97-002475 St. Petersburg Junior College vs. Mary Tranquillo
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, June 5, 1998.


View Dockets  
Summary: Pet: dismiss Resp, continuing contract as instructor; excessive absenteeism. Resp: defended she had mult chem sensitivity; work environ caused/aggravated it. Work Comp judge ruling precluded this issue. RO: history of good perf., annual contract for 3 yr

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE, )

13)

14Petitioner, )

16)

17vs. ) Case No. 97-2475

22)

23MARY TRANQUILLO, )

26)

27Respondent. )

29_______________________________)

30RECOMMENDED ORDER

32On March 18 through 20, 1998, a formal administrative

41hearing was held in this case in St. Petersburg, Florida, before

52J. Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge, Division of

60Administrative Hearings.

62APPEARANCES

63For Petitioner: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire

69Allen Norton and Blue

73Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350

78324 South Hyde Park Avenue

83Tampa, Florida 33606

86For Respondent: John E. Tuthill, Esquire

923300 49th Street, North

96St. Peters burg, Florida 33710

101STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

105The issues in this case are whether the continuing contract

115of employment between the Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior

123College (SPJC or the College), and the Respondent, Mary

132Tranquillo, should be terminated and, if so, whether the

141Respondent should be dismissed from her employment.

148PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

150On or about May 8, 1997, the College issued the President's

161Petition and Notice to Respondent of Hearing Rights. The

170Petition requested that the SPJC Board of Trustees dismiss the

180Respondent from her employment with the College, effective on the

190expiration of the Respondent's term of employment during the

1991996-1997 school year. As grounds for dismissal, paragraph 7 of

209the Petition asserted:

212aanquillo has been absent from work with

219such frequency as to impair the educations

226[sic] experience received by students

231enrolled in her classes.

235banquillo has failed to prepare or

241supply lesson plans for substitute teachers

247who conduct classes in her absence.

253canquillo has been unavailable to

258participate in extracurricular activities

262required of other instructors.

266The Notice to Respondent of Hearing Rights informed Tranquillo

275that she had the right to request a hearing under

285Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).

293The Respondent requested formal administrative proceedings,

299and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative

309Hearings (DOAH) on May 22, 1997. Initially, final hearing was

319scheduled for August 26 through 28, 1997, but the Respondent's

329unopposed Motion for Continuance was granted, and final hearing

338was continued until December 8 through 10, 1997.

346On December 4, 1997, the Respondent filed an Emergency

355Motion for Continuance. For various reasons (including the

363filing of two motions in limine by the Petitioner on December 4,

3751997, and the Petitioner's intent to file a third), another

385continuance was granted, final hearing was rescheduled for

393March 18 through 20, 1998, and a schedule was established for

404resolution of the motions in limine .

411The first two motions in limine filed by the Petitioner

421were: (1) to exclude any allegations, evidence or testimony

430regarding the alleged disability of the Respondent; and (2) to

440exclude any allegations, evidence or testimony regarding multiple

448chemical sensitivity. Respectively, the grounds for the motions

456were: (1) case law that "multiple chemical sensitivity" is not a

"467disability"; and (2) case law that the diagnosis of "multiple

477chemical sensitivity" is not accepted generally enough in the

486medical field. In accordance with the schedule established in

495the Order Continuing Final Hearing, the Petitioner filed a third

505motion in limine on December 23, 1997, to prevent the Respondent

516from trying the issue of whether her alleged illness was caused

527or aggravated by her work environment on the ground that those

538issues were precluded by rulings of a Judge of Compensation

548Claims in a workers' compensation proceeding filed by the

557Respondent against the College. The Respondent filed a

565Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's motions in

574limine .

576In consideration of the parties' written arguments, it was

585concluded that the third motion in limine should be granted but

596that the first two motions in limine should be denied. However,

607the Order on Motions in Limine , entered on February 9, 1998,

618noted that denial of the first two motions in limine was not

630meant to imply that the issues of discrimination under the

640Federal ADA, the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, or Article I,

652Section 2, of the Florida Constitution would be determined in

662this case. It was stated: "The only issue in this proceeding is

674whether the College has good cause to dismiss the Respondent from

685her employment." In addition, it was noted that, while the

695denial of the first two motions in limine theoretically would

705allow the Respondent to attempt to present a defense on the

716ground that there was no good cause for her dismissal in view of

729her alleged multiple chemical sensitivity and the alleged

737availability of reasonable accommodations in her work

744environment, it appeared that proof of such a defense would be

755precluded by the ultimate and subordinate findings made in the

765workers' compensation proceeding--by which the Respondent would

772be bound as a result of the granting of the third motion in

785limine .

787On February 23, 1998, the Respondent filed a Motion for

797Reconsideration and Clarification of Order on Motions in Limine .

807An Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification was

816entered on March 2, 19 98. It characterized the Order on Motions

828in Limine as clearly not saying that the Respondent could not

839present a case that illness caused her to be absent from work but

852rather as merely pointing out that the Judge of Compensation

862Claims already found that her illness was not "multiple chemical

872sensitivity" and that her work environment was not a cause of her

884illness (or illnesses)(so that, logically, accommodation in her

892work environment should not be an issue). The question would be

903whether, considering any evidence the Respondent presented

910regarding her illness(es), there was good cause ( i.e. , legal

920cause) to dismiss the Respondent.

925The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation on March 13, 1998.

935At final hearing, the College called 22 witnesses and had 72

946exhibits admitted in evidence. (The College's exhibits are not

955listed here because of the unnecessarily complicated and unwieldy

964system the College used to number its exhibits; the exhibits are,

975however, listed in the transcript of the final hearing.) (Ruling

985was reserved on objections to exhibits 87C and 125A; those

995objections are now overruled.) The Respondent testified in her

1004own behalf and called 13 additional witnesses. Respondent's

1012Exhibits 1 through 11 were admitted in evidence. (Ruling was

1022reserved on objections to Respondent's Exhibits 10 and 11; those

1032objections are now overruled.)

1036After presentation of the evidence, the Petitioner ordered

1044the preparation of a transcript of the final hearing, and the

1055parties' request to be given until May 1, 1998, for proposed

1066recommended orders was granted.

1070FINDINGS OF FACT

10731. The Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College (SPJC or

1082the College), has several campuses and approximately 60,000

1091students.

10922. The Respondent, Dr. Mary Tranquillo, who has 32 years of

1103teaching experience, has been employed by the College for

111224 years as an instructor in the area of business technologies,

1123with an emphasis in fashion and marketing.

11303. The Respondent has been on a continuing contract with

1140the College since 1974. There is no question as to her

1151performance through approximately 1991. She was a competent,

1159effective and valuable instructor during those years.

11664. In approximately January 1992, the Respondent began to

1175complain of illness which she attributed to various factors in

1185her work environment. Over the years since then, Tranquillo has

1195blamed tar fumes from roofing work being done in the vicinity, as

1207well as fumes and molds from various buildings and other sources

1218on or near the campus. The Respondent not only called in sick,

1230she also sometimes stayed away to avoid what she said were the

1242environmental factors responsible for her illnesses.

12485. By her own reckoning, the Respondent was absent from

1258work from January 15 through January 24, from February 19 through

1269February 28, from March 27 through June 17, 1992 (for a total of

1282103 days during the 1991-92 school year.) During the 1992-93

1292school year, Tranquillo was absent from September 22 through

1301September 24, on October 22, and from October 26 through

1311October 29, 1992, and from February 5 through 10, on February 15,

1323from February 25 through February 26, and from March 23 through

1334May 7, 1993 (for a total of 63 days.) During the 1993-94 school

1347year, Tranquillo was absent on November 8 and 9, 1993, from

1358February 9 through 11, 1994, from June 14 through June 16, and

1370from July 6 through July 14, 1994 (for a total of 17 days.)

1383During the 1994-95 school year, Tranquillo was absent on

1392October 14, 1994, and on March 2 and 3, 1995 (for a total of 3

1407days.) During the 1995-96 school year, Tranquillo was absent on

1417September 21 and 22, from October 9 through 12, from October 16

1429through 20, and from November 9 through 16, 1995 (for a total of

144218 days.) During the 1996-97 school year, Tranquillo was absent

1452from September 27 through 29, from October 21 through 25, and on

1464November 15, 1996, and from January 6 through 9, from February 10

1476through 13, 1997 (for a total of 17 days.) During the 1997-98

1488school year, Tranquillo was absent from October 9 through 17,

14981997.

14996. Paid sick leave is accumulated by SPJC faculty at the

1510rate of one day per month of service and is permitted to be

1523carried over. Sick leave is credited at the beginning of each

1534school year. There also is a sick leave pool available; members

1545of the pool are assessed one day of leave in return for the

1558ability to use up to 44 days of sick leave from the pool after

1572their personal sick leave is exhausted. The Respondent exhausted

1581her paid sick leave each year since 1992, except for the 1994-95

1593school year. In addition, the Respondent has used all 44 days of

1605sick leave available to her as a member of the sick leave pool.

16187. The Respondent's absences clearly impaired the

1625educational experience of students enrolled in her classes. The

1634Respondent's classes were not impacted equally. As evidenced by

1643the testimony of many students, the Respondent's students

1651generally seem to have been able to obtain valuable educational

1661experiences during times when the Respondent was not absent, or

1671was absent less. On the other hand, as evidenced by the

1682testimony of many other students, the students' educational

1690experiences suffered during times when the Respondent was absent

1699frequently. Despite efforts to focus attention on the former

1708occasions, the Respondent herself admitted to the latter.

17168. When the Respondent was absent frequently, it was

1725sometimes difficult to obtain and prepare substitutes.

1732Sometimes, there was little or no notice. Sometimes, substitutes

1741could not be found at all, and class had to be canceled.

1753Sometimes, a substitute was found, but the substitute was not

1763qualified to teach the Respondent's class. Sometimes, there was

1772not enough time to prepare the substitute.

17799. The College did not prove that the problems with

1789covering for the Respondent's absences were all the fault of the

1800Respondent. Before June 1997, the Respondent generally seemed to

1809try to prepare her substitutes, and the College did not prove

1820that the Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans for

1829substitutes prior to June 1997. But there sometimes was

1838difficulty communicating instructions to substitutes or locating

1845materials to be used by the substitutes.

185210. The Respondent sought to blame all difficulties in

1861covering for her absences on the administration, office clerical

1870staff, and the substitutes. The Respondent blamed the

1878administration for having the clerical staff select substitutes

1886and blamed the clerical staff for selecting substitutes who were

1896not qualified. The Respondent also went so far as to suggest the

1908existence of a conspiracy among members of the administration,

1917clerical staff and substitutes to sabotage the Respondent's

1925efforts to cover for her absences in order to trump up charges

1937for her dismissal.

194011. It is found that there was no such conspiracy against

1951the Respondent. It is true that, as time went on, some of those

1964involved in covering for the Respondent's absences felt put upon.

1974Some administration and clerical staff became frustrated and

1982aggravated; so did some substitutes, some of whom refused to

1992continue to respond to requests to substitute for the Respondent.

2002But these individuals did not cause the Respondent's problems.

2011Rather, the problems of trying to cover for the Respondent were

2022caused by the sheer number of the Respondent's absences, together

2032with their general unpredictability in time and length; these

2041problems made it difficult and frustrating for those involved.

2050The Respondent failed to appreciate, and instead minimized, the

2059hardships on the College in trying to cover for the Respondent's

2070many absences.

207212. Additional problems caused by the Respondent's absences

2080included lack of continuity, failure of communication with the

2089students, and student apprehension concerning grading. For some

2097of the Respondent's classes, these problems were so severe that

2107the administration considered giving all students an "A" just for

2117putting up with all of the problems.

212413. The Respondent also tended to obsess on the

2133environmental factors she thought was causing her absences.

2141Sometimes, when the Respondent came to class, she spent excessive

2151time discussing her grievances with the College regarding her

2160illness and the factors she blamed for them. This also

2170diminished the quality of the educational experience of many

2179students.

218014. The students most impacted by these problems felt

2189cheated and became frustrated and angry, as well as concerned

2199about grades. Some initiated and signed petitions to the

2208administration to attempt to get satisfaction. Contrary to the

2217Respondent's suspicions, these petition drives and student

2224grievances were not instigated by substitutes (who essentially

2232told complaining students that they should make their complaints

2241known to the administration), by administration, or by other

2250faculty. They were not yet another part of an alleged conspiracy

2261to get rid of the Respondent. Rather, they were expressions of

2272honest and understandable concerns and grievances on the part of

2282the students.

228415. Generally, instructors at the College are expected to

2293not only teach classes but also attend faculty meetings, serve on

2304committees, and be part of a professional group. It is clear

2315that, due to her excessive absences, at times the Respondent was

2326unavailable to participate in these kinds of extracurricular

2334activities.

233516. Some of the extracurricular activities cited by the

2344Respondent to demonstrate her level of participation actually

2352were not extracurricular. For example, she cited the preparation

2361of lesson plans and claimed that they were extracurricular.

2370Similarly, she attempted to characterize the selection of a

2379textbook for her class.

238317. Some extracurricular "activities" cited by the

2390Respondent were not very active. The Respondent cited a plan

2400that she had to promote courses in her area of instruction as

2412extracurricular, but there was no evidence that she acted on the

2423plan. The Respondent testified that she was a member of an

"2434organization development network" that holds meetings, but on

2442cross-examination she admitted that she actually never has

2450attended a meeting of the group. The Respondent cited a letter

2461she wrote encouraging students to attend a meeting, but it was

2472revealed on cross-examination that the Respondent herself did not

2481attend the meeting.

248418. The Respondent called a witness to testify to time the

2495Respondent spent assisting with one particular extracurricular

2502project, but the testimony was that, in that instance, the

2512Respondent just compiled some materials for the witness, who

2521could not say "how many minutes it took" the Respondent.

253119. The Respondent credits herself with time spent writing

2540for publication. Indeed, there was evidence to support this

2549claim. However, it appears that less time was spent writing for

2560publication in the time period from 1992 through 1997, than

2570earlier in the Respondent's career. For example, a book the

2580Respondent claims to have been working on for the last five years

2592still consists of only an outline.

259820. While able to cite weaknesses in the Respondent's

2607demonstration of her level of participation in extracurricular

2615activities, and while proving a general requirement to

2623participate in extracurricular activities, the College did not

2631prove precisely what is required of instructors in this regard.

2641There was no evidence of any standards by which an instructor's

2652level of participation can be quantified or measured. Without

2661such standards, the College was unable to prove that the

2671Respondent failed to meet the College's requirements.

267821. Beginning with the 1993-94 school year, the Respondent

2687began receiving negative performance evaluations. Essentially,

2693the College cited the problems caused by the Respondent's

2702excessive absences, and the Respondent blamed them on illness

2711allegedly caused by environmental factors on campus that were

2720beyond her control.

272322. Although the College tried to accommodate the

2731Respondent, the Respondent did not think the College was doing

2741enough and blamed the College for being callous and

2750uncooperative. Eventually, the College came to question the

2758existence of the environmental factors to which the Respondent

2767attributed her problems and began to believe that the

2776Respondent's demands had become unreasonable. As a result, the

2785working relationship between the Respondent and administration

2792deteriorated, and the College began to give consideration to

2801terminating the Respondent's continuing contract.

280623. By the end of the 1996-97 school year, the College

2817decided to terminate the Respondent's continuing contract as of

2826the end of the school year. On or about May 8, 1997, the College

2840issued the President's Petition and Notice to Respondent of

2849Hearing Rights. On the belief that it was improper or

2859unnecessary after initiation of termination proceedings, the

2866College never completed the Respondent's performance evaluation

2873process for the 1996-97 school year.

287924. Due to the pendency of this proceeding, the Respondent

2889has continued to teach during the 1997-98 school year. In June

29001997, the Respondent began to take the position that, when she

2911had to be out sick but had no more sick leave, she would not

2925prepare lesson plans or otherwise do "work" at home to help

2936prepare substitutes. When she invoked this new position, the

2945College countered that it violated the requirement that

2953instructors prepare lesson plans and prepare substitutes when

2961necessary. Eventually, this dispute was resolved, and the

2969Respondent receded from her position. It is not a continuing

2979issue.

298025. In 1994, the Respondent filed a workers' compensation

2989claim against the College alleging that she had multiple chemical

2999sensitivity and related illnesses arising out of and in the

3009course and scope of her employment. Both parties were

3018represented by counsel in that proceeding, and they fully and

3028fairly litigated the issue as to whether the Respondent was

3038exposed to any chemical through her work environment at the

3048College which caused, accelerated, or aggravated any physical or

3057mental illness. On June 19, 1997, an Order was entered Judge of

3069Compensation Claims ruling against the Respondent and in favor of

3079the College on that issue and denying the claim.

308826. The Respondent presented no evidence at the hearing to

3098support her claim that her absences were caused by genuine

3108illness. No physician testified, and no medical evidence was

3117introduced.

311827. Due to the long-standing problems beginning in January

31271992, the evidence proved "good and sufficient reasons" to

3136terminate the Respondent's continuing contract. Yet, the

3143evidence also was that, when the Respondent is "on-the-job,"

3152physically and mentally, she can be a very effective instructor.

3162Indeed, the evidence was that the Respondent's attendance at work

3172and her work performance have been better since action was

3182initiated to terminate her continuing contract. In January 1998,

3191the Respondent was given an office and a classroom which she does

3203not think affect her health adversely. (Ironically, they are the

3213same office and classroom offered to the Respondent in 1994 and

32241995; the Respondent believes that measures taken since then have

3234ameliorated the environmental factors that allegedly were causing

3242her health problems.)

3245CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

324828. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-14.0411(4)

3254provides:

3255Any employee who is under continuing contract

3262may be dismissed or may be returned to annual

3271contract status for another three (3) years

3278at the discretion of the board when a

3286recommendation to that effect is submitted in

3293writing to the board on or before April 1 of

3303any college year giving good and sufficient

3310reasons therefor by the president and

3316provided the president's recommendation is

3321approved by a majority of the board. The

3329employee whose contract is under

3334consideration shall be duly notified in

3340writing at least seven (7) days prior to the

3349filing of the written recommendation with the

3356board and such notice shall include a copy of

3365the charges and the recommendation to the

3372board. Should the board determine that it

3379will consider the charges filed against the

3386employee, it shall direct that a petition

3393conforming to the requirements of the model

3400rules of procedure adopted pursuant to

3406Section 120.54(10), Florida Statutes, and

3411including notification to the employee of his

3418or her hearing rights, be filed with it and a

3428copy served upon the employee. If the

3435employee wishes a public hearing, he or she

3443shall notify the board in writing within ten

3451(10) days after the date of service of the

3460petition. Upon receiving such a request, the

3467board shall within fifteen (15) days notify

3474the employee of the time and place of the

3483public hearing on the charges which shall not

3491be less than fourteen (14) days from the

3499service of the notice unless a different time

3507is agreed to by all parties. The hearing

3515shall proceed in accordance with the

3521provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes,

3527and should be in substantial compliance with

3534the model rules of procedure, Title 28, FAC,

3542unless the parties mutually agree to an

3549alternative hearing procedure. In the event

3555the employee does not request a public

3562hearing the board shall proceed to take

3569appropriate action. Any decision adverse to

3575the employee shall be made by a majority vote

3584of the full membership of the board.

3591(emphasis added)

3593The issues in this case are whether there are "good and

3604sufficient reasons" to dismiss the Respondent or return her to

3614annual contract status for another three (3) years.

362229. As found, the Respondent's absences were excessive.

3630The Respondent intended to blame them on illness caused by

3640environmental factors controlled by the College. But that issue

3649was eliminated by the Order on Motions in Limine .

365930. In the workers' compensation proceeding filed by the

3668Respondent against the College, both parties were represented by

3677counsel, and they fully and fairly litigated the issue as to

3688whether the Respondent was exposed to any chemical through her

3698work environment at the College which caused, accelerated, or

3707aggravated any physical or mental illness. After considering all

3716the evidence, the Judge of Compensation Claims ultimately ruled

3725against the Respondent and in favor of the College on that issue.

373731. The Respondent argued prehearing that collateral

3744estoppel does not apply because the findings made by the Judge of

3756Compensation Claims were not necessary to a determination that

3765the Respondent was not entitled to compensation benefits in that

3775case. To the contrary, it is concluded that the Respondent is

3786bound by the Judge's ultimate and subordinate findings under the

3796principle of collateral estoppel (also sometimes called estoppel

3804by judgment or issue preclusion.) See Stogniew v. McQueen , 656

3814So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1995). The Respondent is not permitted to

3825relitigate those findings in this proceeding.

383132. While the Order on Motions in Limine precluded the

3841defenses that the Respondent had "multiple chemical sensitivity"

3849caused by her work environment and that the College had to make

3861accommodations in her work environment, the Respondent was not

3870precluded from presenting a defense that genuine illness of some

3880kind caused her to be absent from work. But no medical evidence

3892of any kind was presented by the Respondent to support such a

3904claim.

390533. The Respondent's case essentially consisted of attempts

3913to place blame on others for causing her absences and the

3924problems that resulted from them, as well as attempts to minimize

3935the extent of the problems caused. But the greater weight of the

3947evidence was to the contrary. As found, the Respondent's

3956excessive absences and the problems they caused the College and

3966its students were "good and sufficient reasons" to terminate the

3976Respondent's continuing contract.

397934. At the same time, there is ample evidence that the

3990Respondent can be an effective and valuable SPJC instructor when

4000she is "on-the-job," physically and mentally. There also was

4009evidence that the Respondent's performance has been satisfactory

4017during the 1997-98 school year. Under Florida Administrative

4025Code Rule 6A-14.0411(4), termination of the Respondent's

4032continuing contract does not preclude the College from returning

4041the Respondent to an annual contract for another three (3) years.

4052RECOMMENDATION

4053Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

4063Law, it is

4066RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of St. Petersburg

4075Junior College enter a final order terminating the Respondent's

4084continuing contract and returning her to an annual contract for

4094another three years.

4097DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee,

4108Leon County, Florida.

4111___________________________________

4112J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

4115Administrative Law Judge

4118Division of Administrative Hearings

4122The DeSoto Building

41251230 Apalachee Parkway

4128Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

4131(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

4135Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

4139Filed with the Clerk of the

4145Division of Administrative Hearings

4149this 5th day of June, 1998.

4155COPIES FURNISHED:

4157Board of Trustees

4160St. Petersburg Junior College

4164c/o Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire

4169Allen Norton and Blue

4173Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350

4178324 South Hyde Park Avenue

4183Tampa, Florida 33606

4186Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire

4190Allen Norton and Blue

4194Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350

4199324 South Hyde Park Avenue

4204Tampa, Florida 33606

4207John E. Tuthill, Esquire

42113300 49th Street, North

4215St. Petersburg, Florida 33710

4219NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4225All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

4236days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

4247this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

4258issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
Date: 09/21/1998
Proceedings: Second DCA Case No. 2-98-3557 filed.
Date: 09/16/1998
Proceedings: Notice of Agency Appeal filed. (filed by: Mary Tranquillo, Respondent)
Date: 08/26/1998
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/1998
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/17/1998
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 06/26/1998
Proceedings: Respondent`s Answer to Petitioner`s Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent`s Proposed Order filed.
Date: 06/19/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Written Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/05/1998
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 03/18-20/98.
Date: 05/15/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to strike Portions of Respondent`s Proposed Order filed.
Date: 05/04/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 05/04/1998
Proceedings: Respondent`s Final Argument, Findings of Fact, Rulings of the Judge, Application of Law, Conclusions and Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 04/14/1998
Proceedings: Transcripts (Volumes I, II, III, tagged) filed.
Date: 03/19/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Supplemental Interrogatories filed.
Date: 03/18/1998
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 03/16/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion to Allow Telephonic Testimony filed.
Date: 03/13/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Eighth Notice of Production of Additional Discovery filed.
Date: 03/13/1998
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from M. Sorolis (re: enclosing petitioner`s amended exhibit list/tagged) (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/13/1998
Proceedings: (Joint) Pretrial Stipulation filed.
Date: 03/12/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion to Allow Telephone Testimony (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/12/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Exhibit List (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/12/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Location of Hearing (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/10/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Request for Copies filed.
Date: 03/05/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Fifth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 03/04/1998
Proceedings: Order Compelling Interrogatory Answers sent out.
Date: 03/02/1998
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification sent out.
Date: 03/02/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents; Affidavit of Maria N. Sorolis filed.
Date: 02/25/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion to Compel Production of Documents (filed via facsimile).
Date: 02/23/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Order on Motions in Limine filed.
Date: 02/11/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Seventh Notice of Production of Additional Discovery filed.
Date: 02/09/1998
Proceedings: Order on Motions in Limine sent out.
Date: 02/09/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Expert Interrogatories to Respondent Mary Tranquillo filed.
Date: 01/29/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Fifth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 01/15/1998
Proceedings: Respondent`s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motions in Limine filed.
Date: 01/09/1998
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Serving Supplemental Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Date: 12/23/1997
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion in Limine filed.
Date: 12/15/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Sixth Notice of Production of Additional Discovery filed.
Date: 12/15/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Fourth Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 12/10/1997
Proceedings: Order Continuing Final Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 18-20, 1998; 9:30am)
Date: 12/09/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Fourth Notice of Production of Additional Discovery filed.
Date: 12/09/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Fifth Notice of Production of Additional Discovery; Fourth Additional Witness List; Tangible Evidence List; Third Notice of Production of Additional Discovery filed.
Date: 12/08/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Third Additional Witness List; Notice of Serving Amended Answers to Interrogatories to Petitioner; Amended Answer filed.
Date: 12/08/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Continuance; Order Granting Continuance filed.
Date: 12/04/1997
Proceedings: Notice of Final Hearing as to Location Only sent out. (hearing set for Dec. 8-10, 1997; 9:30am; St. Petersburg)
Date: 12/04/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Continuance; Order Granting Continuance (for judge signature); Cover Letter (filed via facsimile).
Date: 12/04/1997
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Allegations, Evidence or Testimony Regarding Multiple Chemical Sensitivity filed.
Date: 12/04/1997
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Allegations, Evidence or Testimony Regarding the Alleged Disability of the Respondent filed.
Date: 12/03/1997
Proceedings: CC: Letter to John Tuthill from Maria Sorolis (re: locations for hearing are suitable) filed.
Date: 11/26/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Second Additional Witness List; Additional Witness List filed.
Date: 11/24/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Second Notice of Production of Additional Discovery filed.
Date: 11/24/1997
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 11/20/1997
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Date: 11/18/1997
Proceedings: (From J. Tuthill) (2) Witness Subpoena for Deposition; (2) Affidavit of Service filed.
Date: 11/18/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Witness List filed.
Date: 11/17/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Second Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 11/12/1997
Proceedings: Third Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 11/12/1997
Proceedings: Notice of Production of Additional Discovery (Respondent) filed.
Date: 10/30/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Response to Petitioner`s Production Requests filed.
Date: 10/27/1997
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 10/15/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Request for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 08/26/1997
Proceedings: Order Continuing Final Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Dec. 8-10, 1997; 10:00am)
Date: 08/22/1997
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from Maria Sorolis (re: prehearing stipulation) (filed via facsimile).
Date: 08/22/1997
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from Maria N. Sorolis (re: request for continuance) (filed via facsimile).
Date: 08/22/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Continuance; Order Granting Continuance; Letter to Judge Johnston from J. Tuthill Re: Depositions filed.
Date: 07/23/1997
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Second Request for Information filed.
Date: 07/21/1997
Proceedings: (Defendant) Notice of Deposition filed.
Date: 07/18/1997
Proceedings: Letter to M. Sorolis & cc: J. Tuthill from Judge Johnston (re: accommodations required under disabilities act) sent out.
Date: 07/15/1997
Proceedings: (Respondent) Request for Production of Documents; Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Date: 07/10/1997
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s First Request for Information filed.
Date: 07/09/1997
Proceedings: Letter to A. Cole from J. Tuthill Re: Special accommodations filed.
Date: 06/30/1997
Proceedings: (John E. Tuthill) Notice of Appearance filed.
Date: 06/27/1997
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from M. Sorolis Re: Unavailable dates filed.
Date: 06/25/1997
Proceedings: Prehearing Order sent out.
Date: 06/25/1997
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Aug. 26-28, 1997; 9:00am; St. Petersburg)
Date: 06/13/1997
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 06/09/1997
Proceedings: Letter to C. Kuttler from M. Tranquillo Re: Requesting first request for information be answered promptly filed.
Date: 06/05/1997
Proceedings: Letter to C. Kuttler from M. Tranquillo Re: Reqesting S. Smith to compel Dr. Kuttler, Jr. and St. Petersburg Junior College to provide me with the information requested; Request for Relevant Information filed.
Date: 05/30/1997
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 05/22/1997
Proceedings: Agency Referral Letter; Request for Hearing, letter form; President`s Petition And Notice to Respondent of Hearing Rights filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Date Filed:
05/22/1997
Date Assignment:
05/30/1997
Last Docket Entry:
09/21/1998
Location:
St. Petersburg, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):