STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TERRY WOODEN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 85-4097
)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, W. Matthew Stevenson, held a formal hearing in this cause on May 22 and 23, 1986 in Quincy, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
FOR PETITIONER: Marva Davis, Esq.
379 E. Jefferson Street
P. O. Box 551 Quincy, FL 32351
FOR RESPONDENT: Drucilla E. Bell, Esq.
Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Corrections, committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 5, 1983, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating him from his position on the basis of race. On June 30, 1985, the Florida Commission on Human Relations rendered its Proposed Notice of Determination that
there was reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. By petition filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 4, 1985, a formal hearing was requested on Petitioner's charge of discrimination. This cause came on for final hearing on May 22 and 23, 1989. The parties have submitted Posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact:
l. The Petitioner, Terry Wooden, a black male, was hired by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Corrections, on December 5, 1980 as a Correctional Officer I at River Junction Correctional Institution.
River Junction Correctional Institution (RJCI) is a secure facility responsible for the care, custody and control of certain inmates.
Correctional Officers are assigned to security posts which are located throughout the facility. Some "inside" security posts are located within inmate dormitories. Outside perimeter security posts, which are small tower-like buildings, are located along the perimeter fence and are the last observation posts between containment and possible inmate escape.
For security reasons, the Respondent prohibits sleeping on the job and requires its correctional officers to remain alert at all times. Supervisors (generally employees holding the rank of sergeant) often make "rounds" of the facility wherein security posts are visited to ensure that the officer on, duty at that post is alert. RJCI procedure requires that an officer on duty at a security post "challenge" a supervisor or other correctional officer who approaches the security post.
When a supervisor enters a dormitory, the officer assigned to that post is required to challenge that person by immediately leaving the officer's station (located within the dormitory) to meet the approaching person. If the officer is on the telephone or engaged in some activity, it is acceptable for
the officer to wave his hand to the approaching person or indicate in some other manner that he is aware that someone has entered the area.
When a supervisor approaches an outside security post, the officer on duty is required to meet the approaching individual at the door of the building.
Discipline of employees at RJCI is based on a progressive system. During the time the Petitioner was employed at RJCI, a sergeant was required to report a sleeping/unalertness violation by a correctional officer to the shift lieutenant (supervisor of all employees on a particular shift). There were no written guidelines and the reporting officer was required to exercise some discretion in determining whether he believed that an offense had been committed. On the first incident, the shift lieutenant would counsel the employee about the infraction, but no written report was made. On the second report of an offense to the shift lieutenant, a written report of the incident would be prepared by either the reporting officer or the shift lieutenant. The shift lieutenant would interview the employee about the alleged violation and refer the report to the department head (correctional officer chief). The department head would then submit the written report to the personnel manager with recommendations.
Upon receiving a written report of an infraction from the department head, the personnel manager would gather information pertaining to the offense and give it to the superintendent, along with recommendations for disposing of the case. The superintendent would then schedule a "predetermination conference", confront the employee with the allegations and determine the disciplinary action to be taken.
Prior to 1979 and until June 1982, L. C. McAllister, a white male, was superintendent at RJCI; from June 1982 to December 10, 1982, George Ragans, a white male, was acting superintendent at RJCI; from December 13, 1982 through August 1983, Ken Snover, a white male, was superintendent at RJCI. Each superintendent was responsible for determining the particular penalty to be imposed using guidelines set forth in Chapter 33, Section 9 of the Rules of Personnel.
Generally, the employee's first sleeping/unalertness violation reported to the personnel manager, and ultimately, the superintendent, would result in counseling (oral reprimand); the second violation would result in a written reprimand; the third
violation would result in a suspension; the fourth violation would result in a longer suspension or dismissal; and, the fifth violation would result in dismissal.
Major Miles, a white male, is a department head and functions as the overall supervisor of correctional officers at RJCI. Miles assigns posts and shifts to correctional officers. Major Miles usually assigns new correctional officers to midnight shift after they complete orientation.
After Petitioner completed his orientation period, he was placed on midnight shift (12:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) and assigned to Post 23 in "G" dormitory.
The Petitioner completed his one year probationary period on December 5, 1981. The Petitioner was assigned an overall rating of "satisfactory" by his shift supervisor, Lieutenant Carter, a black male. The evaluation stated that Petitioner got along well with supervisors and fellow employees.
In December of 1981, Lieutenant Childs, a white male, became the Petitioner's shift supervisor. Initially, the Petitioner and Lieutenant Childs enjoyed a friendly relationship. Lieutenant Childs drove the Petitioner to work on several occasions and both men shared a common interest in sports.
On December 13, 1981 an officer made a routine check of "G" dormitory and found Petitioner asleep in the officer's station. The Petitioner was counseled about this first infraction.
Shortly after Petitioner's sleeping incident of December 13, 1981, Major Miles changed Petitioner's post assignment from dormitory to Perimeter Post 3. Major Miles changed Petitioner's post because several inmates had complained to him that a lot of stealing was taking place and that Petitioner was not watchful enough to prevent it. The inmates also complained that Petitioner's counseling style seemed like harassment.
After Petitioner's post was changed from "G" dormitory to Perimeter Post 3, his relationship with Lieutenant Childs began to turn sour. The Petitioner was "concerned" because he believed that Lieutenant Childs had input into Major Miles' decision to reassign him.
On May 10, 1982, Lieutenant Childs found the Petitioner unalert at Perimeter Post 3. The Petitioner received a written reprimand for this second infraction.
On August 19, 1982, Sergeant Pollock, a black male, found Petitioner unalert while on duty at Perimeter Post 3. Sergeant Pollock reported the incident to Lieutenant Childs but suggested that Petitioner be counseled rather than "written-up". Sergeant Pollock believed that a lesser punishment might encourage Petitioner's improvement. Lieutenant Childs told Pollock to think about it for a couple of days.
On August 21, 1982, Sergeant Parks and Sergeant Tharpe found Petitioner unalert at his post. When Sergeant Pollock discovered this incident, he changed his mind about his previous recommendation to Lieutenant Childs. Childs told Pollock to submit a written report. The Petitioner was suspended for 3 days for these third and fourth sleeping/unalertness infractions.
On September 2, 1982, Lieutenant Childs completed an employee rating evaluation on Petitioner for the period September 1, 1981 to September 2, 1982. Petitioner was given an overall rating of "satisfactory", but Lieutenant Childs noted several areas of concern. Lieutenant Childs mentioned that Petitioner seemed to interpret counseling sessions "as personal threats conspired, for no bonafide reason to harass him." However, Lieutenant Childs went on to note that Petitioner's attitude and work performance was improving and that Petitioner was "making a definite and positive effort to correct his shortcomings."
On October 28, 1982 an inmate escaped from RJCI. At the time of the inmate's escape, Petitioner was on duty at Perimeter Post-3 and William Chessher, a white correctional officer, was on duty on Perimeter Post 2. Major Miles, the department head, recommended that both men be disciplined for being unalert. Because the inmate's escape route took him through Perimeter Post 3's primary area of responsibility, Major Miles recommended that Petitioner be dismissed; Miles recommended that Chessher be reprimanded or suspended because the escape route was along Perimeter Post 2's secondary area of responsibility.
On November 18, 1982, Acting Superintendent George Ragans held a predetermination conference concerning Petitioner's October 28, 1982 unalertness charge. Mr. Ragans found that the offense was substantiated but did not follow Major Miles' recommendation that Petitioner be dismissed. Ragans suspended the Petitioner for fifteen (15) days for this fifth sleeping/unalertness violation.
Immediately following the November 18, 1982 predetermination conference, Ragans suggested to Petitioner that Petitioner should request a shift change. However, Petitioner explained to Ragans that he had a new baby at home, was taking college courses and did not want a shift change at that time.
When Petitioner returned to work on December 16, 1982 after his fifteen (15) day suspension he had decided that he wanted a shift change. Petitioner went to the control room to find out how to submit a shift change request. In the control room, Petitioner spoke with a female officer concerning the procedures for requesting a shift change. The female officer agreed to type a shift change request for Petitioner. The female officer typed the request and gave Petitioner a copy.
Shift change requests are directed to the shift lieutenant, in this instance, Lieutenant Childs, who then passes the request to Major Miles for final action. The female officer told Petitioner that she would put the original request for shift change in Lieutenant Childs' box in the control room. For some reason, Lieutenant Childs never received Petitioner's written request for shift change.
In January 1983, the Petitioner spoke with the new superintendent, Ken Snover, regarding a shift change. Mr. Snover told Petitioner to proceed through the change of command and if he was still not satisfied, to return and speak with him
again.
One night, while on duty sometime after December 16, 1982 Petitioner asked Lieutenant Childs about a shift change. Lieutenant Childs told Petitioner that there were going to be a lot of changes made.
Petitioner spoke to Major Miles on one occasion after December 16, 1982 and asked about a shift change. Major Miles told Petitioner to submit a written request. Major Miles never received a written request for shift change from Petitioner.
Sometime prior to August 1, 1983, Petitioner was temporarily assigned to "G" dormitory and worked with officer Gano, a white male. Gano complained to Lieutenant Childs that Petitioner was sleeping on duty. Before Gano complained to Childs, Childs had received allegations of Petitioner being asleep from other correctional officers. Because of those complaints, Childs had instructed two sergeants to closely review Petitioner's dormitory work habits. On one occasion, the sergeants told Lieutenant Childs that Petitioner appeared to be asleep while on duty.
On August 1, 1983, Lieutenant Childs instructed officer Gano to let him know if Petitioner was sleeping by giving a pre-arranged signal. Officer Gano found Petitioner asleep or "non-alert" and gave the pre-arranged signal. Lieutenant Childs entered the dormitory without Petitioner challenging him and found Petitioner unalert. Lieutenant Childs wrote a report on Petitioner's sixth sleeping infraction.
Superintendent Ken Snover held a predetermination conference concerning Petitioner's August 1, 1983 unalertness charge. Snover ordered the Petitioner's dismissal, effective August 18, 1983.
Steve Williams, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on April 20, 1981 and was given an oral reprimand for this first offense. Williams was caught sleeping again on June 21, 28, and July 31, 1981. Because of the personnel manager's vacation a predetermination conference letter could not be sent until after the third occurrence and all three violations were addressed at the same conference. Williams was given a written reprimand for this second sleeping infraction.
Thomas Jackson, a black Correctional Officer I, was
caught sleeping on October 29, 1982 and was given an oral reprimand for this first offense. On May 13, 1983, Jackson was caught sleeping a second time and was given an official reprimand. On August 10, 1983, Jackson was caught sleeping a third time and was suspended for one week (5 working days).
Jackson was offered and accepted a shift change, from midnight to evening shift.
Dennis Edwards, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping in July 1982 and was counseled for this first offense. In Apri1 1983, he was caught sleeping again and was given a written reprimand. In July 1983, Edwards was suspended for 5 working days because of his third offense of sleeping while on duty.
Larry Garrett, a black Correctional Officer I, was counseled for sleeping on duty for his first offense, but no documentation was made to his personnel file. On September 5, 1981 Garrett was caught sleeping a second time and was given a written reprimand. On December 3, 1981, Garrett was caught sleeping a third time and was suspended for three days. Garrett was offered a shift change, but declined because he was taking classes and had a newborn baby. On December 16, 1981, Garrett was caught sleeping for the fourth time and was terminated.
Michae1 Weeks, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on June 9, 1981 and was given a written reprimand for this first offense. On May 10, 1982 he was caught sleeping a second time and was given a written reprimand. Weeks was caught sleeping again on August 1, 8 and 10, 1982. Weeks was given a predetermination conference letter, but before the hearing was held, he was caught sleeping again on August 18, 1982. Weeks voluntarily resigned on August 18, 1982.
Warren Harris, a black Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on November 29, 1979 and was given a written reprimand for this first offense. On June 13, 1981, Harris was caught sleeping again and was given another written reprimand. On September 9, 1981, Harris was caught sleeping for the third time and was suspended for three days. Harris was caught sleeping again on October 28 and 29, 1981 for his fourth offense. Harris was given a letter of termination, but resigned before the termination took effect.
Harold Bailey, a white Correctional Officer I, was caught sleeping on June 14, 1982 and was counseled for this first offense. Bailey was caught sleeping again on July 17,
1982 and was given a written reprimand. On January 5, 1983 Bailey was caught sleeping on duty for the third time and was suspended for five days. On April 2, 1983, Bailey was charged with a fourth offense but Superintendent Snover found the allegations "unsubstantiated." Nevertheless, Bailey was counseled and documentation of the incident was placed in his personnel file. Bailey was offered a shift change but he refused it. Bailey's shift was later changed.
In an effort to assist employees who were working midnight shift and having problems staying awake, the personnel manager and the superintendent would sometimes offer the employee a shift change or encourage the employee to seek a shift change. At various times, both black and white employees were offered, or encouraged to seek shift changes when they were having trouble on midnight shift.
From time to time, correctional officers would submit requests for shift and/or post changes. Major Miles, the department head, usually made shift or post changes based on an individual's written request and the needs of the institution to have certain security posts staffed. Major Miles made some shift and post changes without a written request and over the objection of the employee if it was required by the needs of the institution. Shift and post changes at RJCI were given to both white and black employees in a substantially similar manner.
Lieutenant Childs, upon receiving a request for a shift or post change, was required to forward the request to Major Miles for final action. Lieutenant Childs would forward a request for shift or post change with a favorable recommendation only if he believed the employee "earned" the recommendation by good performance on his current shift or post.
As shift lieutenant, Childs was authorized to make some temporary post re-assignments for employees on his shift. During the last several months of Petitioner's employment, Petitioner was permanently assigned to Perimeter Post 3, but Lieutenant Childs temporarily assigned him to a post in "G" dormitory.
While Petitioner was temporarily assigned to "G" dormitory, Lieutenant Childs became aware through "the grapevine" that Petitioner wanted to have Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Because different post assignments, carried different days off, a change in days off would have required a post change. Lieutenant Childs told
Sergeant Pollock to tell Petitioner that he would arrange for Petitioner to have the desired days off as soon as possible if Petitioner's work performance improved.
In January 1983 a new Department of Corrections directive required that certain correctional officers receive
160 supplementary hours of training. A majority of the staff at RJCI was required to complete the supplemental training. From January 1983 through August 1983, personnel at RJCI were engaged in the on-going training program. One set of training classes were scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.mand another set of classes were scheduled from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., five days a week. During the period from January 1983 through August 1983, shift and post changes were made primarily to allow correctional officers the opportunity to attend the training sessions as required.
As superintendent of RJCI, Ken Snover conducted "predetermination conferences" wherein he was required to review allegations, determine whether or not the charges were substantiated and then decide what disciplinary action to take.
Superintendent Snover did not apply a lesser standard of proof at predetermination conferences where Petitioner was charged with sleeping/unalertness violations than he applied when white officers were involved. On one occasion Snover found that the allegations of sleeping were not sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against two white employees, Harold Bailey and Walter Dean, where the allegation was made by one sergeant but denied by both correctional officers. At the predetermination conferences that Snover conducted where Petitioner was charged, the allegations were all substantiated by one or more individuals and denied only by Petitioner.
Perimeter Post 3 as well as other perimeter posts, are isolated outside security posts and are generally not considered to be the most desirable security post assignments. Both black and white officers were assigned to Perimeter Post 3 and other perimeter posts. A slight majority of the correctional officers permanently assigned to perimeter posts were black. There was no indication that correctional officers were assigned to Perimeter Post 3 on a racial basis nor as a "set up" to achieve dismissal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has
jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1983).
In a discrimination case the Petitioner has the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. If the Petitioner succeeds in establishing the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Respondent to articulate some legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the action complained of. Should the Respondent carry this burden, Petitioner must then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the Respondent were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Texas Department of Community Affairs vs. Burdine 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089 (1981). To establish the prima facie case, the Petitioner must present facts which "raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these facts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors." Id. at 450 U.S. 254.
The Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race. While the Petitioner did establish a prima facie case, the Respondent articulated legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons for the actions complained of. Thereafter, the Petitioner failed to show that the articulated, non-discriminatory reasons were merely pretextual.
The evidence established that the Petitioner was terminated for good cause after his sixth sleeping or unalertness offense. Based on the Respondent's system of progressive discipline, termination was an appropriate and consistent measure. The Petitioner failed to show that he was treated differently on account of his race from other employees with the same work history committing the same type infractions. Furthermore, the evidence did not show that the progressive discipline system in general was applied more stringently to blacks than to whites.
The Petitioner alleged that he was discriminated against because he was not given a shift or post change by Respondent. The evidence established that the Petitioner was encouraged to seek a shift change by Acting Superintendent Ragans on one occasion, but at the time the Petitioner did not want to change shifts. Shortly afterwards, the Petitioner did seek a shift change but failed to properly submit the written request through the chain of command. The evidence showed that
Petitioner only approached Lieutenant Childs and Major Miles about a shift change on one occasion each. Both times, the request was oral and somewhat casually made during a period when mandatory a supplemental training program required a great deal of temporary shift changes to accommodate correctional officers who were required to attend the classes. The evidence established that on occasion, both black and white correctional officers were granted shift changes. The evidence fell far short of showing that race played any part in Petitioner's not being given a shift change.
Likewise, the evidence failed to establish that Respondent's failure to grant Petitioner a post change was motivated by race. On occasion, both black and white correctional officers were given post changes upon request. The Petitioner never submitted a written request for a post change as required by standard procedure at RJCI. Nevertheless, Lieutenant Childs had temporarily assigned Petitioner to work on "G" dormitory while Petitioner's permanent assignment was Perimeter Post 3. When Lieutenant Childs became aware that Petitioner wanted yet another post assignment he informed Petitioner that he would try to arrange the re-assignment if Petitioner's work performance improved. The evidence failed to show the crucial element of discriminatory intent.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is
RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint and the petition for relief filed by Mr. Terry Wooden.
DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of September, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day September, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:::
Drucilla E. Bell, Esq. Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Marva Davis, Esq.
379 E. Jefferson Street
P. O. Drawer 551 Quincy, FL 32351
Louie L. Wainwright Secretary
Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on
Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303
Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on.
Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 3230
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner
Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 13.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 13.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 21.
The first sentence is rejected as a recitation of testimony. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by Competent substantial evidence.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as a recitation of testimony.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 30. Matters not contained therein are
rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 4.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 7.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 7.
Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and/or misleading.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
14A. Rejected as subordinate.
14B. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 47.
Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
15A. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Matters not contained therein are
rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
15B. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 22.
Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
16A. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20.
16B. Rejected as misleading and/or not supported
by competent substantial evidence.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or misleading.
Rejected as misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 27,^
28 and 29. Matters not contained therein
are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 28 and 29. Matters not contained therein
are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 39, and
41. Matters not contained therein are rejected
as subordinate, misleading and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as subordinate.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
(No paragraph 34).
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Rejected as subordinate.
Rejected as subordinate.
Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent
Adopted in Finding of Fact 1.
Rejected as subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 15.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 10.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 6.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 20.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. -
Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Rejected as subordinate.
Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 28 and 29.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 44.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 48.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 39 and 47.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 35.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 34.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 36.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected
as subordinate.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 33.
Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 38.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 08, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 08, 1986 | Recommended Order | Petitioner's charge that Respondent discriminated against her is dismissed because the evidence fails to show the crucial element of discriminatory intent. |
