[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12178]
[[Page 26724]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-
Sheppard Act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on October 20, 1993, an
arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Michael Lawyer
v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, (Docket No. R-S/92-
14). This panel was convened by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-2, upon receipt of a complaint
filed by petitioner Michael Lawyer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the full text of the
arbitration panel decision may be obtained from George F. Arsnow, U.S.
Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3230,
Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-2738. Telephone: (202) 205-
9317. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-8298.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20
U.S.C. 107d-2(c)), the Secretary publishes a synopsis of arbitration
panel decisions affecting the administration of vending facilities on
Federal property.
Background
Michael Lawyer, complainant, is a blind vendor licensed by the
Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services (DORS), which is the
State licensing agency under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Mr. Lawyer
began operation of the vending facility at the Cook County Hospital on
October 1, 1990.
Mr. Lawyer was given a safe to be used to deposit monies from the
facility. The safe subsequently broke, and Mr. Lawyer was advised by
DORS that they could not furnish another one and that he would have to
replace it. The facility had a rolltop safe that was used by other
vendors to deposit their monies at the end of their workday. Instead of
replacing the broken safe, the complainant began depositing his monies
into this rolltop safe if he had a witness to verify the amount of his
deposit. If complainant did not have a witness to verify the amount, he
took the money home with him and returned it in the morning.
Complainant believed this practice was accepted by his lead manager and
carried it out on several occasions, without incident. On February 3,
1992, the lead manager issued complainant $500.00 for use as working
capital in order to make change. Mr. Lawyer was to return this money to
the lead manager at the end of his workday. Instead of returning the
money, complainant took it home, where later that evening he was robbed
and the money stolen. Mr. Lawyer was hurt during the struggle and had
to be hospitalized for his injuries. A police report was filed that
same day. Only after returning home from the hospital did he realize
that the money had been stolen.
On March 17, 1992, DORS terminated complainant's license for
violation of its rules governing facility money. Chapter IV, Sec.
650.100(m), 89 Ill. Adm. Code, states that facility money, product,
equipment, or program assets shall not be removed from the facility by
the vendor for personal use and that violation shall result in
termination of the vendor's license. Mr. Lawyer contested the decision
to revoke his license and was provided a Level II hearing on May 27,
1992, pursuant to DORS rules. The hearing officer found that DORS had
properly terminated complainant's license. Mr. Lawyer then appealed the
DORS decision to the U.S. Department of Education, and a hearing was
convened on July 27, 1993.
Arbitration Panel Decision
The panel unanimously found that complainant did not have
permission to remove the money in question from the facility and failed
to use an available secure place to safeguard the facility assets. A
majority of the panel members found that, although the complainant did
not maliciously intend to appropriate the money for personal use, once
the facility assets were removed from the facility, complainant took
full control and possession of the assets for personal use in violation
of Chapter IV, Sec. 650.100(m), 89 Ill. Adm. Code. However, one panel
member dissented and held that personal use under the regulations means
that the funds had to be used for direct personal gain such as
purchasing goods or using the funds in a similar personal manner.
In recognizing that the loss of a vendor's license to a legally
blind person with limited opportunity for gainful employment is a very
severe penalty, the panel recommended that DORS convene another panel
to review complainant's employment record to determine if his license
should be returned. It also recommended that if DORS elects to return
complainant's license, he should repay the $500.00.
The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.
Dated: May 12, 1995.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 95-12178 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
