14-004929 Florida A And M University Board Of Trustees vs. Gwendolyn D. Kelly Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 18, 2015.

Summary: FAMU Reg. 10.302 Respondent violated provisions of written work standards. Dismissal is appropriate.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA A AND M UNIVERSITY BOARD

OF TRUSTEES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 4929

GWENDOLYN D. KELLY,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to no tice, a final hearing was conducted in this

case on February 12, 2015, in Tallahassee, Florida, before

Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire

Rebecca Lightle, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

906 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

For Respondent: Warren James Pearson, Esquire

1509 Twin Lakes Circle

Tallahassee, Florida 32311

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Florida A and

M University Board of Trustees (ÐFAMUÑ or the ÐUniversityÑ), had

just cause to terminate the contract of employment for

Respondent, Gwendolyn D. Kelly (ÐMs. KellyÑ).

PRELIMINARY STATE MENT

On or about July 29, 2014, FAMU notified Ms. Kelly that the

University intended to dismiss her from employment and was

placing her on administrative leave without pay. The notice

advised Ms. Kelly of her right to a Predetermination Conference

to refu te or provide explanation about the stated bases for the

intended action. Ms. Kelly availed herself of that right; the

Predetermination Conference was held on August 11, 2014.

Following the conference, the University sent Ms. Kelly a Notice

of Dismissal from Employment letter dated August 18, 2014. This

Notice advised Ms. Kelly of her right to a formal administrative

hearing to contest the dismissal. A petition for administrative

hearing was timely filed and serves as the genesis of this

proceeding.

At the final hearing, Petitioner called the following

witnesses, each of whom is an employee of FAMU: Michael

Thompson, Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical

Sciences ; Verretta Young, coordinator for administrative

services; Rodner B. Wright, De an of the School of Architecture

and Engineering; and Joyce Ingram, chief human relations officer.

FAMUÓs E xhibits 1 through 6 were admitted into evidence.

Ms. Kelly testified on her own behalf and called two other

witnesses: Thomas Fitzgerald, Assistan t Dean of the (FAMU)

College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences ; and Joyce

Harris, university steward for Florida Public Employees Council

79, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

(ÐAFSCMEÑ). Ms. KellyÓs Exhibits A through D were admitted into

evidence.

The parties i ndicated that a transcript of the final hearing

would be ordered. By rule, the parties are allowed up to ten

days after the transcript of the final hearing has been filed to

submit a proposed recommended order. T he T ranscript was filed on

February 26, 2015. The parties requested and were granted a

short extension of time to submit the p roposed r ecommended

o rders. Each party timely submitted a P roposed R ecommended O rder

and each was duly - considered in the prepara tion of this

Recommended Order. Respondent filed an Amended P roposed

R ecommended O rder; it was accepted. Petitioner filed an Amended

Proposed Recommended Order; it was accepted. (Each partyÓs

P roposed R ecommended O rder was well written and deserving of

credit for correctness, accuracy, style, and content.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the Board of Trustees at FAMU, a

university within the State university system. FAMU is a

nationally - known, historically - black college located in

Tallahassee, Flori da. By letter dated July 29, 2014, the

University notified Ms. Kelly of its intent to dismiss her from

her employment at FAMU. The basis for the dismissal related to a

memorandum Ms. Kelly had drafted, to be discussed more fully

below.

2. Ms. Kelly was an employee of FAMU from June 2004 until

her dismissal in 2014. She worked directly for Dr. Robert Thomas

from 2004 until 2008, although she continued to report to him for

one aspect of her job until the time of her dismissal. She began

working directly for Dr. Thomas Fitzgerald in 2008 .

Dr. Fitzgerald was Ms. KellyÓs direct supervisor until the date

of her termination from employment . Ms. Kelly was classified as

a program assistant and described her duties as: academic

support, doing correspondence , w riting reports relating to the

Title III grant under which she had been hired, ordering

supplies, assuring on - line courses were set up, plac ing

professional responsibilities on website, keeping the calendar

for the school, and also act ing as recording secr etary for a

committee. She made approximately $34,000 annually in that

position at all times pertinent to this proceeding.

3. Beginning in 2010, Ms. Kelly began trying to get her job

reclassified from program assistant to a position called

Coordinator/Ac ademic Support. She believed that her duties and

responsibilities had developed over the years and warranted such

a change. She also knew that the reclassification would result

in an increase in her salary. After her annual performance

evaluation in 201 0, she met with Dr. Henry Lewis , III, the Dean

of the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical S ciences at that

time , to discuss the possibility of a job reclassification.

Dr. Lewis directed her to draft a memorandum for his signature,

setting forth her dut ies and responsibilities. Ms. Kelly drafted

the memorandum and Dr. Lewis signed it. Dr. Lewis then submitted

the memorandum to the Title III office and/or human resources

(ÐHRÑ) for the purpose of getting Ms. KellyÓs position

reclassified. Apparently no action was taken on the request or

it was denied.

4. In June 2012 , Ms. Kelly approached the new Dean of the

College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical S ciences , Dr. Michael D.

Thompson, concerning her job. She requested that she be allowed

to work from home . She also reiterated to Dr. Thompson her

previous request (made to Dr. Lewis) concerning a raise and job

reclassification. Neither of her requests was granted by

Dr. Thompson. Later that year, after her annual performance

evaluation, Dr. Fitzgerald att ached a written recommendation for

reclassification and salary increase to the performance

evaluation form. Again, there was no apparent action taken on

the recommendation.

5. In October 2013, Ms. Kelly received her next annual

performance evaluation fr om Dr. Fitzgerald. Attached to the

evaluation form -- which had been signed by Dr. Fitzgerald on

October 29 and by Ms. Kelly on October 30 -- was an addendum

entitled ÐAnnual Evaluation for Gwendolyn Kelly [dated]

November 1, 2013.Ñ The attachment was verbat im to the attachment

to Ms. KellyÓs 2012 evaluation, except for the date.

Dr. Fitzgerald, whose demeanor and candor at final hearing were

greatly appreciated, had no plausible explanation for the

addendum being dated after the performance evaluation had b een

signed, except that it was a simple mistake.

6. The addendum outlined Dr. FitzgeraldÓs glowing

recommendation of Ms. KellyÓs work and described some of her job

duties and responsibilities. The addendum concluded with this

sentence, ÐIn light of the a bove - mentioned duties and

responsibilities, I recommend a salary increase and I completely

support a re - classification of Ms. KellyÓs job description from

Program Assistant to Coordinator/Academic Support.Ñ

7. Following her performance evaluation and

Dr. FitzgeraldÓs glowing recommendation, Ms. Kelly was determined

to pursue the job reclassification and salary increase she so

desired. On October 30, 2013, the very day she signed her annual

evaluation form, she drafted a memorandum (the ÐThompson

Memorand umÑ) for the signature of Dr. Thompson, who as Dr. LewisÓ

successor was Dr. FitzgeraldÓs supervisor. The Thompson

Memorandum was addressed to Dr. Wanda Ford, Interim Director of

the Title III program at FAMU. A federal Title III grant funded

the program under which Ms. Kelly was employed at FAMU.

8. The Thompson Memorandum states in pertinent part as

follows:

I am submitting this recommendation and

supporting documentation for a job

reclassification for Ms. Gwendolyn D. Kelly

to Coordinator/Academic Supp ort. Ms. KellyÓs

job responsibilities and the performance of

her duties exceed her current job

classification as Program Assistant.

[Description of job duties and

responsibilities]

In light of Ms. KellyÓs duties and

responsibilities, I am recommending a

reclassification of her job description from

Program Assistant to Coordinator/Academic

Support. This reclassification will involve

an annual pay rate increase to $60,000

annually.

Please do not hesitate to call me should you

have questions regarding this job

reclassification recommendation.

MDT/gk

9. The Thompson Memorandum was essentially identical to the

memorandum she had drafted at the behest of the former dean,

Dr. Lewis, following her annual evaluation in 2010. The 2010

version of the memor andum, however, recommended a raise in pay

rate to $43,000 annually. The $60,000 figure in the Thompson

Memorandum came from an informal survey done by Ms. Kelly on the

internet. She looked at the salary of other persons designated

as Coordinator/Academi c Support personnel in the state university

system. She found that many of them had higher salaries than her

current pay rate. At least one of those persons had a salary of

$50,000. Based upon her investigation, Ms. Kelly decided on

$60,000 as the appro priate salary for the position she was

seeking. It is possible she was using that figure as a starting

point for negotiations, but that is not clear from the evidence

presented.

10. Ms. Kelly says she took the Thompson Memorandum to

Dr. ThompsonÓs assi stant, Verretta Young, so that it would be

presented to Dr. Thompson for signature. Ms. Young has no

recollection of ever seeing the Thompson Memorandum before it

became an issue in the decision to terminate Ms. KellyÓs

employment. She handles all of Dr. ThompsonÓs incoming documents

and believes the content of the memorandum, especially the

$60,000 salary, would have caused her to remember it. Her

testimony in that regard is credible. Other than Ms. KellyÓs

self - serving statement, there is no competent evidence to support

her contention that the memorandum was provided to Ms. Young or

Dr. Thompson at that time .

11. Dr. Thompson did not authorize the Thompson Memorandum.

He did not direct Ms. Kelly to prepare the Thompson Memorandum.

Neither Ms. Kel ly nor her supervisor, Dr. Fitzgerald, approached

Dr. Thompson at that time to request that he acquiesce to such a

document (or to the reclassification and raise). As of

October 2013, the date of the Thompson Memorandum, Dr. Thompson

was not aware of its existence.

12. In the summer of 2014, Ms. Kelly was made aware that a

co - worker had received a merit bonus. Upon learning that fact,

Ms. Kelly again asked Dr. Fitzgerald about Ðher reclassification

and raise.Ñ He seemed surprised that nothing had been d one about

those issues following the 2013 performance evaluation. 1/

Dr. Fitzgerald said that he would go see Dr. Ford in the Title

III office to find out why. Ms. Kelly asked Dr. Fitzgerald to

draft a letter of support for her and give the letter to

Dr. Ford. She then showed Dr. Fitzgerald the Thompson Memorandum

she had written for Dr. ThompsonÓs signature, ostensibly for the

purpose of giving Dr. Fitzgerald critical information for the

letter he was going to write. Dr. Fitzgerald presumed the

Thompson Memorandum had been signed and approved by Dr. Thompson

(although the copy he was provided was not signed). Ms. Kelly

did not tell him otherwise. Dr. Fitzgerald prepared a letter for

presentation to Dr. Ford in the Title III office, using the

Thompson M emorandum as a guide for filling in the details of his

letter. Dr. Fitzgerald presumed that his letter was Ðsimply

reinforcingÑ what Dr. Thompson had already approved.

Dr. Fitzgerald then went to the Title III office to inquire about

the job reclassifica tion and pay raise. He presented a copy of

his letter and a copy of the Thompson Memorandum to Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford said she had not previously received the Thompson

Memorandum. Upon reflection, Dr. Fitzgerald said he would

Ðprobably notÑ have written his letter if he had known

Dr. Thompson had not approved the Thompson Memorandum beforehand.

13. The Title III office advised Dr. Fitzgerald that it

would be necessary for Dr. Thompson to be involved in any request

for a change in Ms. KellyÓs status because he (Dr. Thompson) was

in charge of the program for which Ms. Kelly worked. In fact,

Ms. KellyÓs position was under a federal grant that has a four -

or five - year budget. The salaries for all persons working within

the grant have to be set in advance ; they cannot be adjusted

until the grant is renewed.

14. After talking to Dr. Ford, Dr. Fitzgerald went to see

Dr. Thompson and while talking about the situation showed him the

Thompson Memorandum. Dr. Thompson, who had not authorized

Ms. Kelly to prepare the Thompson Memorandum, was incensed. He

could not believe someone would present a memorandum prepared for

his signature to the Title III office as if he had approved the

request. As far as he knew at that time, it is exactly what had

transpired.

15. U p on being shown the Thompson Memorandum, Dr. Thompson

called Ms. Kelly to join him and Dr. Fitzgerald in his office.

Dr. Thompson asked her if she had prepared the document and she

stated that she had. She told Dr. Thompson that it Ðwas no big

dealÑ and s howed no remorse about drafting the document without

his approval. Ms. Kelly could not understand Dr. ThompsonÓs

agitation concerning the Thompson Memorandum because she

purportedly had written it as a draft; if Dr. Thompson did not

agree with the content s, he did not have to sign it.

Dr. Thompson, on the other hand, could not believe this employee

had made an assumption about what he (Dr. Thompson) thought

concerning the employeeÓs job status. Absent some conversation

about the topic, the employee would not be privy to

Dr. ThompsonÓs thoughts on the issue. Dr. Thompson was

exasperated and cut the meeting short, walking out of the

conference room without further comment. He then called the

UniversityÓs HR office to seek guidance on how to proceed.

16. The next day Dr. Thompson called Dr. Fitzgerald and

Ms. Kelly back to his office, as HR had advised him to do. He

again questioned Ms. Kelly about authorship of the Thompson

Memorandum. Ms. Kelly still showed no remorse for having drafted

the Thompson Me morandum, saying she had done the same for

Dr. Lewis in 2010. Ms. Kelly did not mention to Dr. Thompson

that Dr. Lewis had asked her to draft a memorandum for him. She

did attempt to justify the almost doubling of her salary by

telling Dr. Thompson it me rely reflected ÐinflationÑ and that

Ðthings go up.Ñ Dr. Fitzgerald went to Ms. KellyÓs defense, but

stated he believed he was supporting Dr. ThompsonÓs position.

That was an erroneous assumption. Dr. Thompson felt as though

Ms. Kelly was smirking, that she did not appreciate the gravity

of the situation. He again terminated the meeting fairly

abruptly.

17. After the meeting, Dr. Fitzgerald and Ms. Kelly

discussed Dr. ThompsonÓs comments. Ms. Kelly could not

understand why Dr. Thompson was so upset. S he maintained that

drafting the memorandum for Dr. ThompsonÓs signature was

completely innocent. Dr. Fitzgerald believed her and was

determined to support Ms. Kelly however he could. It is

difficult to comprehend how Ms. Kelly believed her actions to be

innocuous and Ðno big deal,Ñ but it is clear that was her

thinking.

18. As it turns out, the Thompson Memorandum in and of

itself could not have effectuated the job reclassification and

salary increase sought by Ms. Kelly. It was an integral part to

the process, but was not -- standing alone -- a vehicle for meeting

her goal. The evidence presented at final hearing was

contradictory as to the actual process for obtaining a raise and

job reclassification. There is no evidence that at the time she

wrote the m emorandum, Ms. Kelly knew the memorandum was

insufficient for that purpose. The most logical and reasonable

presumption to be drawn from the facts presented was that

Ms. Kelly believed the Thompson Memorandum would provide the

results she was seeking.

1 9. After thinking about the situation some more, in late

July 2014 , Dr. Thompson decided that he would seek termination of

Ms. KellyÓs employment on the basis of his Ðlack of trustÑ for

the employee. Thinking that if Ms. Kelly was comfortable

drafting a document such as the Thompson Memorandum without prior

approval, Dr. Thompson lost confidence that she would act

appropriately regarding her other duties. Besides, Dr. Thompson

knew the memorandum to be inaccurate in some respects. For

example, Ms. Kelly had included as one of her job duties that she

Ðmonitors the patient assessment lab budget and manages office

and laboratory supply inventories, as well as provides written

and oral responses to inquiries pertaining to the patient

assessment lab budget an d supplies.Ñ Dr. Thompson said those

duties d id not exist after the lab was initially stocked. The

statement in the memorandum was untrue or, at best, embellished.

20. Dr. Thompson discussed the matter with Interim Provost

and Vice President of Academ ic Affairs, Rodner B. Wright.

Provost Wright prepared a Notice of Intent to Dismiss from

Employment and a Notice of Administrative Leave without Pay, to

be hand - delivered to Ms. Kelly. The Notices were dated July 29,

2014. The stated charges in the Noti ce of Intent were:

1) Falsification of records; and 2) Conduct unbecoming a public

employee. At final hearing, Dr. Thompson seemed completely

serious and truthful about his displeasure with the fact the

memorandum had been prepared. He credibly expresse d his

rationale concerning the need to terminate Ms. KellyÓs

employment.

21. It seems somewhat incongruent, but o n the same day the

Notice of Intent was being prepared, Dr. Fitzgerald and Ms. Kelly

met with the AFSCME university steward, Joyce Harris, abo ut

Ms. KellyÓs desired job reclassification and raise. Ms. Harris

advised them to submit a request for a desk audit, as that was a

preliminary step in obtaining the reclassification and raise

Ms. Kelly was seeking. Ms. Harris was told about Dr. ThompsonÓ s

anger concerning the Thompson Memorandum, but she said he must be

included in the request for a desk audit because he oversaw the

program. That is consistent with what Dr. Ford had advised Dr.

Fitzgerald earlier. Dr. Fitzgerald prepared a memorandum to the

Human Resources office at FAMU. The memorandum contained

signature lines for himself, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Thompson.

Dr. Fitzgerald and Dr. Thomas each signed the memorandum, but

when Dr. Thompson received the memorandum (on an unknown later

date) he predictably wrote ÐNot approvedÑ on his signature line.

22. The very next day, Friday, July 30, the Notice of

Intent letter was hand - delivered to Ms. Kelly at around 4:30 or

5:00 p.m. Ms. Kelly then left her office not fully understanding

whether the notice was effective immediately or not. Later that

evening, Dr. Fitzgerald called to tell her it was effective

immediately. She did not return to work after that date.

23. The Notice of Intent contained a provision granting

Ms. Kelly the right to requ est a Predetermination Conference to

discuss her response to the charges against her. She opted to

attend the Predetermination Conference, and did so with

Dr. Fitzgerald and Ms. Harris as support. The conference was

held on August 11. At that time, Ms. Kelly was allowed to state

her defenses and responses to the charges against her. She read

a three - page letter that she had written and submitted the letter

and various attachments to the committee conducting the

conference. (Her letter and attachments w ere not introduced into

evidence at final hearing and do not form a basis for the

findings and conclusions in this Recommended Order.)

24. Meanwhile, Dr. Fitzgerald continued to support

Ms. Kelly. He sent a letter to Provost Wright on August 8

stating his continuing support for Ms. Kelly and re - asserting his

recommendation for a job reclassification and raise.

Dr. Fitzgerald did not suggest what Ms. KellyÓs salary should be.

He frankly admitted that had he paid particular attention to the

Thompson Mem orandum when it was presented to him, he would have

questioned the $60,000 proposed salary. That would constitute an

almost fifty percent increase in salary for Ms. Kelly.

25. On August 18, 2014, a Notice of Dismissal from

Employment was sent by regular U.S. Mail and via Certified Mail

to Ms. Kelly. The notice again cited the same two bases for

termination of her employment: Falsification of records, and

Conduct unbecoming a public employee. The first charge related

to the presentation of the Thompson Memorandum to Dr. Fitzgerald

without explaining that it had never been approved by

Dr. Thompson. The second charge related to Ms. KellyÓs action in

preparing a substantive document allegedly for signature by

someone other than her supervisor, especially when that document

was to be used to obtain a significant raise for herself.

26. Other than the generation of lack of trust by one of

Ms. KellyÓs superiors, there are no Ðaggravating factorsÑ in this

case. The fact that Ms. Kelly proposed an almost fifty percent

salary increase for herself, based solely on general salary

information obtained on the internet, is naïve and baseless, but

not especially egregious.

27. Ms. Kelly offers the fact that she previously prepared

a similar memorandum for Dr. LewisÓ signature as a mitigating

factor. However, that factor is outweighed by the fact that

Dr. Lewis instructed Ms. Kelly to draft the memorandum for his

signature while Dr. Thompson did not.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to a contract between the Division and

Florida A and M University. The proceeding is governed by

sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2014). Unless

spec ifically set forth otherwise herein, all references to

statutes will be to the 2014 version.

29. As the party seeking the termination of an employeeÓs

employment contract, the University carries the burden of proof,

by a preponderance of the evidence, tha t the basis for

termination is true. Allen v. Sch. Brd. of Dade Cty. , 571 So. 2d

568 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1990).

30. The termination of Ms. KellyÓs employment was based

upon two of FAMUÓs Regulations and Policies contained within

Regulation 10.302, ÐDisciplin ary and Separation from Employment

Actions for University Support Personnel System Employees.Ñ The

two regulations at issue are as follows:

Regulation 10.302(3)(w) Falsification of

Records Î This includes misrepresentation,

falsification or omission of an y fact,

whether verbal or written, of work and

production records including attendance and

leave, employment status, employment

application, travel vouchers, work orders,

and payroll certifications.

Regulation 10.302(3)(cc) Conduct Unbecoming a

Public Emp loyee Î Conduct, whether on or off

the job, that adversely affects the

employeeÓs ability to continue to perform

his/her current job, or which adversely

affects the UniversityÓs ability to carry out

its assigned mission.

31. It is undisputed that Ms. Kel ly drafted the Thompson

Memorandum without authorization from its purported author. She

did not forge Dr. ThompsonÓs name or specifically convey to

anyone that Dr. Thompson had actually written the memorandum.

She did, however, present the memorandum to her supervisor,

Dr. Fitzgerald, without explaining that the memorandum had not

been reviewed or approved by Dr. Thompson. She did not check

with Dr. Thompson or anyone in his office to find out the status

of his approval or denial of the memorandumÓs cont ent. Ms. Kelly

is guilty of the Ðomission of any factÑ portion of Regulation

10.302(3)(w). She failed to mention to Dr. Fitzgerald or

Dr. Ford that she alone had drafted the memorandum and had not

received any authority from Dr. Thompson to use or distri bute the

document.

32. Despite Ms. KellyÓs representation that she was simply

displaying ÐinitiativeÑ by drafting the memorandum without being

asked to do so, such an action was not justified in her job

description. She said she had never had an occasi on before to

draft a document for Dr. Thompson (or anyone else) without being

asked to do so. Her ÐinitiativeÑ was self - serving and appears to

be less than forthright, especially in light of never presenting

the memorandum to Dr. Thompson for review.

33. If there was a requirement in the cited Regulations for

intentional ly wrongful actions, Ms. Kelly may not be deemed

guilty of violating them. She seemed to be sincere in her belief

that what she had done was not wrong. She simply fails to

understand the significance of her actions. There was no mens

rea or guilty intent proven by the University. But the evidence

does support that Ms. Kelly falsified records by failing to

advise her supervisor that the Thompson Memorandum was not of

Dr. ThompsonÓs doing or acquiescence. And despite her claim of

acting per initiative, her somewhat subversive distribution of

the memorandum through Dr. Fitzgerald constituted conduct

unbecoming a public employee.

34. Having found that Ms. Kelly violated the two

Regulation s at issue, the question of the appropriate level of

discipline must be addressed. Under Regulation 10.302(2)(c),

dismissal of an employee (i.e., termination of employment) may be

appropriate for the initial discipline for a serious offense.

Falsificatio n of records and conduct unbecoming a public employee

are arguably serious offenses. Thus, even though progressive

discipline was not followed in this matter, termination of

employment is justified.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fa ct and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final or der be entered by the Florida

A and M University Board of Trustees, upholding the termination

of Respondent , Gwendolyn KellyÓs employment.

DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March , 2015 , in

Ta llahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 18th day of March , 2015 .

ENDNOTE

1/ Ms. Kelly said she had not followed up with Dr. Thompson about

the memorandum she had written some nine months ago because of

several serious personal issues in her life.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Abigail V. Raddar, Agency Clerk

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University

Office of the General Counsel

FHAC, Suite 304

1700 Lee Hall Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32 307

(eServed)

Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire

Rebecca Lightle, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

906 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

(eServed)

Warren James Pearson, Esquire

1509 Twin Lakes Circle

Tallahassee, Florida 32311

(eServed)

Avery D. McKnight, General Counsel

Florida A and M University

FHAC, Suite 304

1700 Lee Hall Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32307 - 3100

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.