STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
KAREN L. RUSSELL, )
)
Petitioner, )
and )
) RICHARD E. WILLIAMS, Executive )
Director, Florida Commission on ) Human Relations, )
)
Intervenor, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-895
)
CITY OF PORT ORANGE POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on August 10 and October 3, 1983, in Daytona Beach, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Rick Kolodinsky, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, Karen L. Russell; and Christopher W. Wickersham, Sr., Daytona Beach, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, City of Port Orange Police Department. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations intervened in the proceeding and filed a legal memorandum prior to the hearing. The Executive Director did not, however, appear at the hearing.
On or about May 13, 1981, the Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Petitioner alleged that the City of Port Orange Police Department discriminated against her in connection with her employment on the basis of her sex. On or about January 24, 1983, the Executive Director of the Commission found that there was probable cause to believe that the Respondent did unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner. Conciliation efforts failed, and Petitioner filed a "Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice" with the Commission. The matter was filed with the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 25, 1983. The final hearing was originally scheduled to be conducted on June 30, 1983, but was continued on motion of the Respondent and rescheduled to be conducted on August 10. The hearing was convened on August 10, 1983, but was not completed. A continuation of the final hearing was scheduled for October 3, 1983, and the hearing was concluded on that date. During the course of the proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Executive Director of the Commission on Human Relations moved to intervene in the proceeding, and the motion was granted. No appearance was made on behalf of the Executive Director at the hearing but a hearing brief was filed on his behalf.
At the outset of the final hearing, the Petitioner moved that the City of Port Orange Police Department be estopped from denying sexual harassment charges on account of a decision issued by an Unemployment Compensation referee respecting the same issues. Ruling upon the motion was deferred, and the issue has been carried forward. The Respondent was permitted to present evidence in support of its position pending a resolution of the issues raised by Petitioner's motion.
Petitioner testified as a witness on her own behalf and called the following additional witnesses: Ken Smith, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Janet Paul, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Lori Wharton Spence, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Les Forney, formerly the City Manager of the City of Port Orange; William Wetherell, formerly Administrative Assistant to the City Manager of the City of Port Orange; Robert Latina, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Charles Lau, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department and the Petitioner's husband; Joseph Grawett, Jr., the Personnel Director at the City of Port Orange; and Elizabeth Clark, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department. The Respondent called the following witnesses: David Warren Solona, the Chief of Police at the City of Port Orange; Regina Marie Best, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Jean Pounds, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Jean Hull, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; Howard Scott McKeever, a former employee of the Port Orange Police Department; and Randolph F. Milholen, a captain in the Port Orange Police Department. The deposition of an additional witness, Nick Boccuzzi, a lieutenant employed at the Port Orange Police Department, was taken subsequent to the hearing. A transcript of the deposition has been received as Respondent's Exhibit 4. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 21 and Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 4 were offered into evidence and were received.
The parties have submitted posthearing legal memoranda including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted only to the extent that they are expressly set out in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which follow. They have been otherwise rejected as not supported by the evidence, contrary to the better weight of the evidence, irrelevant to the issues, or legally erroneous. There were conflicts in the testimony of various witnesses. In resolving the conflicts, regard has been given to the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, the extent to which the witnesses' testimony is corroborated by other evidence, and the extent to which the witnesses' testimony is consistent with prior testimony or statements that they made.
ISSUES
The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the City of Port Orange Police Department discriminated against the Petitioner on account of her sex in connection with her employment at the police department and, if so, what remedies are appropriate. Petitioner contends that she was subjected to sexual harassment, denied promotions on account of her sex, and ultimately forced to resign on account of continued sexual harassment. She contends that she is entitled to damages in excess of $20,000 plus costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner was neither harassed nor discriminated against on account of her sex, that she voluntarily resigned her position, and that she is entitled to no damages.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Port Orange is a municipality located in Volusia County, Florida. The city's police department presently has 54 employees including civilian personnel (secretaries, clerks, and dispatchers), patrolmen, corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and the chief. The chief, who answers to the city manager, is in charge of the day-to-day activities of the department.
The Petitioner, Karen L. Russell, is a female. She was hired as a dispatcher with the Port Orange Police Department in late February, 1978. Petitioner performed well as a dispatcher, received commendations, satisfactory reviews, and annual raises. Petitioner had ambitions to be a regular police officer. About three or four months after she started with the department, she asked to go to "rookie school." This is a preliminary step to advancement within the department. Completion of the school is necessary in order to obtain certification as a police officer. In order to be sworn in and have arrest powers, certification was essential. During the time that Petitioner was employed with the department, and continuing until the present, the chief of police was David Solona. There were two captains in the department, one of whom was Randy Milholen. Milholen was ultimately in charge of the dispatchers. Captain Milholen advised Petitioner that they would not be sending any more women to rookie school and that they were not interested in having any more women on the road as regular police officers. Nonetheless, Petitioner was eventually allowed to attend rookie school. She was advised, however, that she would not be allowed to go on the road as a regular officer when she completed the school. Petitioner attended the school, completed it, and received certification from the Florida Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training. The certification was issued October 27, 1978. Despite the fact that she had obtained certification, Petitioner was not sworn in as a police officer at the department for a period of a year. Captain Milholen was opposed to having the Petitioner sworn in and told her that. She wished to be hired as a regular road officer, and she advised Captain Milholen and Chief Solona of this desire. She was not hired as a regular officer. Instead, males who completed the rookie school program after Petitioner completed it were sworn in and hired as regular road officers. Chief Solona advised Petitioner that he felt it was too dangerous for women to be on the road and that he needed to protect them.
He stated that he had had two women on the road previously and that he did not want to have any more. Solona advised Petitioner that women should be at home and that they should have a man take care of them. Solona told Petitioner that if women needed money, they should make it on their backs, an obvious indication that he felt that if women needed money, they should resort to prostitution.
Three men from the Petitioner's rookie school class were sworn in as regular officers before they even finished the school program. Immediately upon finishing the program, they were hired and placed on the road as regular officers.
In 1980, Petitioner was promoted from her position as a dispatcher and made animal control officer. Previous animal control officers had not been certified police officers, and Petitioner was given the additional duty of "environmental officer." She received pay comparable to what regular road officers received, except that the road officers were allowed to work 12-hour shifts for four days and receive overtime bonuses for work in excess of 40 hours per week. They also had a retirement program, extra details during busy times, and opportunities to attend career enhancement courses that could result in increased pay. Petitioner was allowed to work only 40 hours a week, had no overtime opportunities, and was not regarded as a regular police officer.
During the time that she was animal control and environmental officer, Chief Solona ordered Petitioner to make coffee for the office when she arrived in the morning. She felt that this was not part of her job description, and she refused. The chief took her job description and wrote "coffeepot" on it. He also gave her a memorandum requiring that she make coffee.
Petitioner made numerous requests, both while she was dispatcher and while she was animal control and environmental officer, to attend career enhancement courses. All of her requests were denied. During all of the time that she was with the department, the Petitioner made it plain to Chief Solona and to Captain Milholen that she desired to be a regular police officer. She was continuously advised that that would not be possible. The reason that Petitioner was not given an opportunity to work as a regular police officer with the department was her sex. Chief Solona did not want to have women police officers, and he sought to limit their number as much as possible.
There was an atmosphere at the Port Orange Police Department at the time that Petitioner worked there that was derogatory and demeaning to women. Vulgar language and gestures on the part of officers were a daily occurrence. Two persons who engaged in this conduct most frequently were Captain Milholen and Lieutenant Boccuzzi. Milholen would frequently make movements as if he was feeling females' breasts or hunch his pelvis in simulation of intercourse. There were narrow hallways at the department's offices. Milholen would typically brush by females who passed him in the hallway, including Petitioner, in a rude and sexually suggestive manner. On a few occasions, Milholen got sexually aroused and pointed out his erection to female employees. Boccuzzi engaged in similar conduct on a constant and ongoing basis. Boccuzzi, however, would actually grab females' breasts and rear ends. He would act as though he was going to unzip his pants and would make vulgar comments about women and their bodies. During the three years that Petitioner remained with the Port Orange Police Department, the vulgar language and gestures occurred on a virtually daily basis. Chief Solona was not a participant in this sort of imbecilic conduct, but he was aware of it and took no steps to end it.
In addition to the ongoing vulgar language and conduct, there were several acts of sexual harassment directed at Petitioner by Chief Solona, Captain Milholen, and Lieutenant Boccuzzi which reflect the attitude of these people toward women and which ultimately caused the Petitioner to resign her position. When the Petitioner was sworn in as a police officer, Solona conducted a pinning ceremony in which he placed his hand inside Petitioner's blouse and pinned a dispatcher's badge on her. The pinning ceremony is not one that occurred with all officers. It was reserved for female employees. On one occasion, Chief Solona advised Petitioner that he could fix her up with a man who would pay her $100 a couple of times a week to spend an evening with her.
On another occasion, Solona and Captain Milholen were in Orlando at some sort of professional conference. They called Petitioner, who was then at work, and asked her to come to Orlando along with her roommate. Both Milholen and Solona in the telephone conversation inferred that Petitioner's job would be in jeopardy if she did not go to Orlando to meet them. Petitioner's roommate agreed to go because of the risk to Petitioner's job. While she was on her way to Orlando, Petitioner was still on active duty at the police department. When the two of them arrived in Orlando, Solona and Milholen took them out to supper, then to a topless bar. The rest of the evening proceeded fairly innocently for Petitioner.
On more than one occasion, Captain Milholen arrived unannounced at the Petitioner's apartment. On one occasion, Milholen came with another officer,
and they actually chased the Petitioner and her roommate around the room physically. Boccuzzi's conduct was even more overt. He showed up at the Petitioner's apartment drunk on several occasions and was abusive, sexually forcing himself on Petitioner on one occasion. On another occasion, Petitioner and her roommate had to call a local policeman to remove Boccuzzi from their yard. Boccuzzi dropped his pants and exposed himself in their yard. On another occasion, he did the same thing at the parking lot of the police department.
Chief Solona's response upon hearing of these sorts of conduct was to reprimand Boccuzzi.
Chief Solona made it plain to Petitioner that she was not permitted to carry any problems she had at the department over his head. He threatened her with termination if she went to the city manager.
Ultimately, Petitioner could no longer tolerate the continuous sexual harassment imposed on her by high-ranking employees at the department. She sought to resign her position effective November 28, 1980. Chief Solona persuaded her to take a leave of absence for a month in order to think things over. She did that, but did not return, and her letter requesting a leave of absence ultimately became her resignation letter. In resigning from her position, Petitioner did not immediately charge the Respondent with sexual harassment and with discriminatory activities. She wanted to leave the job with as few bad feelings as possible and without any blotches on her employment record. When she finally returned to the department in late December, 1980, to get her last paycheck, however, she got one more dose of harassment from Chief Solona, and it was too much. Solona told Petitioner that she would need to work for her check, inferring that she would have to have sex with him in order to get her final paycheck. She left his office and went to the city manager's office and lodged complaints against Solona and the police department.
Based upon Petitioner's complaint, the city manager initiated an investigation of Solona and concluded that Petitioner's allegations were well founded. He terminated Solona. Solona fought the termination and was ultimately reinstated by the city commission. There were lengthy hearings that resulted in his being reinstated. Petitioner was not a party to those proceedings.
After she left the department, Petitioner sought unemployment compensation benefits. An appeals referee of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Unemployment Compensation Appeals Section, ruled that Petitioner left her employment due to continuous suggestive remarks made by her employer and some fellow employees. The referee held that Petitioner had good cause to leave her employment and that she was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner and the City of Port Orange were parties to the proceeding before the appeals referee. The issue in the proceeding was whether Petitioner had good cause for leaving her employment on account of sexual harassment. It was concluded that she did.
While Petitioner ostensibly left her employment with the Port Orange Police Department voluntarily, her leaving actually constituted a constructive dismissal. She left because of the continuous vulgar, suggestive, and harassing conduct of the chief, the captain, and the lieutenant. But for the fact that she was a female, Petitioner would have been hired as a regular road officer upon completing rookie school. If she progressed in an average fashion, she would now be a sergeant with the department. It is likely that she would have attended some career enhancement courses and received additional pay on account of them.
During 1978, Petitioner earned $6,640 in her position with the Port Orange Police Department. If she had been hired as a regular patrol officer, she would have received $8,970, a difference of $2,330. During 1979, Petitioner earned $8,449.28 from her employment with the Port Orange Police Department. If she had been hired as a regular police officer, she would have received
$11,032.84, a difference of $2,583.56. During 1980, Petitioner earned $9,884 in her position with the Port Orange Police Department. If she had been hired as a regular patrol officer, she would have received $11,308.44, a difference of
$1,424.44. After she left the Port Orange Police Department, Petitioner made diligent efforts to obtain suitable employment. Despite her best efforts, she was able to earn only $4,200 during 1981. If she had been retained as a regular patrol officer with the City of Port Orange, she would have received $11,590.80, a difference of $7,390.80. During 1982, despite her best efforts, Petitioner was able to earn only $9,696.84. If she had been retained by the City of Port Orange as a regular police officer, she would have received $15,225.60, a difference of $5,528.76. Up until the time that the hearing commenced on August 10, 1983, Petitioner had earned, despite her best efforts, only $4,286 during 1983. If she had been retained by the City of Port Orange as a regular police officer, she would have received $6,899.76 in compensation up to that time, a difference of $2,613.76. Due to the fact that she has been discriminated against on account of her sex by the City of Port Orange, Petitioner lost a total of $21,871.32 in wages from 1978 until August 10, 1983.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Florida Statutes Section 23.167(1)(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, because of such individual's sex. . .
The Port Orange Police Department hired the Petitioner as a dispatcher and later as an animal control and environmental officer, rather than as a regular patrol officer, solely on account of Petitioner's sex. If the Petitioner had bean a man with the same qualifications that she possessed, she would have been hired as a regular patrol officer.
Petitioner was constructively discharged from her employment with the Port Orange Police Department due to continuous lewd, vulgar, and sexually harassing language and conduct on the part of the department's highest ranking officers. Although she ostensibly left her employment voluntarily, the action of the department's highest ranking officers was such as to require her to leave. She was constructively discharged, and the discharge was based upon her sex.
Florida Statutes Section 23.167(13) provides as follows:
In the event that the commission. . .finds that an unlawful employment practice has
occurred, it shall issue an order prohibiting the practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including reasonable attorney's fees. . .
Petitioner is entitled to be hired as a regular patrol officer. The City of Port Orange Police Department should be directed to place her in the first available position as a regular patrol officer that is open within the department. Petitioner has lost $21,871.32 in wages as of August 10, 1983, on account of the discriminatory activities of the Port Orange Police Department. The city should be required to pay her these lost wages.
Petitioner is entitled to receive a reasonable attorney's fee. The parties agreed at the hearing to submit issues respecting an appropriate attorney's fee to the Commission by affidavit.
The decision rendered by the appeals referee of the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Section resolved any issues respecting the nature of Petitioner's discharge from her position with the Port Orange Police Department. The proceeding involved the same issues and the same parties as involved in this proceeding respecting the nature of her discharge. Collateral estoppel should accordingly be invoked to estop the city from arguing that her discharge was not the result of sexual harassment. The Findings of Fact set out in this Recommended Order, however, are based upon a full presentation of the issues. While the decision of the appeals referee would justify a finding that Petitioner was discharged as a result of sexual harassment, that finding in this Recommended Order is based upon all of the facts presented at the hearing.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,
That a final order be entered by the Commission on Human Relations finding that the City of Port Orange Police Department discriminated against the Petitioner, Karen L. Russell, on account of her sex, in failing to hire her as a regular patrol officer, and in ultimately constructively discharging her as a result of sexual harassment. Petitioner should be offered the first available position with the Port Orange Police Department as a regular patrol officer; compensated as if she had been continuously employed with the Department since February, 1978; awarded back pay in the amount of $21,871.32 and further back pay calculated after August 10, 1983; interest and all costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.
RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rick Kolodinsky, Esquire
142 North Causeway
New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069
Christopher W. Wickersham, Sr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 2140
Daytona Beach, Florida 32015
Jean Owen, Esquire
Florida Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Mr. Richard E. Williams Executive Director
Florida Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
KAREN L. RUSSEL,
Petitioner,
and
RICHARD E. WILLIAMS, Executive
Director, Florida Commission on Human Relations,
FCHR Case No. 81-1484
vs.
Intervenor, DOAH Case No. 83-0895 FCHR Order No. 83-055
CITY OF PORT ORANGE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Respondent.
/
ORDER FINDING UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
AND AWARDING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
Panel of Commissioners
The following three Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
Commissioner Robert R. Joyce, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner John J. Sulik, Commissioner Willy A. Bermello
Appearances
No appearance was made by or on behalf of Petitioner Karen L. Russell; hover, exceptions to and elucidation of the hearing officer's Recommended Order were filed. 1/
No appearance was made by or on behalf of Respondent, City of Port Orange Police Department (hereafter City); however, exceptions to the Recommended Order and a response to Petitioner's exceptions were filed.
Preliminary Matters
Ms. Karen L. Russell, Petitioner, filed a Complaint of Discrimination with this Commission pursuant to the Human Rights Act of 1977, Part IX, Chapter 23,
Florida Statutes (1981), 2/ alleging that the City, Respondent, unlawfully discriminated against her because of her sex by failing to promote her to police patrol officer, continually sexually harassing her, depriving her of equal pay for equivalent work and constructively discharging her in December, 1980.
In accordance with the Commission's rules, the allegations of discrimination set forth in the Complaint of Discrimination were investigated and a report of said investigation was submitted to the Executive Director, after review and recommendation of the assigned attorney. On January 24, 1983, the Executive Director issued his Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977. Efforts to conciliate the dispute were unsuccessful and on or about March 14, 1983, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice.
The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of the formal proceeding pursuant to Rule 22T-8.16(1). The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted June 30, 1983, but was continued on motion of Respondent. On August 10, 1983 the hearing was convened and then continued to October 3, 1983, when it was concluded before hearing officer G. Steven Pfeiffer in Daytona Beach, Florida.
The Petitioner filed Exceptions To and Elucidation of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in which she took no exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law but made reference to certain damages, costs and attorney fees, and that she did not want re-employment.
The City responded to Petitioner's Exceptions urging that the Commission not retain jurisdiction, that on refusal to be re-employed there should be no front pay, that remedial steps have been taken to correct the actions complained of, and that interest should not be awarded.
Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 9, 1983, before the aforementioned Panel of Commissioners. The Panel conducted its deliberations on this matter and determined the action to be taken.
III. Findings and Conclusions
Having considered the Recommended Order, the pleadings of the parties and the limited record below, the Panel finds that the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are supported by competent substantial evidence and that the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law, based upon such findings, are a correct application of law. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached and made a part hereof by reference.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are adopted, the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are adopted, as well as the balance of the Hearing Officer's recommendations, except for the City being required to offer Petitioner the first available position as a regular patrol officer.
Further, in accordance with the recommendation of the Hearing Officer and upon action of Petitioner with objection from Respondent, the Panel reaches the following conclusions with respect to the assessment of back pay, front pay and attorney's fees:
1. Supplementing the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact Number 14, the Petitioner is entitled to the following:
Back Pay (to December 9, 1983) 3/ $23,714.24 Interest 4/ $ 2,740.59
Front Pay 1 year $ 3,136.56
Total $29,591.39
The Panel has considered the guidelines set forth in Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellow's, 209 So.2d 454, 458-459 (Fla. 1968), for determining the amount of the attorney's fee award. Applying these guidelines, the Panel concludes that the hours expended by Petitioner's counsel are reasonable and that a reasonable fee in this case should be based on an hourly rate of $70.00.
It is therefore ORDERED:
That City forthwith cease and desist from discrimination and having a sexually harassing work environment for female employees.
That the City take the following affirmative action:
Pay Petitioner twenty-three thousand, seven-hundred and fourteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($23,714.24) in back pay together with interest in the sum of two thousand, seven-hundred and forty dollars and fifty-nine cents (2,740.59) and three thousand, one-hundred and thirty-six dollars and fifty-six cents ($3,136.56) front pay.
Pay Petitioner ten thousand, seventeen dollars ($10,017.00) as her reasonable attorney's fees, and one thousand, one-hundred and twenty-four dollars and one cent ($1,124.01) costs.
Notify the Commission in writing within forty-five (45) calendar days front the date of filing of this Order of the steps that have been taken to comply herewith.
The parties are advised of the right to petition the appropriate District Court of Appeal for review of this Order within thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. 120.68, Fla. Stat. (1981); Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b).
DATED this 4th day of January, 1984.
FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS:
BY:
Commissioner Robert. R. Joyce, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner John J. Sulik, Commissioner Willy A. Bermello.
FILED this 16th day of January, 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida.
BY:
Rosemary Scaringe
Clerk of the Commission
ENDNOTES
1/ The parties stipulated to waive oral argument.
2/ Unless otherwise indicated all statutory citations are to the Florida Statutes (1981). All rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code.
3/ Backpay from August 10 through December 9 at $1,842.92 included.
4/ Pursuant to Section 687.01, at the interest rates in effect each of the years in question.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rick Kolodinsky, Attorney for Petitioner (C.M. # 353 072 714)
Christopher W. Wickershaut, Sr., Attorney for Respondent (C.M. # 353 072 715)
The Honorable G. Stephen Pfeiffer, Hearing Officer. Aurelio Durana, Legal Advisor for Panel.
J. Worth Owen, Attorney for Intervenor.
Administrator of Field Services.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 15, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 31, 1983 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 04, 1984 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 31, 1983 | Recommended Order | Petitioner was entitled to first position available, to back pay plus interest and to attorney fees for being forced to leave job due to sexual harassment. |
