The Issue The issue in this case, as stipulated by the parties, is whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ by attempting to enter into, or by entering into, pre- dated employment agreements, and/or by attempting to destroy or destroying public records and/or evidence of wrongdoing and/or by attempting to enter into or entering into agreements which exceeded the Respondent's purchasing authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Oel Wingo was employed as the city manager for the City of Holly Hill (City) from January 1, 2010, until October 2010. Prior to serving in that capacity, she was the assistant city manager for the City of Palm Coast for ten years, and the assistant city manager for the City of Ocala for five years. Respondent earned a Ph.D. in Education Administration from the University of Florida. At all times material to the allegations herein, the City operated under a commission/city manager form of government. This meant that the commission decided policy, while the city manager was responsible for implementing policy and handling all operational matters, including the hiring and firing of personnel. Respondent's employment as city manager was governed by an employment agreement. The agreement provided for the payment of severance pay to Respondent in the event she was "terminated" by the City. Under section 10 of the agreement, termination could occur under a number of scenarios, including the following: If the Employer reduces the base salary, compensation or any other financial benefit of the Employee, unless it is applied in no greater percentage than the average reduction of all department heads, such action shall constitute a breach of this agreement and will be regarded as a termination. In the event that Respondent was terminated pursuant to the above provision, "[T]he Employer shall provide, initially, a severance payment equal to six months' salary at the current rate of pay " Respondent's employment agreement with the City further provided that she would not be entitled to receive severance benefits in the event she was terminated for cause. At the time she was terminated from her employment as city manager, Respondent’s annual rate of pay was $124,500.00. When Respondent assumed her duties as city manager, the City was experiencing significant budget problems because of declining property values, and the resultant reduction in tax revenues. Faced with a reduced budget, Respondent was nonetheless charged with the duty to maintain the current level of city services. Consequently, Respondent implemented budget cuts, reorganizations, layoffs, and position eliminations within months of her arrival. Understandably, the atmosphere in city commission meetings was, at times, tense and volatile. Similarly, the rapid personnel changes negatively affected employee morale and fostered resistance to many of the changes proposed by Respondent. When Respondent was hired by the City, only one City department head, City Clerk Valerie Manning, had an employment contract. Ms. Manning's contract with the City provided that if the City were to reduce her compensation in a greater percentage than the applicable across-the-board reduction for all City employees, she could elect to resign and “be terminated without cause,” and therefor eligible for full severance benefits. Manning left the employ of the City in April, 2010. In April 2010, Respondent replaced Manning with Joshua Fruecht. Fruecht testified that he requested an employment contract soon after he was hired. Respondent told him she would consider it after he had worked for the City for six months. Early during Respondent's employment with the City she and the City Attorney, Scott Simpson, had conversations about the desirability of the department heads having employment agreements because, as department heads, they had no protection from arbitrary termination. Entering into employment agreements with the department heads would protect them from being terminated by the city commission for personal reasons. By that time Respondent had already been approached by Administrative Services Director Kurt Swarzlander, who was concerned about his position and also wanted an employment agreement. On May 6, 2010, Respondent e-mailed Attorney Simpson with the following inquiry: We recently discussed the need to contract with Department Heads. Previously, the City Clerk had a contract. I am reviewing similar employment contracts from other cities and would like to pursue this for several reasons. My primary question for you is whether these contracts must go before the Commission. My interpretation of the Charter and my hiring and firing capabilities is that they do not, as long as I remain within the adopted job descriptions and pay ranges. Later that day, Simpson responded to Respondent's inquiry as follows: I agree that an employment contract with department heads should be within your authority as the City Manager. However, if severance is going to be provided to the department heads, then I would recommend having the commission approve this change in benefits even if individually the cost would not exceed your spending authority as cumulatively they probably would and it is a new benefit. This should not be an issue as the commission approved this for the City Clerk. Roland Via served on the city commission from November 2005 through November 2010, and was the mayor when Respondent was hired as the city manager. Mr. Via testified that in January 2010, during her first month of employment, Respondent advanced the idea of employment agreements for City department heads. According to Respondent, employment agreements would permit the City to hire the best managerial talent from other cities and provide a benefit to both the City and the employee. In May 2010, Respondent negotiated an employment agreement with Brad Johnson to serve as the public works director. The contract was executed without approval by the City Commission. City Attorney Simpson and Respondent collaborated in the preparation of the contract. Mr. Johnson's agreement provided that if the City were to reduce his financial benefits in a greater percentage than the applicable across-the-board reduction for all City employees, he could resign and be terminated without cause, thus being eligible for full severance benefits. Specifically, section 4(c) of Mr. Johnson’s employment agreement provided as follows: If the City reduces the financial benefits of the Employee in a greater percentage than the applicable across-the-board reduction for all City employees, or if the City refuses, allowing written notice, to comply with any other provision benefitting the Employee as set forth herein, then Employee may, at his/her option, elect to resign and be “terminated without cause” within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Agreement and shall receive all compensation and benefits in Section (4)(a). Such resignation shall be in writing to the City Manager. In the event there was a termination under the above circumstances, Mr. Johnson’s agreement provided that the City would pay a minimum of four months’ salary and benefits pursuant to the City’s Personnel Policies. Respondent forwarded an e-mail to the members of the City Commission on May 7, 2010, informing them of her decision to enter into an employment agreement with Mr. Johnson based on a similar agreement with the former City Clerk, Ms. Manning. Respondent also informed the commissioners that the “City Attorney has advised that we consider utilizing employment agreements with new Department Heads.” At the time Respondent offered an employment agreement to Mr. Johnson, she elected not to do so for the other department heads. This was because she needed more time to evaluate each department head’s capabilities and determine on a case by case basis whether offering contracts to them would in the best interest of the City. However, the unrebutted testimony established that early in her tenure as city manager Respondent had formulated the intent to enter into employment contracts with qualified department heads at some future time. When Respondent entered into the written agreement with Mr. Johnson she was aware of the potential limitations imposed on her purchasing authority as a result of the severance provisions of the employment agreement. However, at the time that Respondent entered into the agreement with Mr. Johnson, no language was suggested or offered by the city attorney regarding the limitations imposed on the city manager's purchasing authority by virtue of the City’s purchasing code. While Respondent was hired by unanimous vote of the City commission, her relationship with certain commissioners, particularly Commissioner Glass and Commissioner Patton, began to deteriorate within the first months of her employment. This was the result of several actions by Respondent, including challenging Commissioner Glass about directing an employee to expend funds in a manner inconsistent with commission action, and deciding not to authorize the use of City funds to pay for the spouses and children of commissioners to attend the League of Cities convention. As a result of this friction, Respondent testified, she was threatened by Commissioner Glass on more than one occasion. The July 28, 2010, Employment Agreements (Dated May 21, 2010) At a city commission workshop on the evening of July 27, 2010, Commissioner Patton suggested that Respondent take a 20 percent cut in pay, and that salaries of the department heads also be reduced. At the time that Commissioner Patton suggested the pay cuts, the only department head that had an employment agreement was Mr. Johnson. However, no formal motion was made at this meeting to cut Respondent’s or department head pay, and no evidence was introduced that any action was ever taken by the city commission on this suggestion. In the hours immediately following the commission meeting of July 27, 2010, which Respondent and other witnesses characterized as being "vicious, dysfunctional, screaming and yelling," Respondent wrote a resignation letter and prepared a list of things that needed to be done before she left the City. Among the items on Respondent’s “to do” list was to prepare and complete the employment agreements that she and the city attorney had been discussing for department heads. Respondent testified that she had two reasons for implementing employment agreements immediately following the July 27th commission meeting. The first was to protect the department heads from the personal vendettas of the city commission. The second was to ensure that the City had a professional management team in place and continuity of professional management. On the morning of July 28, 2010, Respondent met with all of her department heads at the regularly scheduled weekly executive team meeting. She informed them that she would be working with the human resources director, Diane Cole, to immediately prepare employment agreements for all department heads modeled on the Brad Johnson, May 21, 2010, employment agreement. The reason given by Respondent for the agreements was that the department heads “should all have some protections due to the atmosphere within the city . . . .” During this meeting she also informed her department heads of her intention to resign as city manager. Respondent directed Ms. Cole to use the exact same agreement as had been prepared for Mr. Johnson, and to include the same dates as were included in that agreement. Accordingly, each of the employment agreements was dated as being signed on May 21, 2010, and each contained the same severance pay provision at section 4(c), as did Mr. Johnson’s agreement. Likewise, the effective date of each of the employment agreements was June 7, 2010. On the afternoon of July 28, 2010, each of the department heads, except Police Chief Barker, who was out of town, was presented with and signed their respective employment agreement. Although not present, Chief Barker conferred by telephone with Respondent regarding the employment agreement and advised her that he would not sign a "post-dated" agreement. The July 29, 2010, Agreements Upon further reflection that evening, Respondent became concerned about the “signature date” of May 21, 2010, appearing on contracts actually signed on July 28, 2010. This concern was no doubt fueled by Chief Barker’s comment regarding the “post- dated” nature of the agreements. Accordingly, Respondent decided to have new agreements prepared the following day which would reflect signature dates of July 29, 2010. In addition, both she and Ms. Cole had noted that the some of the agreements signed on July 28, 2010, contained typographical errors that needed to be corrected.2/ On July 29, 2010, Respondent presented a second employment agreement to each of the City department heads for them to sign. Each employment contract was dated as having been executed on July 29, 2010. Each of the employment agreements contained the identical language at section 4(c) as had appeared in the earlier versions signed the previous day. Similarly, the “effective date” of each agreement remained June 7, 2010. Following the execution of the agreements on July 29, 2010, Respondent instructed Ms. Cole to destroy all the agreements dated May 21, 2010. Ms. Cole testified that Respondent directed her to destroy them because they were drafts, they contained typographical errors, and they had been superseded by the July 29, 2010, agreements. Notwithstanding her direction that the hardcopies be destroyed, Respondent testified that she understood that a copy of all of the agreements dated May 21, 2010, remained on the City's computer system, consistent with the City’s record retention procedures. The new agreements tied Respondent's potential severance benefits to base salary reductions of all department heads whose severance benefits were, in turn, tied to reductions in pay and benefits to all City employees.3/ Thus, any potential benefit to Respondent of the new agreements would depend on the type of action taken by the City. At least three scenarios were possible. First, if the City proposed cutting Respondent’s pay and benefits by 20 percent, with no other corresponding reductions to department heads or city personnel, there would be no new benefit to Respondent. She would be entitled to severance as provided in her employment agreement, because her pay and benefits were being cut in a greater percentage than her department heads. Second, if the City reduced salary and benefits paid to department heads or city personnel by 10 percent, but reduced Respondent’s pay and benefits by 20 percent, there would be no new benefit to Respondent. She would be entitled to severance as provided in her employment agreement, because her pay and benefits were being cut in a greater percentage than her department heads. Third, if the City reduced Respondent's salary and benefits by 20 percent and her department heads by 20 percent, and the remaining City employees by five percent, Respondent would receive no new benefit. She would not be entitled to severance as provided in her employment agreement because her pay and benefits were not being cut in a greater percentage than her department heads. Under this scenario, the department heads would be entitled to elect to treat the disproportionate pay and benefit reduction as a “termination without cause,” and while the department heads would benefit, Respondent would not. On or about August 20, 2010, having heard about the employee contracts, City Commissioner Rick Glass telephonically requested a copy of all the employment agreements "from 5/21 to present . . . ." In response, Respondent sent an e-mail to all the City Commissioners, the Executive Team, and to the City Attorney stating, in part: Pursuant to the advice of the City Attorney and based on the fact that the Commissioners previously approved the concept of a Department Head Employment Agreement in 2008, the City Attorney prepared an Employment Agreement in May 2010 for implementation. See Attached. Consistent with the City Manager's approved purchasing authority, all non-union managers were subsequently offered the opportunity to enter into the proposed employment agreement. The Employment Agreement protects the City as well as the professionals. The City is protected by ensuring that we have sufficient lead time, four months, prior to a resignation to ensure we have adequate coverage for a professional position and services can continue uninterrupted. Respondent provided the recipients of the e-mail a copy of "the agreement prepared by the City Attorney." On August 23, 2010, Commissioner Glass sent an e-mail to Respondent requesting a copy of the "first signed copy of the employee agreements predated back to May 2010, that Scott, Brad, Diane, Josh, Oel, Kurt, Ron, and Mark signed! Not the contracts you had them re-sign on July 29th." In response, on August 23, 2010, Respondent wrote: This is a follow-up to Mr. Glass's request for Employment Agreement signed on May 21, 2010. The only Department Head that signed an agreement on that date is Brad Johnson. At that time, I chose not to have the other Department Heads sign Employment Agreements as I felt that I needed more time to determine their capabilities in their jobs and whether an employment agreement which committed the City to those individuals was in the best interest of the City. Subsequently, given the tone of the Commission meetings, the pressure to terminate certain individuals, as well as the pressure to treat those without union contracts differently, I chose to provide those employees with the same agreement that Brad Johnson signed on May 21, 2010. I felt morally and ethically obligated to ensure that those employees had similar protections to those employees with union agreements. These employees signed an agreement on July 28, 2010, which still had the May 21, 2010 date on it. On July 29, 2010, we corrected not only the date to reflect July 29, 2010, but several other errors related to titles and responsibilities within the proposed agreements. It was never my intent to imply that these employees had signed the agreement on May 21, 2010. It was my intent to show that they had the same protective status as Brad Johnson acquired on May 21, 2010, so that all were treated the same. As the date could have reflected a different intent and there were other errors in the intermediate document, I corrected the proposed employment agreement the next day and had the managers sign a new agreement. The documents signed on July 28, 2010, are considered draft or intermediate records which are not in and of themselves considered public records and were disposed of in accordance to state guidelines. In an August 24, 2010, e-mail, Attorney Simpson responded to Ms. Wingo's August 23, 2010, e-mail. He wrote that inasmuch as the documents in question "contained errors that were corrected, including the date, and the revised agreements was [sic] subsequently executed by the City Manager and the employees. Based on these facts the original agreements executed would appear to be drafts or precursors to the final employment agreement." Mr. Simpson concluded, "draft documents are not public records." The August 30, 2010, Agreements On August 30, 2010, yet a third version of the employment agreements was presented to each of the department heads. These agreements were prepared and executed following communications with Attorney Simpson regarding whether the severance pay provisions of the July 30, 2010, agreements potentially exceeded Respondent's purchasing authority of $25,000. At issue was the manner in which Respondent had originally calculated the potential severance benefits available to the department heads under the agreements. In an e-mail dated August 24, 2010, Attorney Simpson expressed his concern that the severance pay provisions in the July 30, 2010, agreements had the potential to exceed $25,000 for all of the department heads, with the exception of Joshua Fruecht. The third and final version of the agreement addressed the limitations in the severance benefits offered as a result of the limits on the city manager’s purchasing authority set forth in the City’s purchasing ordinances. Specifically, section 4(a) of the agreement was amended to provide: In the event the Employee is terminated without cause by the City while the Employee is willing and able to perform the duties of the position as Human Resources Manager, the City agrees, subject to the below conditions, to pay the Employee a minimum of four (4) months of salary and benefits health insurance provided to the Employee pursuant to the City’s Personnel Policies not to exceed the City Manager’s purchasing Authority. Additionally, the City shall be responsible to pay all leave accruals at the Employee’s current rate of pay, consistent with City Personnel Rules and Regulations. (Emphasis in original). Each of the employment agreements signed on August 30, 2010, reflects execution on that date. Other than the signature date and revision to section 4(a), the August 30, 2010, agreements are identical to the July 29, 2010, versions. There is no persuasive evidence in this record that Respondent did not have authority to enter into employment agreements with the City's department heads on behalf of the City. To the contrary, the City's outside labor counsel opined that a strong argument could be made that the city manager possesses the authority to enter into employment contracts, subject to the city manager's purchasing authority. Similarly, Attorney Simpson testified that he believed Respondent had the authority to enter into employment agreements. The only question in his mind was whether the agreements should be presented to the City Commission for review and approval, since in his opinion, offering a severance benefit was a policy issue. There is no question that the City’s department heads received a benefit from having employment agreements with the City. It protected them from arbitrary personnel actions and provided severance benefits under certain circumstances. Specifically, their pay and benefits could not be reduced unless there was a corresponding reduction for all City employees. The evidence adduced at hearing does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent acted corruptly in entering into pre-dated employment agreements with her department heads, or in directing that the July 28, 2010, versions of the agreements be destroyed. Rather, the competent substantial evidence established that Respondent believed that she was acting in a manner consistent with the proper performance of her duties as city manager.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a Final Order dismissing the Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent, American Support, discriminated against Petitioner, Linda Dodge, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act) sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, based upon her sex or in retaliation for participation in a protected activity.1/
Findings Of Fact American Support is a third-party telemarketing contractor for providers of cable and satellite service, with an office located in Daytona Beach, Florida. American Support is an employer within the meaning of the Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Petitioner is a 61-year-old female who was hired on August 19, 2008, as a telemarketer for Evergreen, a predecessor company to American Support. Petitioner worked in telemarketing for approximately one year, was laid off by Evergreen, but was shortly thereafter reemployed by Evergreen as a receptionist/administrative assistant. Between October 2011 and December 2011, Petitioner solely performed receptionist duties. Petitioner was replaced as company receptionist by Debora Jenkins, whom Petitioner helped train. Ms. Jenkins was hired on a full-time temporary basis as the company was transitioning to new ownership. In December 2011, Petitioner was promoted to Human Resources Assistant by Nancy Cantero, Human Resources Director for American Support beginning in November 2011. Petitioner’s duties were to initiate and process criminal background checks and credit checks on applicants, validate I-9 information received for newly hired employees, create personnel files for new employees, and manage employee personnel files. Employee personnel files contain personal identifying information including dates of birth, social security numbers, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background and credit checks. Both parties agree that keeping applicants’ and employees’ personal information protected is a high priority for the Human Resources Department. Ms. Cantero left American Support in February 2012 and was replaced by Steven Schaible, first as a Human Resources Generalist under contract, then as corporate Human Resources Manager in March 2012. In his capacity as Manager, Mr. Schaible supervised Petitioner and two Human Resources Recruiters: Warren Hernandez and Elaine Zoe. Ms. Zoe was a virtual recruiter operating from her home in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner described Mr. Schaible as very friendly and outgoing when he first became Human Resources Manager. In mid-April 2012, Mr. Schaible hired a third recruiter, Anthony Sarelli, at a rate of $17 per hour. No evidence was introduced to establish the hourly rate of either Mr. Hernandez or Ms. Zoe, but Mr. Hernandez earned less than $17 per hour. Petitioner earned $13.50 per hour as Human Resources Assistant. On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Ms. Jenkins, the temporary receptionist, gave her notice and stated that she would be starting a new job Monday, April 23, 2012. Ms. Jenkins’ last day on the job was Friday, April 20, 2012. Mr. Schaible, together with Mary Celle, Vice President of Operations, made a decision to eliminate the position of receptionist. Mr. Schaible had been unable to keep Ms. Jenkins busy full-time with receptionist duties such as answering and routing phone calls, accepting parcel deliveries, handing out job applications, and directing individuals to appropriate offices. Mr. Schaible determined Petitioner was competent to perform these duties, in light of her previous service as company receptionist. Petitioner had the day off on Friday, April 20, 2012. When she returned to work on Monday, April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible informed Petitioner that she would take over the receptionist duties while continuing to serve as Human Resources Assistant. Petitioner was physically moved from her desk to the receptionist desk at the front of the building.2/ Neither Petitioner’s title nor her salary changed when she was moved to the receptionist desk. Mr. Schaible made efforts to reduce Petitioner’s duties as Human Resources Assistant, reassigning responsibility of managing Kahuna, a software program through which new telemarketers were assigned log-in and password information, to a payroll employee, Maryanna Hilton. Additionally, Mr. Schaible instructed Petitioner to discontinue sending personal faxes for other employees. The company had taken some steps to streamline the receptionist function to make it more efficient and less time- consuming. For example, the company moved from paper applications to an online application system. The receptionist was to direct persons inquiring about job applications to computer terminals located at the building entrance in front of the receptionist desk. Similarly, the company telephone system was changed from a switchboard to automatic routing of calls to direct extensions by department. Petitioner was instructed to continue her regular Human Resources duties, but to place personnel files in a locked Human Resources file room located ten feet from the receptionist desk when she was away from her desk. On April 24, 2012, Mr. Schaible arrived at work early and noticed a stack of employee personnel files on the receptionist desk. Petitioner was not at the desk. Mr. Schaible concluded that the files had remained on the desk overnight. The files contained copies of social security cards, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background checks and credit checks for newly hired employees. Mr. Schaible secured the files and addressed Petitioner about the issue later that day. Mr. Schaible stressed with Petitioner the importance of keeping personnel files secure, and offered to get her a rolling file cabinet. The next day, April 25, 2012, Petitioner sent Mr. Schaible the following e-mail: “I apologize for the files when I left . . . it won’t happen again.” The following day, April 26, 2012, Mr. Schaible found a personnel file containing personal identifying information on Petitioner’s desk. Mr. Schaible removed the file and placed it in the locked file room. Later that same day, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Mr. Schaible: “Will make sure forms are upside down on my desk before I take a break . . . my bad.” Mr. Schaible spoke to Petitioner that same day and explained that turning files upside down on the desk in her absence was not sufficient. He explained that personnel files must be secured in the locked file room when she was not at her desk. On Monday, April 30, 2012, Petitioner was on vacation, and Mr. Schaible sat at the front desk for at least some part of the day.3/ He discovered in one of the desk drawers over 50 completed W-4 forms for current employees. Mr. Schaible discussed with Ms. Celle the need to initiate the company’s progressive discipline policy and give Petitioner a verbal warning.4/ Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner late in the afternoon on May 1, 2012, and deliver the verbal warning. Petitioner was back in the office on May 1, 2012. While Petitioner was on a break and Ms. Hilton was manning the receptionist desk for Petitioner, Mr. Schaible discovered six personnel files on the desk. Mr. Schaible removed the files and decided to modify the verbal warning to a written warning, in essence moving to the second step of the company’s progressive discipline policy. Mr. Schaible did not have a meeting with Petitioner on May 1, 2012, as planned. On May 2, 2012, Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner at 3:00 p.m. to present her with the written warning and discuss the confidentiality issues. He requested that Carrie Santana, Manager of Customer Care and Quality, attend the meeting as well. At 3:00 p.m., Mr. Schaible asked Petitioner to come to his office. She was busily working in the Kahuna program, adding two new employees at the request of a manager in the Jacksonville office. Petitioner requested Mr. Schaible to wait until she completed the log-in and password information for the new employees. Mr. Schaible became angry, told her that task would have to wait, and ordered her into his office immediately. Petitioner accompanied Mr. Schaible to his office, where Ms. Santana was waiting. Mr. Schaible confronted Petitioner with the W-4 forms he had found in the receptionist desk on April 30, 2012, as evidence of her failure to follow his directions to secure personal information of company employees. Before Mr. Schaible brought up the six personnel files he had removed from the desk the previous day, Petitioner stated, “I quit,” stood up and left Mr. Schaible’s office, then exited the building. Petitioner denies that she quit her job on May 2, 2012, instead testifying that she stated, “I quit this,” meaning she quit Mr. Schaible’s treatment toward her. However, Mr. Schaible’s testimony that Petitioner stated, “I quit” on May 2, 2012, was corroborated by Petitioner’s own e-mail dated May 3, 2012, to company President Matthew Zemon, as well as Ms. Santana’s written memorandum dated May 3, 2012, in which she memorialized the events of May 2, 2012. The evidence conflicted as to whether Petitioner returned to the office on May 2, 2012, following the disciplinary meeting. Mr. Schaible testified he did not see Petitioner after the meeting that day or the next day, May 3, 2012. Petitioner testified that she returned to the building within 30 minutes, stating first that she went into Mr. Schaible’s office to complain about his treatment of her, but later testifying that his office door was closed, so she did not go in to see him. Mr. Schaible’s testimony on this issue is credible and accepted by the undersigned. Mr. Schaible e-mailed Ms. Celle following the disciplinary meeting on May 2, 2012, informing Ms. Celle that Petitioner had resigned. Mr. Schaible then completed a Record of Termination for Petitioner showing a separation date of May 2, 2012. The evidence showed that American Support did not accept Petitioner’s resignation. In response to Petitioner’s email of May 3, 2012, Mr. Zemon e-mailed Mr. Schaible and asked him to contact Petitioner and offer her a position in inbound/outbound sales at the high end of the pay range. Mr. Schaible did so, but Petitioner did not accept the offer. Petitioner clearly considered her assignment to the receptionist desk to be demeaning. She was subjected to comments from other employees suggesting she had been demoted because she could not perform Human Resources duties. She felt that the Human Resources Assistant did not belong at the front desk. Petitioner was overwhelmed with performing Human Resources duties while assisting job applicants at the computers, answering telephone calls that were not automatically routed, accepting delivered parcels, and dealing with the myriad inquiries typically made of the receptionist at any business. Petitioner complained that it was impossible to secure applicants’ and employees’ personal information with other employees passing by the front desk on their way in and out of the building. She noted that running back and forth to the Human Resources file room every time she was required to get up from the desk -- even though it was only ten feet away -- rendered her work inefficient, if not impossible. In support of her argument that she was discriminated against based on her sex, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible hired a second male recruiter out of a mixed pool of applicants, that Mr. Schaible made inappropriate comments about some applicants, and that he hired a male recruiter at a rate of $17 per hour -– higher than other Human Resources employees. Petitioner submitted no evidence to establish what comments were made about any applicant for the position of Human Resources recruiter. As to hourly rates of pay, Petitioner testified that the new recruiter was paid at a higher rate than Mr. Hernandez. Further, Petitioner did not produce any evidence as to the rates of pay for either Ms. Zoe or Mr. Hernandez. Petitioner also alleged that following her move to the receptionist desk on April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible instructed her not to take breaks with Mr. Hernandez, not to check her work e- mails from home, and excluded her from meetings with other Human Resources employees. However, Petitioner was unable to testify with certainty that other employees were allowed to continue checking e-mails from home. Ms. Zoe, the female virtual recruiter on the team, continued to participate in Human Resources meetings. Petitioner likewise complained that she was denied a raise while Mr. Hernandez received one. On April 19, 2012, in response to Mr. Schaible’s request, Petitioner submitted a self- evaluation for Mr. Schaible’s consideration. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hernandez told her a week later that he received a raise. Petitioner then asked Mr. Schaible about the time period for a decision on her raise; Mr. Schaible responded, according to Petitioner, “Not sure about it yet.[5/]” Petitioner’s hearsay statement alone is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Hernandez received a raise. No evidence was introduced as to the status of other employees’ evaluations or raises. Petitioner’s most-repeated claim is that Mr. Schaible treated her unprofessionally by speaking to her sharply in front of other employees, yelling when he ordered her into his office on May 2, 2012, and “slamming” the W-4 files on the desk during the disciplinary meeting. Petitioner felt his treatment of her was demeaning, harassing, and embarrassing. Petitioner presented no evidence, however, that Mr. Schaible’s treatment of her was related in any way to her status as a female. In fact, when Mr. Schaible hired a replacement Human Resources Assistant, he hired another female. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible acted in retaliation, but could not articulate any event for which the retaliation was lodged. When questioned by the undersigned as to her retaliation claim, Petitioner testified, It just didn’t seem like the right thing for an office atmosphere, I should say, or speak to an employee in such a manner. So it’s just his mannerism and his attitude toward me that made me feel like it was a retaliation [sic] for something, and I couldn’t figure out what it was.[6/] Petitioner may very well have been put in an impossible work situation, treated unfairly, or forced to resign. However, there is no evidence that her treatment was related in any way to her status as a female. Petitioner did admit to improperly handling employee personnel files and applicant files on at least two occasions. She denies that leaving the six files on the desk when Ms. Hilton was covering for her break was improper because Ms. Hilton worked in the payroll department and had access to employee personal information. As to the W-4 forms in her desk, Petitioner admitted that even if the forms were left in the desk by Ms. Jenkins, Petitioner was ultimately responsible for securing those documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are: Whether Respondent violated section 112.3135, Florida Statutes,1/ by voting on the appointment and/or advocating for the appointment of her relative to a position within her agency and/or her agency voting to appoint and/or advance her relative and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty? Whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using her position to appoint her relative to the position of City of Midway Mayor Pro Tem and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty? Whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using a City of Midway-owned vehicle and/or City of Midway-issued gasoline credit card for personal use and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty? Whether Respondent violated section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by failing to report the gift of the personal use of the City of Midway-owned vehicle and/or the City of Midway-issued gasoline credit card and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent served as a member of the Midway City Council (City Council). She was initially appointed to the City Council in 2000 and served until 2003. She was subsequently elected to the City Council in 2015 and served until May of 2019. Respondent became the Mayor of the City of Midway in May of 2017. As a member and/or mayor of the City Council, Respondent is subject to article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, and the requirements of part III, chapter 112, Florida Statutes, Code of Ethics. In January 2018, Respondent attended and received ethics training from the Florida League of Cities. That training included information on and examples of nepotism, misuse of position, and the receipt and disclosure of gifts. It also included information about the Commission issuing advisory opinions and how to contact the Commission. Nepotism Allegation The form of government the City of Midway (the City) provided under its Charter is the "Council-Manager Government,” under which all powers of the City are vested in an elected council. The City Council consists of five citizens who are residents of the City and electors eligible to vote in the City elections. From its members, the City Council elects a Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. The election of the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem occurs at the first regular council meeting after the City election. According to the Midway City Charter, the Mayor presides at all meetings of the City Council and performs other duties consistent with the office as imposed or designated by the City Council. The Mayor has a voice and vote in the proceedings of the City Council. The Mayor is referred to as Mayor-Councilmember in the execution of any legal instruments or writing or when functioning to meet other duties arising from the general laws of Florida or from the City Charter. The Mayor is recognized as the head of City government for all ceremonial purposes, for service of process, execution of contracts, deeds and other documents. The Mayor may take command of the police and govern the City by proclamation during the times of grave public danger or emergency and the Mayor has the power during such times to appoint additional temporary officers and patrolmen. The power and duties of the Mayor-Councilmember are such as they are conferred upon him/her by the Midway City Charter and no other. The Midway City Charter provides that the Mayor shall: “(a) See that all laws, provisions of this charter, and acts of the council, subject to his/her direction and supervision are faithfully executed; (b) Submit the annual budget message; (c) Summon the appropriate law enforcement officers to suppress civil disturbances and to keep law and other during times of emergency; (d) Make such other reports as the council may require concerning the operations of city departments, offices, and agencies subject to his/her direction in time of emergency; (e) Attend, preside, and vote at all council meetings; (f) Sign contracts on behalf of the city pursuant to the provisions of applicable ordinances; (g) Be recognized as the city official designated to represent the city in all agreements with other governmental entities or certifications to other governmental entities as approved by the vote of the city council; (h) Annually prepare a state of the city message, set forth the agenda for all meetings of the council, name committees of the council, make recommendations of members for city boards to the city council; (i) Perform such other duties as specified in this charter or may be required by council.” The population of the City is less than 4,000 residents. The City Council has land use and/or zoning responsibilities. In April 2016, there was a vacancy on the City Council caused by a Councilmember departing prior to the end of that Councilmember’s term. Respondent’s first cousin, Sam Stevens, wanted to be appointed to the City Council to fill the vacant seat. Prior to any action on the matter, Respondent telephoned Commission legal staff member, Grayden Schafer, Esquire, and inquired whether she would be in violation of the anti-nepotism statute if the Council appointed her first cousin to serve the unexpired remainder of a departing Councilmember's term. Following his telephone conversation with Respondent, on April 21, 2016, Attorney Schafer sent an e-mail to Respondent at rangewanda@yahoo.com, summarizing Respondent’s inquiry and the advice he provided. The last page of that e-mail (Schafer’s E-mail) states: a public official can be held in violation of the anti-nepotism provision if the appointment is made by the collegial body on which she serves, even if she did not participate in the appointment. Given the foregoing, it appears that you can be held in violation of the anti-nepotism statute not only if you directly participate or advocate for your first cousin's appointment but also if the City Council decides on its own to appoint him, regardless of whether you vote or participate. According to Respondent, she did not receive the Schafer E-mail in 2016 and did not see it until after the filing of the complaints initiating this case against Respondent. Regardless of the timing of Respondent’s receipt of Schafer’s E-mail, the evidence is persuasive that the topic was discussed between Respondent and Attorney Schafer, and that, as a result of her telephone conversation with Attorney Schafer in April 2016, Respondent understood that, because of her kinship with Sam Stevens, she could not vote to appoint or advocate to appoint Sam Stevens to the City Council. She also was aware that, even if she recused herself from voting or participating in the discussion to appoint Sam Stevens to the City Council, if the City Council voted to appoint her first cousin to the vacant seat, she would be in violation of the anti-nepotism provision. After her conversation with Attorney Schafer, in April 2016, Respondent advised the City Council of her research and that she had contacted the Commission to inquire as to whether she could vote to appoint her cousin to the City Council. She explained that she could not and would have to resign if he was appointed, even if she did not participate in the vote. Sam Stevens was not appointed to fill the vacant City Council seat in 2016. The next year, Sam Stevens was elected to the City Council during the April 2017 municipal election. He was not elected or appointed by the City Council, but rather was elected by City citizens voting in the election. The following month, at its May 4, 2017, meeting, the City Council considered the issue of electing a Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem as provided by the City Charter. At that meeting, Councilman Colston asked if it was legal for relatives to vote for each other. The minutes of the City Council for that date indicate that “Interim City Attorney Thomas explained he had heard the rumor and did research and it is legal.” Contrary to the City Council minutes, in his deposition testimony, City Attorney Thomas denied that he gave that advice, but rather explained that he opined that Respondent and Councilman Sam Stevens could serve together on the City Council, but could not promote or advocate for one another. Despite his denial, during his interview with the Commission’s investigator, City Attorney Thomas “recalled researching the matter and advising Respondent that it was not a voting conflict for her to vote to appoint her cousin to serve as mayor pro tem." Considering the conflicting evidence, it is found that the preponderance demonstrates that the City Attorney advised that it was not a voting conflict for relatives to vote for each other for Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. Respondent did not reveal her 2016 conversation with Attorney Schafer to the City Council on May 4, 2017, nor did she provide a copy of Schafer’s E-mail dated April 21, 2016, to either the City Council or the City Attorney prior to the City Council’s votes for Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. However, at the May 4, 2017, City Council meeting, a citizen confronted Respondent with a copy of Schafer’s E-mail, reading portions of Schafer’s E-mail aloud. Respondent testified that she did not acknowledge an ethical dilemma regarding Attorney Schafer’s opinion because she believed it addressed appointment as opposed to election, and her cousin had been elected a year later, not appointed. Schafer’s E-mail does not address the situation in which both Respondent and her first cousin are elected members of the City Council and whether Respondent can vote to elect him as the Mayor Pro-Tem in that context. At that meeting, Respondent nominated herself to serve as Mayor. Her nomination was seconded by Councilman Smith. Respondent was elected as Mayor when the City Council voted three to two for Respondent to serve as Mayor with Councilman Smith, Councilman Sam Stevens, and Respondent voting “yes,” and Councilman Ronald Colston and Councilwoman Carolyn Francis voting “no.” Respondent, as the Mayor, received an $800 stipend, which is $100 more than the other councilmembers. At that same May 4, 2016, meeting, Councilman Colston nominated Councilwoman Francis to serve as Mayor Pro-Tem. That nomination failed two to three, with Respondent, Councilman Smith, and Councilman Stevens voting “no.” Councilman Smith then nominated Councilman Stevens to serve as Mayor Pro-Tem. The City Council voted three to two for Councilman Stevens to serve as Mayor Pro-Tem with Respondent, Councilman Stevens, and Councilman Smith voting “yes,” and Councilman Ronald Colston and Councilwoman Carolyn Francis voting “no.” According to the City Charter, the Mayor Pro-Tem: “shall preside over the meetings of the council during the absence of the mayor- councilmember, and in general in the absence or the incapacity of the mayor- councilmember, he/she shall do [sic] perform those acts and things provided in this Chapter to be done by the mayor- councilmember. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as to preclude the member succeeding himself or herself as Mayor- Council member.” The City provides no additional compensation for a Councilmember serving as Mayor Pro-Tem. Vehicle Use and Gift Disclosure The City has two vehicles. One is a white Ford Taurus that has air conditioning (Vehicle). The other is a white Ford Taurus with a red stripe that does not have air conditioning. Respondent was given a 2002 MPV Mazda Van by her daughter, Temika Smith, on Mother’s Day in 2016. While serving as Mayor, Respondent had use of the Vehicle for personal use. Respondent began using the Vehicle in September or October 2017 following a hurricane and had access to the Vehicle until she stopped using it in May of 2019. During this time, the Vehicle was generally parked on property adjacent to Respondent’s residence. While Respondent had a set of keys to the Vehicle, there was another set of keys at the City Hall. In addition to Respondent’s access, other city employees or city council members could use the Vehicle. Former City Manager Steele used the Vehicle on occasion during the time that Respondent had access to the Vehicle. When former City Manager Steele wanted to use the Vehicle, she would pick it up from Respondent’s residence and return it to City Hall. Respondent used the Vehicle for a variety of City- related purposes. She used it to travel to Florida League of Cities’ conferences. In addition, she used the Vehicle to attend events in Midway, in Gadsden County, and in Tallahassee, including meetings with the City’s lobbyist and members of the Florida Legislature, as part of her duties and responsibilities as Mayor. Respondent was also observed driving the Vehicle to meetings at the City Hall. Respondent’s personal use of the Vehicle included, but was not limited to, traveling roundtrip between Midway and Tallahassee. She may have had her daughter in the Vehicle on two or three occasions, and on occasion, drove the Vehicle to her daughter’s house in Tallahassee. On one of the occasions when Respondent drove the Vehicle to her daughter’s house in Tallahassee, which occurred on March 15, 2018, Respondent had a run-in with a Midway resident who had followed Respondent to her daughter’s house. The Midway Resident took pictures of the Vehicle at Respondent’s daughter’s house and also the Mazda MPV van, which was without a license plate. On that occasion, Respondent had gone to check on the house because her daughter was out of town. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted that there was a time when the Mazda MPV was in the shop a lot, and, since she had access to the Vehicle, she turned in the Mazda’s tag to save on insurance payments. On another occasion in 2018, Respondent was stopped by a Gadsden County Deputy Sheriff in Midway after midnight for having a tag light out and the incorrect tag on the Vehicle. Respondent had been returning from Tallahassee. No citation was issued with respect to that stop. Other examples presented at the hearing illustrating Respondent’s use of the Vehicle included her transporting a child from Midway to Florida High in Tallahassee, taking a Midway resident from Midway to Tallahassee to drop him at his place of employment, and taking an individual to Liberty County to retrieve that person’s vehicle left when evacuating because of a hurricane. While providing such accommodations is not listed within Respondent’s responsibilities as Mayor or Councilmember, arguably, they served a public purpose. While Respondent had access and use of the Vehicle, the City did not have a vehicle-use policy. The evidence indicates that former City manager Ford also used a City-owned vehicle for personal use. Former City Manager Steele could not recall if any other city employees or city council members had used the Vehicle. Respondent testified that employees of the City’s public works department might also have used the Vehicle. City Councilman Ron Colston testified that he never used the Vehicle. At the May 3, 2018, Midway City Council meeting, Councilman Colston publicly requested that Respondent stop driving the Vehicle, stating that citizens had approached him with concerns about Respondent driving the Vehicle. Minutes of that City Council meeting indicate that Councilman Coston commented that he had received some calls from citizens concerned with Respondent driving the City-owned vehicle and suggested that she should park the Vehicle because of the number of complaints and that it is a liability. In response to that comment, City Attorney Thomas suggested that the City Council come up with some policy and procedures on the use of City vehicles. Respondent did not stop driving the Vehicle at the time of Councilman Colston’s request. By the end of October 2018, the Vehicle needed a tune-up and to have its brakes checked. In October 2018, Respondent started using a rental car when she got a job with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for debris monitoring. Respondent was not reimbursed by FEMA for the rental. In January 2019, Respondent purchased a new vehicle, a 2019 Mitsubishi G4 Mirage. At the time of the final hearing in this case, the City was in the process of developing a policy regarding the use of City vehicles and City Fuel Cards. Respondent did not report the use of the vehicle on her income taxes and did not file a gift disclosure to report her personal use of the City-owned vehicle as a gift. Fuel Card Use and Gift Disclosure Respondent used a City-issued Pilot Travel Center credit card for gasoline for the Vehicle. City-issued Pilot Travel Center credit card #007 (City Fuel Card) was assigned to the Vehicle. The City Fuel Card was the only one numbered #007 and it remained in the Vehicle. While some of the fuel purchases charged to the City Fuel Card were related to City business, Respondent acknowledged that fuel was also purchased using the City Fuel Card during her personal use of the Vehicle. Records of City Fuel Card #007 from November of 2017 through December of 2018 show the following charges: November 2017: -November 1, 2017– 623 Quincy FL- $33.67 -November 5, 2017- 425 Midway FL- $20.71 -November 5, 2017- 4556 Wildwood FL- $20.00 -November 8, 2017- 4556 Wildwood FL- $18.30 -November 9, 2017- 623 Quincy FL- $24.72 -November 13, 2017- 623 Quincy FL- $21.77 -November 13, 2017- 623 Quincy FL- $35.42 -November 20, 2017- 623 Quincy FL- $42.68 -November 20, 2017- 623 Quincy FL- $30.78 -November 27, 2017- 623 Quincy FL- $32.00 Respondent traveled on City business to and from Orlando, Florida, from November 5 through November 8, 2017. As to the multiple charges on November 13, 2017, and November 20, 2017, Respondent explained that she traveled on City business because “we were giving out turkeys during that time.” December 2017: -December 2, 2017– 623 Quincy FL- $30.91 -December 12, 2017– 623 Quincy FL- $34.06 -December 15, 2017– 425 Midway FL- $30.27 -December 22, 2017– 425 Midway FL- $27.03 January 2018: -January 9, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $33.82 -January 17, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $22.03 -January 18, 2018- 4556 Wildwood FL- $18.00 -January 21, 2018- 4556 Wildwood FL- $8.20 -January 22, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $15.50 -January 23, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $8.57 -January 24, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $10.01 -January 26, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $24.00 Respondent traveled on City business to and from Orlando, Florida, during the period from January 18 through 22, 2018. February 2018: -February 2, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $34.26 -February 15, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $32.00 -February 22, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $30.01 March 2018: -March 14, 2018- 425 Midway FL - $31.00 -March 28, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $32.07 April 2018: -April 7, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $25.00 -April 17, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $35.44 -April 28, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $7.52 66. May 2018: -May 14, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $37.01 -May 20, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $29.02 -May 26, 2018– 425 Midway FL - $41.00 67. June 2018: -June 1, 2018– 4556 Wildwood FL- $25.03 -June 2, 2018– 4556 Wildwood FL- $18.02 -June 4, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $20.00 -June 9, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $31.00 -June 15, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $28.04 -June 29, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $33.00 Respondent traveled on City business to and from Orlando, Florida during the period from May 31, 2018, through June 2, 2018. 68. July 2018: -July 18, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $35.06 August 2018: -August 3, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $21.08 -August 14, 2018- 622 St. Lucie FL- $20.01 -August 14, 2018- 091 Jacksonville- $24.00 -August 19, 2018- 624 Dade City FL- $27.02 -August 20, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $19.33 -August 24, 2018- 425 Midway FL- $33.01 Respondent traveled on City business to and from Hollywood, Florida during the period from August 14 through 18, 2018. September 2018: -September 4, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $37.00 -September 13, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $35.50 -September 29, 2018– 425 Midway FL- $36.01 October 2018: -October 10, 2018– 623 Quincy FL- $39.07 November 2018: -November 21, 2018– 623 Quincy FL- $33.07 December 2018: -December 5, 2018– 623 Quincy FL- $18.80 In addition to the fact that some of Respondent’s use of the City Fuel Card to put fuel in the Vehicle included her personal use of the Vehicle, Respondent used the City Fuel Card to purchase gasoline for the Vehicle when she was using the Vehicle for travel on City business, including travel to Florida League of Cities’ conferences in November of 2017, as well as while traveling on City business in and around Midway and Gadsden County, and to and from Tallahassee. Respondent also used the City Fuel Card to pay for gasoline while traveling on City business to attend Florida League of Cities’ conferences in a rental vehicle. These conferences occurred January 18 through 22, 2018; May 31 through June 2, 2018; and August 14 through 18, 2018. There was no evidence presented that Respondent used the City Fuel Card to purchase anything other than fuel for the Vehicle or fuel for a rental car while on business for the City. As the City Fuel Card was kept in the Vehicle, other City Council members or City employees would have had access to the City Fuel Card when they were driving the Vehicle. Respondent did not file a gift disclosure to report her use of the City Fuel Card to put gasoline in the Vehicle on those occasions when she used the Vehicle for personal use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Respondent, Wanda Range, violated section 112.3135, Florida Statutes, and recommending the imposition of a nominal civil penalty of $1.00 for that violation, and further finding that Respondent Wanda Range did not violate sections 112.313(6), or 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2019.
The Issue The issues posed for decision are: 1. Whether the Respondent, by its agent Lawrence McCarthy, unlawfully discharged Jerome Cilhar on June 21, 1976, in violation of Section 447.501(1)(b), of the Act. 2 . Whether the Respondent, by its agent and representative, Lawrence McCarthy, unlawfully interrogated and threatened employees on April 30, and May 4, 1976, within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a), of the Act. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, including the entire record compiled herein) I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, City of Gulfport, Florida, is a Florida municipal corporation located in Pinellas County, Florida. During times material to this proceeding, the City Manager was Mr. Harry Perkins (Perkins) who had the ultimate authority over personnel matters including hirings, discharges, levels of manpower, administration of federal employment assistance programs, as well as labor relations. During times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lawrence McCarthy (McCarthy) was employed by Respondent as Director of Public Works. As such, he had operational responsibility for sanitation, water and sewer, streets and parks among others. While McCarthy had the authority to manage his department, the hiring and discharge of employees and the general administration of budgets was handled by Perkins with some input and recommendation by McCarthy. During 1975, Gulfport contracted with Pinellas County, Florida to be a member of a consortium to receive federal supplemental employment assistance funds from the federal government under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Under this contract, Gulfport was required to follow all federal rules and regulations adopted under the CETA program. In March, 1975, Mr. Jerome Cilhar (Cilhar or the alleged discriminatee) had been unemployed for the requisite period of time to qualify for employment under the Pinellas County CETA program. Cilhar applied for a CETA position with Gulfport and, after the interview, was hired as a sanitation worker in the Public Works Department on March 3, 1975. He (Cilhar) was hired along with a Mr. Johnson who was also hired by Respondent under the CETA prograin as a sanitation worker, On July 17, 1975, an election was conducted by PERC among a comprehensive unit of Respondent's blue and white collar employees. The Petitioner therein did not receive a majority of the valid ballots cast. With these facts, both Perkins and McCarthy were under the impression that no union organizational campaign could begin until after the expiration of a one year period from the date of the election. Respondent operates on a fiscal year basis from October 1, until September 30. For the fiscal year 1975 to 1976, Respondent had budgeted approximately 130 positions for employees. In April and May, 1976, testimony reveals that Perkins became concerned that estimated revenues from services and taxes would not be reached during fiscal year 1975 through 1976 and that expenses would exceed the amount estimated. In this regard, it was noted that Respondent realized an operating deficit of approximately $200,000 for the fiscal year 1975 to 1976. In response to projected deficits, Perkins began personnel cutbacks in May, 1976, since personnel costs represented the largest single budget expenditure. Between May of 1976 and September 30, 1976, Perkins trimmed the City's work force by approximately 20 percent or a net loss of 26 employees. (See Respondent's Exhibit #4). In this regard, the evidence revealed that the City operated the sanitation department without any upward manpower adjustments until February, 1977, when employees were transferred to that area. Mr. Cilhar stated that he voluntarily informed Mr. McCarthy (the Public Works Director) of his desire for a union in late April, 1976. He testified that he and Barney White, a fellow employee in the sanitation department volunteered this information respecting their union activity because White was upset about the lack of pay raises. He testified that Barney White took the initiative in the conversation with McCarthy and in this regard, the evidence revealed that White who, as best as the record reveals, made all of the comments respecting their union activities. Cilhar testified that he noted no change in his relationship with the City and its employees during the six week interim between the date he and White made known their union activities to Respondent's agent (McCarthy) and the date of his discharge on June 21, 1976. Evidence reveals that Respondent made the decision (jointly by Perkins and McCarthy) to retain CETA employee Johnson, whose seniority was equal to Cilhar's, based on the fact that Johnson was more versatile in terms of his employment skills and Respondent was of the opinion that he would be of more assistance in that he could be assigned to a multitude of tasks. Cilhar also advanced the position that Respondent terminated him because he was arranging to schedule a union meeting on the date that he was discharged. The testimony in this regard establishes, on balance, that the Respondent made its decision to terminate Cilhar on Friday, June 18, but could not locate Cilhar because he had left to go home when the final decision was made by Respondent. He was contacted and advised of the termination decision by Respondent early the following Monday, June 21, 1976. He was given an exit interview and advised that his job was being abolished due to the lack of CETA fundings for the next fiscal year. He was also paid for his accrued annual leave from CETA funds. In this regard, Respondent established that this was done to curb employment costs from municipal funds since the payment of Cilhar's leave would have come from municipal funds had the decision been postponed until the end of the fiscal year. It was also noted in this regard that in its effort to realize economy through personnel cuts, Perkins terminated Ryan Larison, a budgeted city employee in the Sanitation Department on June 16, 1976 and thereby realized an economic savings. Pertinent CETA rules and regulations as well as the Respondent's contract with Pinellas County required that the City utilize federal CETA funds only as supplemental to budgeted employment positions. Thus Respondent could not maintain CETA positions instead of budgeted positions under its contract and the regulations. See Respondent's Exhibit #2, Section 205(c)(8). With these facts, I conclude that the Respondent did no more than it was required to do or in fact was compelled to do based on the financial restraints that it was operating under and its regulations with Pinellas County under the CETA program. As Respondent aptly notes, union activity does not insulate an employee from discharge for cause. While there were some uncertainties in this record, and some suspicions automatically arise from the fact that a union adherent was discharged while an employee of equal seniority with, as best as can be determined by the record, little or no union sympathies, these suspicions provide no substitute for record evidence upon which a finding can be made that the Respondent discharged the alleged discriminatee based on his union sympathies or desires as alleged in the complaint. I shall therefore recommend that this allegation be dismissed. THE ALLEGED THREATS AND INTERROGATION The complaints cite two instances in which the Respondent's agent, McCarthy, engaged in unlawful threats and/or interrogation. Witnesses testifying to these remarks during the hearing were Messrs. McCarthy and Rousseau. Both testified that in essence McCarthy warned that "they had a constitutional right to do any damn thing they wanted, but while on City property and on City time, solicitation of union activities was not condoned. Any one I heard would be subject to dismissal". McCarthy testified frankly and openly with respect to his remarks to employees respecting solicitation while on City time and property. Given all of the circumstances of this case and the complete absence of any evidence indicating that the Respondent engaged in any independent acts to unlawfully interfere with, restrain or coerce employees to exercise those rights guaranteed them in Chapter 447, I am of the opinion that the remarks given employees by McCarthy respecting solicitations for unions on City time on City property did not rise to the level of unlawful activity as defined in Chapter 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint allegations be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Esquire 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Sizemore, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation, discriminated against Petitioner, Charles Bean, on the basis of his age and retaliated against him, as stated in the Petition for Relief, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a public agency of the State of Florida. It has offices throughout Florida commensurate with its responsibilities. Petitioner is a Caucasian male. He is a long-time employee of Respondent. By letter of July 1, 2003, Petitioner was dismissed from his position as a technician for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a public employee. Petitioner did not offer any evidence of his actual age or that, other than his stated opinion, his age was the reason he was discharged. He did indicate that his age and experience were mentioned referable to his capacity to teach inexperienced employees and to perform his job. Petitioner did not offer any evidence regarding a replacement for the position from which he was discharged or of any employee who was treated differently than he. Petitioner did not offer any evidence of retaliation. He made a vague statement that he was the victim of retaliation, but did not offer any basis for his opinion. Petitioner refused to complete work assignments in a timely manner. These assignments were appropriate for his job responsibilities. When questioned by his supervisor regarding his failure to complete a particular job responsibility, Petitioner became defiant refusing to provide a written explanation; his angry response to the request included expletives. He then threatened a fellow employee who overheard the exchange between Petitioner and his supervisor. Petitioner's immediate supervisor does not believe age had any bearing on Petitioner's discharge. In addition, he supervises two other employees, aged 53 and 63. Petitioner's conduct violated the published Disciplinary Standards for State of Florida Employees.
Recommendation Based of 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's Petition for Relief and finding that Petitioner failed to present a prima facie case and, additionally, that Respondent demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Petitioner's termination was not based on unlawful discriminatory reasons. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Ann Cowles, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Charles Bean 431 Buffalo Street West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Leatharine Leon. She has been employed by Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, for more than 13 years. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner was employed in the position of Criminal Justice Administrator. Petitioner supervised a section within the Crime Information Bureau. In October, 1988, Martha Wright, a white female, became the Bureau Chief of the Crime Information Bureau. After evaluating the needs and personnel of the Bureau, Wright consulted with other Respondent management personnel and began the implementation of organizational changes within the Bureau. On or about November 22, 1988, Wright notified Petitioner that she was to be reassigned to duties as an Administrative Assistant II. The position was specifically created to provide administrative support to the Bureau. Wright wanted Petitioner to accept the transfer voluntarily. After thinking overnight about the matter, Petitioner refused and the reassignment was made on an involuntary basis. Upon the expiration of a required 14 day notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner in the early part of December, 1988, to the administrative assistant position. Petitioner continued to enjoy her same salary and pay grade. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-238, Respondent's transfer to the Administrative Assistant II position was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. At the time of Wright's action transferring Petitioner, Wright had already determined to make other organizational changes to the Bureau. Subsequently, implementation of those changes resulted in the merger of two sections of the Bureau; the criminal history input section formerly headed by Petitioner, a black female, and the criminal history bureau section headed by a white female. The white female head of the criminal history bureau section, Judi Croney, became a unit supervisor within the new section and was given additional special projects. Iris Morgan, a senior management analyst employed in a position with a higher pay grade than that held by Petitioner, assumed Petitioner's previous supervisory duties. Further, Morgan assumed additional duties and responsibilities associated with determining the viability of the merger of the two bureau sections and then supervising the merger. Respondent's management wanted to continue a higher level manager position over the enlarged section resulting from the merger action. Wright envisioned that the new section supervisor position would require an individual adept at conceptual work, as opposed to operational management. Since she met all minimum qualifications for the position, Morgan was selected to continue as the new section head. Petitioner did not adapt well to her position as the Administrative Assistant II. She was unable to perform duties of the position in an independent fashion. Consequently, she received below satisfactory performance evaluations on March 28, 1989, May 2, 1989, June 1, 1989, and July 28, 1989. After the last unsatisfactory performance evaluation, Petitioner was demoted from the Administrative Assistant II position, a pay grade 18 position, to a technician position with a pay grade of 14. However, Petitioner's salary was not reduced and has not been reduced to date. After Petitioner was removed from the Administrative Assistant II position in July or August of 1989, the position was filled by Jerrie Bell, a black female, who is still employed in that position. Bell has performed satisfactorily in the position and has the ability to work independently without constant instruction and supervision. As a result of reorganization, supervisory positions were reduced from ten to seven positions within the Bureau. All other affected supervisors, a total of five individuals, were white. All but one of them voiced objection to Respondent's actions; however, none of the objections varied or prevented implementation of Respondent's proposed changes. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's race. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4270 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-45. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 46.-48. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 49. Adopted by reference. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq.. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Leatharine Leon 1751 Centerville Road Tallahassee, FL 32317 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, when it terminated his employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a large corporate employer with corporate headquarters outside the State of Florida. Pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has a large manufacturing facility located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner is a male who was employed by Respondent at its Palm Beach facility between August 1978 and February 1993. Petitioner is a college graduate who subsequently earned a Master's degree in Business Administration (MBA). Respondent first employed Petitioner as a Financial Trainee, which is designated as a Grade 41 on the system by which Respondent designated pay ranges and relative job responsibilities. Respondent promoted Petitioner to a position referred to as Financial Analyst in 1979, which is a Grade 43 position. Respondent promoted Petitioner in 1981 to a position referred to as Senior Analyst, which is a Grade 45 position. Respondent promoted Petitioner in 1984 and assigned him to its Saudi Arabia Program as the Continental U.S. International Administrator, which is a Grade 46 position. Respondent laterally transferred Petitioner in 1986 from the Financial Department into the Human Resources Department to a position designated as Personnel Representative, which is also a Grade 46 position. Respondent promoted Petitioner in January 1989 to a position designated as Senior Resources Representative, which is a Grade 48 position. Respondent informed Petitioner on February 12, 1993, that his employment would be terminated, effective February 28, 1993. Petitioner's base annual salary at the time his employment was terminated was $56,484.00. As of the formal hearing, Petitioner was working for his wife's appraisal company in a nonpaying job. Karen Roberts is a female who has been employed by Respondent at its Palm Beach County facility since June 1980. Ms. Roberts is also a college graduate who subsequently earned an MBA. In addition, Ms. Roberts has been designated as a Certified Compensation Professional by the American Compensation Association. Ms. Roberts first began her employment with the Respondent as a Financial Trainee, Grade 41. She was transferred out of the Finance Department into the Human Resources Department in July 1984 as a Human Resources Representative, which is a pay grade 45. She was promoted to Senior Human Resources Representative in October 1992, which is a pay grade 48. Respondent's upper management determined in 1992 that it was necessary to reduce the number of its employees as part of an overall restructuring of its operations. The reduction in force, which was to be the largest separation of employees that Respondent had ever experienced, was for valid business considerations which are not at issue in this proceeding. The management group set the target for the number of employees in each department of the Palm Beach facility whose employment would be terminated. The management group decided that the Human Resources Department of the Palm Beach facility, of which Petitioner was a part, would be reduced by between 20-25 employees in February 1993. That decision by the management committee is not being challenged in this proceeding. William Panetta was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent's Vice President of Human Resources for the West Palm Beach facility. The management group informed Mr. Panetta in the fall of 1992 of the upcoming reduction in force and gave to him the targets that had been set for the various departments for the West Palm Beach facility. Soon thereafter, Mr. Panetta began meeting with the heads of major departments to devise a procedure for making the reductions in force. Among the senior staff who met with Mr. Panetta was John Roberson, who was manager of Human Resources for non-engineering personnel. Petitioner worked in Mr. Roberson's department from the time he was transferred to its Human Relations Department in 1986 until the termination of his employment in 1993. Mr. Roberson was Petitioner's second line supervisor. At different times, Bob Vogel, Charles Wilson, and John Hopkins served as Petitioner's direct supervisor. Mr. Roberson was asked by Mr. Panetta to prepare a draft of a proposal for the procedure to be followed in carrying out the reduction in force. This draft was to include a method to identify those employees whose employment would be involuntary terminated. Pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Roberson's draft included a provision for selecting among multiple incumbents when some job positions or functions were being eliminated. In that situation, Mr. Roberson proposed that seniority be the primary factor and that relative performance of the incumbents be considered only if the more senior employee was ranked as a low performer on his or her annual evaluation. Respondent annually evaluated employees such as Petitioner as being either a "T" (top), a "M" (middle), or an "L" (low). The employees were also given annual evaluations by their supervisors called Performance Management Reports, which rated the employees on a scale ranging between unsatisfactory to exceptional. During his entire tenure with Respondent, Petitioner was rated at least as being fully competent on his Performance Management Reports and, at different times, as being either in the "T" or the "M" category. The procedure drafted by Mr. Roberson was never intended to be the final procedure that would be followed in accomplishing the reduction in force. In late 1992, Mr. Panetta presented Mr. Roberson's draft to the senior staff for comment and revision. The senior staff determined that Mr. Roberson's draft overemphasized seniority and was too inflexible. It was determined that such emphasis on seniority would hamper management's efforts to retain the most qualified employees. The Human Resources Department assigned to each of Respondent's major departments a Personnel Support Representative to assist with employee relations and to provide administrative support in personnel matters. As part of the procedure followed for the 1993 layoffs, the Personnel Support Representative for each department reviewed the candidates for layoffs with the Department Head to determine whether the selection was fair and properly documented. The Personnel Support Representative was to provide support only. Each Department Head had the responsibility for determining the employees within a department to be laid off. During the same time period that senior staff was trying to develop the procedure that would be followed for layoffs, Mr. Roberson met with the Personnel Support Representatives and discussed with them the drafted procedure he had prepared. He informed them that the draft was not the final product and asked for discussion. Mr. Roberson discussed with the Personnel Support Representatives the final policies that senior staff adopted before final selections were made and informed them that rigid adherence would not be given to seniority. Respondent has never used seniority as the controlling factor in any previous layoff. The senior staff decided that it would consider the following criteria to determine which of its qualified employees to layoff: documented poor performance, the elimination or consolidation of different positions, relative performance among the candidates, and seniority. Mr. Panetta determined that those employees of the Human Resources department should be "generalists" who are capable of performing a wide range of responsibilities as opposed to specialists. Respondent's plan was to either eliminate functions that had been performed by specialists or to consolidate those functions with other specialized functions. The employees in Human Resources who would still be employed would be required to take on new responsibilities and to perform tasks that had previously been performed by specialists. In the Human Resources department, an employee would have to assume responsibilities in labor relations, employee relations, and compensation. Mr. Panetta decided after conferring with Mr. Roberson that the Management Training, Placement and Compensation section in the Human Resources department for non-engineering personnel would be eliminated. Senior Human Resource Representatives and Human Resource Representatives were candidates for layoffs and were put into a resource pool. The employees in the resource pool were thereafter considered for other positions by comparing their qualifications with those of employees whose positions were not being eliminated. If an employee in the resource pool was considered to be more qualified than an employee whose position was not being eliminated, the more qualified person in the resource pool would be retained to fill the existing job and the incumbent employee would have his employment terminated. Petitioner and Karen Roberts were assigned to the compensation function at the time of the layoffs, but their positions were eliminated as a result of the layoffs. Petitioner and Karen Roberts were placed in the resource pool. Dave Swanson was employed as a Personnel Support Representative in the Human Resources Department prior to the reduction in force. Mr. Swanson's position was not eliminated, but it was determined that there were employees in the resource pool, including Petitioner and Karen Roberts, who were more qualified than Mr. Swanson. Respondent selected Ms. Roberts to fill the position that had been filled by Mr. Swanson. Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated. Petitioner asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex in deciding to retain the employment of Ms. Roberts and to terminate his employment. There is no assertion by Respondent that Petitioner was an incompetent employee. To the contrary, Respondent considered Petitioner to be a competent employee, which is why he was a candidate to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. At the time of the layoffs, John Hopkins was the Manager of Technical Development and Compensation and the direct supervisor of Petitioner and Ms. Roberts. While Mr. Panetta had the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether Petitioner or Ms. Roberts would be retained in Mr. Swanson's former position, he relied heavily on Mr. Roberson's recommendation in making that decision. Mr. Roberson in turn relied on his own knowledge of the respective performances of these two employees and on information that had been given him by Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins believed that Ms. Roberts was a more valuable employee than Petitioner. Mr. Hopkins testified that Petitioner failed to timely complete certain assignments, that certain aspects of his performance was not satisfactory, and that he had experienced problems working with others. Mr. Hopkins received separate complaints from Joe Bressin, who was in charge of Executive Compensation, and Henry Ugalde, who was in charge of the Equal Employment Opportunity function, that Petitioner had not rendered satisfactory assistance to them. Petitioner did not meet all of the interim deadlines for preparation of a negotiations book that was being complied for use in labor negotiations. Several of Petitioner's supervisors met with him during his tenure with Respondent to discuss his perceived deficiencies and to review his assignments. Mr. Roberson was aware of these deficiencies at the time he recommended to Mr. Panetta that Ms. Roberts be selected to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. Mr. Hopkins considered Ms. Roberts to be a "solid performer" who was enthusiastic, worked well with others, and was capable of performing a wide range of tasks. Ms. Roberts prepared a book for other employees in the compensation function that detailed the procedures involved in performing hourly compensation duties relative to collective bargaining agreements. In addition, Ms. Roberts was chosen by Mr. Panetta to assist Respondent's negotiating team during negotiations with the labor unions for the 1992-1993 labor contract. Ms. Robert's worked on a complex computer program that computed the costs to Respondent of various collective bargaining proposals. Ms. Roberts was chosen for this assignment because Mr. Hopkins believed her to be the best employee to assume this responsibility. Mr. Hopkins selected her because of her competence, her enthusiasm, her ability to maintain confidential information, and her willingness to work irregular hours. Gender was not a factor in selecting Ms. Roberts for this assignment. Ms. Roberts performed with distinction the duties that had been assigned to her as a member of the negotiating team, thereby favorably impressing Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta. Mr. Roberson was aware of Ms. Roberts' job performance at the time he recommended to Mr. Panetta that she be selected to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta did not rely heavily on their most recent job evaluations, which were the only documents they reviewed, nor did they consider it significant that Petitioner was in a position that is designated as pay grade 48 when his last evaluation was written and that Ms. Roberts was in a position designated as pay grade 46 when her last evaluation was written. 1/ Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta considered the responsibilities and job duties of these two positions to be identical. The relative job performances of Petitioner and Ms. Roberts were evaluated by Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta taking into consideration the future demands of the job and were based, in large part, upon direct experience with the two employees. There was no written documentation of their rationale for selecting Ms. Roberts to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. Petitioner established that Mr. Roberson occasionally made comments about attractive female employees and that he seemed to prefer the company of certain female employees, one of whom was Ms. Roberts, at social events. While due consideration has been given this evidence, it is found that the greater weight of the evidence established that Respondent had legitimate, nondiscriminatory business considerations for the employment decision that was at issue in this proceeding. These considerations were not shown to be pretextual. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex by its decision to replace Mr. Swanson with Ms. Roberts instead of with Petitioner. The petition Petitioner filed before the Florida Commission on Human Relations contains an allegation that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age. Petitioner abandoned that allegation at the beginning of the formal hearing. The petition Petitioner filed before the Florida Commission on Human Relations also contains an allegation that Respondent discriminated against him by failing to rehire him or recall him after his employment had been terminated. There was no evidence to support that allegation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and that dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of January, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees’ Retirement Fund (the Fund) are required to be forfeited pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Fund is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Fund is charged with administering and managing a pension plan for City employees. Respondent was an employee of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. Although she began working as a seasonal employee during the summers when she was in college, Respondent began in a permanent capacity as a recreation leader in October 2006. As part of her duties, Respondent was responsible for working in the City’s afterschool and cheerleading program. In Fall 2018, Respondent was responsible for ordering the uniforms for the participants in the cheerleading program. The money for the uniforms was provided to the City by the participants’ parents. Initially, the money was collected by a parent representative who converted it to a pre-paid purchasing card in the amount of $762.00, and submitted the card to Respondent. Respondent was to use the card to order the uniforms for the cheerleaders, and the uniforms were to be delivered to the City’s Parks and Recreation office. Michelle Keeler, Respondent’s supervisor, noticed the uniforms had not arrived at the expected date. On October 26, 2018, she questioned Respondent about the delay. Respondent initially told Ms. Keeler there had been a mistake by the delivery company. At this point, Ms. Keeler, who had supervised Respondent since Respondent had started working at the City, had no reason to suspect Respondent was lying. Over the next few weeks, Ms. Keeler periodically asked Respondent about the status of the cheerleading uniforms and was told there was a problem with the delivery. By mid-November, Ms. Keeler became suspicious and again asked Respondent about the uniforms. Respondent indicated the uniforms had been delivered and left in the office, but were now missing. Respondent suggested to Ms. Keeler that the cleaning crew may have thrown out the box of uniforms. On November 26, 2018, Ms. Keeler called the cheerleading uniform company and discovered no uniforms had been ordered for delivery to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. The same day, Ms. Keeler confronted Respondent about the uniforms. Respondent insisted she had ordered them, but could not produce any records to show that she had made the order. She was also questioned by another Parks and Recreation supervisor, and gave the same response. Upon further interrogation, Respondent changed her story, admitting she had not actually ordered the uniforms. She claimed the card had been stolen from her. Respondent later provided a written statement to the City, in which Respondent claimed she still had the pre-paid card in her possession, but that the card no longer had any funds. Eventually, Respondent admitted to City staff that she no longer had the funds. On November 30, 2018, the City placed Respondent on suspension, pending an investigation. The City considered the funds collected for the purchase of the uniforms to be City property. Ultimately, the City ordered the missing uniforms and covered the cost. Based on the investigation, the City found Respondent to be in violation of section B28.2A(3)(d)(1) of the City’s Personnel Manual concerning “Moral Turpitude,” prohibiting “[f]alsification, misrepresentation, or material omission of statements, testimony, or any document or record completed in the course of employment or in obtaining employment, including group insurance claims.” The City also found Respondent had violated section B28.2A(3)(d)(11) of the Personnel Manual prohibiting theft or unauthorized removal or use of City property. As a result of its investigation and the violations, the City terminated Respondent on March 12, 2019. At the hearing, Respondent admitted she collected the money for the uniforms, misled City staff about the missing uniforms, and was terminated for theft.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, City of Tampa General Employees’ Retirement Fund enter a final order determining Respondent, Deirdre Williams, has forfeited all of her rights and benefits in the pension plan administered by the Fund, except to the extent of Respondent’s accumulated contributions, if any, as of March 12, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2019.
