STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ROSA GIBSON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 92-1673
)
ACT CORPORATION, )
)
Respondent. )
) LILLIAN BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 92-1692
)
ACT CORPORATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on December 10, 1992, and on January 19, 1993, in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner Gibson: Rosa Gibson, Pro Se
1129 Hillcrest Drive
Daytona Beach, Florida 32117
For Petitioner Brown: Reginald E. Moore
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1848
Daytona Beach, Florida 32015
For Respondent: Mitchell A. Gordon Attorney at Law
Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32120
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The ultimate issues are whether ACT Corporation (ACT) engaged in unlawful employment practices by discriminating against Petitioners Rosa Gibson (Gibson) or Lillian Brown (Brown) on account of race. More specifically, both Petitioners allege that they were terminated based on race.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioners presented the testimony of Myra Morris, Kenneth Polite, Betty Ivey, Bobby L. Bradley, Jr., Rosa Gibson, and Lillian C. Brown. Petitioners each had one exhibit admitted into evidence.
Respondent presented the testimony of Mentho Saafir, Karen J. Schuman, Donna Dooley, Rosario M. Rizzo, Sr., Darlene Hasenkamp, Elizabeth Ann Turley, and Carolyn Fleming. Respondent offered no exhibits.
Both Petitioners testified on rebuttal.
The parties agreed that proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were to be filed twenty (20) days following the filing of the transcript. The transcript was filed on February 11, 1993. ACT advised in writing that it was waiving its opportunity to file a proposed order. Petitioners failed to timely file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, no proposed findings of fact have been considered and no specific rulings are necessary.
FINDINGS OF FACT
ACT Corporation is a comprehensive community mental health provider. In 1989, it had five major clinical departments and employed approximately 500 people, of whom 24% were minority employees and 18% were black.
One of the clinical departments includes two residential facilities for mentally ill clients, Big Pine and Big Tree. The Petitioners herein have been employed at both facilities, but were on the staff of Big Tree at the time of their terminations.
Brown began working for ACT on September 14, 1982. She worked at several different facilities, but was working at Big Pine in 1987 as a Residential Specialist or Residential Advisor (RA) under the immediate supervision of the house manager, Myra Morris, who is black.
Gibson began working for ACT in November, 1987, as Residential Specialist or Residential Advisor (RA) at Big Pine under Morris.
Gibson was often tardy for work and Morris counseled with her about the problem. During one discussion between Morris and Gibson about tardiness, Gibson became haughty and verbally aggressive toward Morris. Morris would have terminated Gibson for this aggression, but she knew Gibson needed the job. Instead, Morris had Gibson transferred to Big Tree.
In early 1988, Morris was transferred to another position with ACT. She was replaced as house manager by Kenneth Polite, a black employee. Brown continued as an RA at Big Pine.
Brown was transferred to Big Tree and promoted to House Manager on September 30, 1988. Gibson continued as an RA at Big Tree under Brown.
In January, 1989, Ann Turley became the Clinical Administrator for Adult Services and the immediate supervisor over both facilities. Brown was still on probation in the House Manager position because Turley's supervisor, Chris Kennedy, had extended Brown's probation. The extension resulted from Brown's poor performance, including poor follow through on assignments,
incorrect preparation of reports and paperwork, inability to communicate effectively, and inability to conceptually grasp and carry out programs.
Turley kept Brown on in the House Manager position despite the poor performance because Brown told her that Kennedy and she just did not understand all that Brown was doing. Turley told Brown to keep a written record to show what she was doing.
In July, 1989, Polite left employment with ACT. Turley made some organizational changes at that time. ACT and her department needed to come up with $100,000 in revenue or in expense reduction. Turley made the decision to cut back one staff person at Big Pine. The position of house manager at Big Pine was eliminated. The two facilities were reorganized to have a Team Leader at Big Pine and a Residential Coordinator at Big Tree. Turley told Brown of these changes before they were announced. Brown was promoted to the Residential Coordinator position.
Donna Dooley, a white employee was made Team Leader at Big Pine. She received a 5% raise, not a raise to the salary level of House Manager. Turley made the selection for Team Leader from the five eligible employees remaining at Big Pine. All five had been employed at ACT by Turley's predecessor. Turley examined the personnel files of the five employees, including performance evaluations. The employee with the best evaluation, within the most recent evaluations made by Polite, was Dooley. Polite noted in her evaluation that Dooley had filled in for him and had done a good job at it and that the other staff at Big Pine came to Dooley for leadership and advice.
Turley's decision was poorly received by some of the staff. Polite had wanted the house manager position to go to his roommate, a black employee. Other staff thought the position should have been awarded based on seniority. Staff from the various facilities of ACT asked Turley by letter to meet with them to discuss the position.
Turley met with the staff, but no real discussion occurred. The staff in attendance was racially mixed. Individual staff members, including Gibson, verbally attacked Turley because they failed to understand that the house manager position had been eliminated and that the Team Leader position was not its equivalent. Turley was quite emotionally upset about the hostile tone displayed at the meeting.
She was also concerned that Brown had signed the staffs' letter requesting a meeting and had attended the meeting, because Brown was a supervisor and not a member of the supporting staff. Brown also had been told before anyone else the reasons for the reorganization and she knew that she was being promoted to Residential Coordinator.
Turley had made the decision to promote Brown as Residential Coordinator because the reorganization had to go through and Brown's duties would not change that dramatically. The Residential Coordinator would work closely with the Team Leader to organize and coordinate the operation of both facilities. The position of House Manager ceased to exist at either facility.
Brown's inadequate performance continued while she was on probation as Residential Coordinator. The same problems were apparent and some new ones arose. One significant problem was in Brown's supervision and discipline of Gibson. Gibson was repeatedly late for work and she brought her child to work with her. Brown was told by Turley to take certain corrective and disciplinary
actions with Gibson, but she failed to do so. Gibson also was rude to a case manager at medication clinic (med clinic), refused to get a client's chart for a case worker, and repeatedly yelled at, demeaned and was uncooperative with the staff at med clinic. Turley instructed Brown to give a counseling statement to Gibson for this behavior, but again Brown did not do so.
Because of Brown's lack of appropriate job performance, Turley demoted her from Residential Coordinator to Residential Advisor at Big Tree on September 7, 1989. Turley assumed Brown's job duties temporarily. Brown and Gibson were very upset over this demotion. The evidence taken as a whole shows that Brown and Gibson developed an "us versus them" attitude which significantly interfered with their job performance thereafter.
After Brown's demotion, Turley discovered a new fiscal problem. One option for addressing the problem was to change Big Tree from a level two to a level one facility. That change would require a change in staffing patterns such that licensed practical nurses would be required around the clock and a registered nurse as the supervisor of the LPNs. Turley rewrote the job description for the Residential Coordinator position to require a registered nurse's license.
In October, 1989, Darlene Hasenkamp, who is white, was hired as the Residential Coordinator because she was an RN and had experience with mentally ill patient care. As Residential Coordinator, Hasenkamp supervised all staff at both Big Tree and Big Pine. Donna Dooley, the Team Leader at Big Pine was the person immediately below Hasenkamp in the supervisory chain. While the staff at Big Tree were not immediately responsible to Dooley, Dooley did have some supervisory responsibilities over the staff at both facilities when Hasenkamp was not there.
Brown and Gibson did not like working for Hasenkamp or Dooley. Both were subtly resistant and uncooperative with Hasenkamp and Dooley. Mentho Saafir is another black Residential Advisor with ACT. Her observation is that Brown and Gibson were part of a small tight group of black employees. The group got mad because Dooley was made Team Leader. Then when Brown was demoted and Hasenkamp was hired, they became openly oppositional to any encounter with Dooley. Gibson was especially hostile and uncooperative with Dooley.
On a Saturday during November, 1989, Dooley and Hasenkamp were both off work, but they were on call for their respective facilities. A client at Big Pine was suicidal. The one staff person working at Big Pine was managing the client and called Dooley for assistance in getting the van and transporting the client to the hospital. The van was parked at Big Tree because Big Tree always had two staff persons on duty and Big Pine only had one. Therefore in an emergency, one staff person could leave Big Tree to take the van to Big Pine to assist.
Dooley was at home and called Big Tree to get the van delivered to Big Pine. Gibson answered the telephone at Big Tree. She was evasive and refused to answer Dooley's questions about who was working at Big Tree and where that person was. Dooley told Gibson that she needed the van for a suicidal client. Gibson kept saying that her coworker wasn't there and finally told Dooley that if she needed the van "I suggest you come and get it yourself." After much pressing by Dooley, Gibson acknowledged that her coworker was Brown and Brown was not there.
Dooley called Hasenkamp and explained the problem and described Gibson's evasiveness and lack of cooperation. Hasenkamp told Dooley to meet her at Big Tree. When Dooley arrived at Big Tree, Hasenkamp was discussing with Gibson her rude and uncooperative behavior toward Dooley on the telephone. As Dooley walked in to Big Tree, Gibson jumped up, leaned over the desk and shouted that Dooley was not her supervisor and she did not have to report (or listen) to Dooley.
In order to avoid a confrontation and to get the van to the client in need, Hasenkamp told Dooley to take the van. Dooley left. Hasenkamp sat down and waited for Brown to return to work. When Brown came in 45 minutes later, she had a bag of fast food. Hasenkamp asked where she had been and Brown advised that she had been getting breakfast. Brown said she had only been gone
25 to 30 minutes. Hasenkamp told Brown that it was against normal procedures to leave like that while on duty. Brown simply said she didn't know that.
Hasenkamp then took Brown to Big Pine to relieve Dooley who was there alone, having sent the staff person in the van with the client. On the way, Hasenkamp stopped at her home and at her mother's home. When they arrived at Big Pine, Hasenkamp's briefcase fell open to reveal a counseling statement to Brown regarding some furniture, however, that counseling statement was administered at a later time.
The counseling statement about the furniture arose from Hasenkamp's direct instructions to Brown to inspect some furniture that was to be delivered before signing the invoice. Brown did not inspect the furniture, but did sign the invoice. When the furniture was finally inspected by Hasenkamp, a tear was discovered in one chair. Brown claimed that she had told the maintenance man to look at the furniture, but that was contrary to Hasenkamp's direct instruction. Brown was "written up" for this failure to carry out her supervisor's instructions.
Brown and Gibson were also written up for the incident regarding the
van.
Gibson was also written up regarding another matter. Hasenkamp had
sent a memo to all of the staff about eating pastry in the office. She instructed all staff to initial and sign-off on the memo by a certain date. Everyone signed the memo except Gibson, who refused. The time for signing the memo passed, but rather than write Gibson up for failing to carry out her instructions, Hasenkamp called Gibson to find out why she had not signed the memo. Gibson was off work at the time and Hasenkamp called her at home. Gibson was extremely rude, told Hasenkamp that she had no business bothering her at home, and refused to discuss the memo. Gibson gave Hasenkamp no choice except to write her up again.
On December 12, 1989, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Hasenkamp and Dooley drove up to Big Tree. Dooley went in for Hasenkamp because Hasenkamp was on crutches. Brown came outside to the car and told Hasenkamp she needed to come inside regarding a problem. Dooley and Hasenkamp observed Gibson holding and comforting a client, Janice, who was suffering a locked jaw and an extremely painful muscular reaction as a side effect of her psychotropic medication. The patient had to have been in severe discomfort for a couple of hours. The side effects are counteracted by another medication, Cogentin. It was obvious to Hasenkamp that the client needed emergency medical care.
Hasenkamp asked if the client had been given her Cogentin. The Cogentin is to be given every day at 9:00 p.m., so Hasenkamp asked to see the medication records from December 11, 1989, to see whether the client had received her Cogentin. Gibson and Brown were the staff people for the 4 to 12
p.m. shift on both December 11 and 12, 1989. Hasenkamp asked Gibson if she had given the client the Cogentin on December 11th. Gibson said yes. Hasenkamp then looked at the medication records and found that no one had initialed to show that they had given the Cogentin on December 11th. Hasenkamp again asked Gibson, but when Gibson was shown the unsigned medication record, she admitted that she did not know if she had given the medication.
Hasenkamp sent Gibson to take the client to the emergency room. The client was given an injection of Cogentin. When Gibson asked Hasenkamp if she should give the December 12th dose of Cogentin to the client, Hasenkamp told her no, because the injection would serve in place of the dose. Hasenkamp told Gibson to initial the medication record for December 12th to show that Cogentin was given.
Hasenkamp also instructed Brown to hold the client back from work the next morning and to make sure the client was sent to med clinic so that the psychiatrist could review and adjust her medications.
The next morning, December 13, 1989, Hasenkamp arrived at Big Tree just as the van was leaving with clients for med clinic. She flagged down the van and asked the driver, Rosario Rizzo, if that client, Janice, was on the van. Rizzo said "no" because no one had told him to take that client. Hasenkamp told Rizzo what had happened the night before, because Rizzo is a nurse. She then sent Rizzo to find the client and take her to med clinic.
When Rizzo had arrived that morning, he went to the office and spoke with Brown and Nadine Banning. Banning was the person who had been on duty from midnight to 8:00 a.m. He personally asked Brown and Banning who was scheduled to go to med clinic. Brown read him the names off of a list, but did not mention Janice. At Hasenkamp's instructions, Rizzo found Janice at the bus stop, waiting to go to work. He took her to med clinic.
When Hasenkamp went into Big Tree, she immediately asked Brown why she had failed to hold Janice and send her to med clinic. Brown's only reply was "It doesn't matter anyway because the psychiatrist won't see Janice without an appointment."
Hasenkamp then went to look at the medication records for Janice and discovered that Gibson had gone back and filled in her initials to show that she had given the missed dose of Cogentin to Janice on December 11th. When Hasenkamp asked Gibson about this, Gibson told her that she remembered that she had given the medication on the 11th. In fact, it is not possible for the client to have had such a severe side effect reaction on December 12th if she had been given her medication on the 11th.
Hasenkamp determined that Gibson and Brown had endangered the safety and health of a client and had failed to follow her direct instructions, because Gibson did not properly given the medication and Brown did not hold Janice for med clinic. Gibson's late "memory" that she had given the medication further undermined her confidence in Gibson. She felt she could no longer trust their judgment and could no longer entrust the care of patients to them.
Hasenkamp recommended that both be terminated. Turley took that recommendation and did an investigation. From that investigation, she determined that they had, in fact, endangered the client. Specifically, Turley found that Gibson had failed to ensure that the medication was taken and had then tried to cover up that failure and that Brown had failed to get the client to med clinic as instructed. Turley terminated Brown and Gibson on December 14, 1989.
The reason given to each in the letter of termination was "insubordination." This reason was given in writing because the personnel director of ACT recommended that they not say "endangerment of a client's health and safety" for liability reasons.
Both Gibson and Brown filed a grievance with ACT's affirmative action officer, Carolyn Fleming, a black employee. Fleming did an extensive investigation of all of Gibson's and Brown's allegations of harassment and termination based on racial discrimination. Fleming determined that there was no racial discrimination in ACT's actions.
Based on an observation of the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses and on a review of the contradictions in the testimony, it is determined that the testimony of Brown and Gibson is less credible than that of the witnesses for ACT. Both Brown and Gibson gave testimony that was calculated to show them in the best light. While it is not determined that their testimony was untrue, it is found that their memories of these events are skewed so as to diminish the severity of their failures.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
This action is brought pursuant to the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.01-.10, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Gibson and Brown are claiming that by terminating them, ACT Corporation engaged in the unlawful employment practice of discrimination against them on account of race.
The applicable model of proof in such discrimination cases is that outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). That model of proof is stated as follows:
First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant "to articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." . . .
Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.
Burdine, supra, 450 U.S. at 252-3.
Here, the most basic of prima facie cases has been shown in that Gibson and Brown are black and they were terminated. While such a weak showing may not be sufficient to meet the requisite standard, it is not the central issue herein.
ACT has clearly articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the terminations. The history of problems with Gibson's performance and attitude, capped off by her endangerment of a client, are sufficient to justify ACT's decision to terminate. Similarly, Brown's failure or inability to perform the job requirements, while insufficient in and of itself to justify termination, together with the final inactions which endangered the safety of a client, are legitimate reasons for termination.
There was simply no credible testimony or other evidence to show any racial motivation for the terminations. Additionally, the only suggestion of pretext can be found in the statements in the termination letters that the terminations were for "insubordination." While it is not entirely clear that the actions which resulted in termination were purely acts of insubordination, the explanation given by ACT for not stating in writing that Gibson and Brown had endangered the safety of a patient is legitimate. That explanation is accepted as credible.
There being no evidence that the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the terminations were pretexts for discrimination, it is concluded that Gibson and Brown, the Petitioners herein, have failed to carry the burden of proving racial discrimination. The Petitions for Relief should be dismissed.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitions for Relief filed by Rosa Gibson and Lillian
Brown be DENIED and DISMISSED.
DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE K. KIESLING
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1992.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on
Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on
Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
Rosa Gibson
1129 Hillcrest Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117
Reginald E. Moore Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1848 Daytona Beach, FL 32015
Mitchell A. Gordon Attorney at Law
Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, FL 32120
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
Issue Date | Proceedings |
---|---|
Aug. 14, 1996 | Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief From An Unlawful Employment Practice filed. |
Apr. 01, 1993 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 12/10/92 & 1/19/93. |
Feb. 11, 1993 | Transcript (2 Vols) filed. |
Feb. 08, 1993 | Letter to DKK from Mtchell A. Gordon (re: Conversation w/secretary regarding Proposed Finding of Fact) filed. |
Jan. 19, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
Dec. 11, 1992 | Order Of Continuation Of Formal Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 1-19-93; 9:00am; New Smyrna Beach) |
Nov. 16, 1992 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum (4) filed. (From Mitchell A. Gordon) |
Nov. 13, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
Nov. 10, 1992 | Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (From Mitchell A. Gordon) |
Nov. 10, 1992 | Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (From Mitchell A. Gordon) |
Oct. 26, 1992 | Ltr to AA1 Parliamentary Reporting from L. Lunkley re: court reportconfirmation sent out. |
Oct. 26, 1992 | Joint Stipulated Motion for Continuance filed. |
Oct. 26, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 12-10-92; 9:00am; New Smyrna Beach) |
Oct. 23, 1992 | Petitioner Lillian Brown's Response to Prehearing Instructions filed. |
Oct. 01, 1992 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
Oct. 01, 1992 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
Sep. 15, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing Depositions filed. |
Sep. 14, 1992 | Notice of Filing Depositions; Deposition of Lillian Brown filed. |
Sep. 01, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 11/6/92; 9:00am; New Smyrna Bch) |
Sep. 01, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Appearance and Motion for Continuance; AmendedMotion for Continuance filed. |
Sep. 01, 1992 | (Petitioenr) Amended Motion for Continuance filed. |
Aug. 24, 1992 | Petitioner's Compliance With Order for Prehearing filed. |
Jun. 22, 1992 | Petitioner's Request for Continuance filed. |
Jun. 22, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Telephonic Hearing filed. |
Jun. 19, 1992 | Order Consolidating, Continuing, And Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 92-1673 and 92-1692; hearing scheduled for 9-3-92; 9:00am; New Smyrna Beach) |
Jun. 19, 1992 | (Respondent) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No. 92-1692) filed. |
Jun. 09, 1992 | Respondent's Compliance With Order for Prehearing filed. |
Mar. 31, 1992 | Response to Transmittal Of Petition filed. (From Rosa P. Gibson) |
Mar. 31, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6-24-92; 9:00am; New Smyrna) |
Mar. 31, 1992 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out.(parties shall file their prehearing stipulation no later than 10 days prior to the date set for final hearing) |
Mar. 30, 1992 | Ltr. to DKK from J. Wayne Dreggors re: Reply to Initial Order w/Election of Method of Preservation of Record & Notice of Redetermination + Determination & Notice of Determination filed. |
Mar. 19, 1992 | Initial Order issued. |
Mar. 16, 1992 | Transmittal of Petition; Complaint; Notice of Determination; Petitionfor Relief; Notice to Commissioners and Respondent's Notice of Transcription filed. |
Issue Date | Document | Summary |
---|---|---|
Jul. 29, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
Apr. 01, 1993 | Recommended Order | No race discrimination shown. |