[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