STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARY ALICE DESSASAU a/k/a )

MARY ALICE MILLER, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE No. 91-6059

) WALTER C. HEINRICH, as Sheriff )

of Hillsborough County, Florida, )

)

Respondent. )

) MARY ALICE DESSASAU a/k/a )

MARY ALICE MILLER, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE No. 91-5984

) ARA HEALTH SERVICES, INC. d/b/a ) CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a formal hearing in this case on January 9 and 10, 1992, in Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., Esquire

NELSON BECKETT & NELSON

123 Eighth Street North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

For Respondent: Paul J. Marino, Esquire

2008 Eighth Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33601 and

James M. Craig, Esquire THOMPSON SIZEMORE & GONZALEZ

Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether or not the Respondents Walter C. Heinrich, as Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida and ARA Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Correctional Medical Systems, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner, Mary Alice

Dessasau a/k/a Mary Alice Miller, in March 1991, when Respondent Heinrich revoked Petitioner's identification badge preventing her entry into the Hillsborough County Jails.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pursuant to charges filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), FCHR investigated a petition for relief filed by Petitioner following FCHR's determination of "no cause." Petitioner thereafter filed petitions for redetermination which were again determined to be "no cause" and Petitioner filed petitions for a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, following transmittal of the petition for hearing by FCHR on September 20, 1991. Following responses from the parties, on October 24, 1991, the matters were scheduled for hearing for January 9, 1992 and were heard as scheduled.

At the hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Ana Collymore, Maurice Furr, and she testified on her behalf and introduced four (4) exhibits which were received in evidence at hearing. Respondent Heinrich called as witnesses Major Steven Saunders, Captain Carl Barletta, Joyce Clark, Carol Shepard and Joan Harris. Respondent Heinrich introduced nine (9) exhibits which were received in evidence. The transcript of the hearing was filed on February 10, 1992.

On March 9, 1992, the parties filed proposed recommended orders which were considered in preparation of this Recommended Order. Proposed findings which are not incorporated herein are the subject of specific rulings in an Appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Mary Alice Dessasau a/k/a Mary Alice Miller, is a black female resident of Hillsborough County, Florida, and was employed by Respondent, ARA Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS) as a Director of Nursing (DON) from August 1989 through March 12, 1990.

   
   

2. Respondents Heinrich and CMS are employers within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended by Sections 760.01-760.10, Florida Statutes.

   
   

3. As part of its duties as Sheriff, Respondent Heinrich is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the jail system in Hillsborough County. Through its detention department, Respondent Heinrich operated three jail facilities: County Jail East, County Jail West and County Jail Central.

   
   

4. Respondent Heinrich is responsible for health care of its inmates in its correctional facilities and these duties are codified in the Florida State Department of Correction Regulations, Chapter 33-8, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's detention department also operates under its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's); Series 913 for inmate health care. Respondent Heinrich operates its jails according to standards established by two accrediting organizations: National Commission on Correctional Health Care ("NCCHC") and American Correctional Association ("ACA").

   
   

5. The head of Respondent's detention department is Colonel Davis Parrish, who reports directly to the Sheriff. In 1989, the detention department had a specific bureau of inmate support services which included, among other functions, a medical services section with responsibility for inmate and staff health care. Respondent's support bureau commander was Captain Carl Barletta. In his chain of command, Captain Barletta reported to Major Steven Saunders, who

   at times relevant, was commander of Jail Division III. Major Saunders reported directly to Colonel Parrish.

   
   

6. In performing his detention responsibilities, Respondent Heinrich utilized outside contractors for some service functions, and since February 1989, has contracted with CMS to provide inmate health care for the jail system and certain health care support staff. The contract between Respondent Heinrich and CMS requires that CMS adhere to Chapter 33-8, Florida Administrative Code, the NCCHC and ACA standards. The contract also provides that Respondent Heinrich has the right to review applicants for CMS positions in its jails and to require CMS to terminate the continued employment of any CMS employee at Respondent's jails.

   
   

7. Respondent employs a contract monitor, Joyce Clark, to oversee and monitor inmate health care in the jails and specifically to ensure CMS' compliance with the contract, Chapter 33-8, the accrediting agencies and other community standards. During times material, contract monitor Clark was the contractor monitor involved herein. Clark holds bachelor and master's nursing degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and has 31 years experience in health care. During times material, Clark reported to Captain Barletta and also consulted with Major Saunders and Colonel Parrish. As part of her monitoring duties, Clark report contract problems, including personnel difficulties, to CMS as well as to Barletta, Saunders and Parrish.

   
   

8. To provide inmate health services under the contract with Respondent Heinrich, CMS utilizes a nursing staff and independent contractors who are doctors, dentists and psychologists. CMS also employs a program administrator, Carol Shepard, who is the overall supervisor of CMS employees including the independent contractors. Shepard is also responsible for monitoring CMS' contract with Respondent Heinrich.

   
   

9. CMS employs two directors of nursing (DONs) who report directly to Shepard. The DONs are responsible for all inpatient nursing functions and for maintaining 24-hour, 7-day a week staffing of the jails by trained nurses. DONs assist the program administrator in the management of the health facility in the development and implementation of policies. DONs function according to specific job functions and are charged with being familiar not only with CMS' policies and procedures, but also with Chapter 33-8, Florida Administrative Code, and the accrediting agencies standards. All of the policies, procedures, standards and regulations are available for review by CMS DONs.

   
   

10. Upon Petitioner's employment with CMS during August 1989, Clark arranged a meeting wherein Petitioner was oriented as to all of the procedures, policies and Clark apprised her of what to look for in the different jail facilities. During the orientation meeting with Petitioner on August 29, 1989, Clark explained to Petitioner Chapter 33-8, "histories and physical-physician review, screening forms, sick call, perpetual inventory, NCCHC standards, psych requirements, daily reports and the revisions in Florida Statutes regarding psychologists." Clark specifically explained the NCCHC standards and provided a worksheet for Petitioner's use. Petitioner understood her responsibilities as director of nursing with regards to those standards. Alternatively, Clark advised Petitioner to inquire of her if something should come up that she was unfamiliar with.

    
    

11. A number of performance problems surfaced which ultimately led to Petitioner's termination. Alice Claiborne, the other Director of Nursing, encountered some performance problems. However, by contrast, DON Claiborne's

    performance pale in comparison to these by Petitioner. The first performance problem involved Petitioner's duty as DON pursuant to state law to maintain various records and logs at the jails. Specifically, each jail kept logs of controlled substances, "sharps" (needles, etc.), instruments, segregated inmates' nursing visits, first aid kits, chronic diseases, infirmary admissions, emergency room transfers, hospitalizations, communicable diseases, x-rays, and EKGs. As contract monitor, Clark performed weekly checks of the logs and a pattern of deficiencies were discovered relative to the record keeping of the jails where Petitioner served as DON. Clark filed a complaint of those deficiencies to CMS' program administrator Shepard who verbally counseled Petitioner about the matter.

    
    

12. Another performance problem surfaced regarding the manner in which Petitioner conducted inmate histories and physicals ("H & Ps"). Inmate H & Ps are conducted according to standards set forth in Chapter 33-8, the Sheriff's SOPs as well as the NCCHC and CMS guidelines. A paramount deficiency with Petitioner's H & Ps which led to her being counselled came about as a result of what are known as hands on "assessments" and the use of LPNs in the performance of this task. Specifically, the standards require that only physicians, registered nurses, physician assistants or advanced registered nurse practitioners ("ARNPs") perform the hands on assessment portion of an H & P and LPNs are forbidden from doing so by all the pertinent regulations. Notwithstanding Petitioner's familiarity with the standards and availability of the same for review, Petitioner allowed, if not instructed, LPNs to do hands on assessments. Clark became aware of the violation during January 1990, and complained of the breach to administrator Shepard. Shepard counselled Petitioner about the matter during January 1990 and further counselled the nursing staff at County Jail West where Petitioner was then the DON during February 1990.

    
    

13. Despite the counselling, a similar occurrence was repeated during March 1990 when Petitioner instructed and/or allowed LPNs to do the hands on assessments. This breach was discovered by Clark who was at County Jail West when she observed an LPN performing an H & P. Clark inquired of the LPN why she was performing the hands on assessment and she advised that she had been assigned H & Ps for that day. This assignment was contrary to the contract, the statutory law and regulatory standards. Clark filed a complaint with program administrator Shepard who reported the matter to her superior, Captain Barletta. Shepard considered Petitioner's actions to be in disobedience of an earlier counselling and she again counselled Petitioner about the matter on or about March 5, 1990, in a meeting attended by CMS's regional manager, Roy Moore.

    
    

14. In addition to allowing the wrong personnel to do H & Ps, Petitioner permitted the examinations to be done improperly. Specifically, rather than using scales to weigh inmates, Petitioner permitted her nurses to rely instead on the inmate's estimate of their weight. Similarly, nurses would not use an otoscope to examine eyes and ears and did not use a flashlight and tongue depressor to examine inmate's throats. Likewise, the H & Ps did not include dental exams and lung auscultations (listening to chest sounds through a stethoscope).

    
    

15. Petitioner expressed lack of knowledge or confidence regarding certain procedures routinely performed by RNs and particularly a DON. Specifically, Petitioner objected to the procedure for psychiatric (psych") sick call. Under state law, CMS's nurses are required to respond to any inmate request for medical, dental or psychiatric assistance within 24 hours of the request. The procedure is one whereby the request is triaged or sorted, depending on its type

    and severity. Petitioner, contrary to this triage procedure, instructed her support nurses to direct all psychiatric requests to the psych ARNP, Shuler. This resulted in a potentially dangerous situation wherein such requests could be left overnight without treatment in defiance of the twenty-four (24) hour response requirement.. Petitioner was counselled concerning this by Shepard, Clark, Barletta and the DOC inspector, Pat Terry.

    
    

16. Another persistent performance problem CMS and Respondent Heinrich encountered with Petitioner was her ineffective management technique and obstructive personality. Specifically, Respondent presented a management style which was belittling and abusive to nursing personnel under her supervision and prompted a meeting of all black nurses working under her direction. The purpose of that meeting was to air complaints regarding Petitioner's harsh treatment. Not only was this style evident to CMS nurse Joan Harris who called the meeting of the black nurses but also to Captain Barletta who found that although Petitioner initially was very professional, she immediately became argumentative and somewhat insolent. A similar view of Respondent's management style was evident to contract monitor Clark and Major Saunders who reported that Petitioner's management style of "obstructiveness" was a problem.

    
    

17. Petitioner's obstructive management style was highlighted when a Florida Department of Corrections inspector, Pat Terry, was making a site inspection of the Hillsborough County Jails on February 27, 1990. Inspector Terry who was accompanied by Shepard, inspected County Jail West where Petitioner was serving on duty as DON. Specifically, Inspector Terry on three occasions inquired about the sharp logs and other documentary logs and on each occasion, Respondent either replied "I don't know where it is; I'm too busy and Bonnie will get it for you". As a result of a complaint filed by Inspector Terry, Program Administrator Shepard counselled Petitioner regarding her attitude this conduct and instructed her on the rather obvious point that the DON should try to assist rather than antagonize the DON inspector. Shepard further explained to Petitioner that her interaction with inspectors was to be a positive experience whereby inspection results could be utilized to improve CMS nursing services to its client.

    
    

18. Another example of Respondent's personality difficulties occurred during November, 1989 involving the death of an inmate, Robert King. Specifically, Inmate King was booked into the County Jail on November 19, 1989. King presented flu-like symptoms on November 27 and was transferred to the infirmary on November 29. King was transferred to Tampa General Hospital later that day. Petitioner was on call at the central jail on the evening that King was transferred to Tampa General Hospital. Petitioner reviewed his medical chart that night at approximately 10:00 p.m. At 2:00 a.m. on November 30, CMS nurse Halpin called Petitioner at home to relay a message from King's treating physician at Tampa General, Dr. Combs, that the doctor wished medical information on Inmate King. Petitioner advised nurse Halpin that she did not have Dr. Combs phone number and would not attempt to call him. Petitioner did however, advise Halpin that should the doctor call back, she should take his number and she would then call him the following morning. King died later that day and contract monitor Clark investigated the matter. As part of her investigation, Clark interviewed Petitioner the next morning and she acknowledged receiving the telephone call from nurse Halpin and having refused to make any effort to give the information to the doctor. Petitioner attempted to excuse her actions by claiming that she was required to have a written order prior to releasing the inmate's information. Petitioner was advised by Clark that that was not the case and that her actions were contrary to CMS's policy and good medical practices although she was not the focus of the investigation

    or that she was the cause of inmate King's death. Upon learning of the incident, Captain Barletta initiated an administrative review of the incident and presented his findings to Major Saunders. Major Saunders recalled this incident as one of two which stood out as examples of Petitioner's refusal to professionally carry out her duties as DON.

    
    

19. The other incident which struck Major Saunders as being exemplary of the problematic manner that Petitioner functioned as DON and which culminated in her being barred from Respondent Heinrich's detention facilities involved a court ordered health evaluation of a prostitute inmate housed at County Jail West, one Shannon Harris. It is not unusual for Respondent Heinrich to receive court orders concerning inmates in Respondent's custody and specifically concerning medical care. Typically such orders are referred to the CMS program administrator however on occasion, the courts will sometimes call the sheriff's classification section to direct its order.

    
    

20. On March 8, 1990, one of Respondent's classification specialists, Carolyn Walsh, received a call from County Judge Holloway's office ordering Harris' release but qualifying that she must first receive a health test or a "H & P" prior to release. Walsh contacted County Jail West and advised Petitioner that the court had ordered a health examination for Harris and that it had to be as soon as possible. Clark, who was at County Jail West that day performing medical record reviews, witnessed Petitioner taking the call from Walsh. Petitioner told Walsh that she could not do an H & P on an inmate out of sequence and that such tests were done in order. Petitioner then told Walsh that she needed an order in writing which Walsh immediately sent to Petitioner. Petitioner maintained that even with the court order, she would not be able to do the exam that evening and that it would wait until the next day when the H & P nurse(s) were on duty.

    
    

21. Clark, who lacked the authority to order the CMS DON to perform the exam, advised Petitioner to call Shepard for clarification. At approximately 3:30 p.m. Petitioner called Shepard and advised her that the court ordered health evaluation had been received whereupon Shepard reviewed the procedure and advised her that she needed to do it and that it had to be done that night. Initially Petitioner indicated to Shepard that she did not understand the order and why it could not wait until the following day.

    
    

22. Captain Barletta was advised of this incident later in the afternoon by telephone call from Hall, Walsh's supervisor in Respondent's classification section. Hall advised Barletta that Petitioner had been apprised of the court order but had refused to do the H & P not once, but two times. Barletta then called Petitioner who confirmed that she had refused to do the exam. Barletta then ordered Petitioner to do the exam which was completed at approximately 4:00

    p.m. From Barletta's perspective, the court order was clear that a H & P was to be performed on Harris immediately and had been violated by Petitioner.

    Barletta viewed this as a very serious matter and relayed the incident to his superior, Major Saunders. As a result of the communiques between Barletta, Program Administrator Shepard and Saunders, Barletta requested a meeting the following day with Petitioner.

    
    

23. Shepard called Petitioner that evening to advise her of the March 9 meeting with Captain Barletta during the afternoon of March 9 at County Jail West. Because of the seriousness of the matter, Shepard also called CMS Regional Manager Moore because of her concern that if the client was unhappy, as Barletta was, she needed to apprise her superior such that he wouldn't be

    "blindsided" the next morning if Moore was called by the client raising those concerns.

    
    

24. The following morning, Shepard went to County Jail West and talked to the medical secretary and observed the records logs to ascertain whether court ordered medical procedures with inmate prostitutes were being carried out as required. Shepard found a well kept log reflecting that such procedures were routinely conducted. Shepard also questioned the CMS nursing staff about their familiarity with these procedures. Shepard learned that each was aware of the prostitute list and court ordered procedures. Based on her investigation and inquiry of the nursing staff, it became obvious that Petitioner was the only nurse who was unfamiliar (or claimed to be) with the procedure. Shepard attempted to meet with Colonel Parrish who was unavailable but his secretary advised that Parrish was very upset and expected action to be taken.

    
    

25. In fact, Barletta had advised Saunders of the incident who in turn advised Parrish. The incident was of great concern to Saunders and they jointly determined that it was the "last straw" for Petitioner as far as Saunders and Respondent Heinrich was concerned as they considered that breach to be simply another in a litany of problems that had surfaced based on Petitioner's performance. Specifically, Barletta, Saunders and Parrish had all discussed Petitioner's performance shortcomings on earlier occasions and Colonel Parrish inquired of Saunders and Barletta "why is this continuing . . . isn't this a problem we're trying to get a handle on . . . we've got to take action". As a result, Saunders exercised Respondent Heinrich's contract perogative and approximately 9:30 a.m. on March 9, Saunders advised Shepard that CMS had until Monday afternoon to terminate Petitioner or Respondent Heinrich would "pull her badge" denying her access to the jails. At the 2:00 p.m. meeting with Captain Barletta, Shepard, and Clark, Petitioner acknowledged her initial noncompliance with the court order although she related that once she got the clarification which she needed, she performed the order as directed. During the meeting, Petitioner was advised by CMS that an investigation would follow and she would be contacted later (regarding her employment status).

    
    

26. Respondent Heinrich and CMS's disciplinary treatment of Petitioner were separate and distinct. Specifically, Respondent Heinrich's representative, Major Saunders, advised CMS that Petitioner should be terminated or her access badge would be revoked by Respondent Heinrich. The result of that action was that Petitioner would no longer be able to work at jails however this was not the end of Petitioner's employment with CMS. Specifically, CMS utilized a progressive disciplinary policy and the upshot of all the performance problems was that Petitioner was offered continued employment by Respondent CMS (a transfer) to another location in Pinellas County. However, Petitioner declined CMS' offer of a transfer due to personal reasons i.e. a fear of the water "preventing her from crossing bridges from Tampa to Pinellas County." The transfer offered by CMS was open and continuing at the time of the hearing. However, Petitioner has been employed as a director of nursing at Ambrosia Nursing Home for two years since her separation from employment by the Respondents herein. Respondent's replaced Petitioner by a black employee.

    
    

27. Petitioner failed to adduce any racial animus on the part of Respondent Heinrich as relates to her employment relationship. While Petitioner advanced that there was a conspiracy between Captain Barletta, Major Saunders, Joyce Clark and Carol Shepard to "get" her because she was black, the record fails to confirm her claim of a conspiracy and the unsubstantiated allegations of witness Ana Collymore who had little, if any, support for Petitioner's claim since her interaction with Petitioner's employment relationship with Respondent Heinrich

    was non-existent; they worked in different departments, Collymore's hours were erratic in that she worked part time as a dietician with limited involvement as a member of the executive committee which discussed problems regarding nursing services.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1991).

    
    

29. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

    
    

30. The authority of the Florida Commission on Human Relations is derived from Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.

    
    

31. Respondents ARA/CMS and Walter C. Heinrich as providers of nursing services and sheriff in Hillsborough County, Florida, are employers within the meaning of the Florida Human Relations Act.

    
    

32. Petitioner has the burden of presenting a prima facia case establishing her claim of disparate treatment based on race. The evidence here reveals that although Petitioner is a member of a protected class and that she was qualified for the position which she was employed and was terminated, she was replaced by an individual within the protected class (black female). See Florida Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), citing School Board of Leon County v. Hargis 400 So.2d 103, 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there were other similarly situated employees who were retained or otherwise treated differently. It is true that Alice Claiborne, the other CMS DON also had performance problems but her problems did not match those performance deficiencies practiced by Petitioner. Furthermore, Nurse Claiborne is also a black female. Petitioner failed to advance any statistical proof of a pattern of discrimination or other statistical evidence whereby it could be gleaned that the Respondents unlawfully discriminated against her under any of the accepted methods of proof under Title 7, Florida Human Relations Act, or other relevant case authority. More to the point however is the fact that the record amply demonstrates that Respondent Heinrich's decision makers were thoroughly apprised of Respondent's personnel performance deficiencies and the numerous incidents of her failure to adhere to established procedures mandated by state law, administrative regulations or accreditation standards. These chronic problems coupled with the King incident and Respondent's failure to timely respond to the court ordered H & P regarding Inmate Shannon Harris until she was given a direct order from Barletta, proves that Major Saunders decision to invoke the contract provision with CMS to bar Petitioner from further work at Respondent's jails was rational and well documented. For all of these reasons, including Petitioner's memory lapses regarding the King incident, her failure to follow procedures or her express lack of knowledge of how to follow a court ordered examination of prostitution inmates, her problems with hands on assessments, her obstructive style regarding the Department of Correction's inspection by Pat Terry; her alleged confusion over triage of psychiatric sick call procedures, the questionable manner in which the physicals were performed are all credibility resolutions which weigh heavily in favor of Respondent Heinrich. In these circumstances and in the absence of any credible evidence of racial animus, Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proof.

33. As relates to Respondent CMS, Petitioner was offered a transfer to another location and she elected not to accept it citing a fear of water. It is well settled law that an unconditional offer of reinstatement will toll back pay liability unless a plaintiff can show that her rejection of such offer was reasonable under the circumstances. Here it is administratively noticed that one need not necessarily travel over Tampa Bay bridges to get from Tampa to Pinellas County, Florida. Moreover, Petitioner failed to offer any medical or psychiatric evidence to support her claim of hydrophobia and there was no other evidence that her failure to accept CMS's offer of a transfer was reasonable. See Stanfield v. Answering Services, Inc. 867 F.2d 1290, 1295-96 (11th Cir. 1989). See also O'Loughlin v. Pinchback, 579 So.2d 788,795-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) respecting back pay damages and the needed proof in Florida Human Relations Act cases. Petitioner failed to present the requisite proof herein.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that:

The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner, Mary Alice Miller a/k/a Mary Alice Dessasau, charges of discrimination against Respondents Walter Heinrich and Correctional Medical Systems, Inc.

DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

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 1st day of May, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 5, 6 rejected, unnecessary.

Paragraph 7, rejected as background material although a similar statement is made in the preliminary section of the Recommended Order.

Paragraph 12, adopted as modified, Paragraph 1, Recommended Order. Paragraph 14, rejected, unnecessary.

Paragraph 17, rejected, unnecessary.

Paragraph 21, adopted as modified, Paragraph 8, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary.

Paragraph 23, rejected, irrelevant.

Paragraph 25, adopted as modified, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 26, adopted as modified, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order.

Paragraphs 29, 30, 31 and 32, rejected as recitations of testimony and not findings of fact.

Paragraph 33, rejected, irrelevant.

Paragraphs 37-60, rejected as being primarily a recitation of testimony and not factual findings and therefore not probative or necessary to resolve the issues posed.

Paragraphs 61-155 are, in the main, a recitation of the chronology and testimony of the various witnesses and are not findings of fact which lend themselves to specific rulings as

required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.

Copies furnished:

GARDNER W BECKETT JR ESQ NELSON BECKETT & NELSON

123 EIGHTH ST N

ST PETERSBURG FL 33701

PAUL J MARINO ESQ 2008 EIGHTH AVE

TAMPA FL 33601

JAMES M CRAIG ESQ

THOMPSON SIZEMORE & GONZALEZ PO BOX 639

TAMPA FL 33601

MARGARET JONES, CLERK

FLORIDA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION BLDG F - STE 240

325 JOHN KNOX RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32303-4113

DANA BAIRD ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL

FLORIDA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION BLDG F - STE 240

325 JOHN KNOX RD TALLAHASSEE FL 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 contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-005984

Orders for Case No: 91-005984