STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HATTIE R. MATTHEWS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-7297
) ALACHUA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY ) COMMISSIONERS/DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on February 4, 1992 in Gainesville, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Bruce M. Smith, Esquire
Post Office Box 450 Gainesville, Florida 32602
For Respondent: Mary Marshall, Esquire
and
Robert C. Ott, Esquire Post Office Box 2877
Gainesville, Florida 32602-2877 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
By agreement of the parties, the issues to be resolved herein are as follows:
Whether or not Alachua County denied Petitioner promotion to the position of Drug Counselor II because of her race (black) over her white counterpart.
Whether Alachua County denied Petitioner promotion to the position of Victim Advocate Director and revised the position qualifications to preclude Petitioner because of her race (black).
If either of these issues were resolved in Petitioner's favor, Alachua County would be guilty of an unfair employment practice pursuant to the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended [Section 760.10 et seq. F.S.].
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner presented the oral testimony of James Whitaker and Warren A. McCluney and testified in her own behalf. She had three of six marked exhibits admitted in evidence.
Respondent presented the oral testimony of James Whitaker, Ida Rawls- Reynolds, Colleen Hayes, and James Santangelo. Respondent had nine exhibits, including R-6A and B, admitted in evidence.
The Amended Prehearing Stipulation was admitted as HO Exhibit A.
A transcript was filed in due course and all timely-filed proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is a black female. She was 41 years of age at the time of formal hearing.
Between April 20, 1984 and approximately April 30, 1989, Petitioner was employed by Metamorphosis. Metamorphosis is an organization that was part of the Alachua County Department of Corrections. The Alachua County Department of Corrections was subsequently renamed the Department of Criminal Justice.
Petitioner initially was hired as a Drug Counselor I.
Metamorphosis' primary goal is to provide long-term, multi-disciplinary treatment and rehabilitation for chronic substance abusers. It accepts only adults with an on-going history of substance abuse with any drug, other than alcohol, as the primary addictive agent. The program's main goal is to help such people become socially functional again.
Petitioner initially testified that she had applied for the position of Drug Counselor II on six separate occasions, but testified in detail to only five.
Petitioner never received the position of Drug Counselor II.
Petitioner professed that she first applied for the Drug Counselor II position in October 1984, approximately six months after she began employment as a Drug Counselor I. However, Petitioner's Alachua County personnel file, which is required to be kept intact for 75 years, does not contain any application by Petitioner for the position of Drug Counselor II in 1984. Petitioner first stated that she was interviewed for the Drug Counselor II position in 1984 by James Whitaker, a white, and Ed Royal, a black. Petitioner later testified that Jim Whitaker and Scott Simmons, a black, interviewed her in 1984. Mr. Simmons did not testify. Mr. Royal did not testify. Mr. Whitaker did not confirm interviewing Petitioner for the Drug Counselor II position in 1984, but he stated that he had participated with Ed Royal in the hiring interview for Petitioner when she was initially hired as a Drug Counselor I from outside the program approximately April 20, 1984.
The Drug Counselor II position was filled in 1984 by James Santangelo, a white, who was hired from outside the program to begin work in 1985.
Historically, the Drug Counselor II positions within Metamorphosis were the senior therapist positions which required background in community clinical therapy.
Petitioner's qualifications for Drug Counselor II as of 1984 were as follows: She received of Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Florida Memorial College in Miami with a minor in Urban Services. She had acted as Vice-president of the Board of Directors for Sexual Abuse Resources Center and was also a public speaker for the Commission on "status of women family violence". At the time Petitioner allegedly applied for the position of Drug Counselor II in 1984, she had been a Drug Counselor I for approximately six months. As Drug Counselor I, Petitioner had counseled individually and in groups, facilitated therapeutic and pre-vocational groups, supervised clients in employment training, vocation, and mock job interviews. She assisted in the intake process and coordinated and provided recreational activities for the clients. She distributed medication to the residents, handled negative attitudes of residents, monitored urinalysis testing, wrote letters to probation officers and judges, kept records, and maintained files for residents, and other work-related duties. Petitioner completed intake interviews, qualified individuals for acceptance or denial into the Metamorphosis Program, supervised and conducted structured groups, trained Drug Counselor Aides for the night shift, signed-off on clients' psycho/social evaluations, and assisted newly hired Drug Counselor II's.
James Santangelo, who received the Drug Counselor II position in 1984, had qualifications as follows: Prior to coming to Metamorphosis, he worked for five years in a forensic mental hospital, the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center (NFETC). Four of those five years he was a therapist supervisor in a psychiatric unit. He ran therapy groups, scheduled concerns with the staff, held individual sessions with clients, taught adjunctive therapies to the clients, such as stress management, anger management, and drug abuse techniques. Prior to that, he was a school teacher. Santangelo received a Bachelor of Arts with honors from the College of Education at the University of Florida, majoring in psychology. Santangelo also served as an outreach worker for the Alachua County School Board from January through June 1978. In this position he was the first person to contact families whose children were having problems with truancy or whose children were suspected of being victims of child abuse or neglect. He also had an employment history of extensive special skills.
Mr. Santangelos's qualifications for the Drug Counselor II position were superior to Petitioner's in 1984, if, indeed, she applied in that year.
Petitioner professed that the second time she applied for the Drug Counselor II position was in 1986, when she had approximately two years experience as a Drug Counselor I within the Metamorphosis program. Again, neither Petitioner nor Respondent (by way of Petitioner's personnel file) had any copy of such an application.
Petitioner testified that she was interviewed for the position of Drug Counselor II in 1986 by either Jim Whitaker and James Santangelo or by Jim Whitaker and Ed Royal. Neither Whitaker nor Santangelo confirmed that an interview of Petitioner for Drug Counselor II occurred in that year. Ed Royal did not testify, but it was shown that Ed Royal, a black, actually made the appointment of Tootie Richey, a white female, to the Drug Counselor II position
which was open in 1986. Ms. Richey was hired from outside the program. Petitioner had "heard" Ms. Ritchey was a licensed clinical social worker but actually had no way of comparing her own qualifications with Ritchey's.
Sometime in 1986, the State of Florida had established a means by which persons working with addiction rehabilitation could become "Certified Addiction Professionals" (CAPs) if they had a college degree, or "Certified Addiction Associate Professionals" (CAAPs) if they did not have a college degree. Mr. Whitaker became a CAAP in 1986 and Santangelo became a CAP in 1987. Petitioner never received such certification.
In 1987, Metamorphosis was somewhat restructured so that Drug Counselor II positions became supervisory positions in the program. There were then two Drug Counselor II positions. One Drug Counselor II would supervise the Drug Counselor I's and the other Drug Counselor II would supervise the Drug Counselor Aides.
Petitioner's first documented application is dated February 2, 1988. She was applying at that time for a position as an Evaluation Rehabilitation Case Worker I, not Drug Counselor II. Petitioner was referred for that position as a qualified candidate, but Edward Woodbury, also black, was selected for that position.
In her testimony, Petitioner professed to have applied for Drug Counselor II, Rehabilitative Case Worker, and Program Coordinator by way of "Applicant Update Sheets" filed on June 27, 1988, October 4, 1988 and November 29, 1988.
The greater weight of the credible evidence shows that Petitioner's June 27, 1988 application (P-1) was for promotion to be Program Coordinator of the Metamorphosis Program. This document, filled out at that time entirely by Petitioner, asserts that she had previously applied for Rehabilitation Case Worker and Drug Counselor II, but does not state when she applied. At that time, Jim Whitaker, a white, was the Program Coordinator. During the 1987 reorganization, the Program Coordinator position had been changed from clinical duties to administrative duties which Whitaker did not want to do and did not feel capable of handling. Whitaker therefore requested a "downward promotion" from Program Coordinator to some clinical position. Since there was no vacant clinical position (either as Drug Counselor II or otherwise) in the program, the Alachua County Personnel Director, Colleen Hayes, suggested that the position of Program Coordinator be posted as needing to be filled but that the job posting be made only within the Metamorphosis program itself so that only Metamorphosis staff would be allowed to apply. Ms. Hayes further suggested that when the promotional decision was made, Whitaker should be allowed to go into the lower position vacated by whatever Metamorphosis staff member was promoted into the Program Coordinator position currently held by Whitaker. It was understood that Whitaker would suffer no decrease in pay in the lower position of Drug Counselor II.
Ms. Hayes' suggestion was followed, and ultimately, James Santangelo, then a Drug Counselor II, was selected to replace Whitaker as Program Coordinator. Whitaker exercised his option to take Santangelo's vacated Drug Counselor II position. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Santangelo's Drug Counselor II position was never advertised nor open to competitive interviewing at that time, and therefore there was no Drug Counselor II position vacant for which Petitioner could have applied.
However, Mr. Whitaker's qualifications for the Drug Counselor II position were clearly superior to Petitioner's, anyway. At the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion," Whitaker's qualifications (for Drug Counselor
II) included 15 years of experience on the Metamorphosis staff, beginning on October 14, 1974, as an entry level Drug Counselor I on night shift for one and a half years. He had served on the day shift for one year and then been promoted to Drug Counselor II where he had served until 1976. He had life experience as a drug abuser, including 13 months of Metamorphosis residential care for drug abuse, which was and is considered very valuable in a drug addiction counselor. He also had, over time, worked every shift, every level of group with every client from clients #86 to #1100 sequentially, and with every staff person in Metamorphosis to that date. Whitaker also had been Program Coordinator from 1978 to 1988.
At the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion," Santangelo's qualifications for Program Coordinator included all of those set out supra in Finding of Fact 11, plus approximately two years as a Drug Counselor II.
By the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion", both Whitaker and Santangelo had been state certified through examination. (See Finding of Fact 15).
At the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion", Petitioner had the same qualifications set out supra in Finding of Fact 10, plus an additional two years as a Drug Counselor I. She was not state certified as an addiction professional.
By comparison, James Santangelo's qualifications for the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position were clearly superior to those of Petitioner.
Also, the record reflects no persuasive evidence that Respondent's downward transfer process, which on this occasion accommodated Mr. Whitaker, was contrary to, or unique within, the standard operating procedure of the Respondent's personnel department. There likewise is no persuasive evidence that the downward transfer process required the promotion of a Drug Counselor II (Santangelo) over a Drug Counselor I (Petitioner) into the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position, so as to be "rigged" to prohibit Petitioner, as a minority employee, from being promoted.
The greater weight of the credible evidence shows that Petitioner next applied for a Drug Counselor II position on October 4, 1988 (P-2). That document, made out solely by Petitioner, asserts she previously applied for Drug Counselor II and Program Coordinator without stating any dates.
Lennard Perry, a black, who was seeking a downward transfer from Evaluation and Rehabilitation Case Worker I was ultimately hired for the Drug Counselor II position, but he was hired on a competitive basis.
Petitioner's November 29, 1988 "Applicant Update Sheet" (P-3), again made out solely by herself, asserts she had previously applied for the Drug Counselor II position in September 1988. There is no documentary evidence of any kind of September 1988 application by Petitioner.
Petitioner herself testified that the Drug Counselor II position was unfunded after her first 1988 application and then stated it was unfunded after her third 1988 application. This confusion may account for her saying at one point that she had applied for Drug Counselor II six times. However,
Respondent's witnesses were credible and persuasive that the Drug Counselor II position was phased out after Petitioner last applied due to lack of funding and further reorganization.
In making the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned has rejected the testimony of Petitioner and Warren A. McCluney that a white man named Alan Pappas ever filled the Drug Counselor II position after any of Petitioner's 1988 applications. Their unsupported testimony on this issue is not probative that Alan Pappas was ever employed full-time and paid by Metamorphosis, even though Mr. McCluney stated that he saw Mr. Pappas receive a paycheck at the same time Mr. McCluney himself did. Mr. McCluney did not specify that the check Pappas allegedly received was a Metamorphosis or county check. He also testified that Mr. Pappas was only present at Metamorphosis for nine months during 1987, and that period bears no relationship to Petitioner's not being promoted in 1988. Other witnesses clearly testified that Mr. Pappas never worked for Metamorphosis in any capacity at any time.
There is no evidence or pleading of record to support Petitioner's allegations that she filed any formal discrimination claim before 1988.
The position of Victim Advocate Director was advertised by posting of the job description from February 13 to February 17, 1989.
Petitioner applied for the position on February 16, 1989.
Respondent received so few applicants in response to the February 1989 Victim Advocate Director job posting that the Respondent's Personnel Director feared the hiring procedure would be compromised. No one was hired for the Victim Advocate Director at that time. The dearth of applicants was believed to be the direct result of the low number of Victim Advocate Programs statewide so that, in turn, few people could meet the job position requirement of a minimum of one year's supervisory experience in a Victim Advocacy Program. It was ultimately decided to rewrite the minimum qualifications and re-advertise.
At no time material did Petitioner have one year's supervisory experience in a Victim Advocacy Program.
The only pertinent revision of the minimum position qualifications was that one year of supervisory experience in any related area was acceptable the second time the Victim Advocate Director position was advertised. The second time the Victim Advocate Director position was advertised, an applicant's supervisory experience did not have to be specifically in a Victim Advocate program.
The job position revision was reviewed by Ida Rawls-Robinson, the Director of the Alachua County Equal Opportunity Office prior to publishing it. Ms. Rawls-Robinson, a black, approved the amended requirements because the amendment broadened the base of the pool of qualified people, thus inferentially making the position more accessible to minorities.
Before the second job-posting, Petitioner received a letter dated April 14, 1989 from Personnel Director, Colleen Hayes, advising Petitioner that the job criteria for the position of Victim Advocate Director had been revised.
In Colleen Hayes' April 14, 1989 letter, Petitioner was asked to complete the enclosed application update sheet if she felt she was still qualified after the revision of the minimum qualifications, but she did not do
so. Instead, Petitioner forwarded a memorandum to Colleen Hayes to the effect that since her original application was less than six months old, Petitioner would not submit an application update in response to the revised job description, although she remained interested in the position.
The second job-posting with the broadened minimum qualifications was posted from April 17 to April 29, 1989.
Petitioner was not referred for the position of Victim Advocate Director because she did not have the minimum one year supervisory experience in the revised category either. The requirements had always required one year of supervisory experience in any event.
The position of Victim Advocate Director was never actually filled by Respondent. It was ultimately moved to, and funded by, the State Attorney's Office.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this cause. See, Section 120.57(1) F.S.
Under the provisions of Section 760.10(1)(a), F.S. it is 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 race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.
The United States Supreme Court set forth the procedure essential for establishing claims of racial discrimination in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed. 2d 668 (1973), which was then revisited in detail in Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed. 2d 207 (1981). Pursuant to the Burdine formula, the employee has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of intentional discrimination, which once established raises a presumption that the employer discriminated against the employee.
If the presumption arises, the burden shifts to the employer to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the employer discriminated against the employee. The employer may do this by stating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision; a reason which is clear, reasonably specific, and worthy of credence. Because the employer has the burden of production, not one of persuasion, which remains with the employee, the employer is not required to persuade the trier of fact that its decision was actually motivated by the reason given.
If the employer satisfies its burden, the employee must then persuade the fact finder that the proffered reason for the employment decision was a pretext for intentional discrimination. The employee may satisfy this burden by showing directly that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the decision, or indirectly by showing that the proffered reason for the employment
decision is not worthy of belief. If such proof is adequately presented, the employee satisfies his or her ultimate burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. Id. at 252-56, 101 S.Ct. at 1093-95, 67 L.Ed.2d at 215-17.
As applied to a claim alleging discrimination resulting from an employer's decision not to promote, the prima facie case an employee is required to establish is
that [he or] she belongs to a protected group, that [he or] she was qualified for and applied for a promotion, that [he or] she was considered for and denied the promotion, and that other employees of similar qualifications who were not members of the protected group were indeed promoted at the time the plaintiff's request for promotion was denied.
Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, 951 (D.C. Cir 4. 1981) (modifying formula approved in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra. for cases involving discriminatory refusal to hire).
Herein, the Petitioner alleged that she had been denied the position of Drug Counselor II because of her race (black) and that she was more qualified than a white who received the position. Petitioner also alleged that she was denied the position of Victim Advocate Director because of her race and that the qualifications for this position were revised to exclude her application because of Petitioner's race.
Although Petitioner is a member of the protected class and was sometimes denied positions she applied for, the evidence does not show that Petitioner was denied a position with the Respondent due to her race or that the qualifications for the Victim Advocate position were revised because of Petitioner's race.
With regard to the 1984 and 1986 Drug Counselor II allegations, it is significant that they were never raised before 1988 and the only evidence that such applications ever occurred at all are Petitioner's self serving statements in the 1988 applications and those raised formally thereafter. In any case, the evidence shows that the white male (Mr. Santangelo) who received the Drug Counselor II position in 1984 was more qualified for the position than the Petitioner. There is no evidence by which to compare Petitioner's qualifications with those of Ms. Ritchey, a white, who was appointed Drug Counselor II in 1986, but since Ms. Ritchey was appointed by a black, one may infer a lack of racial discrimination on the basis of race.
The evidence shows that on one occasion when Petitioner thought she applied for the Drug Counselor II position in 1988, it was not open competitively. On one occasion she applied for Drug Counselor II in 1988, the position was filled by a black. On one occasion she applied for Drug Counselor II in 1988, the position was not filled due to budget constraints and reorganization.
There is also evidence in the record that Petitioner applied for the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position which was vacated when the current coordinator (Mr. Whitaker) requested a downward transfer to a Drug Counselor II. While Petitioner did not allege discrimination with respect to the Metamorphosis
Program Coordinator position, the evidence is persuasive that Mr. Santangelo, who received that position, was more qualified than Petitioner; that the Drug Counselor II position which the Program Coordinator filled by this downward promotion at that time was never opened to competition, and therefore there was no Drug Counselor II position for which the Petitioner could apply; and that Mr. Whitaker was more qualified than Petitioner for that Drug Counselor II position, anyway.
There is no dispute that qualifications for the Victim Advocate Director position for which Petitioner applied were changed. However, the change permitted one year of supervisory experience in any human services program in lieu of the initial, more stringent requirement of one year supervising a crime victim advocate program. The fact that this change did not help Petitioner is immaterial; it also did not hurt her. Notwithstanding the qualifications change, Petitioner did not have one year of supervisory experience. Moreover, the Victim Advocate Director position was never filled by the Respondent due to reorganization.
While Petitioner only alleged discrimination with respect to the Drug Counselor II position and the Victim Advocate Director position, the evidence showed that in February, 1988 the Petitioner had actually applied for an Evaluation and Rehabilitation Caseworker I position. The evidence on this also does not support her charge of racial discrimination, because a black was actually appointed to the position.
Petitioner is a member of the protected class and was denied certain positions. However, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was denied any position she could prove she applied for with Respondent on the basis of her race. Respondent also has articulated and substantiated valid, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Petitioner for the positions for which she could prove she had applied.
Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Human Relations Commission enters a final order dismissing the petition for relief filed herein.
DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.
ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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
24th day of July, 1992.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2)
F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF:
1 Covered under preliminary matters 2-5, 7-8,
17-18, 20-21
23-26, 29-39 Accepted
6, 9, 15-16,
19, 27-28 Accepted in substance but modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, to eliminate hearsay, and to describe and resolve the issues as raised by Petitioner.
22 Rejected as stated. Petitioner initially testified to this. Later, she professed that the budget cuts occurred after the third application. The RO reflects all reconciled, competent, credible evidence.
Respondent's PFOF:
Respondent waived filing posthearing proposals.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Bruce W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 450 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Mary Marshall, Esquire
Alachua County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602-2877
Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
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 consult with 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.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HATTIE R. MATTHEWS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-7297
) ALACHUA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY ) COMMISSIONERS/DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, )
)
Respondents. )
)
CORRECTED RECOMMENDED ORDER
This cause came on for a corrected recommended order pursuant to Rule 22I-6.032, Florida Administrative Code.
Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing
on February 4, 1992 in Gainesville, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Bruce M. Smith, Esquire
Post Office Box 450 Gainesville, Florida 32602
For Respondent: Mary Marshall, Esquire
and
Robert C. Ott, Esquire Post Office Box 2877
Gainesville, Florida 32602-2877
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
By agreement of the parties, the issues to be resolved herein are as follows:
Whether or not Alachua County denied Petitioner promotion to the position of Drug Counselor II because of her race (black) over her white counterpart.
Whether Alachua County denied Petitioner promotion to the position of Victim Advocate Director and revised the position qualifications to preclude Petitioner because of her race (black).
If either of these issues were resolved in Petitioner's favor, Alachua County would be guilty of an unfair employment practice pursuant to the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended [Section 760.10 et seq. F.S.].
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner presented the oral testimony of James
Whitaker and Warren A. McCluney and testified in her own behalf. She had three of six marked exhibits admitted in evidence.
Respondent presented the oral testimony of James Whitaker, Ida Rawls-Reynolds, Colleen Hayes, and James
Santangelo. Respondent had nine exhibits, including R-6A and B, admitted in evidence.
The Amended Prehearing Stipulation was admitted as HO Exhibit A.
A transcript was filed in due course and all timely- filed proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is a black female. She was 41 years of age at the time of formal hearing.
Between April 20, 1984 and approximately April 30,
1989, Petitioner was employed by Metamorphosis. Metamorphosis is an organization that was part of the Alachua County Department of Corrections. The Alachua County Department of Corrections was subsequently renamed the Department of Criminal Justice.
Petitioner initially was hired as a Drug Counselor I.
Metamorphosis' primary goal is to provide long-
term, multi-disciplinary treatment and rehabilitation for chronic substance abusers. It accepts only adults with an on-going history of substance abuse with any drug, other than alcohol, as the primary addictive agent. The program's main goal is to help such people become socially functional again.
Petitioner initially testified that she had applied
for the position of Drug Counselor II on six separate occasions, but testified in detail to only five.
Petitioner never received the position of Drug Counselor II.
Petitioner professed that she first applied for the Drug Counselor II position in October 1984, approximately six months after she began employment as a Drug Counselor I. However, Petitioner's Alachua County personnel file, which is required to be kept intact for 75 years, does not contain any application by Petitioner for the position of Drug Counselor II in 1984. Petitioner first stated that she was interviewed for the Drug Counselor II position in 1984 by James Whitaker, a white, and Ed Royal, a black. Petitioner later testified that Jim Whitaker and Scott Simmons, a white, interviewed her in 1984.Mr. Simmons did not testify. Mr. Royal did not testify.
Mr. Whitaker did not confirm interviewing Petitioner for the Drug Counselor II position in 1984, but he stated that he had participated with Ed Royal in the hiring interview for Petitioner when she was initially hired as a Drug Counselor I from outside the program approximately April 20, 1984.
The Drug Counselor II position was filled in 1984 by James Santangelo, a white, who was hired from outside the program to begin work in 1985.
Historically, the Drug Counselor II positions
within Metamorphosis were the senior therapist positions which required background in community clinical therapy.
Petitioner's qualifications for Drug Counselor II as of 1984 were as follows: She received a Bachelor of
Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Florida Memorial College in Miami with a minor in Urban Services. She had acted as Vice- president of the Board of Directors for Sexual Abuse Resources Center and was also a public speaker for the Commission on "status of women family violence". At the time Petitioner allegedly applied for the position of Drug Counselor II in 1984, she had been a Drug Counselor I for approximately six months. As Drug Counselor I, Petitioner had counseled individually and in groups, facilitated therapeutic and pre-vocational groups, supervised clients in employment training, vocation, and mock job interviews. She assisted in the intake process and coordinated and provided recreational activities for the clients. She distributed medication to the residents, handled negative attitudes of residents, monitored urinalysis testing, wrote letters to probation officers and judges, kept records, and maintained files for residents, and other work-related duties.
Petitioner completed intake interviews, qualified individuals for acceptance or denial into the Metamorphosis Program, supervised and conducted structured groups, trained Drug Counselor Aides for the night shift, signed-off on clients' psycho/social evaluations, and assisted newly hired Drug Counselor II's.
James Santangelo, who received the Drug Counselor II position in 1984, had qualifications as follows: Prior to
coming to Metamorphosis, he worked for five years in a forensic mental hospital, the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center (NFETC). Four of those five years he was a therapist supervisor in a psychiatric unit. He ran therapy groups, scheduled concerns with the staff, held individual sessions with clients, taught adjunctive therapies to the clients, such as stress management, anger management, and drug abuse techniques. Prior to that, he was a school teacher. Santangelo received a Bachelor of Arts with honors from the College of Education at the University of Florida, majoring in psychology. Santangelo also served as an outreach worker for the Alachua County School Board from January through June 1978. In this position he was the first person to contact families whose children were having problems with truancy or whose children were suspected of being victims of child abuse or neglect. He also had an employment history of extensive special skills.
Mr. Santangelos's qualifications for the Drug Counselor II position were superior to Petitioner's in 1984, if, indeed, she applied in that year.
Petitioner professed that the second time she
applied for the Drug Counselor II position was in 1986, when she had approximately two years experience as a Drug Counselor I within the Metamorphosis program. Again, neither Petitioner nor Respondent (by way of Petitioner's personnel file) had any copy of such an application.
Petitioner testified that she was interviewed for
the position of Drug Counselor II in 1986 by either Jim Whitaker and James Santangelo or by Jim Whitaker and Ed Royal. Neither Whitaker nor Santangelo confirmed that an interview of Petitioner for Drug Counselor II occurred in that year. Ed Royal did not testify, but it was shown that Ed Royal, a black, actually made the appointment of Tootie Richey, a white female, to the Drug Counselor II position which was open in 1986. Ms. Richey was hired from outside the program. Petitioner had "heard" Ms.
Ritchey was a licensed clinical social worker but actually had no way of comparing her own qualifications with Ritchey's.
Sometime in 1986, the State of Florida had established a means by which persons working with addiction rehabilitation could become "Certified Addiction Professionals" (CAPs) if they had a college degree, or "Certified Addiction Associate Professionals" (CAAPs) if they did not have a college
degree. Mr. Whitaker became a CAAP in 1986 and Santangelo became a CAP in 1987. Petitioner never received such certification.
In 1987, Metamorphosis was somewhat restructured so that Drug Counselor II positions became supervisory positions in the program. There were then two Drug Counselor II positions. One Drug Counselor II would supervise the Drug Counselor I's and the other Drug Counselor II would supervise the Drug Counselor Aides.
Petitioner's first documented application is dated February 2, 1988. She was applying at that time for a position as an Evaluation Rehabilitation Case Worker I, not Drug Counselor
II. Petitioner was referred for that position as a qualified candidate, but Edward Woodbury, also black, was selected for that position.
In her testimony, Petitioner professed to have applied for Drug Counselor II, Rehabilitative Case Worker, and
Program Coordinator by way of "Applicant Update Sheets" filed on June 27, 1988, October 4, 1988 and November 29, 1988.
The greater weight of the credible evidence shows that Petitioner's June 27, 1988 application (P-1) was for
promotion to be Program Coordinator of the Metamorphosis Program. This document, filled out at that time entirely by Petitioner, asserts that she had previously applied for Rehabilitation Case Worker and Drug Counselor II, but does not state when she applied. At that time, Jim Whitaker, a white, was the Program Coordinator. During the 1987 reorganization, the Program Coordinator position had been changed from clinical duties to administrative duties which Whitaker did not want to do and did not feel capable of handling. Whitaker therefore requested a "downward promotion" from Program Coordinator to some clinical position. Since there was no vacant clinical position (either as Drug Counselor II or otherwise) in the program, the Alachua County Personnel Director, Colleen Hayes, a white, suggested that the position of Program Coordinator be posted as needing to be filled but that the job posting be made only within the Metamorphosis program itself so that only Metamorphosis staff
would be allowed to apply. Ms. Hayes further suggested. that when the promotional decision was made, Whitaker should be allowed to go into the lower position vacated by whatever Metamorphosis
staff member was promoted into the Program Coordinator position currently held by Whitaker. It was understood that Whitaker would suffer no decrease in pay in the lower position of Drug Counselor II.
Ms. Hayes' suggestion was followed, and ultimately, James Santangelo, then a Drug Counselor II, was selected to replace Whitaker as Program Coordinator. Whitaker exercised his option to take Santangelo's vacated Drug Counselor II position. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Santangelo's Drug Counselor II position was never advertised nor open to competitive interviewing at that time, and therefore there was no Drug Counselor II position vacant for which Petitioner could have applied.
However, Mr. Whitaker's qualifications for the Drug Counselor II position were clearly superior to Petitioner's, anyway. At the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion," Whitaker's qualifications (for Drug Counselor II) included 15 years of experience on the Metamorphosis staff, beginning on October 14, 1974, as an entry level Drug Counselor I on night shift for one and a half years. He had served on the day shift for one year and then been promoted to Drug Counselor II where he had served until 1976. He had life experience as a drug abuser,
including 13 months of Metamorphosis residential care for drug abuse, which was and is considered very valuable in a drug addiction counselor. He also had, over time, worked every shift, every level of group with every client from clients #86 to #1100 sequentially, and with every staff person in Metamorphosis to that date. Whitaker also had been Program Coordinator from 1978 to 1988.
At the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion," Santangelo's qualifications for Program Coordinator included all of those set out supra in Finding of Fact 11, plus approximately two years as a Drug Counselor II.
By the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion", both Whitaker and Santangelo had been state certified through examination. (See Finding of Fact 15).
At the time of Whitaker's "downward promotion", Petitioner had the same qualifications set out supra in Finding of Fact 10, plus an additional two years as a Drug Counselor I. She was not state certified as an addiction professional.
By comparison, James Santangelo's qualifications
for the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position were clearly superior to those of Petitioner. Also, the record reflects no persuasive evidence that Respondent's downward transfer process, which on this occasion accommodated Mr. Whitaker, was contrary to, or unique within, the standard operating procedure of the Respondent's personnel department. There likewise is no persuasive evidence that the downward transfer process required the promotion of a Drug Counselor II (Santangelo) over a Drug Counselor I (Petitioner) into the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position, so as to be "rigged" to prohibit Petitioner, as a minority employee, from being promoted.
The greater weight of the credible evidence shows
that Petitioner next applied for a Drug Counselor II position on October 4, 1988 (P-2). That document, made out solely by Petitioner, asserts she previously applied for Drug Counselor II and Program Coordinator without stating any dates.
Lennard Perry, a black, who was seeking a downward transfer from Evaluation and Rehabilitation Case Worker I was ultimately hired for the Drug Counselor II position, but he was hired on a competitive basis.
Petitioner's November 29, 1988 "Applicant Update Sheet" (P-3), again made out solely by herself, asserts she had previously applied for the Drug Counselor II position in September 1988. There is no documentary evidence of any kind of September 1988 application by Petitioner.
Petitioner herself testified that the Drug Counselor II position was unfunded after her first 1988
application and then stated it was unfunded after her third 1988 application. This confusion may account for her saying at one point that she had applied for Drug Counselor II six times.
However, Respondent's witnesses were credible and persuasive that the Drug Counselor II position was phased out after Petitioner last applied due to lack of funding and further reorganization.
In making the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned has rejected the testimony of Petitioner and Warren
A. McCluney that a white man named Alan Pappas ever filled the Drug Counselor II position after any of Petitioner's 1988 applications. Their unsupported testimony on this issue is not probative that Alan Pappas was ever employed full-time and paid by Metamorphosis, even though Mr. McCluney stated that he saw Mr. Pappas receive a paycheck at the same time Mr. McCluney himself did. Mr. McCluney did not specify that the check Pappas allegedly received was a Metamorphosis or county check. He also testified that Mr. Pappas was only present at Metamorphosis for nine months during 1987, and that period bears no relationship to Petitioner's not being promoted in 1988. Other witnesses clearly testified that Mr. Pappas never worked for Metamorphosis in any capacity at any time.
There is no evidence or pleading of record to support Petitioner's allegations that she filed any formal discrimination claim before 1988.
The position of Victim Advocate Director was advertised by posting of the job description from February 13 to February 17, 1989.
Petitioner applied for the position on February 16, 1989.
Respondent received so few applicants in response
to the February 1989 Victim Advocate Director job posting that the Respondent's Personnel Director feared the hiring procedure would be compromised. No one was hired for the Victim Advocate Director at that time. The dearth of applicants was believed to be the direct result of the low number of Victim Advocate Programs statewide so that, in turn, few people could meet the job position requirement of a minimum of one year's supervisory experience in a Victim Advocacy Program. It was ultimately decided to rewrite the minimum qualifications and re-advertise.
At no time material did Petitioner have one year's supervisory experience in a Victim Advocacy Program.
The only pertinent revision of the minimum position qualifications was that one year of supervisory experience in any related area was acceptable the second time the Victim Advocate Director position was advertised. The second time the Victim Advocate Director position was advertised, an applicant's supervisory experience did not have to be specifically in a Victim Advocate program.
The job position revision was reviewed by Ida Rawls-Robinson, the Director of the Alachua County Equal
Opportunity Office prior to publishing it. Ms. Rawls-Robinson, a black, approved the amended requirements because the amendment broadened the base of the pool of qualified people, thus inferentially making the position more accessible to minorities.
Before the second job-posting, Petitioner received a letter dated April 14, 1989 from Personnel Director, Colleen
Hayes, advising Petitioner that the job criteria for the position of Victim Advocate Director had been revised.
In Colleen Hayes' April 14, 1989 letter, Petitioner was asked to complete the enclosed application update sheet if she felt she was still qualified after the revision of the minimum qualifications, but she did not do so. Instead,
Petitioner forwarded a memorandum to Colleen Hayes to the effect that since her original application was less than six months old, Petitioner would not submit an application update in response to the revised job description, although she remained interested in the position.
The second job-posting with the broadened minimum qualifications was posted from April 17 to April 29, 1989.
Petitioner was not referred for the position of
Victim Advocate Director because she did not have the minimum one year supervisory experience in the revised category either. The requirements had always required one year of supervisory experience in any event.
The position of Victim Advocate Director was never actually filled by Respondent. It was ultimately moved to, and funded by, the State Attorney's Office.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this cause. See, Section 120.57(1) F.S.
Under the provisions of Section 760.10(1) (a), F.S. it is 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 race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
age, handicap, or marital status.
The United States Supreme Court set forth the procedure essential for establishing claims of racial discrimination in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed. 2d 668 (1973), which was then revisited in detail in Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed. 2d 207 (1981). Pursuant to the Burdine formula, the employee has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of intentional discrimination, which once established raises a presumption that the employer discriminated against the employee.
If the presumption arises, the burden shifts to the employer to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the employer discriminated against the employee. The employer may do this by stating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision; a reason which is clear, reasonably specific, and worthy of credence. Because the employer has the burden of production, not one of persuasion, which remains with the employee, the employer is not required to persuade the trier of fact that its decision was actually motivated by the reason given.
If the employer satisfies its burden, the employee must then persuade the fact finder that the proffered reason for the employment decision was a pretext for intentional discrimination. The employee may satisfy this burden by showing directly that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the decision, or indirectly by showing that the proffered reason for the employment decision is not worthy of belief If such proof is adequately presented, the employee satisfies his or her ultimate burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. Id. at 252-56, 101 S.Ct. at 1093-95, 67 L.Ed.2d at 215-17.
As applied to a claim alleging discrimination resulting from an employer's decision not to promote, the prima facie case an employee is required to establish is
that [he or] she belongs to a protected group, that [he or] she was qualified for and applied for a promotion, that [he or] she was considered for and denied the promotion, and that other employees of similar qualifications who were not members of the protected group were indeed promoted at the time the plaintiff's request for promotion was denied.
Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, 951 (D.C. Cir 4 1981) (modifying formula approved in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra. for cases involving discriminatory refusal to hire).
Herein, the Petitioner alleged that she had been denied the position of Drug Counselor II because of her race (black) and that she was more qualified than a white who received the position. Petitioner also alleged that she was denied the position of Victim Advocate Director because of her race and that the qualifications for this position were revised to exclude her application because of Petitioner's race.
Although Petitioner is a member of the protected class and was sometimes denied positions she applied for, the evidence does not show that Petitioner was denied a position with the Respondent due to her race or that the qualifications for the Victim Advocate position were revised because of Petitioner's race.
With regard to the 1984 and 1986 Drug Counselor II allegations, it is significant that they were never raised before 1988 and the only evidence that such applications ever occurred at all are Petitioner's self serving statements in the 1988 applications and those raised formally thereafter. In any case, the evidence shows that the white male (Mr. Santangelo) who received the Drug Counselor II position in 1984 was more qualified for the position than the Petitioner. There is no evidence by which to compare Petitioner's qualifications with those of Ms. Ritchey, a white, who was appointed Drug Counselor II in 1986, but since Ms. Ritchey was appointed by a black, one may infer a lack of racial discrimination on the basis of race.
The evidence shows that on one occasion when Petitioner thought she applied for the Drug Counselor II position in 1988, it was not open competitively. On one occasion she applied for Drug Counselor II in 1988, the position was filled by a black.
On one occasion she applied for Drug Counselor II in 1988, the position was not filled due to budget constraints and reorganization.
There is also evidence in the record that Petitioner applied for the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position which was vacated when the current coordinator (Mr. Whitaker) requested a downward transfer to a Drug Counselor II. While Petitioner did not allege discrimination with respect to the Metamorphosis Program Coordinator position, the evidence is persuasive that Mr. Santangelo, who received that position, was more qualified than Petitioner; that the Drug Counselor II position which the Program Coordinator filled by this downward promotion at that time was never opened to competition, and therefore there was no Drug Counselor II position for which the Petitioner could apply; and that Mr. Whitaker was more qualified than Petitioner for that Drug Counselor II position, anyway.
There is no dispute that qualifications for the Victim Advocate Director position for which Petitioner applied were changed. However, the change permitted one year of supervisory experience in any human services program in lieu of the initial, more stringent requirement of one year supervising a crime victim advocate program. The fact that this change did not help Petitioner is immaterial; it also did not hurt her. Notwithstanding the qualifications change, Petitioner did not have one year of supervisory experience. Moreover, the Victim Advocate Director position was never filled by the Respondent due to reorganization.
While Petitioner only alleged discrimination with respect to the Drug Counselor II position and the Victim Advocate Director position, the evidence showed that in February, 1988 the Petitioner had actually applied for an Evaluation and Rehabilitation Caseworker I position. The evidence on this also does not support her charge of racial discrimination, because a black was actually appointed to the position.
Petitioner is a member of the protected class and was denied certain positions. However, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was denied any position she could prove she applied for with Respondent on the basis of her race. Respondent also has articulated and substantiated valid, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Petitioner for the positions for which she could prove she had applied.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Human Relations Commission enters a final order dismissing the petition for relief filed herein.
DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.
ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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
11th day of August, 1992.
APPENDIX TO CORRECTED RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-7297
The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF):
Respondent's PFOF:
1 Covered under preliminary matters 2-5, 7-8,
17-18, 20-21
23-26, 29-39 Accepted
6, 9, 15-16,
19, 27-28 Accepted in substance but modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, to eliminate hearsay, and to describe and resolve the issues as raised by Petitioner.
22 Rejected as stated. Petitioner initially testified to this. Later, she professed that the budget cuts occurred after the third application. The RO reflects all reconciled, competent, credible evidence.
Petitioner's PFOF:
Petitioner waived filing posthearing proposals.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Bruce W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 450 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Mary Marshall, Esquire
and Robert C. Ott, Esquire Alachua County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602-2877
Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
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 consult with 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 |
|---|---|
| Feb. 03, 1994 | Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief From and Unlawful Employment Practice filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1992 | Corrected Recommended Order sent out. |
| Aug. 04, 1992 | Petitioner's Written Exception's to the Hearing Officer's Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 2-4-92. |
| Jun. 29, 1992 | Notice of Change of Address filed. (From Mary A. Marshall) |
| Jun. 17, 1992 | Order sent out. (petitioner's right to file post-hearing proposal isdeemed waived) |
| Jun. 15, 1992 | CC (Petitioner) Withdrawal of Request to Prepare Proposed Findings filed. |
| Jun. 15, 1992 | Letter to DOAH from Bruce M. Smith (re: Petitioner's Withdrawal of Request to Prepare Proposed Findings of Facts) filed. |
| Jun. 02, 1992 | Order sent out. (the undersigned takes official recognition that no proposals have been timely filed by the petitioner, and the time therefor has now run) |
| May 28, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike Respondent's Proposed Findings of Factsand Conclusions of Law filed. |
| May 26, 1992 | Respondents Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1992 | Post Hearing Order sent out. |
| Apr. 27, 1992 | Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1992 | Transcripta (2) w/exhibits filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1992 | Order to Show Cause sent out. (parties to show cause why this case should not be closed, must file reply within 20 days) |
| Jan. 15, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion For Issuance of Subpoenas filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1992 | (Joint) Amended Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Nov. 07, 1991 | Formal Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Oct. 24, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Feb. 4, 1992; 10:30am; Gns'ville). |
| Oct. 24, 1991 | Notice and Order for Status Conference sent out. (RE: Telephone conference set for Nov. 5, 1991; 10:00am) |
| Oct. 24, 1991 | Order sent out. (RE: Amended Petition, reinstated). |
| Oct. 24, 1991 | (Respondent) Answer to Amended Petition For Relief filed. |
| Oct. 17, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion to Lift and Set Mattes for a Hearing filed. |
| Oct. 16, 1991 | Motion to Lift Stay and Set Matters for a Hearing filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1991 | ORDER(DCA's order -Remanding with directions to grant the petitioner's motion for leave to amend her petition) filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1991 | Petitioner's response to respondent's response to order to show cause(2 copies) filed. |
| Aug. 28, 1991 | Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause w/Appendix(2)copies filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1991 | Notice of preparation of record sent out. |
| Aug. 13, 1991 | ORDER(First DCA respondent to reply within 15 days) filed. |
| Jul. 31, 1991 | Notice of service of amended certificate of service of petition(2 copies) filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1991 | Petitioner For Writ of Certiorari and Review of Administrative Actionfiled. (From Bruce M. Smith) |
| Jul. 02, 1991 | Check from Bruce Smith for indexing $54.00 filed. |
| Jun. 21, 1991 | Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Jun. 19, 1991 | Response to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss filed. (From Bruce Smith) |
| Jun. 18, 1991 | Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed. |
| Jun. 14, 1991 | Petitioner's Status Report of Appellate Procedure filed. (From Bruce M. Smith) |
| Jun. 14, 1991 | Respondent's Status Report filed. (From Mary A. Marshall) |
| May 21, 1991 | Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories filed. (From Mary A. Marshall) |
| May 08, 1991 | Respondent's Notice of No Objection to Petitioner's Motion to Hold All Proceedings in Abeyance filed. (From Mary A. Marshall) |
| May 08, 1991 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (Hearing cancelled; Parties status reportdue June 15, 1991). |
| May 03, 1991 | First DCA CAse No#1-91-1350 filed. |
| May 02, 1991 | Prehearing Stipulation filed. (from Mary A. Marshall) |
| May 02, 1991 | Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Third Request to Produce filed. |
| May 01, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion to Hold All Proceedings in Abeyance filed. (From Bruce M. Smith) |
| Apr. 30, 1991 | Certificate of Notice of Appeal sent out. |
| Apr. 30, 1991 | Notice of Administrative Appeal filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1991 | Respondent's Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. (From Mary A. Marshall) |
| Apr. 22, 1991 | Petitioner's Third Request to Produce; Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Respondent filed. (from Bruce M. Smith) |
| Apr. 19, 1991 | Order sent out. (Re: Prehearing Instructions). |
| Apr. 19, 1991 | Order on Motions Ore Tenus sent out. |
| Apr. 19, 1991 | Order on Written Motions sent out. |
| Apr. 18, 1991 | Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Second Request to Produce & cover ltr filed. (From Mary A. Marshall) |
| Apr. 09, 1991 | Order and Notice sent out. (hearing reset for 5/29/91; 10:30am; Gnsville) |
| Apr. 09, 1991 | Response to the Hearing Officer's Oral Order of April 4, 1991 Regarding Respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment and Petitioner's Motion Strike Respodnent's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Petitioner's Amended Petition For Relief and/or in the Alternative Lea |
| Apr. 09, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike/Deny Respondent's Motion For Leave to Supplement Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Colleen Hayes filed.(from Bruce M. Smith) |
| Apr. 09, 1991 | Respondent's Response to Petitioner's First Request to Produce (2); Respondent's Response and Memorandum of Law filed. (from Mary A. Marshall) |
| Apr. 04, 1991 | Letter to EJD from M. Marshall; Motion for Leave to Supplement Affidavit; Supplemental Affidavit of Colleen Hayes filed. |
| Apr. 03, 1991 | Motion to Strike Respondents Motion to Dismiss or Strike Petitioners Amended Petition for Relief and/or in The Alternative Leave to Amend The Petition; Respondents Response to Request for Redetermination filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1991 | Petitioners Prehearing Statement filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondents Motion for Summary Judgment, Affidavit in Support Thereof and Memorandum of Law; Affidavit w/Atts filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1991 | Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Petitioner's Amended Petition for Relief; Amended Petition for Relief filed. |
| Mar. 28, 1991 | Respondents Prehearing Statement filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1991 | Petitioner's Second Request to Produce filed. (from Bruce Smith) |
| Mar. 26, 1991 | (Petitioner) Amended Petition for Relief filed. |
| Mar. 25, 1991 | cc: Subpoena Duces Tecum; (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1991 | Election of Method of Preservation of Record filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1991 | Respondents Motion for Summary Judgment filed. |
| Mar. 21, 1991 | Respondents Request to Produce filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1991 | Letter to EJD from B. Smith (Re: Wanting to go forward with Hearing)filed. |
| Mar. 15, 1991 | Ltr. to EJD from M. Marshall re: status report filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1991 | CC Letter to Margaret A. Jones from Mary A. Marshall (re: Obtaining acopy of the Petition for Relief) filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1990 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 16, 1991: 10:30 am: Gainesville) |
| Dec. 21, 1990 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Dec. 06, 1990 | Order (Re: Governing Rules) sent out. |
| Dec. 04, 1990 | Respondent's Response to Initial Order filed. (From M. A. Marshall) |
| Dec. 04, 1990 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. (From B. M. Smith) |
| Nov. 28, 1990 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 21, 1990 | Answer to Petition for Relief filed. |
| Nov. 19, 1990 | Transmittal of Petition; Complaint; Notice of Redetermination: No Cause; Notice of Determination; Redetermination: No Cause; Determination:No Cause; Petition for Relief; Notice to Commissioners of Filing of Petition for Relief fro m an Unlawful Employment |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 26, 1994 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 24, 1992 | Recommended Order | No racial discrimination where job not applied for, where another black hired, or a better-qualified white hired; inference from black hiring white. |
