in Clearwater Beach. Chadora drove to the beach area while Chaplinsky and Garriot drove to Respondent's residence between 11:00 and 11:15 a.m. Messrs. Chaplinsky and Garriot parked at the entrance to the dead end street where Respondent resides and waited. At approximately 11:45 a.m., Chaplinsky and another staff assistant began trying to reach Respondent by radio. At approximately 12:55 p.m., Respondent answered her radio. At that time, Respondent was asked to investigate a complaint on the beach. At approximately 1:20 p.m., Messrs. Chaplinsky and Garriot observed Respondent in her city vehicle, with the City seal covered, leaving her neighborhood. They lost Respondent in traffic but later caught up with her at the site of the complaint. At that time, the City seal on her vehicle was no longer covered. On April 13, 1994, Messrs. Chaplinsky and Garriot again drove to Respondent's residence during mid-morning and waited at the entrance to her street. Respondent was observed leaving the City in the city vehicle with the City seal covered. At approximately 2:55 p.m. on April 13, 1994, with Messrs. Chaplinsky and Garriot present, Respondent was advised by Chadora that two people had complained that she was using her city vehicle with the City seal covered while leaving the city limits. Before Chadora could complete his inquiry, Respondent immediately denied that it was her. Upon Respondent's repeated and adamant denial, Chadora told her that he and Garriot has observed her leaving her residence on Tuesday, April 12 and Wednesday, April 13 in the City vehicle. Upon being confronted with that information, Respondent admitted that they had caught her in a lie and she admitted that she did leave the city limits in the city vehicle. Respondent indicated that she was trying to complete a construction project at home in order to re-finance and satisfy a balloon note which was coming due and the lender was insisting that certain renovations be completed prior to closing. During 1990, Respondent was disciplined for leaving the city limits and going to her home. At that time she was specifically advised that she should not leave the city limits to return home in the city vehicle without first obtaining permission from her supervisor. For that offense, Respondent was suspended for four days. Petitioner has a system of progressive discipline in effect which is utilized to discipline employees who engage in conduct contrary to the City's rules and regulations. An employee who violates the rules accumulates points under the disciplinary system. An employee who receives up to 60 points within a specified period (24 months), can be subjected to discharge. Respondent accumulated 140 points for the alleged infractions that she received for leaving the City limits during the days April 11-13, 1994. Petitioner also has a liberal sick leave policy which employees may avail by demonstrating need to use sick leave. Respondent did not advise Petitioner that she was suffering from any medical disability or other infirmity which would warrant the utilization of sick leave prior to her discharge. Respondent maintained that she failed to advise Petitioner of her need for sick leave -- she suffers from severe depression which is prompted by a chemical imbalance in her brain -- because she did not want other employees to know about her problems as she feared it would be common knowledge among her colleagues. Respondent attempted to show that she was being treated unfairly and more harshly than other employees had been treated for similar misconduct. Specifically, Respondent related an incident wherein an employee threw a temper tantrum during a grievance meeting, tossed a beeper against a bookcase and was generally insubordinate when he was questioned about an infraction. Petitioner explained that that employee "blew up" when he was confronted about a simple rule infraction and that employee was suspended as was Respondent when she was first disciplined for leaving the City in a vehicle without authorization in 1990. Respondent failed to show that she was treated more harshly or that she was the recipient of disparate treatment by Petitioner. Respondent demonstrated that the other employee was similarly treated when Petitioner was disciplined in 1990. Moreover, that employee was subjected to discharge when he later violated the city's rules and regulations (a drug offense-employee failed a urinalysis screen). Petitioner had no way of knowing prior to April 21, 1994, that Respondent requested or was otherwise in need of "an accommodation" due to her health in April of 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from her position of a Building Construction Inspector II effective April 21, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February 1995. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1, adopted as modified, paragraphs 2, 18, and 19, Recommended Order. Paragraph 3, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 4, adopted as modified, paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 7, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 8, conclusionary and argument. Paragraph 11, adopted as modified, paragraph 22, Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 5, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 8, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 11, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 2, 14, and 19, Recommended Order. Paragraph 13, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraphs 15 and 16, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 17, adopted as modified, paragraphs 17-20, Recommended Order. Paragraph 18, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 19-22, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Robert McCormack, Esquire Prestige Professional Park 2655 McCormick Drive Clearwater, Florida 34619 Karleen DeBlaker City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
The Issue Whether Respondent Wilton Hill committed the violations alleged in the Decision-Making Leave and Mandated EAP Referral notice; and, if so, the appropriate discipline that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The City is a municipality governed by a city council. A city manager oversees the City’s operations. On September 8, 2015, Petitioner hired Respondent to work as a senior systems programmer, which is categorized by the City as a “Classified” service position. The Clearwater Civil Service Board has adopted rules and regulations which govern the conduct of all City employees. Chapter 13 of the CSR provides the framework for suspending, demoting, and dismissing City employees. By correspondence dated February 22, 2021, Petitioner provided Respondent with what is commonly referred to as a “predetermination notice” and advised Respondent therein that it was believed that he “committed an offense warranting formal discipline.” The predetermination notice states, in material part, that Respondent violated “Integrity Standards, listed on page iv of the official PBMP manual, adopted by the City of Clearwater on February 15, 1998 and revised on July 1, 2014, to wit: [1] Violation of the provisions of Chapter 13, Section 3, of the City Civil Service Rules and Regulations[;] [and] [2] [d]ishonesty or untruthfulness or willful refusal to provide information or otherwise cooperate during an internal investigation or when directed to do so by competent authority.” The notice also specifically alleges that Respondent violated chapter 13, section 3(b), (f), and (l) of the CSR. The City seeks to discipline Respondent based on events that occurred on or about February 1, 2, 3, and 10, 2021, respectively. On February 24, 2021, Respondent met with the director of his department and presented his version of the events in question. Following the meeting, the City, by correspondence dated March 5, 2021, notified Respondent that he would be placed on “a two-day Decision-Making Leave and mandated EAP for ... violating the Clearwater PBMP Citywide Personal Responsibility, Integrity, and Excellence standards.” Performance and Behavior Management Program (PBMP) The City developed the PBMP in order “to provide a method of working with employees whose performance or behavior does not meet the City’s standards.” The philosophy of the program “is based upon the belief that, in most cases, employees can change behavior and improve performance when standards and expectations are clear and when employees are given opportunities to change.” Whenever practicable, “the City will provide intervention, coaching, and corrective guidance or counseling ... for employees ... in order to bring their performance or behavior up to standard.” The program recognizes, however, “that some behaviors that are serious and are direct violations of City Policy may warrant immediate disciplinary action up to and including termination.” According to the PBMP manual, there are three categories of performance and behavior: (1) Personal Responsibility; (2) Integrity; and (3) Excellence. As to each, the manual notes that: These categories are based on employees’ willingness or ability to meet standards of behavior or performance. Willingness refers to the employees’ decision to meet expectations, follow rules and policies, and perform work that meets efficiency and quality standards. Ability refers to the employees’ capability and skills in performing job tasks. The first two categories, Personal Responsibility and Integrity, are considered “will do” categories because they typically involve situations wherein the employee has a choice and makes a decision about whether or not to meet the standards. The third category, Excellence, is considered a “can do” category, because it most often refers to a situation where the employee is not able to perform up to standard because of a lack of resources, skill, or capability. City of Clearwater expectations for each of these three categories are stated below. Personal Responsibility (“Will Do” Issues) - City of Clearwater employees will be held personally accountable for the actions they take in meeting the customer service needs of the City and the community the organization serves. Employees are expected to take full responsibility for their conduct and job performance and exhibit commitment to fulfilling their responsibilities to the best of their ability. Integrity (“Value and Ethics” Issues) - As public employees representing the citizens of Clearwater, employees are expected to commit to the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. The City expects employees to communicate openly and continually demonstrate honesty, fairness, and respect for others. Employees should do what is ethically appropriate. Employees are expected to adhere to City policies. Excellence (“Performance/Can Do” Issues) - City of Clearwater employees have an obligation to provide the highest quality of service and results to our customers. This commitment to excellence involves developing the job knowledge and skills needed to perform the tasks required and to continually improve the City’s ability to meet the needs of the community we serve. The PBMP manual generally lists 75 Personal Responsibility Standards, 14 Integrity Standards, and 41 Excellence Standards. Regarding the Integrity Standards, the PBMP manual notes in bold print that “immediate formal discipline, up to and including termination, may be recommended” for a violation of these standards. The PBMP manual does not set forth any such illumination for the other standards. As previously noted, the City contends that Respondent violated several of the PBMP Integrity Standards and should therefore be subjected to formal discipline. Background – Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Respondent suffers from a serious medical condition that occasionally impacts his ability to perform his job. Under the City’s policy related to FMLA, an employee may intermittently take leave under FMLA “whenever medically necessary … because the employee is seriously ill and unable to work.” The policy also instructs that “[e]mployees should make a reasonable effort to schedule intermittent leave as to not unduly disrupt office operations.” Because of Respondent’s underlying medical condition, Petitioner, since at least November 2020, has allowed Respondent “4 [to] 5 episodes per month” during which Respondent can take FMLA leave without having to submit documentation related to the same. As a practical matter, this means that when Respondent experiences a medical episode that impairs his ability to work, he is to contact his supervisor, if possible, and let the supervisor know that he is utilizing FMLA leave for his anticipated absence from work. Herein lies “the rub” in the instant dispute. Respondent’s Understanding of Leave Protocol According to the City’s governing manual for supervisory, administrative, managerial, and professional employees (SAMP), “Classified employees who have successfully completed an initial probationary period become certified to regular employment status and have certain rights of appeal through the Civil Service grievance process.” The SAMP manual also provides that “Classified SAMP employees will not be disciplined except for just cause.” Section 2 of the SAMP manual provides that “Classified SAMP employees must obtain approval from a person of competent authority prior to working any hours outside of their established work schedule, either before their designated starting time or after their designated quitting time or during an unpaid meal period. Chapter 22, section 1, of the CSR provides as follows: Normal Work Hours -- The number of hours constituting a regular schedule work week for City Employees is specified by the City and excludes meal periods. In positions requiring shift work, the City reserves the right to include meal periods as actual time worked. Regularly scheduled work hours may be adjusted or “flexed” within a specific work week with proper notification and at the mutual convenience of the employee and the respective department. Such adjustments or flexing of work hours must be approved in advance by the respective department…. Chapter 4 of the CSR defines “flex time” as “the process whereby an employee’s regularly scheduled hours of work within a specific workweek are adjusted with proper notification and at the mutual convenience of the employee and the respective department. Such flexing of work hours must be approved in advance by the respective department….” Respondent, at all times material hereto, understood that he was to first contact his supervisor before taking time off related to a medical episode. Evidence of Respondent’s understanding is illustrated in emails that he sent to his supervisor on December 2 and 31, 2020. February 1 and 2, 2021 Sometime around January 2021, the City implemented a number of workplace measures designed to mitigate the risk of contracting and spreading the COVID-19 virus. One such mitigation effort allowed employees “to work from home on their assigned remote day.” During February 2021, Tuesdays were Respondent’s assigned days to telecommute. On Monday, February 1, 2021, the following emails were exchanged between Respondent and his supervisor: From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 (2:12 p.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Feb 01, 2021 Hi Lloyd, Where are you? Thanks, Jeremy From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 (2:15 p.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: Feb 01, 2021 At lunch From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 (2:21 p.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: Feb 01, 2021 Precisely; (Respondent provided the email address for the auto/electronics store where he was located) From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 (4:00 p.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Feb 01, 2021 Can you confirm what time you arrived today? From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 (4:04 p.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: Feb 01, 2021 Is anyone else required to confirm their time today? From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 (4:08 p.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Feb 01, 2021 I put the timesheets on your desk for time entry this AM and noticed that your laptop was not here and your desk looked to be unoccupied, at 2:30 your desk looked the same. We need to make sure to charge your time correctly, so if you had an appointment not reflected on my calendar I need to update it. Please confirm your arrival time, and how long of a lunch you took for my records please. Thank you, Jeremy On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, Respondent and his supervisor exchanged additional emails regarding Respondent’s absence from work: From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (10:21 a.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Feb 01, 2021 Hi Lloyd, Can you confirm your times for yesterday as I requested please? Thank you, Jeremy Soon after sending the email to Respondent at 10:21 a.m., on February 2, 2021, Mr. Williams met with Respondent via videoconference. During the videoconference, Mr. Williams again asked Respondent about his whereabouts and arrival time to the office on February 1, 2021. Mr. Williams credibly testified that Respondent, in response to his inquiry, became argumentative by wanting to know if other employees where being questioned about their whereabouts and arrival time to work. Respondent never answered the questions posed to him by Mr. Williams, but instead, advised Mr. Williams that his time away from the office on February 1, 2021, should be charged as one of his monthly FMLA episodes. Mr. Williams was confused by Respondent’s request, in part, because Respondent was requesting FMLA leave that covered time when Respondent actually performed certain work-related tasks, albeit via unauthorized telecommuting. Shortly after the videoconference ended, Respondent and Mr. Williams had additional discussions regarding the matter as reflected in the following emails: From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (11:12 a.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: Re: Lloyd - ? 5.0hrs I am using this as one episode of FMLA. My [redacted] was too high to drive. I am notifying you after the incapacity has passed as allowed by law. From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (11:32 a.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Re: Lloyd - ? 5.0hrs Hi Lloyd, We will need to refer to HR as to what is allowed. I will update this outage once we hear back from them. Thank you, Jeremy From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (11:35 a.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: Re: Lloyd - ? 5.0hrs To be clear, I have notified you that I was incapacitated due to an underlying condition covered by my FMLA on the morning of February 1st. From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (11:37 a.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Re: Lloyd - ? 5.0hrs Hi Lloyd, I only have record of your FMLA request for the AM of 2/1/2021 on a video call that occurred on 2/2/2021. Can you send me the notification that you sent me on the 1st indicating this? It[’s] possible that I missed it. Thanks, Jeremy From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (12:14 p.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: Re: Lloyd - ? 5.0hrs I think you missed it. I don’t have a copy. From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 (12:46 p.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: Re: Lloyd - ? 5.0hrs Hi Lloyd, This doesn’t make any sense. Either you requested the time or you didn’t. If you don’t have a record, you didn’t request it. I certainly did not receive anything. I have re-reviewed my emails, teams and sms and see nothing from you indicating that you would be out of the office on Monday (2/1/21) morning and early afternoon. We will confer with HR as to what we can use to charge your time. Thank you, Jeremy As previously mentioned, the City, on or about February 22, 2021, informed Respondent that it intended to suspend him for two days. In response to the City’s notice of disciplinary suspension, Respondent stated the following with respect to matters that transpired on February 2 and 3, 2021: On February 1, 2021, I began working from home at about 7 AM. I typically log on the server in the morning before leaving for work to check on emails and overall functioning of all systems, as well as respond to the system users. Due to severe anxiety arising out of my continuing concern over the risk to my health posed by the pandemic as well [as] the ongoing dispute with the City over my ADA reasonable accommodation request to telecommute, I experienced [redacted] symptoms. My first … reading taken was [redacted] putting me in the range of an ... emergency. As such, I decided to remain at home and continue to work. I did not feel safe to drive to the office and kept monitoring my [redacted] to determine whether I needed to go to the emergency room. When my readings returned to a safe level, I arrived at the office later that day around 3 PM. My manager acknowledged my presence because I walked past his office several times. I am more than willing to provide documentation of the ... readings I took that day. On February 2, 2021, I had a video meeting with my manager and explained to him the stress that I was experiencing. At that time, I requested 5 hours of leave (against my available intermittent FMLA leave) because he would not consider time I spent at home earlier that day as hours worked, despite the fact that I performed my job duties during that period. Respondent’s suggestion of incapacity is not supported by the evidence. By his own admission, Respondent, on the morning of Monday, February 1, 2021, was able to log onto the City’s server which allowed him to “check on emails and overall functioning of all systems, as well as respond to the system users.” Respondent also admits that after his first elevated reading he decided to “remain at home and continue to work” because he did not “feel safe to drive.” The issue is not whether Respondent felt well enough to drive, but whether he felt well enough to send an email. If Respondent felt well enough to “respond to the system users, and continue to work,” then he was certainly capable of sending an email to his supervisor. There is no credible evidence that Respondent suffered from any form or type of medical condition on the morning of February 1, 2021, which prevented him from notifying his employer that he was taking an “episode” of FMLA leave for the workhours in question. It is undisputed that Monday, February 1, 2021, was not Respondent’s designated day to telecommute. Chapter 12, section 1, of the CSR clearly provides that the City determines normal work hours for its employees, and that employee-initiated changes to the normal work hours “must be approved in advance.” The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Respondent was not authorized to telecommute on Monday, February 1, 2021, and that he did so in violation of the CSR and SAMP manual. Respondent’s assertion that he did not violate City rules and regulations “because he performed [his] job duties” while at home on February 1, 2021, is irrelevant because, as noted above, he lacked authority to telecommute on the day in question. February 3, 2021 Respondent reported to work on February 3, 2021, and worked until leaving the building at 1:30 p.m. Respondent did not return to work on this date and several hours later initiated the following email chain with his supervisor: From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 (4:27 p.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: One FMLA Episode From Now Till Tomorrow [There was nothing written below the subject line]. From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 (5:13 p.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: RE: One FMLA Episode From Now Till Tomorrow I have you down for Tomorrow in the AM, you’ll confirm with me the specific amount of time when you get in. See you tomorrow, Jeremy From: Williams, Jeremy Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 (5:21 p.m.) To: Hill, Lloyd Subject: RE: One FMLA Episode From Now Till Tomorrow Hi Lloyd, Did you mean to say that you took off work at 4:30 p.m. today (using FMLA)? I stopped by your desk to clarify what you meant by this email, you weren’t there (5:20 p.m.). Office 365 saw you last at 4:48 p.m. I’m pretty confused if you can clarify, I’d appreciate it. Thank you, Jeremy From: Hill, Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 (5:47 p.m.) To: Williams, Jeremy Subject: One FMLA Episode From Now Till Tomorrow Correct Before Respondent prematurely ended his workday on February 3, 2021, he had been assigned that morning to provide IT support services for the City’s recreation centers. Mr. Milou Louis, who worked as senior systems programmer at the City’s recreation centers, was retiring from employment with the City, and Respondent, because of his availability and skill set, was tasked with replacing Mr. Louis. In explaining his actions related to his early departure from work on February 3, 2021, Respondent stated the following: On February 3, 2021, I was informed that I was required to be on-site at the City’s Parks & Rec centers where COVID-19 infection rates were among some of the highest for City employees. Notably, this documented infection rate does not consider infected members of the public who may use the centers. I immediately informed my manager, who rendered his lay opinion that I was at no higher risk than anyone else. Notably, I had not previously been assigned to be on-site, let alone during a pandemic. Thereafter, I suffered a sever anxiety attack because I legitimately feared for my health. At that point I left the building. Management told me I left at 1:30 PM. I contacted my supervisor at around 4 PM informing him I would take available FMLA leave for the rest of the day. As an initial matter, there is no credible evidence of record that Respondent’s particular work environment at the recreation centers would have been any more at risk for COVID-19 exposure than his regular work environment, or say, the electronics store where Respondent stopped during his lunch break on February 1, 2021. During Respondent’s email exchange with his supervisor on February 3, 2021, Mr. Williams clearly communicated to Respondent that he was confused about Respondent’s FMLA leave request. Respondent, despite having the opportunity to do so, never sought to clarify his leave request, and, for whatever reason, chose not to correct Mr. Williams’ erroneous belief that Respondent left work at 4:30 p.m., when all the while Respondent knew that he actually left work several hours earlier at 1:30 p.m. With respect to the events of February 3, 2021, the evidence establishes that Respondent violated City rules and regulations by failing to inform his supervisor of his early departure from work under circumstances where he clearly had the opportunity to do so. Also, as noted above, the email that Respondent sent at 4:30 p.m., on February 3, 2021, advised that Respondent was taking “One FMLA Episode From Now Till Tomorrow.” Because Respondent’s email was misleading as to when he actually left work, Respondent actually had a three-hour unauthorized absence from work (i.e., from 1:30 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.) and misled his supervisor as to the amount of FMLA leave that was being requested. February 10, 2021 On February 10, 2021, Respondent reported to work at his scheduled time and then left the office from 2:00 p.m. to 4:40 p.m. When asked by his department supervisor to account for the missing time, Respondent could not do so and instead elected to quibble with his supervisor about whether his authorized lunch break was 30 minutes or one hour in duration. Respondent’s unauthorized leave was charged against his accrued vacation hours.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Owen Kohler, Esquire City of Clearwater 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 600 Clearwater, Florida 33755 For Respondent: Richard Michael Pierro, Esquire Calciano Pierro, PLLC 146 Second Street North, Suite 304 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Civil Service Board of the City of Clearwater enter a final determination suspending without pay Respondent’s employment for a period of two days. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Owen Kohler, Esquire City of Clearwater 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 600 Clearwater, Florida 33755 Rosemarie Call, City Clerk City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Richard Michael Pierro, Esquire Calciano Pierro, PLLC 146 Second Street North, Suite 304 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
