SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Petitioner,
Case No.: SC11-1622

Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2D10-5197
05-CA-7205
vs.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. and
William J. Cook,
Respondents.
________________________________________/
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
APPENDIX, VOLUME 14
Respondents Representation of Petitioner in Florida Vocational Rehabilitation
Exhibit 1
2001, 03-22-01, Letter, Gillespie to Mr. Cook, Barker, Rodems &
Cook, Florida Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES CASE NO: 98-066-DVR

Exhibit 2
Second Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, 06-07-98
Exhibit 3
Third Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, 07-02-98
Exhibit 4
Petitioners Motion for Final Summary Order, 10-02-98
Exhibit 5
Petitioners Notice of Withdrawal Of Request for Hearing, 11-09-98
Exhibit 6
Order Dismissing and Closing the File, Final Order, 11-12-98
Exhibit 7
2001, 03-27-01, Mr. Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook, to Gillespie, re DVR
Neil J. Gillespie
1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt. C-2
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434
Telephone and Fax: (727) 823-2390

March 22, 2001
William 1. Cook, Attorney at Law
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150
Tampa, Florida 33606
Dear Bill,
Thank you for agreeing to consider my claim of discrimination/negligence against
the State of Florida and its Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Enclosed please find the
following:
1.
My Second and Third (final) Amended Petitions for Administrative Hearing.
These documents set forth much of my claim.
2.
My Motionfor Summary Final Order. The Administrative Law Judge (Johnston)
failed to rule on my motion. The state's response was to try and expand the issues and
compel another psychiatric exam. Seeing this was going nowhere, I motioned to
withdrawal the request. (See my motion, the order and final order, enclosed).
3.
October 5, 1998 letter from Douglas Ligibel, Fla. DVR. This "addendum" letter
sets forth the state's claim that I was not cooperative as a reason to deny services.
4.
Binder with the Fla. Vocational Rehabilitation web site printed out. (not current)
5.
Photo of me taken June 6, 1994 (at 150 pounds) before afilicted with depression
(current weight 290 pounds).
6.
A brief medical history relevant to VR.
In essence, the state discriminated against me based on disability and refused

services as set forth in the petitions. As a result I became severely depressed. The state is
negligent because its own psychologist (Dr. Justice) warned of my depression risk, a
warning the state ignored. The state also misdiagnosed my condition(s). There may be a
breach ofprivacy relevant to my file. During the time referenced by Mr. Ligibel in his
October 5, 1998 letter (item 3, above) my contact with the state was monitored by a
private lawyer, Mark Kamleiter, who disputes the allegations contained therein.
Ne'.~f:~~
osure~ie""t
en
Ps. Bill, these are mostly original documents, please copy and return if needed. Thanks.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 2001
BY:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner,
vs.
DLES CASE NO: 98-066-DVR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

DIVISION
OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION,
E~LOYMENT SECURITY,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
NEIL J. GILLESPIE petitions the Division of Administrative Hearings for an

E~LOYMENT
administrative hearing against the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
SECURITY, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITION, Respondent.

I. Interest in Action
Petitioner is Neil J. Gillespie, 1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt., C-2, St. Petersburg,
Florida, 33701-1434. Respondent's determination affects petitioner's substantial interests
by denying him the vocational rehabilitation services he needs to return to employment.
II. Notice of Agency Decision
Respondent notified petitioner of its decision on December 4, 1997, by letter.
(Attached as Exhibit 1). Respondent's employee, Douglas M.
Ligibe~
Vocational
Rehabilitation Consultant, hand delivered the letter to petitioner during a meeting at the
rd
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) office located at 3251 3 Ave. North,

St. Petersburg, Florida. The meeting was also attended by petitioner's representative, Mark
Kamleiter, Attorney at Law, and another DVR employee.
Page - 1
III. Disputed Issues of Material Fact

Petitioner disputes respondent's determination which states, "It has been determined
that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your disability is too
severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in employment." (Exh. 1). Petitioner
states that vocational rehabilitation (VR) services can reasonably be expected to result in
competitive employment consistent with his unique strengths, priorities, concerns, abilities,
capabilities, career interests, and informed choice. Petitioner alleges that respondent
unlawfully failed to provide petitioner VR services because of its perception of his disability.
Petitioner believes that respondent's behavior is unlawful discrimination.
IV. Background Information

Respondent's current determination is the latest in its ongoing efforts (beginning in
1993) to unlawfully deny petitioner VR services. On December 9, 1997, petitioner received
a copy ofhis DVR file, including internal case notes, a total of 462 documents. The
documents provide evidence of respondent's unlawful and discriminatory behavior.
Petitioner was born with a craniofacial disorder resulting in a serious speech
impairment (velopharyngeal incompetence), a disabling condition substantially limiting his
speaking ability and employment options. Petitioner compensated for his disability through
self-employment. As such, he was a productive member of society and a member in good
standing in the community. Beginning in 1985, petitioner initiated his own habilitation plan
and underwent several reconstructive surgeries and other treatment at his own expense. In
December, 1991, petitioner became unemployed and was unable to find competitive
employment. He applied for disability benefits in 1993 and Social Security promptly
approved his claim.
Page - 2
In an effort to secure competitive employment consistent with his unique strengths,

priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, career interests, and informed choice, petitioner
applied for VR services with respondent on May 17, 1993. During the course of contacts
between the parties, respondent acted unlawfully in the provision ofVR services to
petitioner. Respondent's unlawful behavior ultimately led petitioner to contact the Client
Assistance Program (CAP) for assistance. The CAP interceded on petitioner's behalf:
compelling respondent to develop an Individual Written Rehabilitation Program (~WRP),
which it signed with petitioner on March 29, 1994. The IWRP lists petitioner's vocational
goal as General Practitioner. (Attached as Exhibit 2). Respondent also prepared a
vocational screening supporting petitioner's vocational retraining and medical restoration.
(Attached as Exhibit 3). Nonetheless, the IWRP was never implemented, and now, four
years later, respondent's internal case notes reveal it as a sham, a "smoking gun" document
pointing toward respondent's unlawful and discriminatory behavior.
In his original application for VR services, petitioner sought restoration of a physical
disability (speech) which respondent interpreted as an indication of a psychological disorder
and chose not to accommodate. In assessing petitioner's physical disability and treatment
options, respondent's employees became angry with petitioner over his request to make
informed choices. One of respondent's internal documents refers to petitioner's disability
with an offensive epitaph instead of appropriate medical terminology. Respondent's
psychologist complained about petitioner's disability determination by Social Security
during the assessment process. Respondent's own statistics reveal that speech disabilities
are its least served category of disability, more "smoking gun" documentary evidence that
petitioner was in a class of persons not served, or under served, by DVR.
Page - 3
Respondent's unlawful behavior toward petitioner severely damaged the agency

client relationship. Respondent's employee counseled petitioner to seek services in a more
"liberal" state. Respondent also viewed petitioner as a non-Floridian with insufficient
residency to receive services. Petitioner ultimately went to
Olymp~ Washingto~ where
in
October, 1994, he was promptly determined eligible for VR services on the basis of the
same medical and psychological data available to Florida DVR. Petitioner obtained a year of
college training through the Washington DVR progr~ and other services. Petitioner also
obtained a temporary speech prosthesis through Medicare.. After meeting all terms and
conditions of his plan, petitioner returned to his home in Florida where he currently resides.
Upon arriving in St. Petersburg petitioner again sought the VR services he needs to
obtain competitive employment consistent with his unique strengths, priorities, concerns,
abilities, capabilities, career interests, and informed choice. To facilitate the process,
petitioner obtained the assistance of a
pers~nal
representative, but to no avail. The Client
Assistance Program has once again determined that respondent acted unlawfully toward
petitioner. CAP determined that the current case closure is unlawful. Petitioner has filed a
charge of disability discrimination against respondent with the EEOC because respondent
admits that it closed petitioners case because of its perception ofhis disability.
v. Respondent's Determination is Unlawful

A. Petitioner is eligible for VR services as a matter of law.
1. .
Petitioner receives Social Security Disability benefits pursuant to
Title II of the Social Security Act. Petitioner is therefore eligible for VR

services pursuant to Florida statutory law, FS 413.30, Eligibility for
vocational rehabilitation services.
Page - 4
a. FS 413.30(1) states, "A person is eligible for vocational

rehabilitation if the person has a disability and requires vocational
rehabilitation services to prepare for, enter, engage in, or retain gainful
employment." Petitioner meets this criteria ab initio, because FS 413.30(2)
states (substantive portion) "Individuals determined to have a disability
pursuant to either Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act shall be
considered to have a physical or mental impairment that constitutes or
results in a substantial impediment to employment and a severe physical or
mental impairment that seriously limits one or more functional capacities in
terms of an employment outcome."
b. Petitioner is presumed to benefit from VR services pursuant to
FS 413.30(3) which states, "An individual shall be presumed to benefit in
terms of an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services
under this part unless the division can demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that the individual is incapable of benefiting from vocational
rehabilitation services in terms of an employment outcome. To demonstrate
that an individual cannot benefit from vocational rehabilitation services due
to the severity of the individual's disability, the division shall conduct an
extended evaluation, not to exceed 18 months. The evaluation must
determine the eligibility of the individual and the nature and scope of needed
vocational rehabilitation services. The extended evaluation must be reviewed
once every 90 days to determine whether the individual is eligible for
vocational rehabilitation services."
Page - 5
c.
Respondent has not demonstrated by "clear and convincing
evidence" that petitioner is too severely disabled for VR services to result in

employment. Petitioner seeks a review of the rehabilitation counselor
determination pursuant to 34 CFR 361.57.
VI. Evidence of respondent's unlawful and discriminatory behavior.

A.
Petitioner receives copies his DVR files and internal case notes.
1.
Excerpt from case notes of Robert E. Williams, VR Counselor:

a. 7/15/93 "I also felt that a congenital disability and extensive
surgeries have had psychological effects that need to be explored."
i. Respondent was hostile to petitioner's exercise of informed
choice pursuant to 34 CFR 361.52.
ii. Respondent failed to assess petitioner consistent with his

strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities,
capabilities, and informed choice, pursuant to 34 CFR
361.42(a)(1)and(2) and 361.45.
2.
Respondent used an offensive epithet to describe petitioner's
disability instead of appropriate medical terminology.

a. Respondent described petitioner's primary disability as "cleft
palate/harelip" on its vocational rehabilitation acceptance form dated
7/30/93. The term "harelip" is offensive and not appropriate medical
terminology.
Page - 6
3.
Respondent's psychological assessments of petitioner are negligent,
discriminatory, and without informed choice pursuant to 34 CFR 361.52.

a. Negligent assessments produced different diagnoses from the same
facts, and the lack of an accurate diagnosis has harmed petitioner.
b. Respondent's psychologist challenged petitioner's Social Security
determination during assessment, a move hostile to FS 413.30 (2).
4.
Excerpts from case notes of Brad Meyer, VR Counselor:

a. 9/1/93 "In any event there appears to be severe damage between
the relationship of the agency to this client."
i. This damage stems from respondent's unlawful behavior

described above in VI.(A)(I)(a)(i) and (ii). Respondent's
behavior inflicted psychological injury on petitioner.
b. 3/24/94 "There was some discussion about commuting for medical
care and continuing to reside here. This option is still open."
i. This option was necessary because of the severe damage to

the client relationship.
c. 3/29/94 "I informed Tessie [sic] I would write an IWRP for
planning purposes only and it would ~ labeled as such. This IWRP
would be a working document and would not bind the agency in any
way."
i. Because respondent acted unlawfully toward him, petitioner

contacted the Client Assistance Program (CAP) for help.
Page - 7
ii. Tessa (Mary Little), a CAP employee, interceded on

petitioner's behalf: resulting in the development ofan IWRP.
iii. The IWRP was not labeled "for planning purposes only,"
and was presented to petitioner as a bona fide document
binding the agency. Moreover, petitioner was never notified
ofhis case closure pursuant to this IWRP, which provides for
services through February, 2003. (Exh. 2).
d. 6/1/94 "Mr. Gillespie contacts me and informs me not to close his
case as he will be returning to Florida."
i. Respondent is kept informed of petitioner's whereabouts
and his continued interest in vocational rehabilitation.
e. 6/10/94 "Mr. Gillespie contacts the office indicating he will be
returning to Florida We discussed at length the pros and cons of
coming back to Florida. Neil is still exploring options of moving to
the State ofWashingto~ where residency and VR services are more
liberal."
i. Respondent counsels petitioner not to return to Florida and

to seek services in a more "liberal" state. Respondent's action
is contrary to the Supremacy Clause ofthe United States
Constitution (Article VI) and the fourteenth amendment.
li. " ...once a state elects to establish a program of public
assistance, it must meet constitutional standards, and may not
Page - 8
arbitrarily deny to some of its citizens the benefits of such a

program..." (57 Fla Jur 2d, Welfare, page 37).
5.
Petitioner received VR services in the State of Washington.

a. Washington DVR provided services to petitioner on the basis of
the same medical and psychological data available to Florida DVR.
Washington DVR promptly determined petitioner eligible for
services, and his file indicates that he met all program requirements.
6.
Petitioner returned to his home in St. Petersburg,
Florid~
November,
1996, and contacted respondent to continue the VR process.

a. Respondent's Mirror Lake DVR office failed to process and assess
petitioner pursuant to FS 413.30(2) and (3). Instead, respondent
sent petitioner to its Pinellas Park DVR office.
b. On December 16, 1996, petitioner met with respondent's
employee Eugene Marbeiter in its Pinellas Park DVR office. Mr.
Marbeiter refused to process and assess petitioner pursuant to FS
413.30(2) and (3). Mr. Marbeiter greeted petitioner's efforts with
"fighting words," inflicting psychological injury on petitioner.
c. On January 15, 1997, respondent's employee Tracy Van Ess wrote
petitioner a letter that was clearly offensive. Respondent's clearly
offensive letter inflicted psychological injury on petitioner.
d. Petitioner's attorney responded to the unlawful behavior cited in
the preceding three paragraphs by letter dated March 17, 1997.
(Attached as Exhibit 4).
Page - 9
7.
Petitioner's current case: Douglas M. Ligibel acts unlawfully.

a. Respondent failed to process and assess petitioner pursuant to FS
413.30 (2) and (3). Mr. Ligibel unlawfully required petitioner to

document his disability above and beyond the Social Security
determination prescribed by FS 413.30 (2). Mr. Ligibel unlawfully
closed petitioner's case as "too severe" without demonstrating the
clear and convincing evidence required by FS 413.30 (3).
b. Respondent failed to allow petitioner the opportunity to make
informed choices pursuant to 34 CFR 361.52 concerning
assessment services.
i. Petitioner's IWRP dated July 31, 1997, was made without

informed choice. Petitioner disaffirmed the document the
following day by telephone call to Mr. Ligibel, and by letter
to him dated August 3, 1997.
c. Mr. Ligibel failed to develop an IWRP with petitioner pursuant to
34 CFR 361.45 and 361.46.
d. Information in petitioner's record of services is inaccurate or
misleading, specifically Mr. Ligibel's case notes regarding:
i. Petitioner's historical information concerning employment,

educatio~
medical, personal and other data.
li. Petitioner's current case information.

e. Some information and documents in petitioner's record of services
were obtained under false pretenses, including documents and
Page - 10
information obtained in conjunction with respondent's demand that
petitioner meet eligibility standards other t~ or above and beyond,
those set forth by FS 413.30 (2) and (3).
Mr. Ligibel's behavior was hostile and outrageous dwing the
December 4, 1997, meeting pursuant to
~4
CFR 361.43 (a). (This
example is illustrative and not inclusive).
i. Mr. Ligibel stated that petitioner's dismissal from ajob with

Yellow Cab Company was evidence that he was ''too severely
disabled," even though petitioner's exposure to second hand
tobacco smoke while working made him ill. Respondent's
position violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
li. Mr. Ligibel rejected petitioner's plea that the job was a
health hazard because the company ignored the Florida Clean
Indoor Air Act, FS 386. Mr. Ligibel's callous disregard for
petitioner's health inflicted psychological injury on him.
iii. Petitioner wants the record to reflect that he sued the cab
company pro se over the dismissal and prevailed at trial. A
copy of the Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit 5.
iv. Petitioner also wants the record to reflect that Florida
State Representative Margo Fischer supports petitioner's
position relative to the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act and the
cab company. A copy of her letter is attached as Exhibit 6.
Page - 11
B.
Respondent refuses to provide petitioner the VR services he needs to

return to competitive employment and contribute to society.
1.
Respondent interpreted petitioner's initial 1993 request for treatment
of a physical disability (speech) as an indication of a mental disorder which

respondent chose not to accommodate.
2.
Speech disabilities are the least served disability by respondent, and
its 1996 statistics show that only 21 individuals with speech disabilities were
rehabilitated out of a total of 8,850 persons rehabilitated. DVR speech
rehabilitation amounts to less that
3.
of 1% of all persons it rehabilitated.
Respondent continues to unlawfully deny petitioner VR services
because of its interpretation ofhis disability. Respondent's December 4,

1997, letter to petitioner states the following: "It has been determined that
you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your
disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in
employment."
4.
Respondent has an obligation under the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, as
amended, to serve individuals with most severe disabilities.

5.
Respondent has acted in bad faith toward petitioner throughout the
vocational rehabilitation process. In addition to the information already

provided, respondent views petitioner as a non-Floridian with insufficient
residency, a violation of34 CFR 361.42(b)(I).
Page - 12
6.
The extent to which persons with disabilities are discriminated
against is documented by the United States Congress in its findings and

purpose to the Americans with Disabilities Act, attached as Exhibit 7.
7.
Petitioner has filed a charge of disability discrimination against
respondent with the EEOC, copy attached as Exhibit 8.

8.
As a result of respondent's unlawful and discriminatory behavior
against
petitioner has suffered psychological injury and result~g pain
and suffering, disability, mental anguis~ loss of capacity for the enjoyment
of life, loss of family association, expenses related to procuring replacement
vocational rehabilitation services, medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of
ability to earn money, loss of benefit from participating in the vocational
rehabilitation program, including the loss of education, tuition, books,
supplies, career training, job placement services, and TJTC available under
petitioner's 1994 IWRP, and aggravation of a previously existing condition.
The losses are either permanent or continuing and petitioner will suffer the
losses in the future.
VII. Conclusion
Petitioner established that he is disabled and entitled to vocational rehabilitation
services. Both the federal government and the State of Washington promptly determined
petitioner eligible to receive, and benefit
fro~
disability and vocational rehabilitation
services. Respondent stands alone in its unlawful and discriminatory treatment of petitioner
by denying him vocational rehabilitation services. In the administratIon of vocational
rehabilitation services, Respondent has failed to comply substantially with the plan.
Page - 13
WHEREFORE petitioner demands the following relief:

1.
Notification to the Secretary pursuant to 34 CFR 361.1 I (a)(2) to withhold
funds because in the administration of the State plan there has been a failure to
comply substantially with provisions of the plan. (And to withhold funds until such
time as respondent fully complies with the State plan and 1973 Rehabilitation Act).
2.
Stop the closure of petitioner's case, provide him a change of counselor, and
implement petitioner's IWRP attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

3.
In the alternative to providing the relief requested in paragraph two of the
prayer for relief: respondent shall compensate petitioner for his losses suffered,
under any of the following: the Americans with Disabilities Act (as amended), The
1973 Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended),
FS 760, Civil Rights, and any other means available.
4.
Amend petitioner's record of services to correct inaccurate and
misleading information pursuant to 34 CFR 361.38(c)(4). Petitioner demands the

following:
a. Removal of inaccurate information from petitioner's case notes, file, or
other storage medium, with a notation in the file of this action.
b. Removal from petitioner's file all documents obtained by respondent from
petitioner under false pretenses, including documents and information obtained in
conjunction with respondent's demand that petitioner meet eligibility standards other
than, or above and beyond, those set forth by FS 413 (2) and (3). Petitioner
demands return of the information and documents, and destruction of all copies in
respondent's possession, with a notation in the file of this action.
Page - 14
c. Clarification of misleading information in the case notes, with a notation in

the file of this action.
d. Inclusion of education records pursuant to 34 CFR 361.42 (c)( 1),
specifically comments from narrative academic evaluations.
e. Inclusion of comments from petitioner's work site assessment, pursuant to
34 CFR 361.42 (c)(2), with Kelly Services, specifically that his supervisor found
him to be "great", "reliable", and "one of her favorites", and that "Mr. Gillespie was
always available when she called and looks forward to working with him again."
5.
Transportation pursuant to 34 CFR 361.48 (a)(8), in connection with the
travel and relocation expenses required to obtain vocatiorial rehabilitation services in

Washington State. Respondent's employee counseled petitioner to relocate and
obtain services in a "liberal" state. Out-of-State services are authorized under 34
CFR 361.50. Petitioner demands $5,012.
6.
Maintenance pursuant to 34 CFR 361.48 (a)(7), in connection with the
extraordinary expenses that petitioner incurred by participating in vocational

rehabilitation services in Washington State. Respondent's employee counseled
petitioner to relocate and obtain services in a "liberal" state. Out-of-State services
are authorized under 34 CFR 361.50. Petitioner demands $7,451.
7.
Physical restoration services pursuant to 34 CFR 361.48 (a)(5) for
services needed relative to petitioner's speech prosthesis, and as provided in

petitioner's IWRP attached as Exhibit 2. Petitioner demands $950.
8.
Tuition and books for petitioner's current studies at St. Petersburg Junior
College, pursuant to 34 CFR 361.48 (a)(6). Petitioner's IWRP, attached as
Page - 15
Exhibit 2, provides for tuition, books, and supplies through May, 2002, provided he
maintain a 3.0 GPA Petitioner's GPA is 3.2. Petitioner demands $1,634.
9.
Reimbursement of costs paid to Operation PAR authorized by Mr. Ligibel
in his December 4, 1997, letter. (Exh. 1). Petitioner demands $110.

10.
Costs of postage, copying, and telephone calls,
~411.
This
expense is provided for by Maintenance, 34 CFR 361.28(a)(7).

11.
Petitioner demands protection and relief under FS 415 et seq., Adult
Protective Services Act, for the nonaccidental infliction of psychological injury on

petitioner by respondent's social workers.
12.
Expense incurred to Mark S. Kamleiter, Attorney at Law, petitioner's
personal representative. Services required to participate in the VR program because

of respondent's prior unlawful and discriminatory behavior, and the nonaccidental
infliction of psychological injury on petitioner by respondent's social workers. (Exh.
4). This expense is provided for by Maintenance, 34 CFR 361.28(a)(7). Petitioner
demands $1278.
13.
All remedies available to petitioner for respondent's unlawful and
discriminatory acts including, but not limited to, tort law, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (as amended), The 1973 Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), and FS 760 et seq., Civil Rights.
14.
All remedies available to petitioner for respondent's infliction of
psychological injury including, but not limited to, tort law, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (as amended), The 1973 Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the Civil
Page - 16
Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), FS 760 et seq., Civil Rights, and FS 415 et
seq., Adult Protective Services.
15.
Punitive damages as permitted by law to punish and discourage respondent's
outrageous, unlawfu4 and discriminatory behavior.
Certificate of Service
I
~REBY
CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereofhas been furnished by
United States Express Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Article Number EI727514856US,
to: Michael A. Greif: Senior Attorney, Florida Department of Labor and Employment
Security, The Hartman Building, Suite 307, 2012 Capital Circle, S.E., Tallahassee,
32399-2189, this 7th day of June, 1998.
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Page - 17
Florid~
Exhibit 1
Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security

Division at VOCItionai Rehabilitltion
Bay Park Exeaaive eerter
18840 us 19 N St. 420

CleerwIt.... FL 33764
Phone: (813) 538-7220 Fcc (813) 538-n17
December 4,1997
Neil Gillespie
1121 Beach Dr. N. E. Apt. C-2
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Dear Neil:
During our meeting we thoroughly reviewed and discussed your evaluation reports. It has been
determined that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your disability is too
severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in. employment. This decision was reached
12/4/1997.
.
Should you not agree with this decision, you have the right to appeal. You have 21 days after receipt of
this letter to appeal by requesting, in writing, an Administrative Review with the District Director, Maria O.
Risco, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4221 North Himes Avenue, Suite 205, Tampa, FI. 33607
6209.
In the event you are still not satisfied after the Administrative Review or you wish to skip the Administrative
Review, you may request a Fair Hearing conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings by filing a
petition for a Fair Hearing with Ms. Tainara Allen, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 2002 Old
St. Augustine Road, Bid. A, Tallahassee, FI. 32399-0696 within 21 days after your receipt of this letter or if
you had an Administrative Review, within 21 days after your receipt of the Administrative Review decision
letter.
If you need advice, assistance or an explanation of your rights, you may contact the Client Assistance
Program at 1-800/342-0823 (voice) or 1-8001346-4127(TDD). Their address is 2671 Executive Center
West, Suite 100, Webster Bid., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. This is a federally funded program to assure
that you understand your rights.
I believe that the following agencies could be of assistance to you and I would strongly encourage you to
contact them for help.
1. Suncoast Center for Community Mental Health 4040 Central Av. St. Petersburg, FL 327-7656 Individual
& Group Therapy
2. Directions for Mental Health 1437 Belcher Rd. Clearwater, FL Individual & Group Therapy
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
524-4464
Operation PAR Adult Outpatient 4914 Creekside Drive Clearwater, FL 570-5085

Sunshine Behavioral Health Services, Inc. 4908 B Creekside Drive Clearwater, FL 573-9797
Gulf Coast Community 140411cot Blvd. Clearwater, FL 538-7460
Morton Plant Mease Health Care 323 Jeffords St. Clearwater, FL 469-5499
Family Service Centers 120866111 Street N. St. Petersburg, FL Central Intake 536-9427 (Sliding
Scale) does not accept Medicare at this time.
If your condition changes and you believe you are ready to secure employment you may reapply for
services. In any event your record will be reviewed in one year to determine the feasibility of you
returning to work.
Sincerely.
:::'9Cb~
Vocational Rohabll;tation Consultant
Florida Telephcmc Relay System - TOO 1800-9~~-8771 Voice 18()()'9~~8770
Exhibit 2
" ~:.
".
~"
INDIVIDUALIZED WRITTEN REHABILITATION PROGRAM
===== ,..,.. ,.. ./,,/,.

NAME
Division 01 Vocational HchllLJllltallOI1
..
NEIL GILLESPIE
SOCIAL SECURITY NO.160525117
You have been determined eligible for:

_ _ _ Extended Evaluation"
Vocational Goal
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
GENERAL PRACTIONER
Post-Employment Services
Amendment
1. OBJECTIVe NEIL WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 8 HOURS WITHOUT REST OR
COMPLAINT OF PAIN AND DETERIORATION OF VOCAL QUALITY
\);'
~
EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL WILL EVIDENCE IMPROVED SPEAKING ABILITY AND

INCREASED TOLERANCE TO SPEECH AS CONFIRMED BY CLIENT AND/OR TREATING
PHYSICIAN REPORT DURING MONTHLY VR GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING SESSIONS.
Boginning
SERVICE(S)
dale
SURGERY DR.HABAL
MEDICAID/VR
MEDICAID/VR
HOSPITALIZATION
ANESTHESIA,LAB,XRAY MEDICAID/VR
MEDICATIONS MEDICAID/VR
S PEECH THERAPY MEDICAID/VR
COMPARABLE SERVICES
6/9'J
Bt94
a/94 ..
6/9~ ,i
~/95
Projected
end dale
6/95
6/95
6/95
6/95
12/95
AND BENEFITS: MEDICAID
2. OBJECTIVe NEIL WILL DEVELOP A MARKETABLE SKILL AS A GENERAL PRACTIONER

NEIL WILL DEMONSTRATE MASTERY OF TRAINING MATERIAL AS
CONFIRMED B~SEMESTER GRADE REPORTS REFLECTING 3.0 AVERAGE OR B~TTER
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
STTBI~~ED
~O
YBC
llF'T'F'Q
~n.C'"
~FMF~"'F~
SERVICE{S)
dale
TUITION,BOOKS,SUPPLIES VR/PELLfGSL/CLIENT
COMPARABLE SERVICES
B~ginnin~ f
AND
BENEFITS:
9/94
Projecled
end dale
5/2002
PELL/GSL/CLIENT
3. OBJECTIVE NEIL WILL OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT AS A GENERAL PRACTIONER
EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL WILL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT FOR 9 MONTHS
AS CONFIRMED BY CLIENT AND OR EMPLOYER REPORT DU~ING MONTHLY VR GUIDANCE
Projected
end date
SERVICE(S)
JOB PLACEMENT VR/FSES

TJTC (IF IN EFFECT)
COMPARABLE SERVICES
AND BENEFITS:
(SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE)

LES Forrn OVR/Del - 3014 (2/92)
DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES: WHITE-CHcnl':; Copy

YELLOW-File Copy
NEIL GILLESPIE
~E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~JALSECURI~
NO.~1_6_0_5_2_5_1_1_7~_
4 . OBJECTIVE:
SERVICE(S)
Beginning
Projected
date
end date
Beginning
Projected
date
end date
COMPARABLE SERVICES AND BENEFITS:
5 . OBJECTIVE:
SERVICE(S)
eVENT'S RESPONSIBIUTIES: (Also see "Your Responsibilities" on reverse side)
CIJENT'S VIEWS REGARDING THIS PROGRAM:
Please sign below to show that you have helped to develop thi,S,..,PtOQr'Cltm
(
Date
Date
LES Form OVRJBCl~14 (Rev. 9/89)
PAGE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES: WHITE-Client's Copy

YELLOW-File Copy
IWRP Attachment
My coun~elor
BII"aa'
A ~.
and I have discussed my rights
and dut1es as they relate to th1s program.

this program.
I am in agreement with
The following are my comments about how we chose my rehabilitation

goals, the services I am to receive and who will- provide those
services.
Comments follow here .

.u
/_ C'
-.
c..-o~hefi.,T
Af-
/T
u".5
rh
tj..,'/'t
t'
Date
3i~7h~ Y'
Checklist
Rehabilitation technology
services were considered
and discussed:
Yes_ _
The individual requires
on-the-job
or related personal
assistant services.
yes
(see IWRP}
No~
The need for post
employment services
was assessed.
yes
(see IWRP}
No_
The individual will
require extended services.
yes
(see IWRP}
No_
~-
Not Appropriate
Exhibit 3
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT 0[" LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
VOCATIONAL SCREENING
OF
Mr. Neil Gillespie

266 7th Avenue North
St. Pete~sburg, Fl 33701
SSN: 160525117
525 Mirror Lake Dr
Rm 145
St. Petersburg, FI 33701
813 893-2261
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Neil Gillespie is a 38 year old white male currently residing
at 266 7th Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, FI 33701. Mr. Gillespie's
disability is congenital cleft palate. He lives alone and does have
regular contact with his immediate family. He possesses a valid
drivers license and has independent transportation. He was a self
referral to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. He requested
assistance with medical treatment relating to repair of the cleft
palate and assistance in determining an appropriate vocational
direction. Mr. Gillespie has completed two years of college study
at the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Business. He
maj ored in Business a t this time. Subsequently, Mr. Gillespie
worked as a car salesman and' progressed to owner of two separate
care dealerships in the Philadelphia area. These businesses were
later dissolved.
SCREENING RESULTS:
Mr. Gillespie has held a variety of positions in the past.
Most of these have been in the area of sales and business
management.
Past work history includes:
Utility worker
Manager/Owner Auto Dealership
Auto Salesperson
Assistant Manager Retail Trade
Laborer Steel Industry
3 months
98 months
48 months
36 months
10 months
An unadjusted vocational profile was developed from the job

history. In order to confirm or deny these abilities the following
information and tests were utilized:
Medical Information from Pamela Kynkor M.S. dated 6/15/93
Jane Scheuerle Ed.D dated 6/2/93
Noreeen Frans M.S. dated 7/2/93
Mutaz Habal M.D. dated 5/5/93
Wide Range Achievement Test
Shipley Institute of Living Scale
Myers-Briggs
General Aptitude Test Battery
United States Employment Service Interest Inventory
Bender-Gestalt
TEST RESULTS:
WRAT-R2
READING
12+
SPELLING
12B
ARITHMETIC 7.4
BENDER-GESTALT
SUGGESTS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH TRENDS TOWARD HAVING HIS ENVIRONMENT
BOTH HOME AND WORK ORDERLY. THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS OF EXPANSIVE
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL AND SOME SUGGESTION OF ACTING OUT BEHAVIOUR.
THESE WERE MINIMAL AND IF PRESENT COULD BE SEEN AS SOCIAL ACTIVISM
OR USE OF EXISTING PROCEDURES WITHIN COMPANIES, SOCIAL SERVICE
AGENCIES, ETC TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES.
USES-II
SEE GATB/USES SECTION
MYERS-BRIGGS
INTP exhibits great preC1Slon in thought & language. Continuous
intellectual scanning tends to see inconsistencies immediately. Has
excellent concentration. Authority does not impress the INTP;
dislikes redundancy. Desires to understand the universe and
constantly looks for universal laws & principles. Can become
intellectual snob & show impatience with those less endowed. This
is perceived as arrogance and generates hostility & defensive
behaviors from others. INTP is the mathematician, philosopher,
scientis t; any job requiring architecture of ideas; but INTP is not
interested in the implementation. Tend not to be sales people or
writers; make excellent teachers, but can be demanding on their
students. Not good at clerical tasks, impatient with routine
details. Prefer to work quietly, without interruption, and alone.
Do not welcome constant social activity or disorganization in the
home. The mate. of an INTP probably manages the social life. INTP
tends to retreat into books & emerges only when physical needs are
imperative. Has difficulty expressing emotions verbally; so the
mate may feel taken for granted. Home is usually calm, low key, and
well ordered. INTP deals with the environment primarily through
intui tion; thinking tends to be complicated and remains hidden
except in close associations; their reserve is difficult to
penetrate. This makes INTP difficult to know. Tend to be shy except
with close friends. Very adaptable until principles are violated.
Feeling qualities tend to be underdeveloped & make INTP insensitive
to the needs of others. About 1% of the population.
SHIPLEY
SHIPLEY RESULTS SHOW ESTIMATED IQ OF 93. THIS IS CONSIDERED TO BE
AN UNDERESTIMATE OF MR. GILLESPIE'S TRUE POTENTIAL. SOLID ABILITIES
EVIDENCED IN CULTURAL PART OF TASK. SLIGHT DIFFICULTY WITH ABSTRACT
PART OF SHIPLEY.
16PF
RESULTS SUGGEST AN INDIVIDUAL WITH HIGH NEED TO BE INDEPENDENT AND
FREE OF EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS. THIS INDIVIDUAL MAY USES HIS FEELINGS
IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS. HIGH INTERESTS IN HUMANITARIAN
ENDEAVOURS AND PRODUCTIVE CREATIVITY. INDICATIONS OF INTEREST SHOW
HOLLAND CODE TYPE (ASI)
I
GATE/USES
PART
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RAW
SCORE
[ 49]
[ 18]
[ 22]
[ 31]
[ 33]
[ 11]
[ 30]
[ 70]
[ 90]
[ 94]
[ 29]
[ 28]
GGG
20
67
VVV
- A P T I T U DES
NNN SSS PPP 000 KKK
118
70
117
FFF
MMMM
123
67
26
19
58
101
23
72
42
57
OA
Ar
Sc
Pa
Pr
Me
In
BD
Se
Ac
Hu
LI
PP
##
OAP H
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
[Y]
[ ]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[ ]
M
[ ]
[ ]
[Y]
[ ]
[Y]
[ ]
[Y]
[Y]
[ ]
[ ]
[Y]
[ ]
Score
Error
Score
Score
Score
Line
Line
Line
Line
Line
------------------------------------------------------------------------------APT SCORE
SEM
APT + SEM
DOT SCORE
DOT + SEM
[113] [123] [ 89] [117] [125] [118] [101] [ 99] [ 95]

6
6
6
8
9
9
7
12
11
[119] [129] [ 95] [125] [134] [127] [108] [111] [ 106]
[2 -] [2+] [4+] [2=] [2+] [2=] [3=] [3=]
[3 -]
[2+] [1-] [3-] [2+] [1=] [1-] [3+] [2-]
[3+]
High
Std.
Med.
High
Med.
G.A.T.B. APTITUDE GRAPH

===============================================================================
CLUSTER
. I APT
COGNITIVE
-v-
-G-
-N- S
PERCEPTUAL
- P
-0-K
PSYCHOMOTOR
-F
-M-
* DOT RANGE
00\ - 10\ 1 10\ - 33\ 1 33\ - 67\ 1 67\ - 90\ 1 90\ - 100\
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-*-+---+---+---+---+---+---+--
IGGG=======>1
1
VVV===>
I
NNN===>
1
1
- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - -
1
SSS===>1
I
PPP=======>
1
1
1
OQQ=======>
- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - -
KKK===>1
1
1
FFF=======>
1
1
IMMM=======>1
1
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-*-+---+---+---+---+---+---+--
5-1 5=1 5+1 4-1 4=1 4+1 3-1 3=1 3+1 2-1 2=1 2+1 1-1 1=1 1+
===============================================================================
COMMON APTITUDE-INTEREST OVERLAP REPORT
OAP
9
12
13
14
21
23
24
*** HIGH APTITUDES WITH AVERAGE INTERESTS (Inventory) ***

GOE - INTEREST -AREA GOE - # GOE'- WORK -GROUP -TITLE
DATA JOBS
MEDICAL SCIENCES
02.03 MEDICAL SCIENCES
2
51
PLANTS & ANIMALS
03.03 Animal Training & Service
2
6
PLANTS & ANIMALS
3-6
11
PLANTS & ANIMALS
03.04 Elemental: Plants & Animals
All
157
MECHANICAL
05.05 Craft Technology
2-6
617
MECHANICAL
05.08 Land & Water Vehicle Operation All
41
MECHANICAL
05.09 Materials Control
1-4
93
GOE-PG
27
57
57
59
88
108
110
25
26
27
28
29
MECHANICAL
05.09
MECHANICAL
05.10
MECHANICAL
05.10
MECHANICAL
05.11
MECHANICAL
05.12
*** MEDIUM APTITUDES
OAP GOE-INTEREST-AREA GOE-#
11 PLANTS & ANIMALS
03.01
22 MECHANICAL
05.07
Materials Control
5
34
Crafts
1-4
269
Crafts
5-6
148
Equipment Operation
All
130
Elemental Work: Mechanical
All
431
WITH AVERAGE INTERESTS (Inventory) ***
GOE-WORK-GROUP-TITLE
DATA JOBS
Managerial: Plants & Animals
1-3
49
Quality Control
1-2
.28
110
115
115
123
127
GOE-PG
51
104
TRANSFERABLE SKILLS ANALYSIS

Based on the above information and testing an adjusted
vocational profile was developed. Information was obtained from
OASYS in an attempt to discover transferable skills. On the primary
search level 0 occupations emerged. Further search on levels 4-8
yielded 69 job titles. Of these jobs many were involved in the
medical, psychological, and counseling arena.The client explored
these areas and selected
Podiatrist
General Practitioner
079.101-022
070.101-022
RECOMMENDATIONS
This is a 38 year old white male with cleft palate which
significantly
affects
long
term
ability
to
use
verbal
communication. Repair or revision of the cleft palate to preserve
and remediate Mr. Gillespie's ability to speak is indicated. From
information obtained from his treating physician,
initial
assessment, transferable skills analysis, labor market survey, and
vocational testing it is this counselors' opinion Mr. Gillespie
will need retraining. Completion of a 4 year degree is indicated.
Should Mr. Gillespie have difficulty with college based training to
a degree which would make entry into the medical field not
feasible, it is suggested he examine areas such as counseling,
chemistry, and teaching.
Should you have any questions or if I may be of any further
assistance please do not hesitate to contact me at
DVR, 525 Mirror Lake Dr. RM 145, St. Petersburg, Fl 33701 Tel 813
893-2261.
Sincerely
I~ttd :J4~t~
Brad L. Meyer CRC
Senior VR Counselor
Exhibit 4
MARK S. KAMLEITER
A TIORNEY A T LAW
Courthouse Square
600 First Avenue N. - Suit. 206
Office: (813) 824-8989

Fax: (813) 824-6389
St. Petersburg. FL 33701
March 17, 1997
Jura Philpot, Supervisor

525 Mirror Lake Drive N., Rm 145
Re: Neil J. Gillespie: Application for Vocational Rehabiliative Services
Dear Ms. Philpot:
Please be advised that I ha\'e been consulted by Mr. Neil J. Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie feels that
he has not been treated correctly by your division and he believes that your office may have
discriminated against him due to the particular nature of his disability.
I have reviewed Mr. Gillespie's file, including correspondence between himself, yourselfand
a Ms. Van Ess. I must be frank when I say that I can understand Mr. Gillespie's frustration and
irritation with the treatment he has received. I am not at this time entirely certain as to why he has
received this type of treatment, but I feel that Mr. Gillespie deserves more direct and courteous
treatment. This being the case I would like to request several things:
1. That Mr. Gillespie's letter Ms. Van Ess, dated January 16, 1997, be disregarded to the
extent that it may be interpreted as withdrawing his prior request for services. Mr. Gillespie
rema~s determined to seek and obtain the vocational rehabiliative services that he has a right
to.
2. Mr. Gillespie expects that the Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program produced by
your office (3/24/94) and which took nine months of effort on Mr. Gillespie's part to get
produced, be implemented. If for any reason your office C8IU1ot or will not implement this
plan, then I expect to be notified of that decision and the reasons therefore.
3. That a correction to Ms. Van Ess's letter dated 1/15197 be made with an appropriate
apology to Mr. G~ll~spie. This letter was clearly offensive, suggesting dishonesty and lack of
cooperation on Mr. Gillespie's part. If Mr. Gillespie's application is examined it is very clear
that Mr. Gillespie info~ed your office ~at his disabilities were related to "Velopharyngeal
incompetence, Personality Disorder (Schizoid)" (overweight & high BP)." This would make
Ms. Van Ess's assertion that Mr. Gillespie had not truthfully indicated his "mental health
issues." Mr Gillespie's Social Security disability letter indicated only the recognition ofhis
disability and not the grounds for the recognition. In any case the fact of Mr. Gillespie's
disability for Social Securit}' purposes is not in question.

4. Because there seems to have been a hostile attitude displayed toward Mr. Gil1espie~ I am
asking your office to correspond with Mr. Gillespie through my office. I will be monitoring
the timeliness, professionalism and the appropriateness ofthe your office's handling of Mr.
Gillespie's file.
5. Apparently there has been some misunderstanding relative to the interplay. between Mr.
Gillespie's "velopharyngeal incompetence" and his personality disorder. It would appear that
this lack of understanding has caused Mr. Gillespie to be forced to l.Uldergo evaluations and
counseling by individuals who are completely unqualified to understand, relate to and to help
Mr. Gillespie (Marbeiter). This treatment has not only not been helpful to Mr. Gillespie and
not advanced his application to the granting of services, but has directly created a high level
offcustration, aggravating his disability. For this reason I am asking that each time Mr.
Gillespie is asked to participate in counseling, guidance, or interviews related to his
application, that I be advised in advance as to the purpose of the session, the name, title and
qualifications of the cOWlselor or interviewer.
Please Wlderstand that my purpose is not to interfere or to create greater conflict than now
exists, but it is my hope that I can serve to improve communications and facilitate Mr. Gillespie
receiving the services which he has a right to and which he needs in order to successfully integrate
productively into the work force_ I am asking that this past history of problems be set aside and that
a fresh, unbiased focus be given to Mr. Gillespie's application. I am asking that we not allow Mr.
Gillespie's disability (personality disorder) cause us to treat him differently or with less respect than
we would give any other candidate for services. If I am able to help in achie,,-ing this, I will feel that
I have contributed something very positive to your \vork.
I thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my requests and I await your
compassionate response.
Sincerely,
Mark S. Kamleiter
Exhibit 5
,",
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION
INST # 98-037481
FEB 6, 1998 9:21PM
NEIL J. GILLESPIE.
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CASE NO.97-7329SC
YELLOW CAB COMPANY

OF ST. PETERSBURG, I~C.,
Defendant(s).
----------_//
.'
FINAL JUDGMENT
,"
:::~ :~
.. -'
, :"
......
~~ :::
;.; == <'1-";'
THIS CAUSE having come up for trial, non jurY',~q~".,.,
:::!
, ::J
--.::
.,.,
;-r")
aJ
f
,:;- -'
-0
January 29, 1998 and the Court having heard testimony ~ib~
C1
~ \"~"'"
~~
parties, and the testimony of respective witnesses, an~~aY~n9C:

~
:::f
(~
~
"..
examined the evidence filed in this cause and being otherwise

fully advised in the premises, It is thereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff, Neil J.

Gillespie, recover from the Defendant, Yellow Cab Company of St.
Petersburg, Inc., the sum of $337.50 for which let exdcution
issue.
DONE AND ORDERED in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County,

Florida this
day of February, 1998.
copies to:
Neil J. Gillespie
Yellow Cab Company
of St. Petersburg, Inc.
:-i
Exhibit 6
Florida House ofRepresentatives

MARGO FISCHER
696 - 1st Avenue North, Suite 302
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3610
813-893-1700
REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT
52
407 House Office Building

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
850-488-5719
April 6, 1998
NIr. Neil J. Gillespie
1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt. C-2
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you so much for your excellent letter in support ofHB 3379 and strengthening the
Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. I appreciate your sharing your experiences as a cab driver
in St. Petersburg. Your story is a perfect illustration demonstrating why this legislation is
so necessary.
Please be assured that I am conlmitted to this issue and will continue to work to ensure
that all Floridians can breathe clean, smoke-free air in public places.
Again, I truly appreciate your taking the time to write. You are to be commended for
getting involved in the legislative process. If I can ever be of assistance in the future,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~. O~
MF/cef
COMMITTEES: EciJcation K-12, Environmental Protection, Law Enforcement & Public Safety
Exhibit 7
,42 USC Sec. 12101 (01116/96)
Page 1 of2
12101. Findings and purpose

(a) Findings
The Congress finds that
(1) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and
this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older;
(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities,
and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with
disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;
(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as
employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation,
communication, recreation, institutionalization, heahh services, voting, and access to
public services;
(4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color,
sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on
the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination;
(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination,
including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural,
transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to
make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification
standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities,
benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;
(6) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with
disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely
disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally;
(7) individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced
with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment,
and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on
characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from
stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to
participate in, and contribute to, society;
(8) the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality
of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for
such individuals; and
(9) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice
denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to
pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the
United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and
nonproductivity.
(b) Purpose
It is the purpose of this chapter

(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination
against individuals with disabilities;
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards
,42 USC Sec. 12101 (01/16/96)
Page 20f2
established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and

(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the
fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of
discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.
Exhibit 8
AGENCY
CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
CHARGE NUUBER
Th1s form 1s affected by the Pr1vacy Act of 1974; See Pr1vacy Act Statement before 0 FEPA
IX) EEOC
complet1ng th1s form.
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN REL.
and EEOC
State or local Agency, ifany

NAUE (Indicate Hr., Hs., Hrs.)
HOUE TE.LEPHONE (Include Area Code)
(81~) 82~-2"1qo
Mr. Neil J. Gillesoie
STREET ADDRESS
CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
1121 Beach Drive N.E.
Aoartment C-2
DATE OF BIRTH
St. PetersburQ:
FL "1"1701
0~/1q/56
NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ir more than one list beloit.)
NAIIE
NUUBER OF EIIPLOYEES. IIEIIBERS
State Of Florida/Div. Of Voc. Rehab
STREET ADDRESS
"1251 "1rd Avenue North
STREET ADDRESS
Cat D (501 +)
FL
St. Petersburll
~~70"1
COUNTY
10"1
TelEPHONE NUIIBER (Include Area Code)
CAUSE OF DISCRIIIINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))
TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
NAIIE
DRACE
DATE DISCRIIIINATION TOOK PLACE
COLOR
RelIGION
NATIONAL ORIGIN
DSEX
RETALIATION
IX] DISABILITY
OTHER (Spectt;y)
DAGE
COUNTY
EARLIEST
12/04/91
0
THE PARTICULARS ARE
LATEST
CONTINUING ACTION
(Ir additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):
I. Personal Harm:
On December 4 , 1991, I was denied vocational rehabilitation services.

II. Respondent's Reason for Adverse Action:
Douglas Ligibel, Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant, stated: "you are
not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your
disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to
result in employment.
III. Discrimination Statement:
I believe that I have been discriminated against on the basis of my
disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) .
I want th1s charge f1led w1th both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY (When necessary for State and Local Requ1rements)
local Agency, 1f any. I w1ll adv1se the agenc1es 1f I Change my
address or telephone number and cooperate fully w1th them 1n the I swear or aff1rm that I have read the above Charge and that
1t 1s true to the best of my knowledge, 1nformat10n and bel1ef.

processing of mv charge 1n accordance w1th the1r procedures.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foreg01ng 1s true
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
~
.,.."oot.
DatJ
EEOC FORM
:l
(Rev.
06/92)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

(Day, month, and year)
'",,,',g "", 13"..'.=)

CHARGING PARTY COPY
STATE OF
FLORIDA
CASE NAIlE
CITY/COUNTY OF
St.
CASE NUMBER
Petersburg/Pinellas
Gillespie vs State 0
AFFIDAVIT
I, Neil J. Gill e s pie
being first duly sworn upon my oath affirm and hereby say:
(Name)
I have been given assurances by an Agent of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that this
Affidavit will be considered confidential by the United States Government and will not be disclosed as long as
the case remains open unless it becomes necessary for the Government to produce the affidavit in a formal
proceeding. Upon the closing of this case, the Affidavit may be subject to disclosure in accordance with
Agency policy.
I am ~ years of age, my gender is Ma 1 e
and my racial identity is _ _......:.:W~h...io..:t~ei"---;-
(sex)
Iresideat
(race)
1121 Beach Drive N.E. Apartment C-2

(Number/Street)
City of
St.
State of
Pe t e r s burg
, County of
---=-P-=i:.=.n.:.;:e::..:l=l=-a=s
, Zip Code __....3

3 ....7.L0~1~_
--'F'-"L==--
My telephone number is (tncluding
area code) _ _...l(~8::..::1:...3J...J...)~ 8-=2
....3,--~2=-3.L.9LO~_
My statement concerns _----==S~t~a~t~e::........:O~f---=-F-=l:..::o~r'-'i!:.:d~a~/~D,.=i~v:_::.,........:O~f=--.,V~o...:::c;..:.~R~e~h=a..:::b~
which is
(Name of Union/Company/Agency)
located at
3251 3rd Avenue North

(Number/Street)
St. Petersburg
My job classification is ( I f
FL
33703
(Zip)
(State)
(City)
applicable)
....,.,....,:--:-.,--,-
(job tit/e)
My immediate supervisor is ( I f
appl icable)'_.....I...;c:-;----:-
---:"....,-:-:-:;--;--
(Name)
(job tit/e)
I believe that I have been discriminated against on the basis of my

disability, personality disorder and speech disability, in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
Respondent employs over fifteen (15) employees.
On December 4, 1997, I was denied vocational rehabilitation services by
Douglas Ligibel, Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant.
Mr. Ligibel
stated: "you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services
because your disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation
services to result in employment.
I did appeal the agency's decision.
K !l;f~
(ijitia/s)
E:E:OC Att-A (Utl/89)
'V
Page 1 of _ _
STATE
_
St. Petersburg/Pinellas
OF _ _--"-F.::L:.>::O~R:.=I:.=D~A~
CITY/COUNTY OF
CASE NAME
CASE NUMBER
G111 e s p 1e v sSt ate 0

_
AFFIDAVIT (cent.)
'2--h,andwritten 0
I have read and had an opportunity to correct this Affidavit consisting of
typed g pages and swear that these facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me

'~ay of
/IL
this
.:I1z e
( 9 r.~
() ~~. ,1.2 )~)
--.
AfF-B (6/211969)
X ~f/~r---
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No. 98-066-DVR
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION
OF VOACTIONAL REHABILITATION,
Res ondent.
THIRD AMENDED PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

Petitioner pro se, NEIL J. GILLESPIE, petitions the Division of Administrative
Hearings for an administrative hearing against respondent, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION (hereafter "DVR"), and alleges:
I. Interest in Action
Petitioner is Neil J. Gillespie, 1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt., C-2, St. Petersburg,
Florida, 33701-1434. Respondent's determination affects petitioner's substantial interests
by denying him the vocational rehabilitation services he needs to return to employment.
II. Notice of Agency Decision

Respondent notified petitioner of its decision on December 4, 1997, by letter.
(Attached as Exh. 1). Respondent's employee, Douglas M. Ligibel, Vocational
Rehabilitation Consultant, hand delivered the letter to petitioner during a meeting at the
DVR office located at 3251 3ed Ave. North, St. Petersburg, Florida.
III. Disputed Issues of Material Fact

Petitioner disputes respondent's determination which states, "It has been
determined that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your
disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in employment."
IV. Background Information

Petitioner is disabled pursuant to Title II of Social Security. In an effort to become
employed consistent with his unique strengths, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities,
career interests, and informed choice, petitioner applied for VR services with respondent
on May 17, 1993. Respondent prepared and signed an Individual Written Rehabilitation
Program (IWRP) with petitioner on March 29, 1994. (Attached as Exh. 2). Respondent
also prepared a vocational screening supporting petitioner's IWRP. (Attached as Exh. 3).
V. Respondent's Determination is Unlawful

A. Petitioner is eligible for VR services as a matter of law.
1.
Petitioner is determined to have a disability pursuant to Title II of
the Social Security Act. Petitioner is therefore eligible for VR services

pursuant to Florida statutory law.
a. FS 413.30(1) states, "A person is eligible for vocational
rehabilitation if the person has a disability and requires vocational
rehabilitation services to prepare for, enter, engage in, or retain gainful
employment." Petitioner meets this criteria because FS 413.30(2) states
(substantive portion) "Individuals determined to have a disability pursuant

to either Title II or Title XVI of tile Social Security Act shall be considered
to have a physical or mental impairment that constitutes or results in a
substantial impediment to employment and a severe physical or mental
impairment that seriously limits one or more functional capacities in terms
of an employment outcome."
b. Petitioner is presumed to benefit from VR services pursuant to
FS 413.30(3) which states, "An individual shall be presumed to benefit in
terms of an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services
under this part unless the division can demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that the individual is incapable of benefiting from vocational
rehabilitation services in terms of an employment outcome. To demonstrate
that an individual cannot benefit from vocational rehabilitation services due
to the severity of the individual's disability, the division shall conduct an
extended evaluation, not to exceed 18 months. The evaluation must
determine the eligibility of the individual and the nature and scope of
needed vocational rehabilitation services. The extended evaluation must be
reviewed once every 90 days to determine whether the individual is eligible
for vocational rehabilitation services."
c.
Respondent has not demonstrated by "clear and convincing
evidence" that petitioner is too severely disabled for VR services to result

in employment.
WHEREFORE petitioner demands that respondent stop the closure of his case,
provide a change of counselor, and implement the IWRP attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy hereofhas been furnished to Michael A. Greif: Office ofthe
General Counsel, The Hartman Bldg., Suite 307, 2012 Capital Circle, S.E., Tallahassee,
32399-2189, by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 2nd day of July, 1998.
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Exhibit 1
Florida Department rA Labor and Employment Security

DMIIon GlVoc:atclMI R. . . .1on
8IIy PIrk ~ Celt.
18840 us 18 N St. 420
CIMIwIt., Fl33784
Phone: (113) 538-7220 Fa: (113) 538-7217
December 4,1997
Neil Gillespie
1121 Beach Or. N. E. Apt. C-2
Dear Neil:
During our meeting we thoroughly reviewed and discussed your evaluation reports. It has been
determined that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your disability is too
severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in employment. This decision was reached
1214/1997,
.
Should you not agree with this decision, you have the right to appeal. You have 21 days after receipt of
this letter to appeal by requesting, in writing, an Administrative Review with the District Director, Maria O.
Risco, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4221 North Himes Avenue, Suite 205, Tampa, FI. 33607
6209.
In the event you are still not satisfied after the Administrative Review or you wish to skip the Administrative
Review, you may request a Fair Hearing conducted by the Division cA Administrative Hearings by filing a
petition for a Fair Hearing with Ms. Tainara Allen, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 2002 Old
St. Augustine Road, Bid. A, Tallahassee, FI. 32399-0696 within 21 days after your rapt of this letter or if
you had an Administrative Review, within 21 days after your receipt of the Administrative Review decision
letter.
If you need advice, assistance or an explanation of your rights, you may contact the Client Assistance
Program at 1-8001342-0823 (voice) or 1-800/346-4127(IDD). Their address is 2671 Executive Center
West, Suite 100, Webster Bid., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. This is a federally funded program to assure
that you understand your rights.
I believe that the following agencies could be of assistance to you and I would strongly encourage you to
contact them for help.
1. Suncoast Center for Community Mental Health 4040 Central Av. St. Petersburg, FL 327-7656 Individual
& Group Therapy
2. Directions for Mental Health 1437 Belcher Rd. Clearwater, FL Individual & Group Therapy
524-4464
3. Operation PAR Adult Outpatient 4914 Creekside Drive Clearwater, FL 570-5085

4. Sunshine Behavioral Health Services, Inc. 4908 B Creekside Drive Clearwater, FL 573-9797
5. Gulf Coast Community 14041 lcot Blvd. Clearwater, FL 538-7460
6. Morton Plant Mease Health Care 323 Jeffords St. Clearwater, FL 469-5499
7. Family Service Centers 1208 66111 Street N. St. Petersburg, FL Central Intake 536-9427 (Sliding
Scale) does not accept Medicare at this time.
8. If your condition changes and you believe you are ready to secure employment you may reapply for
services. In any event your record will be reviewed in one year to determine the feasibility of you
returning to work.
Sincerely,
::"9~b~
Vocational Rehabilitation Consu_
Florida Telqmme Relay SyIlan - TOO I-S00-95S-8771 Voice 1-800-95SeS770
_'. "_ .. ,
'.~
.,.. ,
-~
,_ ..
~;
,." ,.- ',,...
.'-:- 1".,..,
,;,.
,~
..
Exhibit 2
_.
.( 'r: ...
Division of Vocnliollnl Rchnbililalion
=====~~//"""'INDlVIDUALIZED WRI~EN
NAME
.~
NEIL GILLESPIE
'.
REHABILITATION PROGRAM
.
SOCIAL SECURITY NO.160525117
You have been determined eligible for:

_ _ _ Extended EvaluationVocational Goal
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
GENERAL PRACTIONER
Post-Employment Services
Amendme.nt
NEIL WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 8 HOURS WITHOUT REST OR

COMPLAINT OF PAIN AND DETER~ORATION OF VOCAL QUALITY
.
~ ~
1. OBJECTIVE:
..
EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL WILL EVIDENCE IMPROVED SPEAKING ABILITY AND

INCREASED TOLERANCE TO SPEECH AS CONFIRMED BY CLIENT AND/OR TREATING
PHYSICIAN REPORT DURING MONTHLY VR GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING SESSIONS.
Boginning
dale
SERVICE(S)
SURGERY DR.HABAL MEDICAID/VR

HOSPITALIZATION
MEDICAID/VR
ANESTHESIA,LAB,XRAY MEDICAID/VR
MEDICATIONS MEDICAID/VR
SPEECH THERAPY MEDICAID/VR
3/9i
~t94
~/94 .
3/9~ :
~/95
Projected
end dale
6/95
6/95
6/95
6/95
12/95
COMPAIMBLE SERVICES AND BENEFITS: MEDICAID
2. OBJECTIVe NEIL WILL DEVELOP A MARKETABLE SKILL AS A GENERAL PRACTIONER

EVALUATION CR.ITERIA: NEIL WILL DEMONSTRATE MASTERY OF TRAINING MATERIAL AS
CONFIRMED B~SEMESTER GRADE REPORTS REFLECTING 3.0 AVERAGE OR B~TTER
STTRI"'~ED
~O usc A14''J11t!R 1t!AC'" ~1t!M1t!~'J1~R
B~ginnin? ~ Projected
SERVICE(S)
end date
dale
5/2002
9/94
VR/PELL!GSL/CLIENT
TUITION, BOOKS, SUPPLI,ES
/' h-..'
PELL/GSL/CLIENT
-c}
/"
'
3. OBJECTIVe NEIL WILL OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT AS A GENERAL PRACTIONER

EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL WILL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT FOR 9 MONTHS
AS CONFIRMED BY CLIENT AND OR EMPLOYER REPORT DU~ING MONTHLY VR GUIDANCE
SERVICE(S)
Projected
end date
.JOB PLACEMENT VR/FSES

TJTC (IF IN EFFECT)

LES Forrn OVR/Del 3014 (2192)
DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES: WHITE-Clionl's Copy

YEllOW-File Copy
... NEIL GILLESPIE
~ME_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'_S~~LSECU~~NQ~1_6_0_5_2_5_1_1_7~_
4. OBJECnVE:
Beginning
SERVICE(S)
date
Projected
end date
5 OBJECTIVE:
EVALUATION
CRITERIA:
SERVICE(S)
Beginning
date
Projected
end date
CUENT'S RESPONSIBIUTIES: (Also see "Your Responsibilities" on reverse side)
/
\
eUENT'S VIEWS REGARDING THIS PROGRAM:
'-.
--------
Please sign below to show that you have helped to develop thil~gyrCllJlI
Date
Date
'
LES Form DVRlBCL-3Q14 (Rev. 9/89)

~)J
'.'
-.- -
-..... - . , .
......
_..
PAGE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES: WHITE-eJient's Copy

YELLOW-File Copy
IWRP Attachment
e"-ad ~ ~
and I have discussed my rights
and duties as they relate to this program. I am in agreement with
this program.' .
My counselor
The following are my comments about how we chose my rehabilitation

goals, the services I am to receive and who will provide those
services.
Comments follow here.
?d ~C'/1.hed ~'I--
Yh,...5 f-,-~
t"
Checklist
Rehabilitation. technology
services were considered
and discussed:
Yes_ _
The individual requires
on-the-job
or related personal
assistant services.
Yes_ _ (see IWRP}
No~
The need for post
employment services
was assessed.
Yes_ _ (see IWRP}
No_
The individual will
require extended services.
Yes_ _ (see
IWRP}
No_
~-
Not Appropriate
Exhibit 3
~~
..
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
OF
Mr. Neil Gillespie

266 7th Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FI 33701
SSN:" 160525117 .

525 Mirror Lake Dr
~
Rm 145
St. Petersburg', FI 33701
813 893-2261
CLIENT INFORMATION:
Neil Gillespie is a 38 year old white male currently residing
a.t 266 7th Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, FI 33701. Mr. Gillespie's
disability is congenital cleft palate. He lives alone and does have
regular contact with his immediate family. He possesses a valid
drivers license and has independent transportation. He was a self
referral to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. He requested
assistance with medical treatment relating to repair of the cleft
palate and assistance in determining an appropriate vocational
direction. Mr. Gillespie has completed two years of college study
at the University of pennsylvania, Wharton School of Business. He
maj ored in Business at. this time. Subsequently, Mr. Gillespie
worked as a car salesman and progressed "to owner of two separate
care dealerships in the Philadelphia area. These businesses were
later dissolved.
SCREENING RESULTS:
Mr. Gillespie has held a variety of positions in the past.
Most of these have been in the area of sales and business
management.
Past work history includes:
Utility worker
Manager/Owner Auto Dealership
Auto Salesperson
Assistant Manager Retail Trade
Laborer Steel Industry
3
98
48
36
months
months
months
months
io months
An unadjusted vocational profile was developed from the job

history. In order to confirm or deny these abilities the following
information and tests were utilized:
Medical Information from Pamela Kynkor M.S. dated 6/15/93
Jane Scheuerle Ed.D dated 6/2/93
Noreeen Frans M.S. dated 7/2/93
Mutaz Habal M.D. dated 5/5/93
Wide Range Achievement Test
Shipley Institute of Living Scale
Myers-Briggs
General Aptitude Test Battery
United States Employment Service Interest Inventory
Bender-Gestalt
TEST RESULTS:
WRAT-R2
READING
12+
SPELLING
12B
ARITHMETIC 7.4
BENDER-GESTALT
SUGGESTS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH TRENDS TOWARD HAVING HIS ENVIRONMENT
BOTH HOME AND WORK ORDERLY. THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS OF EXPANSIVE
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL AND SOME SUGGESTION OF ACTING OUT BEHAVIOUR.
THESE WERE MINIMAL AND IF PRESENT COULD BE SEEN AS SOCIAL ACTIVISM
OR USE OF EXISTING PROCEDURES WITHIN COMPANIES, SOCIAL SERVICE
AGENCIES, ETC TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES.
USES-II
--.::...-.. U
SEE GATB/USES SECTION

MYERS-BRIGGS
INTP exhibits great prec~s~on in thought & language. Continuous

intellectual scanning tends to see inconsistencies immediately. Has
excellent concentration. Authority does not impress the INTP;
dislikes redundancy. Desires to understand the universe and
constantly looks for universal laws & principles. Can become
intellectual snob & show impatience with those less endowed. This
is perceived as arrogance and generates hostility & defensive
behaviors from others. INTP is the mathematician, philosopher,
scientist; any job requiring architecture of ideas; but INTP is not
interested in the implementation. Tend not to be sales people or
writers; make excellent teachers, but can be demanding on their
students .. Not good at clerical tasks, impatient with routine
details. Prefer to work quietly, without interruption, and alone.
Do not welcome constant social activity or disorganization in the
home. The mate of an INTP probably manages the social life. INTP
tends to retreat into books & emerges only when physical needs are
imperative. Has difficulty expressing emotions verbally; so the
mate may feel taken for granted. Home is usually calm, low key, and
well ordered. INTP deals with the environment primarily through
intuition; thinking tends to be complicated and remains hidden
except in close associations; their reserve is difficult to
penetrate. This makes INTP difficult to know. Tend to be shy except
with close friends. Very adaptable until principles are violated.
Feeling qualities tend to be underdeveloped & make INTP insensitive
to the needs of others. About 1% of the population.
SHIPLEY
SHIPLEY RESULTS SHOW ESTIMATED IQ OF 93. THIS IS CONSIDERED TO BE
AN UNDERESTIMATE OF MR. GILLESPIE'S TRUE POTENTIAL. SOLID ABILITIES
EVIDENCED IN CULTURAL PART OF TASK. SLIGHT DIFFICULTY WITH ABSTRACT
'.
".-,0-
-- .,.,., ....
'"
...
..
PART OF SHIPLEY.
16PF
RESULTS SUGGEST AN INDIVIDUAL WITH HIGH NEED TO BE INDEPENDENT AND
FREE OF EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS. THIS INDIVIDUAL MAY USES HIS FEELINGS
IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS. HIGH INTERESTS IN HUMANITARIAN
ENDEAVOURS AND PRODUCTIVE CREATIVITY. INDICATIONS OF INTEREST SHOW
HOLLAND CODE TYPE (ASI)
i
GATB/USES
PART
NO
1
2
3
4,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RAW
SCORE
[ 49]
[ 18]
[ 22]
[ 31]
[ 33]
[ 11]
[ 30]
[ 70]
[ 90]
[ 94]
[ 29]
[ 28]
\..:::..
GGG
20
67
VVV
- A P T I T U DES
NNN SSS PPP QQQ KKK
118
70
117
FFF
MMMM
123
67
26
19
58
101
23
72
42
57
OA
Ar
Sc
Pa
Pr
Me
In
BD
Se
Ac
Hu
LI
PP
##
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
OAP
H
[Y]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Y]
[Y]
[y]
[ ]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[y]
[ ]
[Y]
[Y]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Y]
[Y]
[ ]
-._-----_ .. _-------------------------------- ....... _------------_ .. _----------------

APT SCORE
SEM
APT + SEM
DOT SCORE
DOT + SEM
[113] [123] [ 89] [117] [125] [118] [101] [ 99] [ 95]

6
6
6
8
9
9
7
12
11
[119] [129] [ 95] [125] [134] [127] [108] [111] [ 106]
[2-] [2+] [4+] [2=] [2+] [2=] [3=] [3=]
[3-]
[2+] [1-] [3-] [2+] [1=] [1-] [3+] [2-]
[3+]
High
Std.
Med.
High
Med.
Score
Error
Score
Score
Score
Line
Line
Line
Line
Line
---------------------------- .. _ .. _--------------------------------------------- .
G.A.T.B. APTITUDE GRAPH
===============================================================================
I
CLUSTER
1------------1
I COGNITIVE
I
1------------I
I PERCEPTUAL
I
1------------I
I PSYCHOMOTOR
I
APT
-G-
-V-N-
- S
-P
-Q-K
-F
-M-
1-------------+--I
* DOT RANGE
00,\ - 10\ I 10\ - 33\ I 33\ - 67\ 1 67\ - 90\ I 90\ - 100\ I
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-*-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---1
1
I
I GGG=======> I
I
I
I
I
VVV===>
I
NNN===>
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - --I
I
1
I
SSS===>1
1
I
1
I
PPP=======>
I
I
I
I
QQQ=======>
I
- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - --I
I
1
KKK===> I
I
I
I
1
FFF=======>
I
I
I
I MMM=======> 1
I
I
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-*-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---1
5 - I 5= I 5+ 1 4 - I 4= I 4+ I 3 - I 3= I 3+ 1 2 - I 2= I 2+ 1 1- I 1= I 1+ I
===============================================================================
COMMON APTITUDE-INTEREST OVERLAP REPORT
OAP
9
12
13
14
21
23
24
*** HIGH APTITUDES WITH AVERAGE INTERESTS (Inventory) ***

GOE-INTEREST-AREA GOE-# GOE-WORK-GROUP-TITLE
DATA JOBS
MEDICAL SCIENCES
02.03 MEDICAL SCIENCES
2
51
PLANTS & ANIMALS
2
6
PLANTS & ANIMALS
3-6
11
PLANTS & ANIMALS
03.04 Elemental: Plants & Animals
All
157
MECHANICAL
05.05 Craft Technology
2-6
617
MECHANICAL
05.08 Land & Water Vehicle Operation All
41
MECHANICAL
05.09 Materials Control
1-4
93
...
..,
/7
,,
GOE-PG
27
57
57
59
88
108
110
, .
'..
'
MECHANICAL
05.09
MECHANICAL
05.10
MECHANICAL
05.10
MECHANICAL
05.11
MECHANICAL
05.12
*** MEDIUM APTITUDES
OAP GOE-INTEREST-AREA GOE-#
11 PLANTS & ANIMALS
03,01
22 MECHANICAL
05.07
25
26
27
28
29
Materials Control
5
34
Crafts
1- 4
269
Crafts
5 -6
148
Equipment Operation
All
130
Elemental Work: Mechanical
All
431
WITH AVERAGE INTERESTS (Inventory) ***
GOE-WORK-GROUP-TITLE
DATA JOBS
Manaqerial: Plants.& Animals
1-3
49
Quality Control
1 - 2 28
110
115
115
123
127
GOE-PG
51
104
TRANSFERABLE SKILLS ANALYSIS

Based on the above information and testing an adjusted
vocational profile was developed. Information was obtained from
OASYS in an attempt to discover transferable skills. On the primary
search level 0 occupations emerged. Further search on levels 4-8
yielded 69 job titles. Of these jobs many were involved in the
medical, psychological, and counseling arena.The client explored
these areas and selected
Podiatrist
General Practitioner
079.101-022
070.101-022
RECOMMENDATIONS
This is a 38 year old white male with cleft palate which
significantly affects
long
term
ability
to
use
verbal
communication. Repair or revision of the cleft palate to preserve
and remediateMr. Gillespie's ability to speak is indicated. From
information obtained from his treating physician,
initial
assessment, transferable skills analysis, labor market survey, and
vocational testing it is this counselors' opinion Mr. Gillespie
will need retraining. Completion of a 4 year degree is indicated.
Should Mr. Gillespie have difficulty with college based training to
a degree which would make entry into the medical field not
feasible, it is suggested he examine areas such as counseling,
chemistry, and teaching.
Should you have any questions or if I may be of any further
assistance please do not hesitate to contact me at
DVR, 525 Mirror Lake Dr. RM 145, St. Petersburg, FI 33701 Tel 813
893-2261.
Sincerely
/.~ttd.}.11t~
Brad L. Meyer CRC
Senior VR Counselor
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner,
vs.
DOAH Case No. 98-3444
Respondent.
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL ORDER

Petitioner moves for Summary Final Order on the following grounds:
1.
Summary disposition is authorized whenever there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact. (Fla. Admin. Code Rule 28-106.204.4 (4)).

2.
Respondent DVR framed the issue in this matter by determining that
Petitioner Neil Gillespie is not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because his
disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in employment.
(See, Petitioner's Third Amended Petition For Administrative Hearing, Paragraph III,
Disputed Issues ofMaterial Fact).
3.
Respondent DVR notified Petitioner Neil Gillespie of its decision on
December 4, 1997, by letter. (See, Petitioner's Third Amended Petition For

Administrative Hearing, Paragraph II, Notice of Agency Decision).
4.
Respondent's letter to Petitioner is clear and unambiguous, and was written
by Douglas M. Ligibel, an experienced Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant. It should be
Page - 1
read for its plain meaning. (See, Petitioner's Third Amended Petition For Administrative
Hearing, Exhibit 1).
5.
Respondent DVR has the burden of proving by "clear and convincing"
evidence that Petitioner is incapable of benefiting from vocational rehabilitation services in

terms ofan employment outcome (34 CFR 361.42(d)(ii. The "clear and convincing"
standard is the highest standard used in our civil system of law.
6.
Respondent DVR is unable to prove by "clear and convincing" evidence
that Petitioner is incapable of benefiting from vocational rehabilitation services in terms of

an employment outcome. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is Respondent's answer to
Petitioner's discovery, Interrogatory No.3. Petitioner asked Respondent to "State the
facts in support ofrespondent's contention in paragraph one of its letter to petitioner that
"It has been determined that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services
because your disability is too severe at this time for vocational rehabilitation services to
result in employment." In its answer to Petitioner's clear, unambiguous question,
Respondentfailed to provide a single fact supporting its contention. Instead, Respondent

issued several unresponsive, gratuitous assertions. Moreover, Respondent's pathetic
answer is impeached by its own comprehensive, four page, Vocational Screening of
Petitioner Neil Gillespie. This document supports Petitioner's claim for services. (See,
Petitioner's Third Amended Petition For Administrative Hearing, Exhibit 3, Vocational
Screening ofNeil Gillespie).
7.
Respondent has not met its burden of proof by "clear and convincing"
evidence that Petitioner is too severely disabled at this time for rehabilitation services to
result in employment. Furthermore, Petitioner believes that Respondent's action is further
Page - 2
evidence of systemic problems at the Florida DVR. The Advocacy Center for Persons
with Disabilities, Inc., a public interest law finn mandated by federal law, determined that
"Florida's Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) is entrenched in a conscious
decision to deceive the public and individuals with disabilities." (Advocacy Center's
Client Assistance Program Annual Report, FY 1996-97, Directors Comments, Attached
hereto as Exhibit B).
8.
Because no disputed issues of material fact exist, Petitioner is due the relief
requested in his Third Amended Petition For Administrative Hearing as a matter of law.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 1998.
I certify that Petitioner's Motion for Final Surnma.ty Order hereof was filed by fax
with J. Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative
Hearings, DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550; and
also faxed to Michael A. Gren: Office of the General Counse~ The Hartman Bldg., Suite
307,2012 Capital Circle, S.E., Tallahassee, 32399-2189, on October 2, 1998.
Page - 3
Exhibit A
INTERROGATORY NO.3: State the facts in support of respondent's contention in

paragraph one of its letter to petitioner that "It has been determined that vou are not
eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because vour disabilitv is too severe at this
time for rehabilitation services to result in emplovrnent." (Exhibit 1).
ANSWER:
Mr. Gillespie
c1aim~ to
be :eeking vocational rehabilitation services from
the Division. However Mr. Gillespie has a consistent pattern of refusal to

cooperate with the Division in the delivery of such services. Given that Mr.
Gillespie knows he must cooperate to get vocational rehabilitation
services and based upon his pattern of non-cooperation and analysis by
mental health professionals, the Division concludes his inability to
cooperate stems from the severity of his disability. Alternatively, if his
failure to cooperate is unrelated to his disability, such failure is an
independent !:Jroun<.i
lUI
case closure. An amended decision leiier
incorporating this separate ground for case closure is being sent to Mr.
Gillespie.
Petitioner's Interrogatories and Requests

for Production to Respondent (First Set)
Page - ~
Exhibit B
ex TENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ANNUAL REPORT FY 1996-97
DIREcrOR'S COMMENTS
Florida's Division ofVocatiooal Rehabilitation (DVR) is entrenched in a conscious decision
to deceive the public and individuals with disabilities. DVR is content with turning its back on the
very individuals the Rehabilitation Act was designed to protect by denying equal access to a full
range of services for individuals with the most severe disabilities. Evidently, DVR believes that
individuals with most severe disabilities do not reside in institutions or resaictive environments,
such as Developmental Services Institutions (DSIs), Mental Health Institutions (MHIs), Assisted
!lYing Facilities (ALFs), group homes, and nursing homes and sheltered workshops, or that they
have no vocational rehabilitation value. This is despite irrefutable proof in more proactive states
that a.full range of comprehensive rehabilitation services and adequate supported employment
promote independent living, community integration, and successful rehabilitation. This would be
hard but rewarding work for DVR. It would take innovative proactive leadership, well-coordinated
outreach, and a will to comply with the letter of the law which does not currently exist.

The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) should not take the Client Assistance
Program's (CAP's) documentation or word alone on this question of compliance with the need to
go to an order of selection. RSA need only to survey the institutions and resaictive environments
mentioned above or talk to individuals with the most severe disabilities who are forced to live and
die there. Florida's Protection and Advocacy Programs (p&As) are also ready, willing, and able
to provide substantial verification of this systemic abrogation of individual rights.
CAP was pleased to receive RSAs Policy Directive 97-04 concerning employment goals of
individuals with disabilities which affirms the intent and spirit of the law. Unfortunately, Florida's
DVR appears to reject this policy directive, or at best, considers it optional. DVR's lack of
enthusiasm or will to enforce the directive is evidenced by the fact that they have not widely
distributed it or trained staff on their responsibility to comply. Is this because DVR can't serve all
eligible individuals with disabilities or is this merely another tactic to deny meaningful career
choices as a cost saving measure? CAP has handled numerous requests from conscientious DVR
field staff who were unable to get the policy directive from their own state office. CAP has also
had to repeatedly respond to DVR's bureaucratic quagmires in the erratic distribution of funds
resulting in interruptions or denials of rehabilitation services around the state. DVR field staff
remain fearful of retribution from its own office by reporting this or any other systemic problems
with their agency. CAP looks forward to its challenge in promoting responsible and compliant rule
promulgation with DVR through the administrative procedures process. We certainly hope that
RSA will review and comment on DVR draft rules as well.
Although the bulle of complaints that come to CAP continue to be against DVR, we will also
be focusing more attention in the coming fiscal year to the provision of vocational rehabilitation
services to individuals with the most severe disabilities who may be denied equal access with the
Di"ision of Blind Services (DBS) such as underserved or previously not served individuals with
blindness and developmental and mental health disabilities forced to live in restrictive environments
as disC'.lSSed with DVR. CAP will also be reviewing the Business Enterprise Program specific uses
of Rehabilitation Act funds.
Annual Client Assistance Program
(CAP) Report. Form RSA-Z27
7'
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner,
vs.
Res
DOAH Case No. 98-3444
ndent.
PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAW OF REQUEST FOR HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner pro se, NEIL J. GILLESPIE, hereby
files this Notice of Withdraw of Request for Formal Hearing pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.036,
F.A.C., and states as follows:
1.
By filing this notice of withdraw, Petitioner voluntarily abandons all his
requests for agency action at issue in this proceeding. (Rule 60Q-2.036, F.A.C.).
2.
Respondent has not made a sincere effort to settle this matter, and in
essence offered only to act lawfully in future dealings with Petitioner. Also, Respondent
has refused to comply with, or adequately respond to, Petitioner's discovery requests; and
Respondent's vendor, the Boley Center, provided incomplete discovery responses to
Petitioner's subpoena duces tecwn.
Page - I
o
3.
Petitioner objects to the fact that his properly filed Motion for Summary
Final Order was not adjudicated by this tribunal.

4.
Petitioner's doctor suggests he not pursue DVR services, and believes that
continued contact with DVR is detrimental to his well-being. Petitioner will proceed with
his own, unilateral rehabilitative efforts.
5.
Developments in this proceeding reveal that matters exist for adjudication
which are beyond the jurisdiction ofthis tribunal. Those matters include, but are not
limited to, tort and discrimination claims, and constitutional issues. In the interest of
economy to this tribunal and the parties, Petitioner will consolidate his claims and pursue
them in United States Federal District Court at the appropriate time.
DATED this 9th Day ofNovember, 1998.
Respectfully Submitted,
I certify that a copy hereof was mailed November 9, 1998, to Michael A. Gren:
Office ofthe General Counsel, The Hartman Bldg., Suite 307, 2012 Capital Circle, S.E.,
Tallahassee, 32399-2189.
Page - 2
o
STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION,
)
)
)
)
Respondent.
Case No. 98-3444
------------------)
ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING AND CLOSING FILE

Based on the Petitioner's Notice of Withdraw [sic] of
Request for Hearing, this proceeding is dismissed, and the file
of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed.
DONE AND ORDERED this
\~
day of November, 1998, in
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
~
!
diJ~i", L-.
LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
~v(~_,Jt::r-.-.)
Filed with the Clerk of the

Administrative Hearings
this ~ day of November, 1998.
Divisio~of
COPIES FURNISHED:
Neil J. Gillespie
1121 Beach Drive, Northeast
Apartment C-2
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
NEIL J. GILLESPIE
Petitioner,
vs.
L.T. CASE NO.: 98-3444

DLES CASE NO.: 98-163-DVR

OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION,
Respondent.
FINAL ORDER
This Petition is before the State of Florida, Department of Labor and
Employment
Security
("Department").
The
Department
has
adopted
Administrative Law Judge J. Lawrence Johnston's November 12, 1998, Order

Dismissing Proceeding and Closing File and, accordingly, the Department
dismisses the Petition.
Tamara B. Allen, Director

I
Filed this
/7
/,
/r--,
/~
'. day: of Dec--;ember, 1998.
\ / /7 J.L~
11,dfL~~';d1
~:tf~
______________
Nelda J. Atldhsolll', C1er
DepartmeriW/Labor and Employment Security
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
This order is final agency action. Judicial review of final agency action may be
had by filing notices of appeal in both the appellate district where the petitioner
resides and with the clerk of the Department within 30 calendar days of the date
this order is filed in the official records of the Department. 120.68, F.S.; Fla. R. App.
P. 9.110. UNLESS A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS TIMELY FILED, NO FURTHER REVIEW IS
PERMITIED. Copies furnished: Neil J. Gillespie, 1121 Beach Dr., NE, Apt. C-2, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701-1432; Michael A. Greif, Office of the General Counsel,
Hartman Bldg., Suite 307,2012 Capital Circle S.E., Tallahassee, FL 32399-2189.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAllON
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
WILLIAM J. COOK
300 West Platt Street, Suite 150

Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone 813/4891001
Facsimile 813/4891008
March 27,2001
Neil 1. Gillespie
Apartment C-2
1121 Beach Drive NE
Re:
Vocational Rehabilitation
Dear Neil:
I am enclosing the material you provided to us. We have reviewed them and, unfortunately,
we are not in a position to represent you for any claims you may have. Please understand that our
decision does not mean that your claims lack merit, and another attorney might wish to represent you.
If you wish to consult with another attorney, we recommend that you do so immediately as a statute
oflimitations will apply to any claims you may have. As you know, a statute oflimitations is a legal
deadline for filing a lawsuit. Thank you for the opportunity to review your materials.
William 1. Cook
WJC/mss
Enclosures

SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC &amp; DVR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC &amp; DVR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

Case No.: SC11-1622

2001, 03-22-01, Letter, Gillespie to Mr. Cook, Barker, Rodems &

Cook, Florida Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES CASE NO: 98-066-DVR

Second Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, 06-07-98

Third Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, 07-02-98

Petitioners Motion for Final Summary Order, 10-02-98

Petitioners Notice of Withdrawal Of Request for Hearing, 11-09-98

Order Dismissing and Closing the File, Final Order, 11-12-98

Telephone and Fax: (727) 823-2390

A brief medical history relevant to VR.

In essence, the state discriminated against me based on disability and refused

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DLES CASE NO: 98-066-DVR

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

NEIL J. GILLESPIE petitions the Division of Administrative Hearings for an

administrative hearing against the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

SECURITY, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITION, Respondent.

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) office located at 3251 3 Ave. North,

III. Disputed Issues of Material Fact

IV. Background Information

In an effort to secure competitive employment consistent with his unique strengths,

Respondent's unlawful behavior toward petitioner severely damaged the agency

Olymp~ Washingto~ where

representative, but to no avail. The Client

v. Respondent's Determination is Unlawful

Petitioner receives Social Security Disability benefits pursuant to

Title II of the Social Security Act. Petitioner is therefore eligible for VR

a. FS 413.30(1) states, "A person is eligible for vocational

Respondent has not demonstrated by "clear and convincing

evidence" that petitioner is too severely disabled for VR services to result in

VI. Evidence of respondent's unlawful and discriminatory behavior.

Excerpt from case notes of Robert E. Williams, VR Counselor:

ii. Respondent failed to assess petitioner consistent with his

Respondent used an offensive epithet to describe petitioner's

disability instead of appropriate medical terminology.

Respondent's psychological assessments of petitioner are negligent,

discriminatory, and without informed choice pursuant to 34 CFR 361.52.

Excerpts from case notes of Brad Meyer, VR Counselor:

i. This damage stems from respondent's unlawful behavior

i. This option was necessary because of the severe damage to

i. Because respondent acted unlawfully toward him, petitioner

ii. Tessa (Mary Little), a CAP employee, interceded on

i. Respondent counsels petitioner not to return to Florida and

arbitrarily deny to some of its citizens the benefits of such a

Petitioner received VR services in the State of Washington.

Petitioner returned to his home in St. Petersburg,

1996, and contacted respondent to continue the VR process.

Petitioner's current case: Douglas M. Ligibel acts unlawfully.

413.30 (2) and (3). Mr. Ligibel unlawfully required petitioner to

i. Petitioner's IWRP dated July 31, 1997, was made without

i. Petitioner's historical information concerning employment,

medical, personal and other data.

li. Petitioner's current case information.

information obtained in conjunction with respondent's demand that

petitioner meet eligibility standards other t~ or above and beyond,

those set forth by FS 413.30 (2) and (3).

Mr. Ligibel's behavior was hostile and outrageous dwing the

December 4, 1997, meeting pursuant to

CFR 361.43 (a). (This

example is illustrative and not inclusive).

i. Mr. Ligibel stated that petitioner's dismissal from ajob with

Respondent refuses to provide petitioner the VR services he needs to

Respondent interpreted petitioner's initial 1993 request for treatment

SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR

SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR

Florida Telephcmc Relay System - TOO 1800-9-8771 Voice 18()()'98770