Findings Of Fact The Business of Respondent The complaint alleges the Respondent admits and I find that the Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203, Florida Statutes. The Labor Organization Involved The Respondent disputes the complaint allegation that the Charging Party is an employee organization with the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing establishes that the Charging Party is an organizational faculty at Brevard Community College which desires the betterment of teaching conditions at the college. It seeks to represent public employees for purposes of collective bargaining and in other matters relating to their employment relationship with the college. The Charging Party is registered with PERC and has petitioned PERC to determine its status as a bargaining representative. Testimony also indicates that employees are permitted to participate in the organizational affairs and a representation election was held on March 3, 1976, which Involved the Charging Party. Based on this undisputed testimony, I find that the Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Background Patrick D. Smith, is employed by Respondent as Director of College Relations and he also serves as the editor of a college communications organ called the Intercom. Smith's immediate superior is Dr. King, the College's President who has the final authority for determining the Intercom's content. The Intercom is distributed to faculty and staff members in their college mailboxes and is published weekly during the school year. The Intercom is printed in and distributed from Smith's office on campus. On January 21, 1976, Lewis Cresse (then the Charging Party's President and a BCC faculty member) called Smith at his office and advised that he (Cresse) would like to announce a meeting that the Charging Party would be having in the Intercom. Approximately one week later, Cresse met President King in the college's parking lot and specifically asked that the BCCFT (the Charging Party) be allowed to use the Intercom. King indicated that he had no intention of allowing the Charging Party to use the Intercom and it suffices to say that Smith denied Cresse the use of it for announcing a meeting that the Charging Party would soon be holding in the Intercom. It is by these acts, that the General Counsel issued his complaint alleging that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party the use of the Intercom and the college bulletin boards as a means of communicating the Charging Party's announcements and meetings. In attempting to establish that the above acts constitute violations of Sections 447.501 and 447.301 of the Act, the General Counsel introduced testimony to the effect that the Brevard Vocational Association, an organization whose purpose is to maintain communications for the benefit of all vocational, industrial education instructors in Brevard County had been permitted useage of the Intercom. Evidence also established that individuals were allowed to advertise personal items which they desired to sell in the Intercom and that such useage included advertisements regarding rummage and garage sales and that the Brevard Chapter of Common Cause, an organization which seeks to improve the workings of government by making it more accountable to the citizenry had frequently utilized the college's bulletin system. The Respondent bases its defense on its position that including in the Intercom, a meeting notice for the Charging Party which not only gave the time and place of the meeting but also urged faculty members to attend would have possibly violated the Act, by giving illegal assistance to the union; and that in any event, the college was not required to run the employee organization's notice in a publication such as the Intercom. Smith informed Cresse of Respondent's decision not to permit the employee organization to use the Intercom as a communications organ and thereafter, no other requests to use Intercom was made by the employee organization. Based on Smith's undisputed testimony that he raised the issue with Dr. King, college President, whether the employee organization's request would be granted, and that he (King) raised the question with the college's attorney, I find that the Respondent's denial is an act which is properly chargeable to Respondent. In support of its position that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party to utilize the Intercom, the General Counsel introduced the February 19, 1976 issue of Intercom which contained a statement to the effect that Lewis Cresse, a professor at the college, would be speaker at a monthly meeting of the Brevard Vocational Association. Another item included in the Intercom was a meeting notice for the American Welding Society wherein it was announced that Sam Reed was Granted permission to announce a meeting for the society. In both examples, it was noted that the Brevard Vocational Association and the American Welding Society are organizations which the Respondent's administration encouraged faculty and staff members to participate in and for which the college reimbursed employees for expenses resulting from out-of-town meetings. Respondent's position is that it works closely with the society in that it fulfills its educational mission by preparing instructors which ultimately fulfills the college's mission. The remaining complaint allegations concerns the issue of a discriminatory denial to the employee organization of access to the college's bulletin Boards. Evidence reveals that the college has a well established procedure for the approval of documents to be posted on the college's bulletin boards and that such procedures are enforced. Prior to posting, they must be approved by Mike Merchant, Manager of the Student's Center and that approval takes the form of either a rubber stamp which indicates approval which is thereafter initialed by Mr. Merchant, or he writes the work "approved" on the document with his initials and the date. The facts relative to this allegation stems from a request by the Charging Party to post campaign materials on bulletin boards throughout the campus. Dr. Kosiba, provost of the Cocoa Campus informed Mr. Merchant that this request should be denied and it was. This request was also denied based on Respondent's position that it was not obliged to honor union requests to post union meeting notices on its bulletin boards and further that the items requested were "promotional materials" which were in truth "highly controversial campaign literature intended to gain support for the union in the then upcoming election." The items introduced were (1) a bumper sticker which encouraged employees to vote for the union and (2) a red, white and blue document covered with banner, stars and an eagle entitled "working draft of proposed agreement." To sustain the complaint allegations, it must be shown that (1) the Charging Party made a request to use the Respondent's communication facilities which in this case involved the Intercom and its bulletin boards and a denial of such request, (2) that similar requests had been approved of a similar nature and (3) that other alternative means of access were not available to the Charging Party. As to the first point, there is no question but that the Charging Party requested and was denied permission to use the Respondent's bulletin boards and its communications organ, the Intercom. However, the record evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had honored similar requests by other organizations in the past. In fact, all of the evidence tends to establish that with respect to the items here in dispute, Respondent vigorously opposed unionization, as was its right, and to have permitted the Charging Party to use the bulletin boards and its communications organ here would have been tantamount to a passive approval of the very ideas to which it had vigorously objected to. Furthermore, records evidence established that the union had abundant opportunity and did in fact communicate extensively with the employees. Among these other alternative means were: The college permitted the Charging Party to hold campus wide meetings for the faculty and staff on campus during daylight hours. The college provided a bulk distribution table conveniently located near the post office which was regularly visited by faculty and staff members. The college had an established policy which would have permitted the Charging Party to designate a single bulletin board for the posting of announcements. The employee organization was able to communicate extensively with faculty and staff by the circulation of numerous documents that were delivered to staff offices. (See Public Employer's Exhibits #3 - #24). Via the "faculty and staff directory", the employee organization had access to all names, home addresses and phone numbers of all members of the bargaining unit. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #26). The employee organization had available the campus newspaper THE CAPSULE, for meeting notices, announcements, etc. Local newspapers disseminated in the Brevard County area reported extensively on the union's campaign and activities. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #24(a) through (t)). Based thereon, I find that the Charging Party had numerous alternative means to communicate with the employees and the record is void of any circumstantial evidence that the rights of employees were interfered with, restrained or otherwise coerced by the Respondent's conduct as set forth above. I shall therefore recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on February 5, 2001.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1999, Respondent, North Florida Community College (NFCC), advertised for candidates for the position of Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Respondent advertised to fill this position by placing an advertisement in local newspapers, as well as in Gainesville, Florida. Additionally, an advertisement for this position was placed in the Affirmative Action Register, which is a publication for minorities, as well as in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The advertisement did not specify a salary and specified an application deadline of November 9, 1999. The position vacancy advertisement included the following: Qualifications include: an earned doctorate from an accredited institution of higher education; at least five years of successful progressively responsible administrative experience in academic programs, preferably at a community college; some previous experience in teaching at the postsecondary level; and/or experience as a counselor or administrator for student services functions, this latter qualification being preferable. Experience in the Florida Community College System is a plus. William Hunter is the Human Resources Director for NFCC. Mr. Hunter was responsible for placing the advertisements for the Vice President's position in the various publications. He is also responsible for ensuring that search committees are appointed, communicating with applicants, determining salaries to be offered to individual candidates based upon an established procedure, and offering positions by telephone to those persons selected. A search committee was appointed by the President of NFCC, Dr. Grissom. There were five members of the selection committee, including Clyde Alexander, NFCC's Athletic Director and Equity Coordinator. Mr. Alexander is African-American. Initially, 51 persons applied for the position. The selection committee narrowed the list of applicants from 51 to eight semi-finalists. Mr. Hunter was instructed to notify each semi-finalist that he/she was selected. He notified each of the semi- finalists by telephone and coordinated interview dates. Mr. Hunter sent a letter to each semi-finalist. The letters informed the candidates of their selection as a semi-finalist, confirmed their interview date and time, and advised them that NFCC would be paying for the travel expenses to Madison, Florida, for the interviews. The letters to the semi-finalists also stated that the salary range was $45,000 to $75,000 per year, "depending on experience." The salary range was established by the college's Board of Trustees. Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner was selected as a semi-finalist. Also among the semi-finalists were Dr. Barry Weinberg and Dr. Thomas Eaves, both white males. Interviews were conducted between December 1 and December 9, 1999. Each of the semi-finalists was given a tour of the campus and had an opportunity to meet with various college officials, as well as the President and members of the search committee. After the interviews of the semi-finalists were completed, the selection committee provided a list of finalists to the President.1/ The first choice of the selection committee was Dr. Barry Weinberg, who at that time was employed as Vice President for College Advancement at Rockingham Community College in Wentworth, North Carolina. Dr. Weinberg holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from State University of New York at New Paltz; a Master of Science in Student Personnel Services (Higher Education Administration) from State University of New York at Albany; a Certificate of Continuing Studies in Applied Behavioral Sciences from Johns Hopkins University; and a Doctor of Education in Higher Education Administration from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Hunter offered the position to Dr. Weinberg pursuant to instructions from President Grissom. Despite the letter which informed the semi-finalists that the top of the salary range was $75,000, Mr. Hunter was informed by the President that no applicant could be offered more than $70,000 per year because of a budget shortfall. The salary to be offered to an applicant was based on the application of an established formula to the applicant's experience as follows: subtracting the minimum salary from the maximum salary in the published salary range for the position; dividing that number by (30) to arrive at a multiplier; multiplying the applicant's years of relevant experience (after subtracting the years of experience required to qualify for the position) by the multiplier; and adding the result to the minimum salary in the range. The multiplier for the Vice President's position was $1,000. In applying the salary formula to Dr. Weinberg, Mr. Hunter determined that he had 29 years of relevant experience. He then subtracted the five years required experience, resulting in Dr. Weinberg having credit for 24 years of relevant experience, for purposes of the salary formula. The 24 years of experience was multiplied by $1,000 and added to the published base salary of $45,000. This resulted in the initial starting salary to be offered to Dr. Weinberg to be $69,000. Mr. Hunter had authority from President Grissom to add an additional amount of $2,500 per year in order to attract a candidate, provided that no candidate was offered more than $70,000 per year. Dr. Weinberg did not accept the initial offer of $69,000. Mr. Hunter then offered $70,000, which was ultimately rejected by Dr. Weinberg. Pursuant to direction from President Grissom, Mr. Hunter then offered the job to Petitioner. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration from Culver- Stockton College; a Master of Science in Guidance Counseling from University of Nevada; a Doctorate in Counselor Education from the University of Iowa; and holds a certificate from Harvard University in the Management Development Program. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula by determining that Petitioner had 21 years of relevant experience. He subtracted the five required years of experience resulting in 16 years of relevant experience. After multiplying 16 by $1,000 and adding that to the minimum salary of $45,000, Mr. Hunter offered $61,000.00 to Petitioner. When Petitioner did not accept the offer, he increased the offer to $62,500. Although he was authorized to offer him $63,500, it was Mr. Hunter's understanding, after a telephone conversation with Petitioner, that Petitioner would not accept the job for less than $82,000. Therefore, Mr. Hunter did not bother offering the additional $1,000 to Petitioner. In any event, whether or not Mr. Hunter offered $63,500 to Petitioner, he was not authorized to offer $70,000 to Petitioner, as had been offered to Dr. Weinberg, because of the application of the salary formula to Petitioner. Pursuant to instruction from Dr. Grissom, Mr. Hunter next offered the position to Dr. Thomas Eaves. Dr. Eaves holds a doctorate and lesser degrees from North Carolina State University, and has teaching and related research experience at numerous universities. Mr. Hunter applied the salary formula and determined that Dr. Eaves should be offered $67,000. Mr. Hunter was authorized by the President to an additional $500.00 on top of the $2,5000 salary "sweetener" because the college had been turned down twice. Mr. Hunter called Dr. Eaves and initially offered him $67,000. Ultimately, Mr. Hunter increased the offer to $70,000, which was accepted by Dr. Eaves. Petitioner left Virginia Commonwealth University in July 2001 to work at West Chester University where he is Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Student Support Services. His starting salary at West Chester University was $84,500. His current salary, which was effective July 1, 2002, is $88,500. If Petitioner had accepted the position at NFCC for $63,500, he would have received a five percent pay increase in 2000 to $66,675 per year. However, because of a college-wide salary freeze which has been in place since 2000, Petitioner would not have received any further salary increases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 13th day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with Florida A & M University, as proposed in a termination letter dated August 19, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: In this employee termination case, Petitioner, Florida A & M University (FAMU), seeks to terminate the employment of Respondent, Calvin C. Miles, Jr., on the ground that he sexually harassed three female students and retaliated against two students in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Because FAMU is a part of the State University System, the Board of Regents was also identified as a Petitioner. Respondent has denied all allegations. FAMU has a non-discrimination policy and harassment complaint procedure codified in Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (6)(b) of the rule prohibits sexual harassment while paragraph (11)(a) prohibits retaliation. Respondent was subject to this policy and procedure, and on August 26, 1998, he signed a paper indicating that he had read and understood the same. On August 22, 1997, Respondent was hired as General Manager of WAMF, a radio station owned and operated by FAMU and which employed a number of FAMU students. Whether he was considered a non-instructional or instructional employee is not clear. In any event, the station had been without a full-time manager "for a while," and Respondent was told to come in and "put in place some policies and format . . . and move the station in the direction that [FAMU] thought it should go." He was also told that the station should be operated as a teaching facility. FAMU agrees that some of Respondent's decisions in implementing these directives "caused some people to bristle." Respondent's immediate supervisor was Dr. Hawkins, Director of FAMU's Division of Journalism. As such, Dr. Hawkins was required to prepare Respondent's annual evaluations. The first evaluation was prepared on September 29, 1998, and was transmitted to Respondent with a letter of the same date. In his letter, Dr. Hawkins concluded that Respondent's "first year here has been a mixed bag." While he acknowledged that Respondent had "turned up the level of professionalism at the station substantially and in rather quick fashion," he noted other matters of concern. Among these was a concern that at least three female students said that you had made inappropriate remarks to them. While none of these students have filed a complaint, I believe I have a responsibility to mention them now. In addition to the comments of these students, other female students have said that they just plan to stay away from the station so they do not have to be bothered. This is not the climate we want. This letter placed him on official notice that some female students perceived his conduct towards them as offensive and having an improper sexual connotation. In response to his evaluation, Respondent wrote Dr. Bryant a lengthy letter dated October 22, 1998. As to the allegations of sexual misconduct, Respondent "strongly suggest[ed] that the University conduct a thorough investigation of all complaints of this nature." During his tenure with FAMU, Respondent had two or three meetings with the Dean of the School of Journalism, Media, and Graphic Arts, Dean Ruggles, and his immediate supervisor, Dr. Bryant, regarding the foregoing complaints of sexual misconduct. Respondent was urged to use "extreme caution," to reassess his behavior with female students, and warned that "if these allegations were taken to the complaint stage" by a student and found to be substantiated, there would be severe consequences. In addition, on at least one occasion, Respondent met with the Director of FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs regarding a complaint by another student. Therefore, it is fair to infer that Respondent was well aware of on-going accusations being made against him, and that he should be extremely cautious in his behavior around female students. After formal complaints of sexual harassment were filed by three female students in February 1999, FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs conducted an investigation. On May 11, 1999, the President of FAMU notified Respondent that the findings of the investigation revealed that Respondent had violated Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, and that FAMU intended to terminate his employment. Respondent then availed himself of the right to have an "investigatory interview" by a University Personnel Committee on July 13, 1999. When the committee determined that no new facts had been presented, Respondent was dismissed from employment effective August 26, 1999. This appeal ensued. Although the termination letter does not identify the specific allegations which form the basis for the termination, in a Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, FAMU has alleged that Respondent "engaged in conduct and actions toward[s] [Symphony] Parson, [Deanna] McKinley[,] and [Jackeline] Pou that rose to the level of sexual harassment in violation of Rule 6C3- 10.103(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." FAMU further alleged that Respondent "exhibited behavior towards Ms. Parson and Ms. Maria Williams, a witness in this matter, that rose to the level of retaliation as set forth in [Rule] 6C3-10.103(11)(a), F.A.C." However, there was no evidence regarding retaliation against Maria Williams, who was not a witness in this case, and that portion of the charges has been disregarded. Parson, McKinley, and Pou testified at the final hearing, and although Respondent disputed the accuracy of their allegations, their testimony has been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues. Findings with respect to those allegations are set forth below. Deanna McKinley Deanna McKinley (McKinley) enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1996 and was a senior at the time of hearing. On September 1, 1998, McKinley began working at WAMF and hosted an Inspirational Gospel Morning Show using the on-air name of "Deanna Devine." Respondent was her supervisor. Throughout her employment at the radio station, McKinley felt "uncomfortable" around Respondent. This was because he would stare at her breasts, always place his hands on her shoulders when speaking to her, squeeze her shoulders, touch her hand in the Disc Jockey (DJ) booth, and stand extremely close to her while the two spoke. She was especially uncomfortable "being in the same studio with him, because the studio was in a different part of the building, it was locked, it was dark, [and] usually [she] was the only one there." Although she disliked Respondent's conduct and on occasion had told him that she disapproved of it, McKinley was under the impression that unless she tolerated Respondent's actions, she would not be allowed to continue as a DJ or "make progress" at the station. Besides the foregoing conduct, Respondent made personal remarks of a sexual nature to McKinley. For example, when she would bend over, he would say something like "Don't bend over like that, you will get someone excited." He also made a comment about how "adorable" and "kissable" she was, and that if he were her man, he "would just kiss [her] all the time." Once, when McKinley remarked ". . . little old me?", Respondent stared at her breasts and replied "Nothing on you is little, Deanna. But that's all right. It's all good." In January 1999, McKinley accidentally dropped something on the floor in the studio and bent over to pick it up. Respondent again stated "You should not bend over like that, Deanna, you may get someone excited." This latest incident triggered a decision by McKinley to leave the radio station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that McKinley perceived the radio station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 1, 1999, McKinley submitted her letter of resignation to the radio station. On February 11, 1999, she filed a complaint with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Symphony Parson Symphony Parson enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1997 with a major in broadcast journalism. She began working at WAMF that same year as a music director and on-air personality. Respondent was her supervisor. In April 1998, and while on duty at the station, Parson was taking a telephone message for the station secretary late one afternoon when Respondent came up behind her and began rubbing her shoulders and then moved his hand onto her breast. She told him to stop, "cursed him," and then left the station. In November 1998, Parson was in the station "writing on the file cabinet" when Respondent came up behind her and "brushed up against her" rubbing his shoulders against her. She again "cursed him out." A month later, he repeated the same conduct. According to Parson, she felt "violated" and "horrible" whenever this conduct occurred. Respondent also engaged in inappropriate conversations with Parson when she was on duty at the station. For example, he asked her if she was having sex with her boyfriend, and he told her how "cute" and "sexy" she was. These conversations made her feel extremely uncomfortable and led Parson to try to avoid Respondent whenever possible. At the same time, however, Parson felt that she had to tolerate this conduct to keep her position at the station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Parson found the station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 8, 1999, Parson filed a charge of sexual harassment against Respondent with the Equal Opportunity Office. A few days later, Respondent was placed on administrative leave. When he returned to his office to clean out his personal items, he passed by Parson and said "You're dead." Parson reported this to the police, was forced to get a cell phone out of fear for her personal being, and asked her parents to temporarily move into her apartment. Jackeline Pou Jackeline Pou (Pou) enrolled in FAMU's journalism program in August 1996. She began working at WANF in September 1997. Respondent was her supervisor. While working at the station, Respondent would sometimes brush his body against Pou or touch her shoulders, which made her feel uncomfortable. Almost on a daily basis, he would make comments about how pretty she was or make comments about her "eyes". When he spoke to her, he would stare at her breasts. Once, she observed him staring at her "behind when [she] was walking away." In the summer of 1998, and just after Pou finished speaking on the telephone with a friend, Respondent asked who she was speaking with. When Pou responded "It's none of your business," Respondent said, "It couldn't have been a guy or the seat would have been wet." Respondent's conduct made Pou feel intimidated and uncomfortable, and she disliked being alone in the radio station with Respondent during the evening hours. Besides creating a hostile work environment, such conduct also unreasonably interfered with Pou's educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 11, 1999, Pou filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Respondent's contentions Respondent has steadfastly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct since they first surfaced in 1997 or 1998. At hearing, Respondent contended that he was an unpopular figure among the students due to his strong disciplinary measures. While this may be true, it does not justify his actions towards McKinley, Parson, and Pou. He suggested that McKinley's complaint was motivated by her displeasure with his disciplinary measures and failure to obtain her a parking pass. Respondent further suggested that Parson bore him ill-will after he demoted her to a different position at the station. He also contended that out of revenge, the three women met and conspired to file false complaints in an effort to have him removed from the station. Finally, Respondent suggested that each of the complainant's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked specificity as to certain dates and times. These contentions have been considered by the undersigned and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida A & M University enter a final order confirming the dismissal of Respondent as an employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bishop C. Holifield, General Counsel Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Avery D. McKnight, Jr., Esquire Ruth N. Selfridge, Esquire Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Calvin C. Miles, Jr. 501 Blairstone Road, Apartment 123 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent School Board of Alachua County (School Board) engaged in discriminatory employment practices or retaliated against Petitioner, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), as alleged in the Petition for Relief; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Wright, an African-American woman of Jamaican descent, worked as a teacher in the Alachua County School District (School District) for several years, the last two positions being at Glen Springs Elementary School (Glen Springs), from 2016-2018, and Metcalfe Elementary School (Metcalfe), for the 2018-2019 school year. Ms. Wright possesses a bachelor’s of arts in education and a master’s of arts in education, both from the University of Florida. In 2017, she completed an educational leadership program at the University of Florida. Thereafter, in October 2017, she entered the School District’s administrative pool, and she informed Glen Springs Principal Armstrong of her intentions to seek an administrative position within the School District. The School District did not hire or promote Ms. Wright to an administrative position during the 2017-2018 school year. Mr. Purvis, the School District’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, testified that it is normal for a person who enters the administrative pool for consideration for an administration position to wait some time before receiving an appointment to such a position. Mr. Purvis testified that is not common for an administrative pool applicant to be appointed assistant principal or principal within three months of entering the administrative pool. In December 2017, Ms. Wright approached Principal Armstrong and expressed that she was experiencing what she believed was harassment, including an attempted break-in at her apartment, people tracking or following her, someone tampering with her car’s gas tank, someone hacking her cell phone, and an instance in which a fire truck, which she believed may have been operated by another school principal’s husband, allegedly attempted to block her car from driving to a School District leadership meeting. Ms. Wright requested leave to deal with these issues, which Principal Armstrong granted. On February 9, 2018, while Ms. Wright served as the Behavior Resource Teacher at Glen Springs, she was involved in an incident in the cafeteria, where some students were being served breakfast. Ms. Wright testified that she noticed one student was “staggering” and then fell down. Then, she began to feel “sick” and “woozy,” and noticed three other students who “appeared to look dizzy and sick too.” She also made a statement that she observed other teachers who were falling in slow motion. She then ordered a lockdown of the cafeteria, and ordered all students to their classrooms. Ms. Wright then went to the front office, and Principal Armstrong called the school nurse and district office, which sent a school resource officer from a neighboring school, and Ms. Finley (the School Board’s Supervisor of Human Resources), to Glen Springs. Ms. Wright refused services from the school nurse, although she admitted that she did not feel well. When Ms. Finley and the school resource officer arrived, she agreed to be transported by Ms. Finley to the emergency room at North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC). Ms. Finley drove Ms. Wright to NFRMC, and she and the school resource officer, who followed in a separate vehicle, waited until Ms. Wright was admitted to the emergency room. Ms. Finley testified that she and the school resource officer gave Ms. Wright their cell phone numbers, and told her to call when she was released. Ms. Wright stated that NFRMC discharged her, with little treatment, that same day (a Friday). However, over that weekend, she experienced other issues and requested to be returned to NFRMC, and was transported after receiving EMS services. Ms. Wright’s recounting of this second visit to NFRMC offers a harrowing description of a ten-day hospital stay that included an unusual hospital room with a bed on the floor, visits from a judge, and nurses and doctors (one of whom she believed was the parent of a Glen Springs kindergartner) injecting her with substances that caused partial paralysis. After her second discharge from NFRMC, and after receiving clearance from her treating physician, on March 12, 2018, the School District decided to not return Ms. Wright to her previous position at Glen Springs, but rather placed her in a temporary position at the Student Services Department at the Manning Center, analyzing charter school data and serving as a liaison for charter school families, for the remainder of the school year. Ms. Wright received the same salary and benefits as her teaching position at Glen Springs. Ms. Wright requested that Ms. Finley, an African American woman, facilitate her placement in a new teaching position for the next school year. Ms. Finley offered Ms. Wright a position at Lake Forest Elementary School as a Title I Intervention teacher, which she declined. Thereafter, Ms. Finley offered Ms. Wright a position at Metcalfe as a Title I Intervention teacher for the 2018-2019 school year, which she accepted. During her employment at Metcalfe, Principal Jacquette Rolle asked Ms. Wright to utilize a certain curriculum for instruction and perform assessments in order to track student performance, as required under School Board and state guidelines. When Ms. Wright refused to do so, Principal Rolle issued a 24-hour notice for a meeting to be held at Metcalfe with Principal Rolle and other School District officials, on October 5, 2019. Ms. Wright testified that she had another subsequent meeting with Principal Rolle, in which Principal Rolle “yelled in my face, not in a low tone, at a high tone.” On April 9, 2019, while working at Metcalfe, Ms. Wright contacted the FBI to complain that someone had again hacked her cell phone. The FBI referred her to the Gainesville Police Department, which then contacted Metcalfe’s school resource officer, Officer Davis, to respond. Officer Davis testified that, after the Gainesville Police Department dispatch center contacted him, he met with Ms. Wright. Officer Davis testified that she relayed concerns about events that happened at Glen Springs, that different school principals were following her, that people were in her attic, and that her car had been tampered with at a car dealership. He stated that “[s]he was like continually talking. She would talk about one subject and then all of a sudden she would change to another subject that was unrelated to what she was actually talking about at the time.” Officer Davis testified that, as a police officer, he has received training with respect to identifying individuals experiencing mental health crises, and in de-escalating such situations. Although Officer Davis did not believe that Ms. Wright met the criteria for consideration for a Baker Act, he reported that she was experiencing mental health issues that needed to be evaluated. Officer Davis prepared a report, dated April 9, 2019, that he shared with Principal Rolle and that was also provided to the School District. Principal Rolle also provided a letter, dated April 9, 2019, that summarized her concerns with Ms. Wright, to the School District. Mr. Purvis, the School Board’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, received Officer Davis’s report, as well as Principal Rolle’s letter, and decided that Ms. Wright must undergo a “Fitness for Duty” evaluation, pursuant to School District Policy 3161. This policy states: If the Superintendent believes an instructional staff member is unable to perform essential functions of the position to which the staff member is assigned, with or without reasonable accommodations, the staff member will be offered the opportunity for a meeting to discuss these issues. The Superintendent may require an instructional staff member to submit to an appropriate examination by a health care provider designated by the Board to determine whether or not the staff member is able to perform essential functions of the position to which the staff member is assigned, with or without reasonable accommodations. The Board shall pay any uninsured fees for such examinations. The staff member will be required to execute a release that complies with the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in order to allow the report of the medical examination to be released to the Superintendent and to allow the Superintendent or his/her designee to speak to the health care provider who conducted the medical examination to get clarification. Refusal to submit to an appropriate examination or to execute the HIPAA release will be grounds for disciplinary action in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. As required by Federal law and regulation and Board Policy 3122.02, Nondiscrimination Based on Genetic Information of the Employee, the Superintendent shall direct the provider that is designated by the Board to conduct the examination, not to provide any genetic information in the report of the medical examination. Pursuant to State law and in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, the results of any such examination shall be treated as a confidential medical record and will be exempt from release, except as provided by law. As required by Federal law, if the District inadvertently receives genetic information about an individual who is required to submit to an appropriate examination from a medical provider it shall be treated as a confidential medical record. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent and approval of the Board, an instructional staff member may be placed on a leave of absence related to fitness for duty. Such leave shall be without pay; however, the employee may use accrued leave, if available. Furthermore, the Superintendent may recommend the instructional staff member’s dismissal based upon the results of the medical examination. The instructional staff member is entitled to a hearing as provided for in Florida law or the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Ms. Wright contended at the final hearing that she never met with the School District Superintendent, who, under this policy, is the individual responsible for requiring a “fitness for duty” evaluation. Mr. Purvis testified that it is the common practice of the School District for the designee of the Superintendent, such as the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, to require a “fitness for duty” evaluation. Mr. Purvis, Mr. Brooks (the School District’s Supervisor of Human Resources), and Ms. Wright met and discussed this policy and the “fitness for duty” evaluation. On April 10, 2019, the School District placed Ms. Wright on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of a “fitness for duty” evaluation. Several doctors examined Ms. Wright and these doctors referred her to a licensed psychologist, who conducted an evaluation on May 2, 2019; the psychologist concluded that Ms. Wright was not fit to return to her duties as an elementary school teacher. On June 5, 2019, Mr. Purvis, Mr. Brooks, Ms. Wright, and Carmen Ward (the teacher union’s president), had a meeting in which Mr. Purvis and Mr. Brooks shared the results of the “fitness for duty” evaluation. Mr. Purvis explained to Ms. Wright that, based on the psychologist’s evaluation, she was deemed to be unfit for duty, and would be placed on a leave of absence for the 2019-2020 school year. At a September 17, 2019, meeting, the School Board approved the placement of Ms. Wright on unpaid leave. Mr. Purvis afforded Ms. Wright the opportunity to use her accrued paid leave during this unpaid leave time period, and gave her a deadline of June 27, 2019, to notify the School District’s human resources department of her decision. Ms. Wright did not meet that deadline, but later, on January 6, 2020, requested some paid leave, which Mr. Purvis granted. Ms. Finley and Mr. Purvis credibly testified that the School District would welcome Ms. Wright back to employment with the School District, if she would receive appropriate treatment and clearance from a medical professional that would indicate she met the “fitness for duty” requirement in School District Policy 3161. After more than a year, Ms. Wright has failed to make any attempt to do so. Ms. Wright presented no persuasive evidence that the School Board’s decision concerning, or actions affecting, her, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by race or national origin-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful race or national origin discrimination. Ms. Wright presented no persuasive evidence that the School Board retaliated against her for participating in a statutorily-protected activity. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful retaliation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Marshalee M. Wright’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER 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 14th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Karen Clarke School Board of Alachua County 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Marshalee M. Wright Post Office Box 141981 Gainesville, Florida 32614 (eServed) Brian T. Moore, Esquire School Board of Alachua County 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner as to her race and age, and by retaliation, by terminating the Petitioner from her employment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Edna Lee Long, was a long-time employee of Chipola College. She was employed for approximately 35 years by the College until her resignation on or about November 1, 2007. Her resignation was the alternative she selected to avoid termination. Chipola College, the Respondent, is a public higher education institution located in Marianna, Florida. It employed the Petitioner as a "Department Associate, Library Services" at the time of her resignation. She was hired in 1972 to be employed in the library and was employed there since that time, until she left employment. The College maintains a policy governing its information networks and use of the internet. The policy governs all computer and internet usage by College employees, using College facilities and networks. The policy prohibits the viewing of sexually explicit material by employees. The intent of the policy is to avoid harmful viruses that could pose a security risk from third party access to secure information, including confidential student records. It is inferred from the evidence that the policy is also intended to assist and maintain a certain moral standard in employees employed in positions of trust, and in helping to prevent violations of law in connection with what might be potentially viewed or downloaded as sexually explicit material. While violations of this policy by students carries disciplinary implications, those measures are essentially designed to remove a student's internet or College network use privileges, on College computers, if it is violated, rather than more severe consequences. With regard to faculty and staff policy violations, however, a zero tolerance policy is in effect. Employees are held responsible for confidentiality of their computer user-name, access to their computer user account and keeping their assigned passwords confidential. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of and understanding of this policy and agreed to abide by it as to use of networks and the internet. The policy provides that all individual computer accounts are for the sole use of the single individual for whom the account was approved. Users of the network, internet or other online services are responsible for protecting the network's security by keeping their passwords confidential, not using another's account, nor letting their own accounts be used by another. They are required to report all security violations, or policy violations, to the management of the College, in the person of its network administrators. Matthew White is the College's Network Coordinator and has responsibility to monitor internet usage on College computers. This is accomplished through the policy by the use of computer monitoring software and protocols. The software is designed to search for certain keywords, terms or phraseology which might characterize a violation of the above-referenced policy. If any of the keywords or terms surface from any website addresses, a report is generated which is reviewed by Mr. White at least once per week. If the report indicates that a computer at the College accessed unauthorized websites with certain of the keywords contained in the software and protocol, Mr. White convenes an investigation to learn which computer and which person accessed the objectionable site or material. Once the investigation is concluded, an incident report is prepared by Mr. White and he submits his findings to his supervisor. Eventually it is submitted to the Human Resources departmental office for further attention. On October 23, 2007, the Petitioner was scheduled to work the night shift at the library. She left work and picked up her son at his high school and returned with him to the library. He was going to stay with her at the library while she finished her work that evening, during which time he was to study and take a practice ACT college entrance exam. He was to take the practice test online and so he had to access the internet to do so. By her own admission, the Petitioner used her user name and password to "log him in" to the required website, using her office computer which had been assigned to her. The Petitioner admitted that she knew that this was violative of College policy. The evidence does not reveal that her password had been disclosed to any other person. After the Petitioner logged her son onto her computer, she returned to the circulation desk to continue her work. Her son thus had access to and operated her computer for approximately one and one half hours. During a significant portion of this time the Petitioner was not able to view her computer where her son was sitting. During this time period, many sexually explicit materials and pornographic materials were viewed on the College network from the Petitioner's computer, by a person logged in under the Petitioner's username and password. There is no dispute that significant numbers of sexually explicit and pornographic images were viewed by this means. Evidence presented by the Respondent demonstrates a complete list of the internet sites and usage from the Petitioner's computer, during the relevant time period when the Petitioner's son had access to the computer and the pornographic sites were viewed. The computer website use history also indicates that the college preparatory practice examination was accessed during the same general time period as the pornographic websites. The Petitioner was unable to explain the presence of the graphic websites on the website history of her computer. Her son denied any such use or viewing of such websites, according to the Petitioner. Clearly however, the ACT test site and the pornographic websites were viewed on the same computer, at the exact times when the Petitioner's son was admittedly logged on to the Petitioner's computer, with use of her password, on the College network. The explanation that the Petitioner's son may have viewed the pornographic materials in question played no part in the employment decision involved in this case, however. There was no evidence presented that the Petitioner, or any other person, ever told her supervisors, or College administrators of the explanation for the presence of the pornographic images and materials viewed prior to this hearing. The Petitioner simply denied her own involvement. The automatic monitoring software referenced above, resulted in the generation of a report concerning the referenced internet usage for October 23, 2007, which was triggered by certain keywords which showed potential violations of the referenced policy. Mr. White became aware of this monitoring report and conducted an investigation, with the resulting incident report, at the conclusion of the investigation. Under the subject policy, this is a standard procedure for handling suspected violations of the policy. Respondent's Exhibit 2, in evidence, shows the keyword that initiated the investigation which led to procedures being followed which enabled Mr. White to determine which computer had been used to access illicit images or materials. Thereafter, Mr. White researched the Petitioner's computer and searched for internet files. He created a log of the internet files from the Petitioner's computer, printed evidence of that usage, and confirmed the user name and password used for the Petitioner's computer and entered that information into his report. The website and pornographic images shown in that report are not simply spam e-mail received randomly or accidently from a third party. This is because Respondent's Exhibit 1, in evidence, shows actual internet usage and website traffic, originated from the Petitioner's computer and not merely received from a third party. The incident, in effect, involved active searching by the user of the computer during that relevant time period. The log, for example, shows illicit material was searched with the keywords "anime" and "porn" and the resulting websites that were viewed from that computer, derived from that search. There is no question that the items shown in Respondent's Exhibit 1 are very graphic and are not random "popup" images which appeared without being searched for. Mr. White also established that the Petitioner's password was used in accessing the sites. He concluded that an individual was actively looking at pornographic sites for about 45 minutes on the Petitioner's computer, using her user name which also required her password to access. In the absence of further explanation, the College administrators believed that the Petitioner had accessed the sites herself. Mr. White informed his supervisor, Dennis Everett, of the situation and submitted his report. It was soon thereafter brought to the attention of Karan Davis, the Associate Vice- President for Human Resources. Both White and Everett came to Ms. Davis with the incident report and the usage log for the Petitioner's computer and informed her of the inappropriate use of that computer with the Petitioner's username and password. Ms. Davis then determined that the Petitioner was working during the times in question, in the library, when the sites were viewed and her account thus accessed. She therefore determined that a violation of the subject policy had occurred. Ms. Davis then conferred with the College president who made the decision to either terminate the Petitioner or give her an opportunity to resign or retire. Ms. Davis approached Ms. Long on November 1, 2007, with the incident report, a sample of the internet usage from her computer, and a termination letter from the president. The Petitioner decided to accept retirement from her position rather than termination and is thus receiving retirement benefits at this time. Contrary to the Petitioner's belief, expressed in her testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that the Petitioner was targeted or that there was any conspiracy related to use of her password by others, possibly in the College administration, to, in effect, "plant" illicit materials or images on her computer in order to generate a reason for her termination. There is no persuasive evidence that her computer was accessed by a third party (other than her son) or that her password- protected security with regard to her computer was breached. The monitoring process used by Mr. White and the administration to monitor the College network, or the evidence regarding it, does not show evidence of a virus or a mistake made in that process. There is no credible evidence to show that the Petitioner's password was used by Mr. White or any other person in or out of the College administration. Only the Petitioner knew, or should have known, her password. If the password had been re-set by a third person using her computer, she would have known about it the next day. Moreover, even if Mr. White or others in the administration had access to her password, the un-refuted evidence shows, by her own admission, that the Petitioner used her password to give her son access to her computer and the internet on October 23, the day in question. It is very unlikely that, had Mr. White or others in the College administration intended to "frame" her or "plant material" on the Petitioner's computer for nefarious reasons, they fortuitously and coincidently selected that same day, and one and one-half hour time period to do so. If they knew her password, and intended to use it for such purposes, they could have done so anytime over a period of days, weeks, months or years. Ms. Davis's testimony is uncontradicted in showing that the College was not conducting any investigation of the Petitioner until Mr. White and Mr. Everett approached Ms. Davis concerning the violations shown on the Petitioner's computer history for October 23, 2007. In fact, the Petitioner was given consistently good employee evaluations by the College for the entire time period between the 1997 discrimination complaint, related to salary, and 2007. THE RETALIATION CLAIM The Petitioner has contended that she is being retaliated against by the employment action taken because of a 1997 charge of discrimination that she filed against the College, while she was an employee, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That controversy stemmed from her perceived pay inequity. It was resolved, however, by an agreed-upon settlement, which resulted in her receiving an appropriate pay raise at the time. Since that time, although she has met with and discussed salary issues with her superiors or supervisors, she has made no other formal complaints concerning salary issues or other issues. The Petitioner has conceded that her complaints or requests about pay, during the interim period of time since 1997, were not based on age or race issues and admits that she never filed any charge of discrimination concerning any salary issues since 1997. Ms. Davis was not shown to have retaliated against the Petitioner and had no knowledge of the 10-year-old complaint at the time the subject employment action was taken, or at least she had no recollection of it. Mr. White was not employed at the College in 1997 and had no knowledge of the previous complaint to the Commission. The Petitioner received favorable employment evaluations between 1997 and 2007 and received the regular cost of living salary increases in the same manner as other employees during that period of time. None of the evidence presented by the Petitioner showed any race or age-related issue concerning salary or pay grade treatment. Some employees were hired who were assigned some of the Petitioner's duties, but those were employees with more qualifications than the Petitioner. The Petitioner, at the time of the hearing, did not have a degree. The Petitioner contends that the results of a pay study, conducted by the College, were discriminatory. She apparently raised a concern about purported pay inequity sometime during the period 1999 through 2000 (and reiterated by her later). She sought pay equity and upgrading of her position in discussions with her supervisors. She was told to wait while a third-party consultant, hired by the College, completed a pay and salary range study. Ms. Davis told her that no position would be re-classified until after the study was completed. As a result of this study the "Department Associate" position was approved in October 2000 and the Petitioner was moved into that position with that job title in 2001. She did not receive a salary increase, however, at that time. The salary consultant's study developed revised position descriptions and included a market study for ascertaining appropriate pay or pay ranges for those positions. The consultant set ranges for those positions at the College and the recommendations were apparently adopted by the College. It was determined that if a particular employee was earning a salary which fell within the approved range then the employee was deemed to be appropriately paid. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that she was outside of an approved pay range for her duties and did not establish that the study, nor any of Petitioner's objections to her pay grade amount, had anything to do with the employment action taken on November 1, 2007, at issue in this case. It is noteworthy that only College employees who were receiving salaries below the minimum pay range for their job descriptions received any salary increases. There were also white males at this time who did not receive pay increases for that same reason, because they were already earning salaries at or above the minimum of their pay range for their job descriptions, as was the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that the facts surrounding a Southern Association of Colleges (SACS) accreditation study showed discriminatory motives on the part of the College directed at her. In essence, she contends that the SACS study showed that the College had misrepresented to SACS that the library was fully staffed when it was not. There were only five employees when the accreditation standards called for seven employees, under the circumstances prevailing at the time. The College then added the necessary number of employees and, upon receiving its accreditation, apparently in late October 2007, immediately thereafter terminated the Petitioner. That subjective belief on the part of the Petitioner has not been supported or corroborated by any persuasive evidence, however. There was no demonstrated relationship between the employment action taken against the Petitioner and the accreditation or results of the study. Although the Respondent has not hired for the Petitioner's position as yet, it still has a larger library staff than it did when the fault was found by SACS as to library staffing, during the accreditation study. There is no proven relationship between the Petitioner's announced and contemplated entry into the DROP program and the subject employment decision. There was no convincing proof that the employment decision had anything to do with her announcement about entering the DROP program versus the investigation made by the College concerning the Petitioner's computer usage or use of a password to allow another to use her computer wrongfully. The Petitioner has not established persuasive evidence which would show that the policy concerning computer and internet usage was discriminatorily applied. The Petitioner has shown that no similarly-situated comparator employees, outside her protected class were treated more favorably, either because of race or age. There were three similar instances shown by the evidence to have occurred at the College. No employee in those instances was treated differently than the Petitioner. Ms. Davis investigated and enforced a policy as to the similar violations in the same manner. All three comparator employees involved were given the opportunity to resign, retire, or be terminated. None of them was given a warning on a first offense. Those three comparators were not within the Petitioner's protected class because they were Caucasian. Two were Caucasian males and one was a Caucasian female. The males were, respectively, 46 and 61 years of age and the female was None of those comparators was given a second chance before termination or constructive termination. The Petitioner's belief otherwise was based upon hearsay and unsubstantiated rumor. Ms. Davis was directly involved in the employment actions taken against those comparator employees and established that no warning was given to any of them before they were terminated. No employee outside the Petitioner's protected class has been hired to replace her in her former position. In fact, her former position is still vacant. In summary, there is no preponderant, persuasive evidence to show that the Petitioner's resignation or retirement, which was a constructive termination, was based on age, race, or retaliation for engaging in earlier protected activity as envisioned in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. There is no persuasive evidence that discrimination of the type complained of was committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. It does appear, from the facts established by the evidence in this case, that the termination decision was a harsh one. The Petitioner had a consistently favorable employment record with the College and, certainly, if any employee was entitled to a warning before the ultimate penalty was exacted by the College, given the facts of this case, she should have been so entitled. It is true that, at the time of the termination, the College administrators apparently did not know that the Petitioner's son had been using the computer at the time in question. However, in the de novo context of this proceeding, since the discrimination claim was filed, the College has become aware of the fact that, although the Petitioner used her password wrongfully to log her son onto the College computer system and Internet, that the Petitioner herself had nothing to do with accessing the illicit websites at issue. This fact, coupled with the Petitioner's long-time good employment record with the Respondent shows, based upon the facts of record at least, that the employment decision was unduly harsh. No actionable discrimination of the type raised in this case was proven, however.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petition for Relief be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 25th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles L. Smith, holds a temporary state teaching certificate number 514251 issued by the State Department of Education covering the area of physical education. He has been a teacher for fourteen years and holds a master's degree in special education. He is presently the head football coach and a physical education instructor at Stewart High School in Lumpkin, Georgia. This is not respondent's first involvement with a disciplinary proceeding. On June 8, 1983, petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, filed an administrative complaint against Smith alleging that while he was employed as a teacher at Dunnellon High School (Marion County) in school year 1982-83, he made derogatory statements to students and engaged in improper conduct of a sexual nature with a minor female student. The matter eventually culminated in an administrative hearing held on August 11, 1983, where one of petitioner's witnesses was Ruth Annette Edwards, a teacher's aide in Smith's class. Her testimony in that proceeding has been received in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit 3. The testimony can be characterized as damaging, for Edwards gave testimony which tended to corroborate the allegations against Smith. Although the Hearing officer recommended that Smith be found guilty of all charges and that his certificate be revoked for two years, in its Final Order rendered on November 9, 1983, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) expressed "strong doubts that the incident (with the female student) actually occurred" and instead placed respondent on probation for one year and imposed the following conditions: The Respondent will break no laws, nor any rules of the State Board of Education. The Respondent will perform in a satisfactory manner as a teacher, and will cause reports of his performance to be forwarded to the Education Practices Commission. Therefore, under the terms of pro- bation, if respondent violates any state law or EPC rule during the ensuing year, he risks the loss of his teaching certificate. The probation period expires on November 9, 1984. Respondent's contract to teach at Dunnellon High School was not renewed in school year 1983-84. However, Smith's failure to teach there was not due to the EPC disciplinary action, but rather was attributable to his failure to pass the mathematics part of the teacher certification examination. Because of this, he weighed alternative offers from Alachua County School Board and the State of Georgia, and accepted the latter offer because of its higher pay. Sometime prior to 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning, January 29, 1984, the Clara Davis household in Dunnellon, Florida, received a telephone call. Mrs. Davis answered the telephone and was asked by the caller to speak to her grandson, Pretis Griffin, then nineteen years old and a senior at Dunnellon High School who resided with her. Pretis was a former student in Smith's English class in 1982-83, and also knew him from varsity athletics. Mrs. Davis responded that Pretis was still asleep and hung up. The same caller telephoned back a few minutes later and said he was calling long distance from Gainesville and needed to talk to Pretis. She roused Pretis, who answered the call. Pretis testified the caller identified himself as respondent and sounded like Smith. Although Smith denied he made the call, it is found that Smith did indeed telephone Pretis on January 29. After the two made small-talk initially, Smith then asked Pretis if he would do him a favor. Pretis said "yes," and Smith said "I want you to tell Mrs. Edwards something." Pretis asked "What," and Smith replied, "Tell Mrs. Edwards thanks for what she's done, and I will get back at her through her husband." After some more small-talk, the two ended the conversation by Smith saying, "Don't forget to tell her," followed by a "little laugh." After the call ended, Pretis told his grandmother the caller was Coach Charles Smith. The next day, Monday, January 30, Pretis approached Ruth Edwards at school and told her respondent had telephoned him and wanted to convey a message. Pretis then told her "Coach Smith said thanks for what you done and he'll get you back through your husband." Upon hearing this, Edwards simply shrugged and walked away. The following Sunday, February 5, 1984, the Davis household received another telephone call for Pretis prior to 10:30 a.m. According to Pretis, it was the same caller as the previous Sunday, and despite Smith's denial, it is found that respondent made a second call to Pretis on February 5, 1984. After making small-talk, Smith eventually asked if his message had been delivered and what Edwards' response had been. When Pretis responded that he had, and that Edwards had merely shrugged and walked away, Smith commented "Oh, she thought it was a joke," and Pretis said "I guess." The two then discussed an upcoming basketball game at Dunnellon the following Saturday night and the fact that Smith might attend the game. In the next day or so, Pretis told Edwards at school that Coach Smith had telephoned again and that he might attend the high school basketball game that weekend. Edwards gave no visible response to Pretis' comment. Edwards, who readily acknowledged she dislikes Smith, initially claimed that Pretis relayed three separate messages to her from Smith, and also gave a more threatening account of the conversations between Pretis and Smith. However, it is found that only two calls took place, and the substance of the calls was accurately portrayed by Pretis. After Pretis told Edwards that Smith had telephoned a second time, she went to the assistant principal and advised him that Smith had threatened her. Later, Edwards and Pretis were interviewed, and the matter was then turned over to the Marion County School Board, and eventually referred to petitioner. That prompted the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Smith, who has never met Edwards' husband, denied making the calls. He seemed fully aware of the terms of his probation, and recognized that any violation might jeopardize his teaching certificate. He contended it would be "stupid" to threaten Edwards because it would lead to the exact predicament he finds himself in. On the two mornings in question, he claimed he was either at work (as a clerk at a 7-11 store in Gainesville) or in church. However, his wife was unable to confirm this because of the passage of time since January and February, 1984. Until the hearing, Smith has not seen nor spoken to Edwards (or her husband) since the administrative hearing conducted in August, 1983 and has never carried out any threats against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.06(3)(m) and that he be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Arthur G. Haller, Esquire 771 N.W. 23rd Avenue, Suite 1 Gainesville, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007)1/, by terminating Petitioner's employment in retaliation for her filing a formal grievance asserting that a co-worker made a racially discriminatory comment to her at a staff meeting.
Findings Of Fact The District Board of Trustees of LCCC is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, an African-American female, was hired by the College and began work on January 29, 2007. She worked in the cosmetology department as a Teaching Assistant II until the College terminated her employment on June 28, 2007. In addition to Petitioner, the College's cosmetology department consisted of two instructors, Carol McLean and Vicki Glenn. Ms. McLean was also the department coordinator, meaning that she supervised Petitioner and Ms. Glenn. The instructors performed classroom instruction and supervised students "on the floor" in the department's laboratory, where the students practiced their skills on clients who made appointments with the department to have their hair styled. Petitioner's duties included answering the telephone, making client appointments, ordering and stocking cosmetology supplies, and recording the hours and services performed by the students. Petitioner was a licensed cosmetologist and was expected to assist on the floor of the lab, but only when an instructor determined that her presence was necessary. Petitioner was not authorized to perform classroom instruction. Petitioner was at all times employed on a probationary basis under LCCC Policy and Procedure 6Hx12:8-04, which provides that all newly hired career service employees must serve a probationary period of six calendar months. This Policy and Procedure also requires that conferences be held with the employee at the end of two and four months of employment. The conferences are to include written performance appraisals and should be directed at employee development, areas of weakness or strength, and any additional training required to improve performance. Petitioner acknowledged that she attended orientation sessions for new employees during which this Policy and Procedure was discussed.4/ The evidence at hearing established that the orientation sessions covered, among other subjects, an explanation of the probationary period, the College's discipline and grievance procedures, and how to find the College's Policies and Procedures on the internet. The employee orientation process also required Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Carol McLean, to explain 14 additional items, including Petitioner's job description and the College's parking policies. The evidence established that Ms. McLean covered these items with Petitioner. Petitioner's first written evaluation covered the period from January 29, 2007 through March 29, 2007. The evaluation was completed by Ms. McLean on April 13, 2007, and approved by the Dean of Occupational Programs, Tracy Hickman, on April 30, 2007. The College's "Support Staff Job Performance Evaluation" form provides numerical grades in the categories of work knowledge, work quality, work quantity and meeting deadlines, dependability, co-operation, judgment in carrying out assignments, public relations, and overall performance. A score of 1 or 2 in any category is deemed "unsatisfactory." A score of 3 or 4 is "below norm." A score of 5 or 6 is "expected norm." A score of 7 or 8 is "above norm." A score of 9 or 10 is rated "exceptional." Petitioner's scores in each area were either 5 or 6, within the "expected norm." Ms. McLean graded Petitioner's overall performance as a 6. The evaluation form also provides questions that allow the supervisor to evaluate the employee's performance in a narrative format. In response to a question regarding Petitioner's strengths, Ms. McLean wrote that Petitioner "has demonstrated she is very capable handling conflicts/situations concerning clients. She is also good working with the students when needed. Her computer skills/knowledge has been an asset." In response to a question regarding Petitioner's weaknesses, Ms. McLean wrote, "Kay5/ needs to be a little more organized. I feel confident with the move to the new building, she will be able to set her office up to be more efficient for herself." Petitioner testified that she has excellent organizational skills and that she is, in fact, a "neat freak." Her problem was the utter disorganization of the cosmetology department at the time she started her job. She could not see her desk for the pile of papers and other materials on it. Boxes were piled in the middle of the floor. There were more than 100 unanswered messages in the recorded message queue. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. McLean nor Ms. Glenn could tell her how to proceed on any of these matters, and that she was therefore required to obtain advice via telephone calls to either Wendy Saunders, the previous teaching assistant, or Jeanette West, secretary to the Dean of Occupational Programs. Neither Ms. McLean nor Ms. Glenn recalled the complete departmental disorganization attested to by Petitioner at the outset of her employment. In fact, Ms. McLean recalled having to work 80-hour weeks to restore order to the department's workspace after Petitioner was discharged. No other witness testified as to disorganization prior to Petitioner's hiring. The evidence presented at the hearing established that Petitioner dramatically overstated the poor condition of the cosmetology department's offices at the time she started work, and also greatly overstated any contribution she made to improve its organization. Petitioner's second and final evaluation covered the period from March 29, 2007, through May 29, 2007. The evaluation was completed by Ms. McLean on May 22, 2007, and approved by Dean Hickman on May 23, 2007. Petitioner's numerical scores in each of the categories, including overall performance, was 4, meaning that her performance was "below norm." In a typewritten attachment, Ms. McLean wrote: Employee Improvement: Strengths: Kay is very good with the students and has strong desires to help them. Weaknesses: A concern is Kay's words and actions have shown that she would rather teach than be in the office. There is still a lack of organization in the office. We have had a couple incidents where we have to search for invoices, etc. I am still receiving complaints about the phone not being answered. Other comments: Too often Kay's actions have made it difficult for the department to operate effectively. Since Kay's arrival, it have discussed [sic] that each person must respect the protocol of communicating within the chain of command. On numerous occasions Kay ignored those instructions, In spite of my direct instructions to notify/discuss an incident report to Dean Hickman before doing anything else with it, Kay distributed it to others.6/ The College terminated Petitioner's employment on June 28, 2007, roughly five months after she began work and well within the six-month probationary period. Petitioner's dismissal was due to inadequate job performance and to several episodes displaying poor judgment and disregard of the College's rules and regulations. As to day-to-day job performance, the evidence established that Petitioner often had to be asked several times to do things that she conceded were within the scope of her duties. One of Petitioner's duties was to track the department's inventory, order supplies as needed, check the supplies against the invoices as they arrived, and unpack the supplies and restock the department's shelves. If the supplies were not removed from their shipping containers and stocked on the shelves, it was difficult for the instructors and students to find items or know when the department was running low on a given supply. Student cosmetologists at the College were frequently required to use caustic chemicals, and it was critical that the supplies be correctly inventoried and shelved to avoid mistakes in application of these chemicals. Ms. McLean had to tell Petitioner repeatedly to unpack the supplies. Petitioner would tell Ms. McLean that she would take care of it, but later Ms. McLean would notice that the supplies were still in their boxes.7/ Ms. McLean testified that there were multiple occasions when paperwork could not be located due to Petitioner's lack of a filing system. Ms. McLean and Petitioner would have to rummage through stacks of paper to find the item they needed because Petitioner failed to file the department's paperwork in a coherent manner. Another of Petitioner's duties was to set up "product knowledge" classes conducted by vendors of hair care products used in the cosmetology program. In February 2007, Ms. Glenn asked Petitioner to set up a class with Shirley Detrieville, the Redken representative for the College. Over the next month, Ms. Glenn repeatedly asked Petitioner about her progress in setting up the class, and Petitioner consistently responded that Ms. Detrieville had not returned her calls. Finally, in March, Ms. Glenn happened to see Ms. Detrieville on the campus. Ms. Detrieville informed Ms. Glenn that all the paperwork for the class had been completed long ago, and she was just waiting for Petitioner to call and let her know when to come. Ms. Glenn's class never received the Redken training. The evidence established that Petitioner consistently failed to return phone calls made to the department. There was a core group of women, mostly retirees that constituted an important segment of the regular patrons at the department's lab. Keeping track of their appointments was important because the students needed practical experience in order to meet the requirements for licensure. It was also important to keep track of the training needs of each student, because a student working on hair coloring, for instance, needed to be matched with a customer requesting that service. Among Petitioner's duties was to make the appointments for the patrons, and to coordinate the appointments with the students. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn testified that they consistently received complaints that Petitioner did not return phone calls from patrons attempting to make appointments. Ms. McLean recalled an elderly woman named Ms. Grammith, who was a weekly customer at the lab. Ms. Grammith phoned Ms. McLean at home because she was unable to get Petitioner to return her calls for an appointment.8/ Ms. Glenn recounted an occasion when she received a phone call from Ms. Grammith, complaining that Petitioner was not returning her calls. Ms. Glenn walked into Petitioner's office and asked her to return Ms. Grammith's call and make her appointment. Petitioner assured Ms. Glenn that she would. Ms. Glenn then went to teach a class. When she returned to her office, Ms. Glenn had another message from Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn asked Petitioner about the situation, and Petitioner admitted that she had not yet returned the call. Still later on the same afternoon, Ms. Glenn received a third call from Ms. Grammith. Again, Ms. Glenn inquired of Petitioner, who again admitted that she had not phoned Ms. Grammith. The next morning was a Friday, and Ms. Glenn received another call from Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn walked into Petitioner's office and told her to call Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn knew Petitioner never made the call because Ms. Grammith called Ms. Glenn yet again on the following Monday. Another elderly regular customer, Ms. Caldwell, stopped Ms. Glenn in the hallway one day to ask "what in the world was going on here." Ms. Caldwell complained that Petitioner never got her appointment right, and always told her that she had come in on the wrong day or at the wrong time. On this day, Ms. Caldwell was left sitting in the hallway outside the lab for three and one-half hours because Petitioner failed to schedule her appointment correctly. On another occasion, Shirley Rehberg, an LCCC employee, emailed Ms. Glenn to inquire about making an appointment for a pedicure. Ms. Glenn responded that Petitioner handled appointments, and provided Ms. Rehberg with information as to Petitioner's office hours. On three different occasions, Ms. Rehberg informed Ms. Glenn that she had attempted to make appointments with Petitioner but had received no response. Ms. Glenn also recalled going to the College registrar's office on unrelated business and being asked by Debbie Osborne, an employee in that office, whether the cosmetology department had stopped taking appointments. Ms. Glenn told her that all she had to do was call Petitioner. Ms. Osborne replied that she had emailed Petitioner several times and never received a response. Ms. McLean concluded that Petitioner was much more interested in the occasional teaching aspect of her position than she was in the quotidian matters of filing, ordering and answering the phone that constituted the bulk of her job. Ms. McLean believed that Petitioner's eagerness to teach, even when her presence on the floor was not requested or needed, sometimes caused Petitioner to neglect her other duties. Petitioner admitted that she preferred teaching, but also testified that she was forced to teach students at least two days per week because Ms. McLean simply skipped work every Wednesday and Thursday. Petitioner stated that when she was on the floor of the lab, she could not hear the phone ringing back in the office. She believed that this might have accounted for some of the missed phone calls. Ms. McLean credibly denied Petitioner's unsupported allegation that she skipped work twice per week. Ms. McLean was in the classroom and lab with her students four days per week, as required by her schedule. Ms. McLean reasonably observed that she would not remain long in the College's employ if she were to skip work every Wednesday and Thursday. When classes were not in session, faculty members such as Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn were not required to come into the office, whereas the teaching assistant was required to come in and work a full day from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On these faculty off-days, it was especially important for Petitioner to be on the job because she constituted the sole point of contact between students and the cosmetology department. New classes in cosmetology start twice a year, and prospective students may drop by the campus at any time. If no one is present during normal working hours to answer questions or assist the student in applying, the College could lose a prospective student as well as suffer a diminished public image. The evidence established that Petitioner would take advantage of the lack of supervision on faculty off-days to go missing from her position, without submitting leave forms for approval by an administrator as required by College policy. May 4, 2007, was the College's graduation day. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn arrived at the cosmetology building at 3:00 p.m. to prepare for the cap and gown ceremony and noted that Petitioner was not there, though it was a regular work day for her. Petitioner was still absent at 4:30 p.m. when the two instructors left the building to go to the graduation ceremony. On May 15, 2007, a faculty off-day, Ms. Glenn came in at 11:00 a.m. to prepare for her class the next day. Petitioner asked Ms. Glenn to handle a student registration matter while Petitioner went out. Ms. Glenn agreed to do so. The students had yet to arrive by 2:00 p.m. when Ms. Glenn was ready to leave. Petitioner had still not returned to the office, forcing Ms. Glenn to ask Ms. West to register the students if they arrived. Ms. Glenn had no idea when or if Petitioner ever returned to work that day. Marcia Brinson was the custodian who cleaned the cosmetology building. During summer session at the College, Ms. Brinson worked from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. She would often come into the cosmetology building and find that Petitioner was not there. This was the case on May 15, 2007, when Ms. Brinson entered the building at 2:00 p.m. At around 2:30, an administrator named Glenn Rice came to the cosmetology building with two students whom he was attempting to enroll.9/ Ms. Brinson phoned Ms. McLean at home to inform her of the situation. Ms. McLean phoned the cosmetology office. Petitioner did not answer. At about 2:50 p.m., Ms. McLean called Petitioner at her cell phone number. Petitioner answered and told Ms. McLean that she was at her mother's house, but was about to return to the College. Ms. McLean could not say whether Petitioner ever actually returned to the College that day. At the hearing, Petitioner claimed that the only time she left the cosmetology department on May 15, 2007, was to go to the library at 2:15 p.m. and obtain materials for a class she was going to teach on May 17. This testimony cannot be credited, given that it conflicts with the credible testimony of Ms. McLean, Ms. Glenn and Ms. Brinson. Further belying Petitioner's claim is the fact that she later submitted a leave form claiming "personal leave" for two hours on May 15, 2007. She claimed the hours from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Aside from its inconsistency with Petitioner's testimony, this claim was inaccurate on two other counts. First, the evidence established that Petitioner was away from the office from at least 11:00 a.m. until some time after 3:00 p.m. Second, Petitioner's regular work day ended at 5:00 p.m., thus giving her no cause to claim leave for the half-hour between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. The College has a "wellness" program in which employees are allowed to take 30 minutes of leave, three days per week, in order to engage in some form of exercise. Petitioner considered wellness time to be the equivalent of personal leave, and would leave her job at the College early in order to keep an appointment at a hair-styling salon at which she worked part-time. Finally, Petitioner was unwilling or unable to comply with the College's parking decal system. At the time she was hired, Petitioner was issued a staff parking pass that entitled her to park her car in any unreserved space on he campus. As noted above, many of the cosmetology customers were elderly women. For their convenience, the College had five spaces reserved for customers directly in front of the cosmetology building. Customers were issued a 5 x 8 "Cosmetology Customer" card that they would leave on their dashboards. If all five of the reserved spaces were taken, the card allowed the customer to park in any space on the campus. On May 30, 2007, the College's supervisor of safety and security, Tony LaJoie, was patrolling the campus on his golf cart. Petitioner flagged him down, asking for help with a dead battery in her car. Mr. LaJoie stopped to help her, but also noticed that Petitioner's car was parked in a space reserved for customers and that Petitioner had a "Cosmetology Customer" card on her dashboard. When he asked her about it, Petitioner told Mr. LaJoie that she had lost her staff parking pass and therefore needed to use the customer pass. Mr. LaJoie told Petitioner that she could go to the maintenance building and get a new staff pass, or get a visitor's pass to use until she found the first pass. Petitioner told Mr. LaJoie that she could not afford the $10 replacement fee for the pass. Mr. LaJoie told her that the $10 replacement fee was cheaper than the $25 to $50 fines she would have to pay for illegally parking on campus. Petitioner promised Mr. LaJoie that she would go to maintenance and take care of the situation. On June 5, 2007, Mr. LaJoie found Petitioner's car again parked in a customer reserved space and with a customer card on the dashboard. Mr. LaJoie wrote Petitioner a parking ticket. Petitioner was well aware that the customer spaces were reserved at least in part because many of the department's customers were elderly and unable to walk more than a short distance. Petitioner nonetheless ignored College policy and parked her car in the reserved spaces. Petitioner never obtained a replacement parking pass.10/ Dean Hickman was the administrator who made the decision to recommend Petitioner's termination to the College's Vice-President, Charles Carroll, who in turn presented the recommended decision to LCCC President Charles W. Hall, who made the final decision on termination. She based her recommendation on the facts as set forth in Findings of Fact 19 through 48, supra. Petitioner's termination was due to her performance deficiencies. Dean Hickman considered Petitioner's pattern of conduct, including her repeated violation of parking policies and her practice of leaving her post without permission, to constitute insubordination. Ms. McLean, who provided input to Dean Hickman as to Petitioner's performance issues, testified that Petitioner's slack performance worked to the great detriment of a department with only two instructors attempting to deal with 20 or more students at different stages of their training. Petitioner's position was not filled for a year after her dismissal. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn worked extra hours and were able to perform Petitioner's duties, with the help of a student to answer the phones. The fact that the instructors were able to perform their own jobs and cover Petitioner's duties negates Petitioner's excuse that she was required to do more than one full-time employee could handle. Furthermore, Ms. McLean testified that, despite the added work load, Petitioner's departure improved the working atmosphere by eliminating the tension caused by Petitioner. Because Petitioner was still a probationary employee, the College was not required to show cause or provide specific reasons for her dismissal. Nevertheless, the evidence established that there were entirely adequate, performance-based reasons that fully justified the College's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. The evidence further established that Petitioner's dismissal was not related to the formal grievance Petitioner filed on June 5, 2007. However, because Petitioner has alleged that her termination was retaliatory, the facts surrounding her grievance are explored below. The grievance stemmed from an incident that occurred between Petitioner and Ms. Glenn on May 16, 2007, the first day of the summer term. A student named Russia Sebree approached Ms. Glenn with a problem. Ms. Sebree was not on Ms. Glenn's summer class roster because she had not completed the Tests of Adult Basic Education ("TABE"), a test of basic reading, math and language skills. Students were required to pass the TABE in their first semester before they would be allowed to register for their second semester. Ms. Glenn told Ms. Sebree that, because the initial registration period had passed, they would have to walk over to the Dean's office and have Dean Hickman register Ms. Sebree for the class. Ms. Glenn phoned Dean Hickman's secretary, Ms. West, to make an appointment. Ms. West told Ms. Glenn that Dean Hickman was out of the office, and that she would make a return call to Ms. Glenn as soon as the dean returned. While waiting for Ms. West's call, Ms. Sebree apparently drifted into Petitioner's office. She mentioned to Petitioner that she hadn't passed the TABE test, and Petitioner told her she could take care of the matter by making an appointment for Ms. Sebree to take the test. Ms. Glenn overheard the conversation and walked in to stop Petitioner from making the call. She told Petitioner that she had a call in to Dean Hickman, and that she and Ms. Sebree would have to meet with the dean to determine whether Ms. Sebree could register for Ms. Glenn's summer class or whether she would be required to complete the TABE and wait until the next semester. Ms. Glenn was angered by Petitioner's interference in this matter. Petitioner's actions were beyond the scope of a teaching assistant's duties, unless requested by an instructor.11/ She jumped into the situation without inquiring whether Ms. Sebree had talked to her instructor about her problem and without understanding the steps that Ms. Glenn had already taken on Ms. Sebree's behalf. Eventually, Ms. West returned the call and Ms. Glenn and Ms. Sebree met with Dean Hickman. After the meeting, Ms. Glenn requested a private meeting with Dean Hickman. She told the dean that she was very upset that Petitioner had taken it upon herself to take over the situation with Ms. Sebree, when Ms. Glenn was taking care of the matter and Petitioner had no reason to step in. Dean Hickman told Ms. Glenn that she would not tolerate a staff person going over an instructor's head in a matter involving a student. Dean Hickman asked Ms. Glenn to send Petitioner over to her office. Dean Hickman testified that she met with Petitioner for about 30 minutes, and that Petitioner left her office requesting a meeting with Ms. Glenn. Dean Hickman did not testify as to the details of her meeting with Petitioner. The dean knew that Petitioner was angry and cautioned her to conduct herself in a professional manner when speaking with Ms. Glenn. Petitioner testified that Dean Hickman "yelled" at her, "I will not have you undermine my instructor's authority." Petitioner professed not to know what Dean Hickman was talking about. The dean repeated what Ms. Glenn had said to her about the incident with Ms. Sebree. According to Petitioner, Ms. Glenn had told the dean "some lie," an "outlandish" tale in which "I went in telling Russia that she didn't have to do what Vicki said, or something like that." Petitioner told Dean Hickman her version of the incident, which was essentially that nothing happened. She was showing Ms. Sebree "some basic algebraic equations and stuff and there was no conflict or anything in the office." Petitioner asked for a meeting "so I can see what's going on." Petitioner returned to the cosmetology department. She was visibly upset. She asked for a departmental meeting with Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn that afternoon. Ms. McLean agreed to move up the weekly departmental meeting in order to take care of this matter. The meeting convened with Ms. McLean going over the usual day-to-day matters involving the program. Once the regular business was completed, Ms. McLean stated that she wanted Petitioner and Ms. Glenn to air out their problems. Petitioner asked Ms. Glenn why she wanted to tell lies about her. Ms. Glenn said, "What?" and Petitioner stated, "You're a liar." Ms. Glenn denied the accusation. Petitioner repeated, "You're nothing but a liar." In anger and frustration, Ms. Glenn stated, "Look here, sister, I am not a liar." Petitioner responded, "First, you're not my sister and, secondly, my name is Stephanie K. Taylor, address me with that, please."12/ Ms. McLean testified that both women were "pretty heated" and "pretty frustrated" with each other. She concluded the meeting shortly after this exchange. After the meeting, Petitioner and Ms. McLean spoke about Ms. Glenn's use of the word "sister," which Petitioner believed had racial connotations. Ms. McLean told Petitioner that she did not believe anything racial was intended.13/ Ms. Glenn had never been called a liar, and in her frustration she blurted out "sister" in the same way another angry person might say, "Look here, lady." Petitioner seemed satisfied and the matter was dropped for the remainder of the day. Dean Hickman testified that Petitioner brought some paperwork to her office that afternoon after the departmental meeting. Petitioner told her that she felt better about the situation, that they had aired their differences and everything now seemed fine. The dean considered the matter resolved. By the next morning, May 17, 2007, Petitioner had changed her mind about the comment. She sent an email to each member of the College's board of trustees, President Hall, Dean Hickman, and various other College employees that stated as follows: Hello. I am Stephanie K. Taylor, Teaching Assistant for Cosmetology. I am writing because of an incident that took place on yesterday, May 16, 2007. Nancy Carol McLean (Coordinator/Instructor), Vicki Glenn (Instructor) and I met for a meeting to discuss concerns in our department approximately 11:35 am. During our discussion, Vicki Glenn made a racial comment to me. I disagreed with her concerning a statement she made. Her reply to me was: "No, 'Sister', I did not!" I was very offended by her remark and I replied, "My name is Stephanie Kay Taylor." Following the meeting, I spoke with Ms. McLean and I decided to write this incident statement. If I allow an instructor to call me something other than my name, these incidents will continue. Ms. McLean had repeatedly cautioned Petitioner to respect the College's chain of command. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Ms. McLean was supposed to be Petitioner's first resort insofar as work-related complaints. Petitioner was in the habit of going straight to Dean Hickman with complaints before discussing them with Ms. McLean. However, in this instance, Petitioner did show Ms. McLean the text of her statement before she distributed it. Ms. McLean advised Petitioner to take the matter straight to Dean Hickman and discuss it with her before distributing the statement. Petitioner did not take Ms. McLean's advice. Though Petitioner emailed the statement to Dean Hickman, the dean did not actually see the statement until it had been distributed to several other people. No evidence was presented that Petitioner suffered any adverse consequences from distributing her written statement outside the College's chain of command. To the contrary, Petitioner testified that Ms. McLean advised her that if she felt strongly about the matter, she should file a formal grievance pursuant to the LCCC Policy and Procedure 6Hx12:6- 10.14/ Ms. McLean provided Petitioner with the forms she needed to file a written grievance. Petitioner also sought and received the advice of a human relations specialist at the College as to how to file a formal grievance. Both Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn convincingly testified that they had no ill feeling toward Petitioner for filing a grievance. Ms. McLean stated that the grievance had no impact on her at all. Ms. Glenn was not disturbed by the grievance because she had done nothing wrong and believed the process would vindicate her. Petitioner filed her formal written grievance on June 5, 2007. Vice president Marilyn Hamm began the investigation in the absence of Human Resources Director Gary Boettcher, who picked up the investigation upon his return to the campus. Dean Hickman also participated in the investigation of Petitioner's grievance. They interviewed the witnesses to the incident. They also interviewed 11 cosmetology students and asked them whether they had ever heard Ms. Glenn make any "derogatory or racial slurs or comments" relative to Petitioner. None of the students had heard Ms. Glenn make any remarks fitting the description in the query.15/ One student told the investigators that he had heard Petitioner speak disparagingly of Ms. Glenn, but not vice versa. On June 19, 2007, Mr. Boettcher issued a memorandum to Petitioner that stated as follows: You filed a grievance alleging that Ms. Vickie Glenn made a racial comment to you by calling you "sister." You further stated that you want the same respect that you have given to others and that you be referred to by your name, Stephanie K. Taylor. I was not available when you filed the grievance therefore it was referred to Vice President Hamm who began the investigation and upon my return it was referred to me. Ms. Hamm interviewed yourself, and Carol McLean. Ms. Hamm and I then interviewed Ms. Glenn. Subsequently, Ms. Hickman, the Dean of your department, and I interviewed a random sampling of students in the cosmetology program. The incident you described, when you were referred to as "sister" was discussed with both Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn, who were in the meeting when the comment was made. They both acknowledged that you were in fact referred to as sister. Neither of them viewed it as a racial comment but a term that was used in the heat of the discussion in which you and Ms. Glenn were very much at odds on a subject. The students were interviewed and asked if you had discussed or made mention of an evaluation that you received and also whether that had ever heard Ms. Glenn talk derogatorily or made any racial comments relative to you. Some of the students heard of talk of your evaluation but none of them heard it first hand from you. None of the students ever heard Ms. Glenn refer to you in any racial or disparaging way. In view of the investigation it is concluded that you were called "sister" but not in a negative or racial inference and that Ms. Glenn has not referred to you in a derogatory or racial manner. This has been discussed with Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn in that they were asked to refer to you strictly by your name and in a professional manner. I trust this will be satisfactory to you and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Petitioner's employment with the College was terminated on June 28, 2007, nine days after Mr. Boettcher's memorandum. No evidence was presented to establish a causal connection between these two events, aside from their temporal proximity. As noted extensively above, the College had more than ample justification to terminate Petitioner's employment before the conclusion of her six-month probationary period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was terminated from her position with the College due to poor job performance and conduct amounting to insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the College did not retaliate against Petitioner for the filing of a grievance alleging that Ms. Glenn had made a racially discriminatory remark towards Petitioner. Rather, the greater weight of the evidence established that College personnel assisted Petitioner in filing her grievance and that the College conscientiously investigated the grievance. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the College has not discriminated against Petitioner based on her race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Lake City Community College did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 30th day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent wrongfully terminated Petitioner's continuing contract of employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is currently a doctoral level graduate student. At all times relevant hereto, she held a continuing contract as a professor at SCC in the Networking and Electronics Program (the "Networking Program"). Respondent is a community college within the state community college system. It is governed by its Board of Trustees. Dr. Ann McGee is president of SCC; vice president of Educational Services is Dr. Carol Hawkins. Angela Kersenbrock is the dean of Career Programs, including the Networking Program. Department chair in that program is Leon Portelli. Beginning in calendar year 2003, SCC began to experience decreased student enrollment, especially in the area of the Networking Program. SCC instituted a program review under Dean Kersenbrock's tutelage. A program review provides for the collection of relevant data to ascertain the continued viability of programs within the college. The program review of the Networking Program found low and declining enrollment and retention, a perceived job market decrease, difficulty in recruiting industry partners, and limited internships for students. Based on those findings, a series of recommendations were made to improve the Networking Program. Included in the recommendations were the following: increase class size, reduce faculty (Reduction in Force (RIF)), cross-teaching in other areas, cut back on adjuncts, reduce contract length, consolidate courses and sections, and work closely with industry partners to locate jobs for graduates of the program. Many of the recommendations were implemented even before finalization of the program review. However, in February 2007, Dean Kersenbrock decided the measures being taken were not alleviating the problem. She then submitted her formal recommendations to the Board of Trustees. A formal presentation was made to the Board of Trustees on April 17, 2007. After much discussion and debate, the Board of Trustees approved the recommendation from Dean Kersenbrock's review committee to implement a RIF in the Networking Department. At that time, there were five faculty members in the department, including Petitioner. The other faculty members were: John DelGado, Ben Taylor, Bill Irwin, and Gary Belcher. The proposed RIF intended to reduce the faculty from five to two. Irwin and Belcher were immediately selected for termination due to the fact that they could teach fewer topics within the department than could the other three staff. After they were terminated, SCC had to select one of the three remaining staff (DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner) to be the final cut for the RIF. Each of the three had identified strengths and weaknesses; so, the selection was a difficult one to make. In order to make the decision, the following factors were considered: (1) the essentiality of the position, (2) work performance, (3) attendance record, and (4) supervisory recommendations. If all those factors are equal between the faculty members being considered, then length of service to the college would be the determining factor.1 SCC evaluated DelGado, Taylor, and Petitioner and found them, on aggregate, to be equal as far as the four factors were concerned. Each faculty member had strengths and weaknesses within the four categories, but were essentially "tied" when it came down to making a decision.2 Petitioner correctly pointed out that of the three faculty members, she was the only one who had experience making presentations at national level conferences. This fact weighed in her favor, but it was not enough to outweigh the strengths of the other faculty members. Likewise, Petitioner has the ability to teach a number of different classes, a positive in her favor. But, again, her abilities did not make her more essential than the other two. Some questions were raised about Petitioner's work performance, attendance record, and poor supervisory recommendations. However, none of those questions indicated that Petitioner was inferior to her fellow professors. Neither of the parties offered into evidence a true comparison of the three faculty members. There was some indication that each had strengths and weaknesses, but each person's individual assets or liabilities weren't described with any particularity. Thus, a substantive de novo review of that part of Respondent's decision making process is not possible. When all was said and done, Petitioner's length of service at SCC was shorter than the other two, and, thus, she was selected for the final RIF cut. Pursuant to SCC policies and procedures, an employee affected by a RIF must be given at least two weeks notice prior to the reduction taking effect. Petitioner was advised twice concerning her termination: once in a letter from the director of Human Resources Development--letter dated April 26, 2007--and once in a letter from SCC's president, E. Ann McGee--letter dated May 17, 2007. The latter correspondence provided Petitioner her appeal rights. Petitioner was provided her severance package in accordance with SCC policies. President McGee's letter to Petitioner stated in part, "You have the right to appeal the Board's decision pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." However, the letter did not address Petitioner's right to appeal directly to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be given an opportunity to select a direct appeal to the Board of Seminole Community College. As far as the instant case is concerned, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and the termination of her contract would be upheld. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 16th day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent Gulf Coast Community College (Respondent or the College) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner Derek A. Robinson (Petitioner) to discrimination in employment or by subjecting Petitioner to adverse employment actions in retaliation of Petitioner’s opposition to the College’s alleged discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. The College is a public institution of higher education located in Panama City, Florida. In 1998, Petitioner was hired by the College to work in its custodial department as a custodian. Petitioner held that position until his termination on February 11, 2009. The College's custodial department is part of the College's maintenance and operations division (collectively, ?Maintenance Division?) managed by the campus superintendent. The two other departments within the Maintenance Division are the maintenance and grounds departments. During the relevant time period, there were approximately 40 to 50 employees in the Maintenance Division. Of those, there were approximately 21 to 28 custodians in the custodial department. Most of the custodians were African-Americans and there were only three Caucasian custodians. The Caucasian custodians were Tom Krampota, Josephine Riley, and Tommy Gillespie. Custodial staff typically work shifts beginning at 2:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. They are generally assigned housekeeping duties for a specific building. In addition to Monday through Friday, the College is also open on most weekends. Prior to 2001, the College began designating one employee to work a non-rotating weekend shift. Unlike other custodians, the designated weekend custodian worked from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The weekend custodian was not assigned to a particular building, but rather worked in various buildings as needed and was to be available to open doors to campus buildings during weekend hours. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian from 2001 until his duties were changed in September 2008. Dr. John Holdnak, who worked for the College for 26 years in various capacities, including four years as Director of Human Resources, was the one who established the position of designated weekend custodian. Dr. Holdnak served as the College's Vice-President for Administration Services for his last eight years of employment with the College until leaving in July, 2008. As vice-president, Dr. Holdnak reported directly to the president of the College, Dr. James Kerley. Sometime prior to 2008, Dr. Holdnak observed that the departments in the Maintenance Division were underperforming, not adequately supervised, and failing to meet expectations. Dr. Holdnak observed that the Maintenance Division employees took excessive breaks and showed lack of effort in their work. For example, mold was found in some of the classrooms, an open window with a bird's nest was found in another, maintenance orders were backlogged, and Dr. Holdnak received a number of complaints from faculty and College employees regarding the Maintenance Division's level of service. As a result of Dr. Holdnak's observations, the College removed the campus superintendent from his position because of the superintendent's inability to manage line supervisors, provide leadership, or supervise personnel. After that, Dr. Holdnak personally supervised the Maintenance Division for a time in order to assess and develop a solution to the problem. Based upon Dr. Holdnak's assessment, the College sought applications for a new campus superintendent who could change and clean-up the culture of the Maintenance Division. At the time, the three department supervisors within the Maintenance Division were: Carlos "Butch" Whitehead for maintenance, Dan Doherty for custodial, and Ronny Watson for grounds. All three supervisors were Caucasian. The vacancy for the campus superintendent position was advertised. Dr. Holdnak encouraged John Westcott to apply for the campus superintendent position because he had previously worked with Mr. Westcott on a College construction project and was impressed with his vigor and work ethic. Mr. Westcott, a Caucasian, applied. So did custodial department supervisor, Dan Doherty, and three other candidates. Mr. Westcott disclosed on his application that he had been convicted of a felony twenty years prior to his application. Dr. Holdnak determined that Mr. Westcott's prior conviction would not impact his candidacy for the position. The applicants were screened by a selection committee composed of a number of College employees from various divisions, including Petitioner. Of the five applicants who applied, the selection committee's first choice was John Westcott, who was qualified for the position. Petitioner did not agree with the selection committee's first choice and was not impressed with Mr. Westcott during the screening process because Mr. Westcott referred to himself as the "terminator." Based upon the selection committee's first choice and the conclusion that Mr. Westcott satisfied the necessary criteria to change the Maintenance Division's culture, Dr. Holdnak recommended that the College hire John Westcott as the new campus superintendent. John Westcott was hired as campus superintendent in January 2008. Once Mr. Westcott was hired, Dr. Holdnak specifically directed him to take control of his departments, ?clean up the mess? and hold his mid-level supervisors responsible for their subordinates' results. Dr. Holdnak instructed Mr. Westcott to take a hands-on approach, physically inspect and visit the buildings to ensure cleanliness, increase effectiveness, stop laziness, and decrease work order backlogs. During his tenure, Mr. Westcott increased productivity and reduced backlogs. Mr. Westcott took more initiative than previous superintendents with cleaning and maintenance, and he conducted weekly walkthroughs. While Mr. Westcott was campus superintendent, the backlog of 400 work orders he had inherited was reduced to zero. During Mr. Westcott's first month as campus superintendent, he had an encounter with a Caucasian employee named Jamie Long. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Westcott issued a written memorandum to Mr. Long as a follow-up from a verbal reprimand that occurred on January 28, 2008. The reprimand was Mr. Westcott's first employee disciplinary action as campus superintendent. According to the memorandum, the reprimand was based upon Mr. Long's confrontation and argument with Mr. Westcott regarding the fact that Mr. Westcott had been ?checking-up? on him. According to the memorandum, Mr. Westcott considered "the manner in which [Mr. Long] addressed [him as] totally inappropriate and could be considered insubordination." Mr. Long disputed Mr. Westcott's version of the incident and later sent a letter to College President Dr. Kerley dated June 23, 2008, complaining about "the alleged incident of insubordination" and the "almost non-stop harassment by John Westcott." There was no mention or allegation in the letter that John Westcott was racist or had discriminated against anyone because of their race. After Dr. Holdnak left the College in July 2008, John Mercer assumed his responsibilities. Mr. Mercer, like Dr. Holdnak, had the perception that custodial work was below par based on complaints and personal observations. He therefore continued to direct Mr. Westcott to address these deficiencies to improve the custodians' performance. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian when Mr. Westcott was hired. In February 2008, Dr. Holdnak discovered a problem with the amount of paid-time-off Petitioner received as a result of his weekend schedule. The problem was that if a holiday fell on a weekend, Petitioner would take the entire weekend off, resulting in a windfall of 37.5 hours in additional paid-time- off for Petitioner over other employees because his work hours on the weekends were longer. In order to correct the problem, in approximately March 2008, Petitioner was placed on a similar holiday pay schedule as all other employees. At the time, the then-director of the College's Department of Human Resources, Mosell Washington, who is an African American, explained the change to Petitioner. According to Mr. Washington, Petitioner was not happy about the change in his holiday pay schedule. Petitioner, however, does not blame Mr. Westcott for initiating the change. Because of the change in his holiday pay schedule, Petitioner was required to work or use leave time for the additional working hours during the Fourth of July weekend in 2008. Petitioner called and asked to speak with Mr. Westcott regarding the issue. During the phone call, Petitioner used profanity. After being cursed, Mr. Westcott hung up the phone and then advised Mr. Washington, who told Mr. Westcott to document the incident. The resulting written reprimand from Mr. Westcott to Petitioner was dated July 11, 2011, and was approved by Mr. Washington. When Mr. Washington presented Petitioner with the written reprimand, Petitioner refused to sign an acknowledgement of its receipt and abruptly left the meeting without any comment. Petitioner did not tell Mr. Washington that he believed he was being targeted or discriminated against because of his race. In addition to setting forth Mr. Westcott's version of what occurred, the written reprimand advised Petitioner that the College had a grievance procedure, and also stated: I have an open door policy and will gladly address any concerns you may have whether personal or job related. If you have a grievance, tell me, but in the proper manner and in the proper place. Petitioner did not take advantage of either the College's grievance procedure or Mr. Westcott's stated open door policy. The College maintains an anti-discrimination policy and grievance policy disseminated to employees. The College's procedure for employee grievances provides several levels of review, starting with an immediate supervisor, then to a grievance committee, and then up to the College's president. Under the College's anti-discrimination policy, discrimination and harassment based on race or other protected classes is prohibited. Employees who believe they are being discriminated against may report it to the Director of Human Resources. Likewise, harassment is prohibited and may be reported up the chain of command at any level. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the College handbook and policies on August 17, 2007. In addition, both the College President, Dr. Kerley, and Vice President, John Mercer, maintain an ?open door? policy. After receiving the July 11, 2008, written reprimand, Petitioner spoke to both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, at least once, on July 15, 2008. Petitioner, however, did not tell them that he had been discriminated against because of his race. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a report of race discrimination was ever made regarding the July 11, 2008, written reprimand prior to Petitioner's termination. Petitioner, however, did not agree with the July 11, 2008 written reprimand. After speaking to Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, Petitioner met with Jamie Long, the Caucasian who had earlier received a write-up from Mr. Westcott, for assistance in preparing a written response. The written response, dated August 4, 2008, and addressed to Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and Mr. Mercer, stated: On July 25, 2008, I was called into Mosell Washington's office and was given a written letter of reprimand from John Westcott, the Campus Superintendent, which states that on July 3, 2008, I had used profanity in a phone conversation with him regarding my 4th of July work schedule. From the schedule that I received in February, from Mosell Washington, I believed I was off that weekend. I am writing this letter to dispute Mr. Westcott's version of our conversation and to protest the letter of written reprimand. Mr. Westcott says in the reprimand that I was insubordinate to him and had used profanity. I did not use profanity, and I do not believe that I was insubordinate in any manner to him during our brief conversation. I feel that my work record and my integrity speaks for itself. I have never been insubordinate, or been a problem to anyone until John Westcott, and had I known that I was supposed to be on the job that weekend, I would have been there. Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and John Mercer all deny receiving the written response. In addition, contrary to the written response, at the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he used profanity during the call and said ?ass? to Mr. Westcott. Moreover, the written response does not complain of race discrimination, and Dr. Kerley, Mr. Mercer, Dr. Holdnak, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Westcott all deny that they ever received a complaint of race discrimination regarding the incident. Evidence presented at the final hearing did not show that the written reprimand given to Petitioner dated July 11, 2008, was racially motivated, given in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expression or conduct, or that a similarly-situated non-African-American who used profanity to a supervisor would not be subject to such a reprimand. Mr. Westcott generally worked a more traditional Monday through Friday schedule and, because of Petitioner's weekend work schedule, had minimal contact with Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Westcott would not usually be on campus with Petitioner, except Fridays, and the two men rarely spoke until Petitioner's work schedule was changed in September 2008. During the weekends that he worked at the College, Petitioner was on-call and expected to return communications to his pager or mobile phone, even during his lunch breaks, regardless of his location. On Friday, August 22, 2008, after receiving a request from faculty member Rusty Garner, Petitioner’s supervisor Dan Doherty asked Petitioner to clean the music room floor. On Sunday afternoon, August 24, 2008, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott were working when they received word from Mr. Garner that the music room floor had not been cleaned. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioner by cell phone and pager, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott drove around the College campus to find him. They were unsuccessful. The reason Petitioner could not be reached was because he had left campus and had left his telephone and pager behind. According to Petitioner, he was on lunch break. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott found another employee, Harold Brown, to help prepare the music room for Monday. Mr. Mercer was upset because he had to take time out from his own work to find someone to complete the job assigned to Petitioner. That same afternoon, Mr. Mercer reported the incident by e-mail to Mr. Washington and requested that appropriate action be taken. On August 27, 2008, Petitioner’s supervisor, Dan Doherty, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner for the August 24th incident. No evidence was presented indicating that the written reprimand was racially motivated, or that a similarly situated non-African-American who could not be located during his or her shift would not be subject to such a reprimand. In September 2008, Dr. Kerley unilaterally determined that no single employee should work his or her entire workweek in three days. He believed this schedule was unsafe, and not in the best interests of the college. He therefore directed Mr. Westcott and Mr. Mercer to implement a rotating schedule for the weekends. Mr. Westcott was not in favor of the change because it meant additional scheduling work for him to accommodate new rotating shifts. No credible evidence was presented that the schedule change was because of Petitioner’s race, or made in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expressions or actions. From August 27, 2008, through January 2009, there were no other disciplines issued to Petitioner or reported incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Westcott. In December, 2008, a group composed of most of the custodial employees, including Petitioner, conducted a meeting with the College's president, Dr. Kerley, and vice-president, Mr. Mercer. The group of custodians elected their new supervisor James Garcia, an Asian-Pacific Islander, as their spokesperson for the meeting. The custodians' primary purpose for the meeting was to address complaints regarding Mr. Westcott’s management style, his prior criminal conviction, and approach with employees. They felt that Mr. Westcott could not be pleased. Various concerns about Mr. Westcott expressed by the employees were condensed into three typed pages (collectively, ?Typed Document?) consisting of two pages compiled by Jamie Long and his wife Susan Long which contained 12 numbered paragraphs, and a third page with six unnumbered paragraphs. Mr. Garcia did not transmit the Typed Document to the president or vice- president prior to the meeting. Neither Jamie Long nor his wife attended the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Garcia read several of the comments from the Typed Document and Dr. Kerley responded to each comment that was read. Mr. Garcia did not read through more than the first five of the 12 items listed on the Typed Document. The Typed Document was not reviewed by the president or vice-president and they did not retain a copy. Petitioner asserts the comment listed in paragraph 9 on the second page of the Typed Document constitutes a complaint or evidence of racial animus. Although not discussed at the meeting or reviewed by Dr. Kerley or Mr. Mercer, paragraph 9 states: During a recent candidate forum, Westcott used the term ?black ass? in regard to School Superintendent James McCallister. This was heard by at least two witnesses. Q. Are such racial slurs and inappropriate, unprofessional behavior condoned and acceptable? Mr. Westcott denies making the alleged statement referenced in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document. No evidence of other racial remarks allegedly made by Mr. Westcott was presented. There is no evidence that the College or its administration condoned the alleged statement. President Kerley, Vice President Mercer, and Mr. Washington all gave credible testimony that they were not made aware of the statement and that, if the statement in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document or any alleged racial discrimination by Mr. Westcott had been brought to their attention, immediate action would have been taken. As a result of custodial employees’ complaints about Mr. Westcott’s management style, Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer required Mr. Westcott to attend several sessions of management training. In addition, Dr. Kerley counseled Mr. Westcott against using harsh tactics and rough language that may be acceptable on a construction site, but were not appropriate on a College campus. On February 9, 2009, Mr. Westcott observed both Petitioner and a co-worker leaving their assigned buildings. He asked their supervisor, Mr. Garcia, to monitor their whereabouts because he thought that they appeared to not be doing their jobs. Mr. Westcott also told Mr. Garcia that, although the two workers may have had a legitimate reason for walking from their assigned buildings, he had not heard anything on the radio to indicate as much. The next day, on February 10, 2009, Mr. Garcia told Petitioner that Mr. Westcott had wanted to know where they had been headed when they left the building the day before. Petitioner responded by saying that if Mr. Westcott wanted to know where he was, Mr. Westcott could ask him (Petitioner). Later that day, Petitioner spoke to Mr. Washington on campus. Petitioner was very upset and said to Mr. Washington, ?What’s wrong with Westcott? He better leave me alone. He don’t know who he’s messing with.? Later that same afternoon, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mr. Westcott. According to a memorandum authored that same day by Mr. Westcott: I [John Westcott] had stopped outside the mailroom to talk with Beth Bennett. While talking with her I observed Derek [Petitioner] leave Student Union West. After seeing me, he returned to Student Union West and waited outside the door. Beth walked toward the Administration building and I headed through the breezeway. Derek approached me and said that he had heard that I wanted to ask him something. I asked him what he was talking about. He said that I wanted to ask him where he was going the evening before. I said ok, where were you going? Derek said that it was ?none of my f_ _ _ ing business.? I told him that since I was his supervisor, that it ?was? my business. At this time, he stepped closer to me in a threatening manner and said ?if you don’t stop f_ _ _ ing with me, I’m going to f_ _ _ you up.? I told him that if he would do his job, that he wouldn’t have to worry about me. He replied ?you heard what I said--- I’ll f_ _ _ you up?, as he walked back into SUW. I left the breezeway and went to John Mercer’s office to report the incident. Mr. Westcott’s testimony at the final hearing regarding the incident was consistent with his memorandum. While Petitioner’s version of the confrontation is different than Mr. Westcott’s, at the final hearing Petitioner admitted that Mr. Westcott had a legitimate question regarding his whereabouts and that he failed to answer the question. And, while he denied using the specific curse words that Mr. Westcott attributed to him, Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Westcott to leave him the ?hell? alone because he was doing his job. While there is no finding as to the exact words utilized by Petitioner to Mr. Westcott, it is found, based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, that on the afternoon of February 9, 2009, Petitioner was confrontational towards Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner refused to answer a legitimate question from Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner demanded that Mr. Westcott leave him alone even though Mr. Westcott had a legitimate right to talk to Petitioner about his job, and that Petitioner used words that threatened physical violence if Mr. Westcott did not heed his warning. After Mr. Westcott reported the incident to Mr. Mercer, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott went to Dr. Kerley and advised him of the incident. Dr. Kerley believed the report of the incident and that Petitioner had threatened Mr. Westcott. Mr. Washington was then informed of the incident. After reviewing Petitioner’s employment history, including Petitioner’s recent attitude problems, as well as Mr. Washington’s own interaction the same day of the latest incident, Mr. Washington concluded that Petitioner should be terminated. Mr. Washington gave his recommendation that Petitioner be terminated to Dr. Kerley, who adopted the recommendation. The following day, February 11, 2009, Mr. Washington called Petitioner into his office and gave him a memorandum memorializing Petitioner’s termination from his employment with the College. The memorandum provided: This memorandum is written notification that because of a number of incidents which the administration of the college deems unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate, you are hereby terminated from employment at Gulf Coast Community College, effective immediately. At the time that he presented Petitioner with the memorandum, Mr. Washington provided Petitioner with the opportunity to respond. Petitioner told Mr. Washington, ?It is not over.? Petitioner did not state at the time, however, that he believed that his termination, change of schedule, or any disciplinary action taken against him were because of racial discrimination or in retaliation for his protected expression or conduct. Further, at the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence indicating that similarly-situated non-African- American employees would have been treated more favorably than was Petitioner for threatening a supervisor. Further, the evidence presented by Petitioner did not show that the decision to terminate him was based on race or in retaliation for protected expression or behavior, or that the facts behind the reason that Petitioner was fired were fabricated. Following his termination, Petitioner met with both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer and apologized for acting wrongly. The empirical record evidence of discipline against College employees in the Maintenance Division during Mr. Westcott’s tenure does not demonstrate a tendency by Mr. Westcott or the College to discriminate against African- American employees. The majority of disciplines and the first discipline taken against Mr. Long by Mr. Westcott were administered to Caucasians. In total, Mr. Westcott only reprimanded five employees. Of these, three were Caucasian -- Mr. Long, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Doherty. Despite the fact that the majority of the custodians were African-American, only two African-Americans were disciplined -- Petitioner and Harold Brown. During Mr. Westcott’s employment, the only two employees who were terminated were Petitioner and a white employee, Mark Ruggieri. Excluding Petitioner, all African-American witnesses testified that Mr. Westcott treated them equally and not one, except for Petitioner, testified that they were treated differently because of their race. The testimony of Petitioner’s African-American co-workers is credited over Petitioner’s testimony of alleged discrimination. Harold Brown’s discipline was based upon the fact that he gave the College’s master keys to an outside third-party contractor. Although Mr. Brown disagreed with the level of punishment he received, in his testimony, he agreed that he had made a mistake. Mr. Brown further testified that he did not believe African-Americans were targeted. According to Mr. Brown, Mr. Westcott did not discriminate against him because of his race, and ?Westcott was an equal opportunist as far as his behavior? and ?seemed agitated towards everybody when he was in his moods.? Mr. Garcia was the lead custodian when Petitioner was terminated and is currently the College’s custodial department supervisor. While several employees told Mr. Garcia that they did not like Mr. Westcott’s management style, Mr. Garcia never heard a racist comment and testified that Mr. Westcott was strict and threatened the entire custodial and maintenance staff. Butch Whitehead believes that Mr. Westcott attempted to get him and his maintenance crew ?in trouble.? He had no personal knowledge of the manner in which Mr. Westcott treated Petitioner. Mr. Whitehead's testimony does not otherwise support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist or that the College discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. Tom Krampota, a Caucasian and longtime employee and former supervisor, agreed that Mr. Westcott was firm with all custodians and complained about everybody, but was not a racist. Lee Givens, an African-American, testified that his custodial work was monitored because Mr. Westcott took issue with dust and cleanliness, but that if he did his job Mr. Westcott did not bother him. Mr. Givens did not testify that he felt discriminated against because of his race, but rather stated that Mr. Westcott made the job hard for ?all the custodians.? Horace McClinton, an African-American custodian for the College, provided a credible assessment of Mr. Westcott in his testimony which summarized how Mr. Westcott treated all of his subordinates: There were certain things that he wanted us to do that we should have been doing already, and he was just there to enforce it . . . he did not think anybody was doing their job . . . . He was put there to make sure we were doing our job . . . . I don't think he was a racist. Mr. McClinton further testified that all Maintenance Division employees, including Caucasian supervisors, were afraid of Westcott because it was ?his way or the highway.? Latoya ?Red? McNair testified that he was being monitored like the other custodians but did not believe it was because of race. Just as Petitioner’s co-workers’ testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist, Dan Doherty’s deposition testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott’s actions against Petitioner were because of race. A review of Mr. Doherty’s deposition reflects that Mr. Doherty has no first-hand knowledge of actual discrimination. Mr. Doherty stated, ?I don't know? when asked how he knew Westcott was motivated by race. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Doherty, five African-Americans were singled out, including Petitioner, Mr. McClinton, Mr. Givens, Mr. McNair, and Mr. Brown. Two of these alleged ?victims? outright denied that Mr. Westcott treated them unfairly because of race. The others did not testify that they believed Mr. Westcott treated them differently because of race. Mr. Doherty testified that besides the five identified, the remaining African-Americans were not criticized or targeted. Mr. Doherty also conceded that it was possible that Mr. Westcott just did not like the five custodians. Further, despite the fact that Mr. Doherty was written up by Mr. Westcott more than any other employee, including Petitioner, Mr. Doherty never reported Mr. Westcott for discrimination and did not state in his exit interview from the College that Mr. Westcott was a racist or complain that race was an issue. Rather than supporting a finding that Mr. Westcott was motivated by race, Mr. Doherty’s testimony demonstrated that the problems he had with Mr. Westcott were similar with those pointed out by others—-namely, that Mr. Westcott had a prior criminal conviction, had a harsh management style, and closely scrutinized all workers. While Petitioner and Mr. Long contend that they raised the issue of discrimination with the College's management, the College's president, vice-president, director of human resources, former vice-president, and superintendent all deny receiving a report of discrimination or that any employment action was based on race or in retaliation. Mr. Long’s testimony that he complained of race is not substantiated because he did not witness any discrimination first hand. He also never documented his alleged concerns about racial discrimination prior to Petitioner's termination. In addition, in his testimony, Mr. Long admitted that he never heard Mr. Westcott use a racially discriminatory term. Likewise, Petitioner never documented alleged discrimination until after being terminated. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and the failure of Petitioner and Mr. Long to document alleged complaints when an opportunity was presented, it is found that the allegations of reported complaints of discrimination by Mr. Long and Petitioner are not credible. Further, the testimony from Petitioner’s co-workers and supervisors, which indicates that Mr. Westcott was harsh with all employees but not racially discriminatory, is credited. It is found that Petitioner did not show that any employment action by the College or Mr. Westcott against him was based on race. Rather, the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that Petitioner was not targeted or treated differently from any other employees based upon race. The evidence also failed to show that Petitioner was retaliated against because of his protected expression or conduct. In sum, the evidence did not show that Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or wrongful retaliation, and Respondent proved that Petitioner was terminated for engaging in a pattern of unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate behavior, including a threat to his supervisor’s supervisor, John Westcott.
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 Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, 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 6th day of December, 2011.
