STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DENISE E. HOEDT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-6652
) SCHOOL BOARD OF PASCO COUNTY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on April 6, 1994, in Tampa, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Denise E. Hoedt, pro se
11605 U.S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610
For Respondent: Mark Graves, Esquire
205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427
Tampa, Florida 33601 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment or to a hostile work environment on account of age or gender by the Respondent.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On May 26, 1993, Petitioner Denise E. Hoedt, a bus driver for the Pasco County School System, filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that "[s]ince November 1992, I have been subjected to a hostile work environment." According to the complaint, Ms. Hoedt asserts that the facts constituting the discrimination are as follows:
In late November 1992, during a midday break in the North West garage, Mr
Gallas (male) lead Bus Driver, hand a card entitled "intercourse" requested sex with the bearer.
I have been subjected to unwanted request for sex and unwanted touching by Mr. Gallas.
He has even informed me that I "owe" him something.
He has made verbal slurs about my National Origin.
The terms and conditions of my employment have been made different than those of my co-workers. I have been made to
do extra runs and extra paper work when others were not required. On another occasion I
was threatened to sweep the 75 bus compound; and was denied the use of the bathroom.
I had filed a grievance in January 1993 with School Board. However, my grievance has been dismissed as unfounded.
The Petition for Relief filed by Ms. Hoedt asserts that she has been discriminated against for reasons related to sexual harassment, gender and national origin. Ms. Hoedt further asserts that she has been the victim of retaliation related to her filing of an "internal grievance." The Petition specifically states as follows:
Since November 1992, I have been subjected to a hostile work environment. The particulars are: personal harm, discrimination, and threats. I request the full relief to which I am entitled under the law(s). I suffer headaches, diarrhea, and nausea. My sleeping pattern has been affected, due to nightmares.
My husband and myself argue, which causes our sex drive to have suffered. All of the hostility at work from my co-workers because of on-going matters needs to stop. My pain
and suffering will continue unless Mr. Gallas is moved to another garage, and a formal apology is given to me. I would also like
to request that I should be reimbursed for all the pain and suffering I have endured, and also for any and all money which was used to seek legal consultation. My professional life as well as my personal life has been affected by my civil rights being violated; I request full relief to which I am entitled.
Subsequent to investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") the agency issued a Notice of Determination finding no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Ms. Hoedt requested that the matter be referred for formal hearing. The FCHR transmitted the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings which scheduled and noticed the formal proceeding.
At the hearing, Ms. Hoedt presented the testimony of ten witnesses and had exhibits numbered 1-11 admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of four witnesses and had exhibits numbered 1-9 admitted into evidence.
A transcript of the hearing was filed. All parties filed proposed recommended orders. The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.
At hearing, a number of the Petitioner's witnesses testified in direct contradiction to others and to the Petitioners' own testimony. Based on the totality of the credible and persuasive evidence presented at hearing the following findings of fact are made.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The School Board of Pasco County ("Respondent") is an "employer" for purposes of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 ("Act").
At all times material to this case, the Respondent has had a nondiscrimination policy and a policy prohibiting sexual harassment in effect. The policies are provided to all employees, including the Petitioner, upon hiring, and are posted throughout the workplace.
Denise E. Hoedt ("Petitioner") at all times material to this case was a bus driver employed by the Respondent. As of the date of the hearing, the Petitioner was on worker's compensation leave. There is no evidence that the worker's compensation leave is related to the allegations at issue in this case.
When the Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent she was assigned to a regular bus route and was stationed in the "Northwest Garage" unit of the Respondent's transportation system. After having been employed for a sufficient period of time, she was provided with a contractual right to choose her route. She chose to transport exceptional education (ESE) students.
As an ESE driver, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Dennis. Ms. Dennis did not work in the same garage from which the Petitioner was based.
The Petitioner has been involved in a continuing series of grievances against Mr. Valentine Gallas, a "Route Specialist" for the Respondent. The grievances, filed prior to the complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations at issue in this proceeding, have been directed towards her discontent with work assigned to her by Mr. Gallas.
Although Mr. Gallas was not the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, as a Route Specialist located in the Northwest Garage, he had supervisory authority over the Petitioner, as did Joanne Snodgrass, another Route Specialist in the same facility.
One of the prior grievances was directed towards his request that she assume responsibility for opening a large metal gate at the entrance of the bus storage compound. The complaint was resolved by an agreement that she would not be asked to open the gate. Upon being requested by a different official to drive a later route and take responsibility to close the gate, the Petitioner complied with the request. Although she did not continue to drive the later route, there is no evidence that her decision was related to the request regarding gate closure.
Another grievance centered on Mr. Gallas' directive that she drive a second bus run after she had completed her initial run. Mr. Gallas apparently did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room prior to the second run. The Petitioner filed a grievance about the matter which was resolved by an agreement that, prior to being asked to take an additional route, she would be provided with a rest room break.
The Petitioner asserted that because Mr. Gallas assigned her to a bus with a poor driver's seat, her back was injured. There is no credible evidence to establish that the seat caused or contributed to the claimed back injury.
The Petitioner suggested that the clock in the bus driver's lounge was tampered with and resulted in her being reprimanded for tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the clock was intentionally tampered with to cause the Petitioner to be reprimanded.
There is no evidence that any of the prior disputes between the Petitioner and Mr. Gallas were related to the Petitioner's gender or national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment of the Petitioner.
When the Petitioner was driving a regular bus route, Mr. Gallas was responsible for her work assignments. When she began to drive an ESE route, she was no longer directly responsible to Mr. Gallas.
In January 1993, the Petitioner, via a union representative, contacted school board officials and voiced her dissatisfaction with Mr. Gallas' alleged behavior.
Late in January 1993, the Petitioner, accompanied by the union representative, met in an interview with the school board's personnel investigator. At the interview, the Petitioner stated that she believed she had been discriminated against on account of her gender and ethnic origin, and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Mr. Gallas.
During the interview, the investigator attempted to obtain allegations of specific conduct, but other than as stated herein, the Petitioner was unable to offer such allegations.
Although during the interview, the Petitioner alleged that Mr. Gallas had made derogatory comments regarding her ethnic origin and her weight, the only specific incident of which the Petitioner spoke was Mr. Gallas' alleged remark to her, "Oh, a Cuban." She offered no context for the remark. There was no specific remark regarding weight disclosed during the interview.
The Petitioner also alleged that subsequent to Mr. Gallas' purchase of beverages for a group of bus drivers, he had repeatedly said she "owed him one" in a manner which the Petitioner interpreted as sexual. The remark continued until such time as the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas.
Further, the Petitioner alleged that in November 1992, Mr. Gallas came into the bus drivers' lounge and handed her an offensive written statement regarding intercourse which she interpreted as a request for sex.
The investigator inquired as to whether Mr. Gallas had touched the Petitioner. She replied he had not. There was no mention of any other alleged inappropriate activity by Mr. Gallas towards the Petitioner.
At the conclusion of the interview, the investigator expressed her concern about the serious nature of the charges. She assured the Petitioner that there would be no retaliation for the report of the complaints. She noted that the findings of the investigation would be confidential and requested that the Petitioner refrain from discussing the allegations pending the investigation.
The investigator began her inquiry the day after meeting with the Petitioner. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Gallas and with other persons who were aware of Mr. Gallas and the operation of the Northwest Garage.
As to the investigator's request that the Respondent refrain from discussing the matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with this request. The matter became fodder for discussion in the workplace.
A petition was initiated by several employees on Mr. Gallas' behalf. The Petitioner attempted to initiate her own petition drive without success. The matter was viewed by some coworkers as an attempt by the Petitioner to have Mr. Gallas' employment terminated.
The investigator for the Respondent viewed the Petitioner's allegations with skepticism due to the "vagueness" of the specifics. The failure of the Petitioner to comply with the request to keep the matter confidential during the investigation did little to alleviate the investigator's initial concerns about the Petitioner's credibility.
Despite the continuing controversy, the school board attempted to complete its investigation of the matters about which the Petitioner had complained.
In an interview with the investigator, Mr. Gallas denied the charges. He stated that the remark regarding her origin occurred in the context of a discussion between the Petitioner and another driver overheard by Mr. Gallas, at which time the remark was made. He denied making any reference to her weight. Although acknowledging that he had seen the "intercourse" card in the garage, he denied having handed it to her. He denied any sexual intent in the "owe me one" remark.
Other interviews were conducted with other persons who are knowledgeable about the operations of the Northwest Garage and Mr. Gallas' employment there. The investigator was unable to substantiate the allegations.
Based on a review of the Petitioner's interview and allegations, Mr. Gallas' denial, and the inability to find further substantiation for the complaints, the investigator determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the complaints were credible.
After the investigation and determination were completed, there was a time delay in providing notification of the determination to the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that the delay was not an attempt to deprive the Petitioner of any contractual or legal right but was due to nothing more than clerical error on the part of the personnel investigator. There is no evidence that there was any harm to the Petitioner related to the delay.
In May 1993, the Petitioner filed the complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) which is at issue in this proceeding. As identified in the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner's allegations are addressed as follows:
The November 1992 "intercourse" card incident--
The Petitioner asserts that in November 1992, as she was seated with two other bus drivers in the driver's lounge, Mr. Gallas entered the lounge, walked to the table where the Petitioner and her coworkers sat, and handed a card titled "intercourse" to the Petitioner. The card was an offensive attempt at humor and included a sexual invitation. Of the two coworkers at the table, only one saw the card. The Petitioner refused to permit the other coworker to see the card. All of the women testified at the hearing.
Although the Respondent presented the investigator's recollection of Mr. Gallas' denial of the incident, Mr. Gallas was not called by either party to testify at the hearing.
The testimony of the two drivers who were at the table when the incident occurred and who testified at the hearing substantiates the Petitioner's allegation.
There is no credible evidence that prior to her January 1993 complaint about the incident, the Petitioner discussed the matter with any other person.
The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' behavior regarding the "intercourse" card incident, although offensive and inappropriate, caused the Petitioner difficulty in performing her job duties or any other harm or injury.
Offensive touching of the Petitioner by Mr. Gallas--
The Petitioner asserts that Mr. Gallas occasionally would stand too close to her and that on one occasion, he brushed against her breasts in passing her.
There is no evidence that, prior to the filing of the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner had ever complained about unwarranted or offensive touching by Mr. Gallas. Upon direct inquiry by the school board's personnel investigator, the Petitioner denied that she had been touched by Mr. Gallas. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence.
Mr. Gallas' sexual requests of the Petitioner--
There is no credible evidence that Mr. Gallas made any verbal sexual requests of the Petitioner. The only incident which may be viewed as a sexual invitation relates to the "intercourse" card addressed previously in this Recommended Order.
The Petitioner "owed" Mr. Gallas--
The evidence establishes that at a luncheon attended by coworkers, Mr. Gallas purchased beverages for the group and made a statement to the effect that the recipients "owed him one."
Mr. Gallas would occasionally repeat his "you owe me one" statement to the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the statement was made in a sexual manner or that such was intended by Mr. Gallas.
Eventually, the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas, stating "now I don't owe you one." After being bought a drink, Mr. Gallas no longer made the remark.
Verbal slurs about the Petitioner's national origin--
The Petitioner is of Mexican, Spanish and Cuban origin. The Petitioner asserts that on one occasion, she became embroiled in an argument with Mr. Gallas during which he remarked, "Oh, You're nothing but a Cuban." There is no other evidence to support her assertion.
The evidence is insufficient to establish that Mr. Gallas made such remarks to other employees or that such conversation was typical of him. The assertion is not credible.
Terms and conditions of her employment--
The Petitioner asserts that the "terms and conditions' of her employment were different from other bus drivers with responsibilities similar to hers. The evidence fails to support the assertion.
Drivers transporting ESE students generally have fewer students to transport than drivers of regular routes. It is possible that an ESE driver may transport only one or two children. ESE drivers often complete their routes before drivers of regular routes.
Because the Petitioner was responsible for transportation of ESE students, her route was often completed earlier than other bus drivers.
ESE drivers who have completed their routes may "stay on the clock" in which case they may be asked to provide assistance in clerical tasks or to complete other bus routes. In the alternative, drivers may "punch out" and leave.
Additional work is assigned to drivers by the Route Specialist in the garage from which the drivers are based. Mr. Gallas was the Route Specialist in the garage from which the Petitioner was based.
The Petitioner frequently remained on the clock and was accordingly assigned additional work to do. There is no evidence that any drivers who remained "on the clock" were treated any differently that was the Petitioner.
On one afternoon, the Petitioner, suffering from back pain, returned from her route and laid down in her bus. Mr. Gallas came onto the vehicle and told her that she needed to be working. He suggested that she could be made to sweep the bus compound if she did not find other duties to complete.
The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner, who was on the payroll at the time she was resting in her bus, informed Mr. Gallas that she was not feeling well. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' actions upon discovering the Petitioner at rest in her bus were related to her gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. There is no evidence that other drivers were permitted, while on duty, to rest in their busses.
As previously addressed, on one occasion, Mr. Gallas directed the Petitioner, immediately upon her return from her normal bus run, to perform additional transportation duties. Mr. Gallas did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room before beginning her second run. Subsequent to her complaint to appropriate authorities, Mr. Gallas was directed to permit the Petitioner to use the rest room before assigning additional responsibilities to her. Although Mr. Gallas' lack of concern about the Petitioner's personal needs was inconsiderate, the evidence fails to establish that the incident was related to gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment.
The Petitioner also asserts that other drivers or their spouses are permitted to bring personal vehicles into the bus compound and that she was not. The evidence fails to establish that other drivers or their spouses are routinely permitted to bring personal vehicles into the compound.
The Petitioner complained that during a heavy storm one day, her husband came into the compound to pick her up and was asked to take his vehicle back outside the compound. On that day, Mr. Gallas offered to walk the Petitioner with an umbrella to her car but she declined.
The Respondent's inquiry into the January 1993 grievance--
The Petitioner asserts that the school board's inquiry into her January 1993 grievance was incomplete and that the determination that the grievance was unfounded was inappropriate. The evidence fails to support the assertion.
The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's complaints, as they were communicated to the school board, were as fully investigated as was possible. The Petitioner's complaints to the Board did not include allegations related to unwarranted touching, according such allegations were not investigated. Further, the investigation was hampered by the spread of rumor and innuendo throughout the workplace regarding the Petitioner's sexual harassment allegations.
Although the evidence is not entirely clear as to where responsibility lies for the generation of the rumor and internal bickering, school board personnel involved in the investigation specifically directed the Petitioner to refrain from discussing the allegations pending the board's investigation. As previously stated, she failed to comply with this request. Coworkers of the Petitioner were also involved in discussion about the pending investigation. At that point, the workplace appears to have become divided into factions and the board's investigation was compromised.
The evidence establishes that the board's investigation of the Petitioner's grievance was conducted appropriately and that persons with direct knowledge related to the allegations (including Mr. Gallas who was inexplicably not called by either party to testify at the hearing) were contacted and interviewed. Although the investigation became compromised and was completed prematurely, there is no evidence that based on the information obtained by board personnel, the board's determination that the grievance was unfounded was outside the authority of the board or unsupported by the information which the board had obtained
The Petitioner seeks to be "reimbursed for all the pain and suffering I have endured...." The evidence fails to establish that such an award is appropriate. The Petitioner offered no evidence related to "pain and suffering" or which would establish that such injury, if present, is related to employment conditions.
The Petitioner also seeks to be reimbursed "for any and all money which was used to seek legal consultation." There is no evidence that the Petitioner, who has represented herself throughout this proceeding, has incurred any expenses related to legal consultation regarding this complaint; therefore such an award is not appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Florida Commission on Human Relations is vested with jurisdiction to enforce laws prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination. Section 760.06(5), Florida Statutes.
The Pasco County School Board is an employer within the meaning of the statute and is subject to the FCHR's jurisdiction. Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes.
Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or to otherwise 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. Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes, provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person because of the filing of a charge of an unlawful employment practice.
The Petitioner has the initial burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. If the Petitioner succeeds in proving that prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Respondent "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action." Should the Respondent carry this burden, the burden then shifts back to the Petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered by the Respondent were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for
discrimination. National Industries, Inc. v. Commission on Human Relations, 527 So.2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).
In an allegation of hostile work environment, it must be established that the employee is in a protected class, that the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, that the harassment was based on sex, that the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment, and that respondeat superior liability exists. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). To be actionable, sexual harassment resulting in hostile working environment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment and create an abusive working environment. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (1986). The
harassment must be must be a sustained and non-trivial practice or pattern. Isolated instances will generally not be sufficient to establish a claim of hostile work environment.
In this case, the evidence establishes only that in November 1992, as the Petitioner was seated with two other bus drivers in the driver's lounge, Mr. Gallas entered the lounge, walked to the table where the Petitioner and her coworkers sat, and handed a card titled "intercourse" to the Petitioner. The card was an offensive attempt at humor and included a sexual invitation directed to the reader.
Clearly the card offended the Petitioner; however, the evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' behavior was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter her working conditions or to create an abusive working environment. The evidence fails to establish that the incident was part of a sustained and non- trivial practice or pattern. There is no evidence that the incident caused the Petitioner difficulty in performing her job duties or resulted in any other harm or injury.
As to the other factual allegations, the evidence fails to establish that the complaints are credible. The conflicting testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses fails to establish the credibility of her assertions.
As to the Petitioner's assertion that the investigation by the Respondent was improper, the evidence establishes otherwise. The Respondent's investigator and other officials interviewed a substantial number of employees in an attempt to determine whether the Petitioner's complaints were credible and whether the allegations were indicative of other behavior by Mr. Gallas. Based on the totality of the information received, the Respondent determined that the complaint was not credible. The fact that the investigation failed to substantiate the Petitioner's allegations does not indicate that the investigation was improper.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed in this case.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th of June, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1994.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6652
The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.
Petitioner
The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
Rejected, subordinate.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected, immaterial.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Proposed finding of fact paragraph six continues for approximately seven pages and consists largely of recitation of conflicting testimony. The testimony has been reconciled as indicated in this Recommended Order. The proposed finding is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, immaterial and not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
8-9. Rejected, subordinate.
10-16. Rejected, unnecessary.
This unnumbered proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior" by Mr. Gallas and is treated as follows: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive testimony: a.
Rejected as irrelevant: c, b, e. Rejected as immaterial: d, f, g, h.
This proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Mr. Valentine Gallas and Ms. Denise Hoedt" and is treated as follows:
Rejected, there is no credible evidence that the offer of an umbrella was "inappropriate sexual behavior
b, k. Rejected, immaterial
l, m, n, o. Accepted as modified.
Remainder is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence: a, g.
Rejected, subordinate: d, h, i. Rejected, irrelevant: f.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner or her husband have been subjected to restrictions regarding personal cars within the bus compound which are not generally applicable to all drivers, except when specific circumstances require otherwise.
Respondent
The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
Rejected as to Pyles' attendance at meeting, unnecessary.
Rejected as to note taking by the investigator, unnecessary.
12-13. Rejected, unnecessary.
16-18. Rejected, subordinate.
23-33. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary.
34. Rejected as to ulterior motives of Petitioner, unnecessary.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Thomas E. Weightman, Superintendent Pasco County School System
7227 Land O' Lakes Blvd.
Land O' Lakes, Florida 34639-2805
Denise E. Hoedt
11605 U. S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610
Mark Graves, Esquire
205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601
Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-4149
Dana Baird, General Counsel
Florida 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 ten 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.
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
DENISE E. HOEDT,
Petitioner, EEOC Case No. 15D930594 FCHR Case No. 93-6688
v. DOAH Case No. 93-6652
FCHR Order No. 95-031
SCHOOL BOARD OF PASCO COUNTY,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
Preliminary Matters
Petitioner Denise E. Hoedt filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), alleging that Respondent School Board of Pasco County committed unlawful employment practices on the basis of Petitioner's sex (both sex discrimination and sexual harassment), national origin, and on the basis of retaliation for having filed an internal grievance.
The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated and, on October 15, 1993, the Executive Director issued his determination finding that no reasonable cause existed to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, and, on November 18, 1993, the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the conduct of a formal proceeding.
A formal administrative hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, on April 6, 1994, before Hearing Officer William F. Quattlebaum.
Hearing Officer Quattlebaum issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated June 9, 1994.
Pursuant to notice, public deliberations were held on April 21, 1995, in St. Petersburg, Florida, before this panel of Commissioners, at which deliberations the panel determined the action to be taken on the Petition for Relief.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the "Statement of the Issue" section of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order there is reference to "age" based discrimination. We note, here, that this reference should be to "national origin" discrimination.
With this correction noted, we find that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence. We adopt the Hearing Officer's findings of fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The overall application of the law by the Hearing Officer is a correct disposition of the case.
We note that the Hearing Officer appears to have decided this case under the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Sections 760.01 - 760.10, Florida Statutes (1991). See Recommended Order, 1 We further not that since the acts complained of in this matter took place "Since November 1992," the appropriate law to apply to this case is the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections
760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992). See Recommended Order, "Preliminary Statement" section.
With this clarification, we adopt the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law.
DISMISSAL
The Petition for Relief and Complaint of Discrimination are DISMISSED with Prejudice.
The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right of appeal is found in Section 120.68,
9.110. Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 1995. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS:
Commissioner Deborah Wagner, Panel Chairperson Commissioner Elena Flom; and Commissioner Laura Santos
Filed this 26th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Sharon Moultry
Clerk of the Commission
NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER
As your complaint was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), you have the right to request EEOC to review this Commission's final agency action. To secure a "substantial weight review's by EEOC, you must request it in writing within 15 days of your receipt of this Order. Send your request to Miami District Office (EEOC), One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700, 27th Floor, Miami, FL 33131.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Denise E. Hoedt
11605 U.S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610
Alley and Alley, Chartered
205 Brush Street
P. O. Box 1427
Tampa, Florida 33601
Mark P. Graves, Esquire Malfitano & Campbell
P. O. Box 1840
Tampa, Florida 33601-1840
James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel William F. Quattlebaum, DOAH Hearing Officer
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 30, 1995 | Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief From An Unlawful Employment Practice filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1994 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 04/06/94. |
| May 16, 1994 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law w/cover ltr filed. |
| May 13, 1994 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1994 | Order Granting Extension sent out. (Parties to file proposed recommended orders by 5/13/94) |
| Apr. 26, 1994 | Agreed Motion for Extension of Time In Which To File Post Hearing Brief and Proposed Recommended Order (faxed copy from M. Graves) filed. |
| Apr. 19, 1994 | Administrative Hearing Transcript (Volumes 1 & 2 TAGGED); & Cover Letter from L. Ide filed. |
| Apr. 08, 1994 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. (From Denise E. Hoedt) |
| Apr. 01, 1994 | Respondent`s Pre-Hearing Statement of Facts filed. |
| Mar. 30, 1994 | Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation; Prehearing Procedure & Attachments filed. |
| Mar. 28, 1994 | Notice of Ex Parte Communication sent out. |
| Mar. 28, 1994 | Notice of Ex Parte Communication sent out. |
| Mar. 22, 1994 | Second Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 04/06/94,10:00 a.m., Tampa) |
| Mar. 21, 1994 | Letter to WFQ from Denise E. Hoedt (re: Petition relating to Mr. Gallis` character) filed. |
| Feb. 10, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1994 | Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure sent out. |
| Jan. 28, 1994 | Confirmation letter to Court Reporter from Hearing Officer`s secretary re: hearing date sent out. (Court Reporter: Kanaby Court Reporters) |
| Jan. 28, 1994 | Amended Notice of Hearing (as to Location only) sent out. (hearing set for 4/6/94; 10:00am; Tampa) |
| Jan. 04, 1994 | Confirmation letter to Kanaby Court Reporters re: scheduling of hearing date from Hearing Officer`s secretary sent out. |
| Jan. 04, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 4/6/94; 10:00am; Tampa) |
| Dec. 15, 1993 | Notice of Appearance and Respondent`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Dec. 10, 1993 | Pleading and Papers Concerning Case filed. (From Denise E. Hoedt) |
| Nov. 24, 1993 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 19, 1993 | Transmittal of Petition; Charge of Discrimination; Notice of Determination: No Cause; Determination: No Cause; Petition for Relief filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 10, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 09, 1994 | Recommended Order | Incident does not create hostile work environment, |
