BY TRACY LEE TATE
Times Editor
LAKE BUTLER — It has been said many times in recent years that America today is a litigious society, where suing someone has become more common than simply talking the situation out between the parties involved.
In recent weeks, Union County has found itself facing three situations where the courts will be involved in resolving circumstances that are ongoing or have arisen recently. It is going to be a challenge for the Board of Commissioners, County Attorney Russ Wade and the additional legal counsel that has been brought on board to weather these coming storms and protect the county as much as legally possible.
As has been the case for the past several years, the issues concerning phosphate mining taking place in the county is in the front of the pack as far as lawsuits go. The situation has come to the point that the courts have decided that HPS Enterprises has a clear legal right to sue the county, under the Bert Harris Act, because of changes in the land development regulations (LDRs) that they say is the equivalent of prohibiting them from their desired use of their property – referred to in the legal documents as “inverse condemnation.” The suit, which will seek damages from the county for the “lost property value” HPS claims was caused by the change in the LDRs (along with HPS’s legal fees and court costs), asks for a judgement of $298,750,000. The matter is currently scheduled for mitigation, where the parties will gather and attempt to come to some sort of agreement and compromise that will avoid what promises to be a length court trial.
Unfortunately, the results of this mitigation will not be made available to the public, or the press, until the matter is fully resolved – either settled or gone to trial. The Union County Board of County Commissioners will be holding a Special Meeting on the matter, including a closed Executive Session on Nov. 23, 2021 at 10 a.m. to discuss this case. The Executive Session will not be open to the public or the press since it may involve discussions concerning pending legal matters, therefore the results of this session may not be made public for several months or more.
Union County is also party to an action against the state of Florida, for its planned use of the $1.6 billion settlement from the much-publicized opioid lawsuit, filed by the state against several pharmaceutical companies and distributors that manufacture and disseminate the highly addictive opioid drugs, including oxycontin, as well as several others. The suit claims that these manufacturers caused the opioid crises by making false claims such as the drugs presenting a low risk of addiction and that use could promote long-term positive effects on a person’s lifestyle without severe risks.
The total settlement for the suit is $26 billion, divided up between the 14 participating states based upon population. In Florida, the individual counties were given a deadline of Jan. 2 to claim their share of the $1.6 billion, but it now seems that the state is reluctant to release the funds to local governments and want to keep the funds under their control instead. Counties are now seeking their “fair share” of the funds, after years of paying out taxpayer funds for the treatment of opioid addition and the investigation of the large number of suicides attributed to the drugs. At this time, it is unsure whether or not the matter will make it to the courts, or whether the state will back down and distribute the funds as was originally planned when the suit was filed against the drug companies and other related businesses.
In the most recent legal challenge to emerge for the county, an employee is suing under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages she claims were owed to her from the period of October 2018 to August 2021. The total of the unpaid wages, in addition to her attorney fees and other “liquidated damages” such as interest in the money claimed to be owed, total $86,940.
Patricia Burkel was hired by the county in April of 2018 to fill the open position of administrative assistant in the office of Union County Emergency Medical Services. Her starting salary was set at $12.50 per hour, which has increased over time to her present rate of $14.66. By all accounts she did her job well and was a consistent and conscientious employee.
Soon after she was hired, her supervisor asked a member of the board of commissioners concerning paying her overtime and was told she was not to be paid any overtime – a comment that has since been clarified as an instruction to not have her work any overtime hours, as this would cause the department’s payroll to run over the amount allowed for it in the budget. Unfortunately, this instruction was misinterpreted by the supervisor as an order to not pay her for any overtime hours, not to keep her from working them.
By her own admission in the court documents, Burkel never complained about the average of 15 hours over 40 she worked each week, but her husband, who had been out of the area on deployment through most of the time of her employment with EMS, made a verbal complaint concerning the matter. In a sworn statement, made by Burkel in response to a list of questions asked by the court, she worked about 15 hours overtime each week and was not paid for them, either at her regular rate or at the Federally required time-and-a-half rate for hours worked over 40 in a week. She claims that the hours she turned in for each pay period were altered by the supervisor to reflect a standard, 40-hour week. She says that this situation continued until the resignation of the supervisor several weeks ago.
In her statement, Burkel admits that upon being advised of the situation, the board offered to settle with her for an amount less than she felt that she was owed, seeing it as a partial payment. Instead of taking this offer
she filed for relief under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for the full amount she feels she is owed, plus “liquidated damages” which include interest for the period the money has been owed her, her legal fees and court costs, which essentially double the amount she is suing for. Burkel is seeking an award of $86,940.
The county has been served with a scheduling order that sets out the chain of events to take place in the case and does offer an opportunity for settlement rather than taking the matter to a formal court hearing. If a settlement cannot be reached, the case will go before a judge in the United States District Court in the Jacksonville Division.
The Union County Board of County Commissioners has set a Special Meeting and a closed Executive Session to discuss the matter for 9 a.m. on Nov. 23, 2021. The meeting will not be open to either the public or the press but will be fully recorded by a certified court reporter. This record will then be sealed until the conclusion of the litigation.
