08-004189SED Titus Tillman vs. Department Of Juvenile Justice
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, February 5, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: Respondent did not violate the appropriate rules when laying off Petitioners.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8GLORIA PRESTON, STEPHEN REID, )

13CAROL WELLS, AND TITUS TILLMAN, )

19)

20Petitioners, )

22) Case Nos. 08-2126SED

26vs. ) 08-2161SED

29) 08-3841SED

31DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, ) 08-4189SED

37)

38Respondent. )

40)

41RECOMMENDED ORDER

43On December 17, 2008, pursuant to notice, a hearing was held

54in Tallahassee, Florida, by Lisa Shearer Nelson, the designated

63Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

71Hearings.

72APPEARANCES

73For Petitioners: Jerry Gaynham, Esquire

78Patterson & Traynham

81315 Beard Street

84Tallahassee, Florida 32303

87For Respondent: Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire

93Department of Juvenile Justice

972737 Centerview Drive, Suite 3200

102Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100

105STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

109The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners' layoffs from employment by the Respondent were lawful and if not, what

129remedies should be awarded.

133PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

135This proceeding involves the process used to lay-off the

144employment of four former employees of Respondent, Department of

153Juvenile Justice (Department), and whether the applicable rules

161in place at the time of the employees' lay-off were followed.

172Petitioner Gloria Preston filed a Petition for a Section

181120.569, 120.57(1) Hearing with the Department on June 22, 2007.

191The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative

200Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge on

209March 20, 2008.

212The case was docketed as Case No. 08-2126, assigned to the

223undersigned, and an Initial Order issued April 30, 2008. On

233May 7, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Place Case in

246Abeyance, asserting that on March 5, 2008, the Petitioner had

256filed a Petition for Review in the First District Court of Appeal

268that concerned issues central to the issues presented in this

278case. The parties agreed that the case could not proceed until

289such time as the First District ruled on the petition and

300relinquished jurisdiction. In light of the Motion, an Order

309Placing Case in Abeyance issued May 9, 2008, directing the

319parties to advise of the status of the proceedings on or before

331June 30, 2008, or upon relinquishment of jurisdiction by the

341First District in Case No. 1D08-1083, whichever was earlier.

350On May 23, 2008, a Notice of Appellate Disposition was

360filed, indicating that in light of the referral of the case to

372the Division of Administrative Hearings, the First District

380denied the petition for review as moot. However, the Court

390awarded Petitioner Preston appellate attorney's fees and remanded

398the issue of the appropriate amount to the Division, should the

409parties be unable to reach agreement. The case was noticed for

420hearing to be conducted July 29, 2008. On July 3, 2008, a Joint

433Motion for Continuance was filed, and the matter was rescheduled

443for August 19, 2008.

447Petitioner Steven Reid filed a Petition for a Section

456120.569, 120.57(1) Hearing on April 17, 2008. The case was

466referred to the Division for assignment of an administrative law

476judge May 1, 2008, and was also assigned to the undersigned and

488docketed as Case No. 08-2161. Because the parties requested

497proceedings be conducted by means of video teleconferencing

505between Tallahassee and Fort Myers, the case was transferred to

515Administrative Law Judge William Quattlebaum, and noticed for

523hearing July 17, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the parties filed a

535Joint Motion for Continuance, which was granted June 26, 2008,

545with directions that the parties file a Joint Status Report

555July 17, 2008.

558Petitioner Carol Wells filed her Petition for Section

566120.569, 120.57(1), Hearing with the Department on July 25, 2008,

576and the Petition was referred to the Division for assignment of

587an administrative law judge August 5, 2008. The case was

597docketed as Case No. 08-3841. On that same day, the parties

608filed a Joint Motion for Consolidation, requesting that Case Nos.

61808-2126, 08-2161, and 08-3841 be consolidated for the purposes of

628hearing, that the hearing be conducted in Tallahassee, and that

638the hearing previously scheduled to take place August 19, 2008,

648for Case No. 08-2126 be continued.

654The three cases were consolidated by Order dated August 11,

6642008, and the consolidated proceeding was rescheduled for hearing

673October 16, 2008. Petitioner Titus Tillman filed the final

682Petition for Section 120.569, 120.57(1), Hearing with the

690Department on August 12, 2008, and it was referred to the

701Division August 25, 2008, with a Motion for Consolidation. The

711case was docketed as Case No. 08-4189 and consolidated with the

722other three cases by Order dated September 9, 2008. The Order

733confirmed that hearing for all four cases remained scheduled for

743October 16, 2008.

746On October 13, 2008, the Department filed a Motion for

756Summary Order. On October 14, 2008, Petitioners filed an

765Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing based upon the illness of

775one of the Petitioners, and the case was rescheduled for

785December 17, 2008. On October 17, 2008, Petitioners filed a

795Motion for Leave to file an Amended Petition, followed on

805October 22, 2008, by a Memorandum Opposing Agency Motion for

815Summary Order and Cross-Motion for Summary Order.

822By Order dated November 12, 2008, the undersigned noted that

832no authority existed for issuance of summary orders where no

842final agency authority exists, denied both Motions for Summary

851Order and granted the Motion for Leave to File an Amended

862Petition. The parties filed a Joint Prehearing Stipulation

870containing certain stipulated facts that, where relevant, have

878been incorporated into this Recommended Order.

884At the hearing conducted December 17, 2008, the parties

893requested, and the undersigned agreed, that issues regarding rate

902of pay and back pay would be addressed by separate hearing should

914one be necessary. The parties also requested that the issue of

925appellate attorneys ordered by the First District in Case

934No. 08-2126 be delayed as the parties might still agree. A

945settlement of the attorney's fees and costs award was

954subsequently filed January 21, 2009, and no further action is

964necessary with respect to those fees. All four Petitioners

973testified at hearing, and Petitioners' Exhibits 1-6 were admitted

982into evidence. The Department presented the testimony of three

991witnesses and Respondent's Exhibits 1-3 were admitted. Joint

999Exhibits 1-9 were also admitted. The proceedings were recorded

1008and the Transcript was filed with the Division on January 5,

10192008. Both Proposed Recommended Orders were timely filed and

1028have been carefully considered in the preparation of this

1037Recommended Order.

1039FINDINGS OF FACT

10421. On or about April 2, 2001, the Department notified

1052Petitioners that their positions were recommended for transfer

1060from Career Service to Select Exempt Service.

10672. On July 1, 2001, the Petitioners' positions were

1076transferred from Career Service to Select Exempt Service.

10843. Prior to Special Legislative Session C of 2001, the

1094Department's Office of Prevention and Victim Services consisted

1102of 94 positions, organized into four bureaus: the Office of

1112Victim Services; the Office of Partnership and Volunteer

1120Services; the Prevention Office; and the Intensive Learning

1128Alternative Program.

11304. During Special Legislative Session C, the Florida

1138Legislature passed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2-C,

1147which reduced appropriations for state government for fiscal year

11562001-2002. This special appropriations bill was approved by the

1165Governor on December 13, 2001, and was published as Chapter 2001-

1176367, Laws of Florida.

11805. As a result of Chapter 2001-367, 77 positions were cut

1191from the Office of Prevention and Victim Services budget entity.

1201The appropriations detail for the reduction from the legislative

1210appropriations system database showed that the reduction of

1218positions was to be accomplished by eliminating the Intensive

1227Learning Alternative Program, which consisted of 19 positions;

1235eliminating the Office of Victim Services, which consisted of

124415 positions; eliminating the Office of Partnership and Volunteer

1253Services, which consisted of 23 positions; and by cutting 20

1263positions from the Office of Prevention. Seventeen positions

1271remained.

12726. Immediately after conclusion of the Special Session, the

1281Department began the process of identifying which positions would

1290be cut. A workforce transition team was named and a workforce

1301transition plan developed to implement the workforce reduction.

1309The workforce reduction plan included a communications plan for

1318dealing with employees; an assessment of the positions to be

1328deleted and the mission and goals of the residual program; a plan

1340for assessment of employees, in terms of comparative merit; and a

1351placement strategy for affected employees.

13567. Gloria Preston, Stephen Reid and Carol Wells were

1365Operations and Management Consultant II's and worked in the

1374Partnership and Volunteer Services Division. According to the

1382budget detail from Special Session C, all of the positions in

1393this unit were eliminated.

13978. Titus Tillman was an Operations and Management

1405Consultant II and worked in the Prevention and Monitoring

1414division. According to the budget detail provided from Special

1423Session C, 20 of the positions in this unit were eliminated.

14349. On December 7, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners

1443that effective January 4, 2002, each of their positions were

1453eliminated due to the Florida Legislature's reduction of staffing

1462in a number of Department program areas during the special

1472session. Petitioners were provided with information regarding

1479what type of assistance the Department would provide.

1487Specifically, the notices stated that the employees would be

1496entitled to the right of a first interview with any state agency

1508for a vacancy to which they may apply, provided they are

1519qualified for the position; and that they could seek placement

1529through the Agency for Workforce Innovation. The notice also

1538provided information regarding leave and insurance benefits, and

1546identified resources for affected employees to seek more

1554clarification or assistance.

155710. At the time Petitioners were notified that their

1566positions were being eliminated, Florida Administrative Code

1573Rules 60K-17.001 through 60K-17.004 remained in effect. These

1581rules required agencies to determine the order of layoff by

1591calculating retention points, based upon the number of months of

1601continuous employment in a career service position, with some

1610identified modifications. However, by the express terms of the

"1619Service First" Legislation passed in the regular session of

16282001, the career service rules identified above were to be

1638repealed January 1, 2002, unless otherwise readopted. § 42, Ch.

16482001-43, Laws of Fla. Consistent with the legislative directive

1657new rules had been noticed and were in the adoption process.

166811. On January 4, 2002, each of the Petitioners were laid

1679off due to the elimination of their positions. At the time the

1691layoff became effective, new rules regarding workforce reductions

1699had been adopted. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60K-33,

1707effective January 2, 2002, did not allow for the "bumping"

1717procedure outlined in Rule 60K-17.004. Instead, it required the

1726Department to appoint a workforce transition team for overseeing

1735and administering the workforce reduction; assess the positions

1743to be deleted and the mission and goals of the remaining program

1755after the deletion of positions; identify the employees and

1764programs or services that would be affected by the workforce

1774reduction and identify the knowledge, skills and abilities that

1783employees would need to carry out the remaining program.

179212. The workforce transition team was required under one of

1802the new rules to consider the comparative merit, demonstrated

1811skills, and experience of each employee, and consider which

1820employees would best enable the agency to advance its mission.

183013. Although the Department created a workforce reduction

1838plan and Career Service Comparative Merit Checklist, it did not

1848complete a checklist for any of the Petitioners because it had

1859previously reclassified their positions as Selected Exempt

1866Service. No checklist is expressly required under Rule 60L-33.

1875While no checklist was completed on the Selected Exempt Service

1885employees, each employee in the Office of Prevention and Victim

1895Services was assessed based on the positions remaining and the

1905mission of the Department in order to determine which employees

1915to keep and which to lay off.

192214. Of the 17 remaining positions, the Department

1930considered the legislative intent with respect to the elimination

1939of programs and the individuals currently performing the job

1948duties that were left. It also evaluated the responsibilities

1957remaining, which included overseeing the funding of statewide

1965contracts and grants. The Department also considered which

1973employees should be retained based upon their ability to absorb

1983the workload, their geographic location, and their skill set.

199215. The Department determined that the employees selected

2000for the remaining positions were the strongest in their field,

2010had fiscal management and programmatic experience, and were best

2019equipped to undertake the workload.

202416. At the time of the layoff, Petitioners were each long-

2035serving, well-qualified and highly rated employees of the State

2044of Florida. Each was prepared to move in order to retain

2055employment.

205617. In April 2002, AFSCME Florida Public Employees 79, AFL-

2066CIO (AFSCME), filed an unfair labor practice charge with the

2076Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) against the

2083Departments of Management Services and Juvenile Justice. AFSCME

2091alleged that the Department failed to bargain in good faith over

2102the layoff of Department employees.

210718. The parties entered into a settlement agreement,

2115effective June 28, 2002. The settlement agreement required the

2124Department to provide timely notice to AFSCME of impending

2133layoffs, bargain over the impact of workforce reductions, and

2142provide assistance for employees who were laid off between

2151December 31, 2001, and January 4, 2002, but who had not attained

2163other full-time Career Service employment. There is no evidence

2172the Petitioners in this case were members of AFSCME. Nor is

2183there any evidence that the Department failed to assist

2192Petitioners in seeking new employment.

219719. In July of 2003, the First District Court of Appeal

2208decided the case of Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care

2218Administration , 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), wherein the

2229court held that employees whose employee classifications were

2237changed from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service must be

2247afforded a clear point of entry to challenge the reclassification

2257of their positions.

226020. The Department notified those persons, including

2267Petitioners, whose Career Service positions had been reclassified

2275to Selected Exempt Service, that they had a right to challenge

2286the reclassification.

228821. Each of the Petitioners filed a request for hearing

2298regarding their reclassifications, which was filed with the

2306Agency Clerk in August of 2003. However, the petitions were not

2317forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings until

2325May 2007.

232722. All four cases were settled with an agreement that

2337their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt Service

2345positions in error, and that they should have been considered

2355Career Service employees at the time their positions were

2364eliminated.

236523. Petitioners and the Department also agreed that any

2374challenge by Petitioners to the layoffs would be forwarded to the

2385Division of Administrative Hearings.

238924. Gloria Preston began work for the State of Florida in

24001975. Her evaluations showed that she continuously exceeded

2408performance standards, and she had training and experience in

2417managing and monitoring grants and contracts. However, no

2425evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she

2434would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, and it is

2445unclear whether she was in a Career Service position during the

2456entire tenure of her employment with the State.

246425. Stephen Reid began work for the State of Florida in

24751977. He left state government for a short time and returned in

24871984. With the exception of his initial evaluation with the

2497Department of Corrections, he has received "outstanding" or

"2505exceeds" performance evaluations. Reid has experience in

2512contract creation and management. However, no evidence was

2520presented regarding how many retention points he would have been

2530awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a

2541Career Service position during the entire tenure of his

2550employment with the State.

255426. Carol Wells began employment with the State of Florida

2564in 1975. Similar to Mr. Reid, all of her evaluations save her

2576first one were at the "exceeds" performance level, and she has

2587experience in writing and managing contracts. However, no

2595evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she

2604would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether

2614she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of

2626her employment with the State.

263127. Titus Tillman began employment with the State of

2640Florida in 1993. He was subject to a Corrective Action Plan in

2652May 2000, but received "above average" or "exceeds" performance

2661evaluations. Like the other Petitioners, no evidence was

2669presented regarding how many retention points he would have been

2679awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a

2690Career Service position during the entire tenure of his

2699employment with the State.

270328. Likewise, no evidence was presented regarding the

2711retention points that were earned by any of the people who were

2723retained by the Department to fill the remaining positions. No

2733evidence was presented regarding the qualifications of those

2741retained employees, in terms of their comparative merit,

2749demonstrated skills, and experience in the program areas the

2758Department would continue to implement.

2763CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

276629. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2773jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

2783action in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

2792Statutes (2008).

279430. Petitioners are challenging the elimination of their

2802positions, and in the Amended Petition Petitioners request that

"2811corrective action" be taken to address their unlawful layoff,

"2820including, but without limitation, rescinding the layoffs,

2827correcting pay and benefits records and contributions, awarding

2835overtime pay where appropriate and other appropriate relief."

284331. The party asserting the affirmative of an issue bears

2853the burden of proof. Florida Department of Transportation v.

2862J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v.

2874Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services , 348 So. 2d 349

2884(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Thus, the Department has the burden to show

2896the appropriate procedure was used in implementing the workforce

2905reduction. Petitioners have the burden to show that they should

2915have been retained.

291832. The resolution of the issues in this case is clouded by

2930the erroneous classification of Petitioners as Selected Exempt

2938Employees at the time their positions with the Department were

2948eliminated. There is no question that Selected Exempt employees

2957would not be entitled to the procedures under either Rule 60K-17

2968or 60L-33 because they serve at the pleasure of the agency head.

2980§ 110.604, Fla. Stat. (2001). Petitioners, however, were

2988entitled to the procedures provided in the rules for reduction in

2999workforce.

300033. The initial question to be answered, however, is which

3010rule governs the process used with respect to the layoffs in

30212002. Petitioners argue that Rule 60K-17 must prevail because it

3031was the rule in effect at the time the Petitioners were notified

3043of the intended layoffs, citing Florida Public Employees Council

305279 v. State , 921 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)(FPEC I ). In FPEC

3067I , The First District held that Rule 60K-17 was repealed

3077January 1, 2002, by the express terms of Section 42, Chapter

30882001-43, Laws of Florida, as opposed to being repealed on May 14,

31002001, upon the Service First legislation becoming law. However,

3109a different, and controlling, result occurred in Florida Public

3118Employees Council 79 v. State , 939 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA

31302006)(FPEC II). In FPEC II, the court stated:

3138This case is remarkably similar in its facts

3146to those in Florida Public Employees Council

3153v. State , 921 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA

31622006)(FPEC I). . . . This court reversed

3170PERC's dismissal of the ULP for the reason

3178that rule 60K-17 remained operative during

3184the applicable time the layoffs occurred ,

3190which were the subject of the ULP charge. We

3199do not reach the same result in the present

3208case because at the time the reduction in the

3217workforce of the Department of Children and

3224Families took place, rule 60L-33.004 had

3230already become effective, with the result

3236that the state was no longer required to

3244follow the procedure controlling layoffs as

3250provided in rule 60K-17. [Emphasis

3255Supplied.]

3256939 So. 2d at 122. In this case, when the layoffs actually

3268occurred on January 4, 2002, Rule 60L-33 was in effect. The

3279terms of that rule control the personnel reduction in this case.

329034. The Department has met its burden to show that the

3301layoff complied with the procedures contained in Rule 60L-33.004.

3310The pertinent procedures provide:

3314(2) Each agency shall have a Department-

3321approved transition plan. The goal of the

3328plan is to ensure that the agency makes

3336reasonable efforts to provide a smooth

3342transition for the career service employees

3348adversely affected by the workforce

3353reduction. The plan shall identify the steps

3360the agency will take during the workforce

3367reduction to advance this goal. The

3373following steps are reasonable and shall be

3380included in any plan, unless the plan

3387justifies in writing why they are not

3394included:

3395(a) Appoint a workforce transition team,

3401which is responsible for overseeing and

3407administering the workforce reduction.

3411(b) Develop a communications plan, designed

3417to ensure open, honest, and frequent

3423communication regarding staffing changes.

3427Provide clear avenues for employees to seek

3434and obtain information and assistance.

3439Address necessary communications with the

3444Department, the Agency for Workforce

3449Innovation, and unions.

3452(c) Assess the positions to be deleted and

3460the mission and goals of the residual program

3468(that is, the program area that will remain

3476after the deletion of functions and

3482positions). Identify the employees and

3487programs or services that will be affected by

3495the workforce reduction. Identify the

3500knowledge, skills, and abilities that

3505employees will need to carry out the residual

3513program.

3514(d) Assess employees.

3517* * *

35202. If the workforce reduction affects any

3527other career service employee [other than law

3534enforcement, firefighters, or professional

3538health care providers], consider the

3543comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and

3548experience of each employee. In determining

3554which employees to retain, consider which

3560employees will best enable the agency to

3567advance its mission; in this context,

3573consider how each employee fares with respect

3580to the following factors: commitment,

3585excellence, fairness, honesty/integrity,

3588initiative, respect, and teamwork.

3592(3) A permanent career service employee

3598facing layoff as a result of a workforce

3606reduction shall have an opportunity for first

3613interview within any agency for a vacancy for

3621which the employee is qualified and has

3628applied.

3629(4) Before laying off a permanent career

3636service employee as part of a work force

3644reduction, an agency shall provide the

3650employee reasonable notice of the intended

3656action. Where possible, the agency shall

3662provide at least thirty days notice, and in

3670all cases the agency shall provide at least

3678ten days notice or, in lieu thereof, pay or a

3688combination of notice and pay.

369335. Rule 60L-33.004 was amended in 2003. However, those

3702amendments affected subsection (6) only and not the provisions

3711quoted above and have no relevance to this proceeding.

372036. The procedure used in the reduction in workforce at

3730issue complied with the requirements of Rule 60L-33.004. As

3739noted in the findings of fact, a workforce transition team was

3750established and a workforce transition plan was developed for

3759implementing the workforce reduction. The employees were

3766evaluated in terms of their comparative merit and the remaining

3776mission of the agency. Petitioners, whether or not they were

3786correctly identified as Career Service, were provided adequate

3794notice of the impending layoff and were provided the right of

3805first interview for job vacancies for which they were qualified,

3815as well as other assistance in finding employment.

382337. Even assuming that Rule 60K-17 were to apply,

3832Petitioners could not prevail. Rule 60K-17.004(3)(q) provided

3839that "in the event the employee elects to appeal the action

3850taken, such appeal must be based upon whether the layoff was in

3862accordance with the provisions of this chapter." It is

3871undisputed that bumping rights were not accorded to any of

3881Petitioners. However, in order to prevail, Petitioners must show

3890that the layoffs were not accomplished in accordance with the

3900rules in force and, had they been implemented appropriately,

3909Petitioners would have been entitled to be retained. In other

3919words, it would be necessary to determine how many retention

3929points each Petitioner had earned and compare those points with

3939the retention points of other employees subject to the layoff.

3949Petitioners would be required to demonstrate that they held

3958positions, in terms of seniority, superior to those retained. No

3968such evidence exists in this record.

3974RECOMMENDATION

3975Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law

3985reached, it is

3988RECOMMENDED:

3989That a final order be entered dismissing the petitions for

3999relief.

4000DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2009, in

4010Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4014S

4015LISA SHEARER NELSON

4018Administrative Law Judge

4021Division of Administrative Hearings

4025The DeSoto Building

40281230 Apalachee Parkway

4031Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

4034(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

4038Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

4042www.doah.state.fl.us

4043Filed with the Clerk of the

4049Division of Administrative Hearings

4053this 5th day of February, 2009.

4059COPIES FURNISHED:

4061Jerry Gaynham, Esquire

4064Patterson & Traynham

4067315 Beard Street

4070Post Office Box 4289

4074Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289

4077Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire

4081Department of Juvenile Justice

40852737 Centerview Drive

4088Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100

4091Lezlie A. Griffin, Esquire

4095Melissa Ann Horwitz, Esquire

4099AFSCME Council 79

41023064 Highland Oaks Terrace

4106Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4109Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire

4113AFSCME Council 79

411699 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224

4122North Miami, Florida 33169

4126Jennifer Parker, General Counsel

4130Department of Juvenile Justice

41342737 Centerview Drive

4137Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

4140Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary

4144Department of Juvenile Justice

41482737 Centerview Drive

4151Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

4154NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4160All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

417015 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to

4182this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will

4193issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2009
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held December 17, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2009
Proceedings: Settlement of Attorney`s Fees and Costs Award filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2009
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Order filed.
Date: 01/05/2009
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 12/17/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2008
Proceedings: (Joint) Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2008
Proceedings: Unilateral Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2008
Proceedings: Order on Pending Motions .
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2008
Proceedings: Memo Opposing Agency Motion for Summary Order and Cross-motion for Summary Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Enlargement of Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2008
Proceedings: Amended Petition for a Section 120.569, 120.57(1), Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for a Section 120.569, 120.57(1), Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for December 17, 2008; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2008
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Summary Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by Lezlie Griffin) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Prehearing Statement.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2008
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/03/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (Department of Juvenile Justice) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by Kimberly Ward) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2008
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case No. 08-4189SED was added to the consolidated batch).
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by M. Atkins).
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Consolidation filed. (DOAH Case No. 08-2126, 08-2161, 08-3841, and 08-4189)
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Layoff from Employment filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2008
Proceedings: Petition for Section 120.569, 120.57(1), Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LISA SHEARER NELSON
Date Filed:
08/25/2008
Date Assignment:
08/25/2008
Last Docket Entry:
05/04/2009
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
SED
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (4):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):