The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of age.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent initially employed the Petitioner in the maintenance department in January 1996. There is no evidence that the Petitioner’s employment in the maintenance department was unsatisfactory. In May 1996, the Petitioner transferred into the production department. The Petitioner’s supervisor in the production department described his performance as somewhat unsatisfactory but made no written report of any problems. On September 17, 1996, the Petitioner transferred into the laboratory and began work as a lab technician. The transfer in the lab technician position was at the Petitioner’s request. On October 21, 1996, Richard Barnes, an employee of the Respondent, assumed supervisory responsibility for the laboratory operation. On November 8, 1996, Mr. Barnes met with the Petitioner to discuss the job. At the time of the November 8 discussion, the Petitioner had been working in the lab for almost eight weeks. The Respondent’s lab employees are responsible for assuring that the materials produced by the plant comply with the "release specifications" set by the buyers of the materials. During the discussion, the Petitioner was asked about specific tasks assigned to lab employees. His response was incorrect and indicated a lack of familiarity with lab procedures. The Petitioner was informed that his job performance was unsatisfactory. Over the next week, Mr. Barnes continued to monitor the situation, and subsequently decided to terminate the Petitioner’s employment for unsatisfactory performance. On November 18, 1996, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner’s employment on the grounds of unsatisfactory work performance. At the time of the termination, the Petitioner was 56 years old. During the time of the Petitioner’s transfer into, and termination from, the lab, the Respondent was in the process of expanding the number of lab employees from six to ten employees. Shortly before terminating the Petitioner’s employment, the Respondent transferred another employee, of similar age as the Petitioner, into the lab. Shortly after the Petitioner’s termination, Respondent transferred another employee, younger than the Respondent, to the lab. The transfer of the younger employee was being processed prior to the termination of the Petitioner’s employment. There is no evidence that a transfer of the younger employee was related to the termination of the Petitioner’s employment. The evidence fails to establish that termination of the Petitioner’s employment was based on his age. There is no evidence that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of age. There is no evidence that the Petitioner suffered any economic injury based on the termination. He became employed shortly after the termination at a salary higher than the Respondent was paying him. Subsequent employment has included additional increases in compensation. The Petitioner asserts that had he remained employed by the Respondent, his compensation would have included promotions and increased compensation. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would have received further promotions from the Respondent.
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 the Petition for Relief filed by Terry B. Hillman. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Terry B. Hillman 2048 Laurel Lane North Fort Myers, Florida 33917 Robert E. Tardif, Jr., Esquire Duncan & Tardif, P.A. 1601 Jackson Street, Suite 101 Post Office Box 249 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0249 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of discriminating in employment against Petitioner on the basis of her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, who is black, as an inspectress on April 11, 1988. An inspectress supervises the work of maids, who are responsible for cleaning the hotel rooms. On July 3, 1988, the housekeeper, Mr. Douglas Knight, who supervised Petitioner, informed her that, due to an excess of personnel, she was no longer needed as an inspectress. He offered her a position as a maid. The record does not reveal whether the change in duties would have resulted in less pay. Petitioner apparently declined the position. When she did so, Respondent terminated her. Although Respondent had received no warnings concerning unsatisfactory job performance, the work of the maids had clearly been unsatisfactory up to the time of her offered reassignment. The white woman who allegedly replaced Petitioner as an inspectress was Mrs. Triplett, who was married to the head maintenance manager of the hotel. Shortly after losing her job elsewhere, she was hired by Respondent around June 9, 1988, to replace the assistant housekeeper, who was on maternity leave until July 6, 1988. Mrs. Triplett was reassigned to the position of inspectress around June 18, 1988, and later promoted to housekeeper about two weeks after Petitioner's departure. Mr. Knight, who hired Mrs. Triplett, was friends with Mr. Triplett and later terminated for inefficiency in performing his work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Latricia W. Dukes 4189 Tatum Street Orlando, FL 32811 Gale Brandy Ramada Main Gate Resort 2950 Reedy Creek Boulevard Kissimmee, FL 32741
Recommendation The Hearing Officer recommends that the Board require that DeBruin provide the Board, prior to seeking employment, a statement from her physician regarding her ability to practice and any restriction or recommendation he would place on her, and further that any restrictions be communicated to the potential employer so that she is not placed in a position or circumstances that would jeopardize her health, the care of any patient, or her employer. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: E. O. Musleh, Esquire 415 Northwest 1st Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Ruby D. Johnson on the basis of a handicap in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent at its Lake City, Florida, plant during 1977 or 1978. The Respondent manufactures metal parts for automobiles. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a parts assembly worker. At the time the Petitioner began employment with the Respondent, she informed the Respondent that she did not have any handicap. On June 28, 1984, the Petitioner was accidently struck on the head with a broom by another employee while at work. She was struck with the straw end of the broom. The Petitioner did not return to her job for approximately two months after being struck on the head. The Petitioner was treated by George G. Feussner, M.D. When Dr. Feussner authorized the Petitioner's return to work, he recommended that she not be required to perform any work requiring standing or leaning, climbing or operation of dangerous equipment for approximately three to four weeks. In September, 1985, the Petitioner experienced dizziness and fell while at work. In a letter dated October 2, 1985, Dr. Feussner informed the Respondent of the following: Despite and [sic] extensive evaluation of this lady, I cannot find objective findings to go along with her symptoms. I believe that she should be able to return to work at her regular job, but I still think that it would be dangerous considering her emotional dedication to her symptoms she is likely to injure herself if she works around dangerous equipment or at heights. She should therefore find a job that does not involve these activities... The Petitioner, when she tried to return to work, was not allowed to work because she had filed a workmen's compensation claim as a result of her alleged condition. This claim was being disputed by the Respondent's workmen compensation insurance carrier. On October 31, 1985, the Respondent laid off several employees with seniority equal to or greater than the Petitioner's seniority. Employees were laid off because of a lack of work. The Petitioner would have been laid off also, but was not because of the disputed claim over workmen's compensation. In November, 1985, the Petitioner's workmen compensation claim was denied. At that time the Petitioner was informed that she was also being laid off. In October, 1986, the Respondent began recalling the employees it had laid off in November, 1985. The Petitioner was not recalled, however, because of the restrictions on the Petitioner's ability to work. The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with the Commission in October, 1986. On November 13, 1987, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby D. Johnson 1802 North Georgia Street Lake City, Florida 32055 William B. Hatfield Supervisor of Human Relations ITT Thompson Industries - Metal Division Post Office Box 928 Valdosta, Georgia 31603-0928 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1025 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner Amber Renae Baker has met her burden of proving actual innocence, thereby entitling her to compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Amber Renae Baker was born on November 25, 1963. At the time of her conviction, she was 43 years of age. On March 28, 2006, Petitioner was charged with racketeering, in violation of Section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes, relating to her participation in her brother's escort service, which was in fact an organized prostitution ring. On April 16-20, 2007, Petitioner was tried before a jury in Escambia County, Florida, on one count of racketeering. She stood trial along with her brother, Dallas Baker, who was tried on a count of racketeering and for procuring a person under the age of eighteen for prostitution, and her mother, Mary Helen Baker, who was tried for racketeering as well. During the trial, Petitioner made a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State did not produce evidence that Petitioner knowingly participated in a pattern of racketeering activity, to wit: that the State of Florida did not produce any evidence that Petitioner knew that any of the women hired by her brother to provide escort services (a legal activity) was also providing prostitution services. Petitioner further argued that the State did not produce sufficient evidence that Petitioner intended to assist in perpetuating anything more than an escort service. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal. The jury convicted all three defendants on all charges. Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-four and one-half months of imprisonment. On September 22, 2008, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Opinion reversing the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal. Baker v. State of Florida, 990 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The District Court found, as a matter of law, that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she agreed to secure another person for prostitution or otherwise violated Section 769.07, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was released from incarceration on October 9, 2008. By the time she was released, Petitioner had been incarcerated for 540 days. Petitioner has never been convicted of any other felony in any jurisdiction. From 1995 through at least 2005, Petitioner answered the telephone for her brother's escort service from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. seven days a week, arranging dates for the callers with the women who worked for her brother. When a call came in, she would describe the different girls that were available by height, weight, hair color, and bra cup size. Then Petitioner would call the woman in whom the caller expressed interest and give her the customer's phone number. The woman would decide if she wanted to go. Petitioner quoted to the customer, as she describes the men who called to hire a woman, the price of $150 to $200 per hour. During the "date," Petitioner would call the woman every hour to ask her if she was alright. After the "date," the woman would bring the money to Petitioner at her brother's trailer where she lived and answered the telephone. She knew that each of the women who worked for her brother had and was required to have a "dance card," which is the slang term for an occupational license for an exotic dancer. Petitioner contends that she did not know that her brother, with her help and her mother's help, was operating a prostitution ring. She contends that she believed that the women were simply going on dinner dates and were being paid by the customer $150 to $200 per hour to accompany a man who was also paying for dinner. She contends that she also thought that sometimes the women were hired for topless dancing or to attend a bachelor party, which meant charging the customer for four hours. Petitioner did not testify at her criminal trial on the advice of her lawyer and of her co-defendant brother. Because she did not testify, the State was not able to offer two documents into evidence. Those documents are a letter she wrote to her mother before her arrest and the transcript of an interview of her after she was arrested. The typewritten letter is undated and was confiscated from her home by the police when they executed a search warrant upon arresting her. In the letter she complains bitterly about her mother not loving her as much as she loved Petitioner's brother. Primarily, though, she complains bitterly that she has worked in the business for years without being paid even minimum wage. The letter also contains the following statements: (1) "And you have never cared that I could lose my kids because of this business. . . ." and (2) ". . . but I am gonna [sic] be left in the dirt as usual answering phones that could cause me to lose my kids. " Those statements are contrary to Petitioner's position in this proceeding that she did not know she was answering the phones and scheduling appointments for prostitution. There would be no danger of having her children removed from her custody for working in a legitimate business answering telephones and scheduling appointments. Further, photographs admitted in evidence show the condition of the trailer where Petitioner lived with her children. The conditions are deplorable and clearly unsafe. Although not obvious in the photographs, Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she allowed dog feces to remain in the trailer without removing them. Yet, she does not appear to have been worried that her children would be removed from her custody for unsafe living conditions, only for her answering the telephone for the business. The recorded and transcribed interview of Petitioner was conducted on March 27, 2006, after her arrest. The following questions and answers are relevant to this inquiry: Q. Did girls ever try to talk about sex with you? People having sex or people wanting some weird things? A. They, a couple of them would try to start talking about some weird things and I would say, I don't want to hear it. Q. What kind of weird things? A. I don't know, like walking on hot dogs. (Laughing) Q. Walking on hot dogs? Were girls allowed to talk to you about, I mean, if a girl tried to talk to you about sex what would you do? A. I would just tell them I don't want to hear about it. * * * Q. Okay. Do you believe the girls were having sex for money? Did you have a pretty good idea they were having sex for money? A. Well, I guess that's what everybody assumes. Q. Did you assume it? A. No Audible Answer. Q. Is that a 'yes' A. Um, what else can you assume? * * * Q. Really? Okay. Is there anything that you can think about that you can tell me why you would believe or what would make you think that Dallas knew the girls were having sex for money? A. I don't know. I, that's the way it's done on t.v. Q. What's, what's how it's done on t.v.? A. Services. Q. That are involved in prostitution? A. I was hoping he wasn't doing it. Q. Really? Did you feel he was? A. I guess. Q. Yes? A. I said I guess. * * * Q. . . . can you think of any conversations you and your mother had about customers or the things they liked or anything like that? A. No, just made jokes about the hot dog thing. We thought that was funny. Q. Really? What did, what did, what did he want her to do after she walked on the hot dogs? A. Let him eat them from between her toes. * * * Q. Men with feet fetishes? Never heard nothing like that? A. I don't know, they would call and ask for somebody with pretty feet sometimes. Petitioner, who professes to have had "a little bit of college," may well have avoided direct conversation regarding the real services offered by her brother's "escort service," but it is evident by her statements both in the letter she wrote to her mother and in her transcribed interview that she in fact knew that sex was involved in the "dates" she arranged and that she was at risk answering the telephones because she was participating in an illegal activity. Petitioner contends that she was an unwilling participant in her brother's business and that she was coerced into answering the telephone for the business because her brother emotionally and physically abused her and threatened her with harm. Petitioner takes two approaches in supporting her position that she was coerced by her brother into answering the telephone. First, Petitioner testified in this proceeding that her brother abused her when she was a child by calling her names and years later by beating her. Interestingly, her letter to her mother describes her brother as a "lying, back stabbing, whore hopping, white trash dog. . . ." It appears that name- calling was not a one-way street in Petitioner's family. Similarly, in her recorded interview she explained that her brother "always beat her up," but then admitted the last time was 16 years earlier. She also explained that when he had recently started cussing at her, she "told him to go to hell." The dynamic between Petitioner and her brother does not suggest duress or coercion, as Petitioner alleges. Petitioner's other approach to proving duress in this proceeding (rather than in the criminal proceeding where it can constitute an affirmative defense) is by the affidavits admitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties. One affidavit is that of Petitioner, which alleges her brother continuously beat and threatened her, a version not consistent with her testimony at the evidentiary hearing in this cause. The other affidavit is from a psychologist with solid credentials who saw Petitioner twice after her release from prison. Petitioner's attorney referred her to him for a psychological evaluation. The affidavit is accompanied by the psychologist's report. Although the evaluation showed Petitioner to have "significant emotional problems," it was clear to the psychologist that Petitioner exaggerated her symptoms for the benefit of the evaluation, and her test profiles were, therefore, only marginally valid. Even with his awareness that Petitioner was not an accurate reporter as evidenced by his several references to Petitioner's obvious attempt to influence the evaluation, the psychologist opined that Petitioner needs extended treatment and medication. There is no evidence that Petitioner has followed his recommendations. The holding in Dixon v. United States, 548 U. S. 1 (2006), makes it clear that duress is an affirmative defense and that to invoke it, a defendant must admit the crime and then affirmatively prove that the defendant was coerced by threatened unlawful and imminent harm to commit the crime. In this proceeding, Petitioner argues, inconsistently, that she did not commit a crime and that she was forced to repeatedly perform the act which constituted the crime, i.e., arranging "dates" between customers and prostitutes over a period of approximately ten years. Petitioner does not make a credible witness. Her varying explanations given at different times to different persons undermine her credibility. The purpose of this proceeding is not to determine whether Petitioner is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of racketeering by participating in a prostitution ring, the determination that was made in her criminal trial and the test before the appellate court which overturned her conviction. Rather, in this proceeding wherein Petitioner is seeking monetary compensation for her wrongful incarceration, Section 961.03, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for her conviction and incarceration and that she did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed the act or offense. Further, she must prove her actual innocence by verifiable and substantial evidence in order to meet the definition of wrongfully incarcerated person. A review of the appellate court opinion overturning Petitioner's conviction reveals that the State presented insufficient evidence that Petitioner knew of the unlawful nature of the "dates" she arranged. It is appropriate, therefore, that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence based upon that insufficient evidence should have been vacated, and they were. However, the inability or failure of the State to prove Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not prove that Petitioner is actually innocent of the act or offense that served as the basis for the conviction and sentence and does not prove that she did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed the act or offense. The evidence which the State was prevented from offering at her trial by her decision not to testify-- Petitioner's letter to her mother and her statements during her recorded interview--and which, therefore, was not before the appellate court conflicts with Petitioner's testimony that she is innocent. That evidence is not verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence, which is the quality of evidence the Statute requires in this proceeding. Further, Petitioner's statements to the psychologist and his conclusions regarding her mental health are not verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence. Lastly, Petitioner’s own testimony denying her guilt is not verifiable and substantial evidence of her innocence. Petitioner argues that since Chapter 961, Florida Statutes, does not provide a definition of “actual innocence,” the definition should be the one found in Black's Law Dictionary. Petitioner's argument is not persuasive. The statutory scheme under which Petitioner seeks monetary compensation in this proceeding requires more than meeting a definition in a dictionary; it requires a certain quality and quantity of evidence. The Statute regulating this proceeding does not consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence as did the appellate court when it reversed Petitioner's conviction and as does Black's Law Dictionary. Rather, the Statute seeks a determination of the factual sufficiency of the evidence by requiring the undersigned to make findings of fact as to Petitioner’s actual innocence if proven by verifiable and substantial evidence. In other words, proof of factual innocence is required. Perhaps the reason the Statute does not contain its own definition of actual innocence is that the Legislature intended the words to have their plain, ordinary meaning. Based upon the evidence before the trial court, the appellate court found insufficient evidence proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Based upon the evidence in this proceeding, including evidence not presented to the jury in Petitioner's criminal trial and, therefore, not reviewed by the appellate court, there is no verifiable and substantial evidence proving that Petitioner is actually innocent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, has failed to establish that she is a wrongfully incarcerated person eligible for compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION Based on the record in this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered by the Circuit Judge determining that Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, denying Petitioner’s claim for compensation, and dismissing her Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 4th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Nickolas P. Geeker Escambia County Circuit Judge M.C. Blanchard Judicial Building 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32502 Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk of Court Escambia County M.C. Blanchard Judicial Building 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32502 Keith W. Weidner, Esquire Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. 1823 North 9th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32503-5270 Russell Graham Edgar, Jr., Esquire State Attorney's Office Post Office Box 12726 Pensacola, Florida 32575-2726
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on January 12, 2011, setting the hearing for March 30 and 31, 2011, in Tavares, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011. Also on January 12, 2011, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On March 23, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings stating that she would be unable to attend the hearing on March 30, 2011, for unexplained medical reasons. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. On March 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a second letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings that declined to request a continuance of the hearing and proposed that the hearing proceed based on hearsay documents that Petitioner had previously filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. At 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:15 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered his appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. As noted above, Respondent had received no notice that Petitioner did not intend to appear at the hearing or that continuance was under consideration. Respondent's counsel had flown to Florida from Tennessee to appear at the hearing. One of Respondent's witnesses was a former employee whom Respondent had flown to Florida from Wisconsin at Respondent's expense. Respondent vigorously opposed any continuance of the scheduled proceeding. The undersigned declined on the record to continue the hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
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 the Petition for Relief in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, 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 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Leebron Grand Court Tavares 111 Westwood Place, Suite 200 Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Ann L. Brunette Post Office Box 304 Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against based on retaliation for participation in a protected activity in violation of Chapter 760.10(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner (Holden) is an African-American female. At all times relevant to this petition, Holden was employed in a probationary status by the Florida Department of Corrections at Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI) as a Correctional Officer. Probationary officers are not entitled to progressive discipline, but can be terminated for any reason. At the hearing, Holden withdrew her claims that the Department had discriminated against her based on her race and sex. On or about July 22, 2001, Captain Tullis Scipper responded to a call from the Medical Unit at ACI. Upon his arrival, he observed Officer Holden in front of the Suicide Watch Isolation Cell. She was cussing at the inmate with whom she had a previous confrontation. Scipper explained to her that she was not to argue or verbally abuse the inmate and that she should stay away from the cell. On at least one other occasion that night, Captain Scipper responded to the Medical Unit and observed similar actions by Holden. The next day, Captain Scipper received a call from Warden Adro Johnson, who inquired as to what had happened in the Medical Unit the night before. Warden Johnson had received a complaint from Nurse Carla Weeks that Officer Holden had been cussing the inmates and he was checking into the complaint. Warden Johnson asked Captain Scipper to bring Officer Holden to his office. The purpose of the meeting was not to ascertain whether Officer Holden had been cussing at inmates. The Warden had two eye-witness, staff accounts of her behavior. When confronted, she advised Warden Johnson that she had become angry and had cussed the inmate. Warden Johnson counseled Holden about her behavior. Warden Johnson testified that he felt that Holden was unreceptive to his counseling and that she was argumentative. He believed that she was not displaying the attitude that a good officer displays when he/she is being counseled by a warden. Holden also was upset and crying, and, as a result, Warden Johnson informed her that she needed to adjust her attitude and come back to see him the next day. Warden Johnson testified that he had not made up his mind as to what action he would take against Holden for her actions with the inmate. After the meeting with Warden Johnson, Captain Scipper observed Officers Holden and Shiver arguing with each other. Holden testified that she had asked Shiver about why her tour was changed, and this led to the incident observed by Scipper. In Scipper’s opinion, Holden was the “aggressor” because she continued to advance on Shiver, even though Shiver had his hands in the air and was stating words to the effect that he did not have anything to do with whatever they were arguing about. Knowing that Holden had just had a counseling session with the Warden, Scipper was surprised that Holden would almost immediately be involved in an altercation with a staff member. He relieved Holden of her duties for the rest of her scheduled shift. The next day Holden met as scheduled with Warden Johnson. Captain Scipper did not attend this meeting. Johnson had been informed of the previous day’s incident between Officers Holden and Shiver. He asked Holden if she was willing to change her attitude. He had not determined prior to the meeting if he would take any action at all against Holden. Johnson felt that Holden's response to him was disrespectful, and that she did not have the right attitude. Johnson terminated Holden based on what he perceived to be her poor attitude. He knew that Holden was approaching the end of her probationary status and that if he wanted to terminate her before she attained career service status with its attendant protections, he needed to do so at that time. Petitioner complained in an incident report filed before the Warden the first time that Captain Scipper refused to listen to her when he counseled her about a prior staff altercation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 24th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Holden 2103 Vista Road Marianna, Florida 32448 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination should be dismissed as untimely pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination dated June 2, 1998, alleges that Respondent discriminated against him because of his age and in retaliation for opposing illegal behavior. FCHR received the Charge of Discrimination on June 18, 1998. For purposes of this Recommended Order of Dismissal, it is assumed that the Charge of Discrimination was timely filed with FCHR. As of December 15, 1998, 180 days after Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination, FCHR had not assigned an investigator to investigate Petitioner's complaint or taken any other action related to the complaint. As of January 19, 1999, 35 days after December 15, 1998, Petitioner had not requested an administrative hearing. By letter dated June 2, 1999, Petitioner requested FCHR to forward his complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings. FCHR received the request for an administrative hearing on June 7, 1999. This request was filed 354 days after June 18, 1998, 174 days after December 15, 1998, and 139 days after January 19, 1999. Petitioner does not argue or present any facts to support a finding that the doctrines of equitable tolling or excusable neglect apply in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Respondent in retaliation for Petitioner's efforts in behalf of minority employees of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Priscilla M. Young, was a licensed practical nurse employed by Respondent, BAT Management Foundation, Inc. (BAT), at its Orlando Health Care Center (OHCC), as a floor nurse responsible for the care of approximately 60 residents during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Her immediate supervisor was Joan Renee’ Banton. Petitioner began working at OHCC as an LPN in 1992. In 1987 she had been convicted of a felony, aggravated battery, in circuit court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 30 months. After serving 8 of the 30 months, she was released without probation. At that time, she went to nursing school and was subsequently licensed in Florida as a practical nurse. At no time did she ever conceal her conviction from either the nursing school or licensing authorities. Petitioner was hired at Winter Park Memorial Hospital after graduating from nursing school and becoming licensed. At that facility she worked for both Joan Renee’ Banton and Sue O’Brien. During this period, Ms. O’Brien left Winter Park Memorial to take a position with BAT at its OHCC facility. Somewhat later, Petitioner saw an advertisement by BAT in the newspaper and applied for employment there. She claims Ms. O’Brien, who was at that time director of nursing was happy to see her when she arrived to fill out the application. Petitioner was interviewed for employment at OHCC by Ms. Stanley, who was the unit manager of the north wing at the facility. The employment application form contained a question which asked the applicant if she "had ever been convicted of a felony or, within the last five years of a misdemeanor, which resulted in imprisonment." Petitioner claims she was not sure how to interpret the verbiage and asked Ms. Stanley. Ms. Stanley also was not sure, so they discussed it with Ms. O’Brien. Based on their discussion, the determination was made that Petitioner did not have to list her felony conviction because it had occurred more than five years prior to the application. This was an incorrect decision because clearly the application requires listing a felony conviction regardless of when it happened, but requires listing of only those misdemeanor convictions which occurred within the last five years prior to application. Nonetheless, Petitioner was hired. During the course of her employment with OHCC, Petitioner had no disciplinary problems. Both Ms. Stanley and Ms. Banton deny having had any problems with her or her work. Petitioner contends that at least twice during the term of her employment, however, she complained to Ms. Banton about Banton’s use of the term, "you people" in reference to the aides and orderlies who worked for her, all of whom were minority of some nature: African American, Hispanic, or Asian. Ms. Banton cannot recall Petitioner’s having ever complained to her about that, and she denies having ever used that term. She claims that if she ever did refer to the employees as a group, it would have been phrased more as "you guys," or something like that. Considering the evidence of record, however, it is found that Ms. Banton probably did use the term "you people" and that Petitioner did complain about that usage to Ms. Banton. According to Ms. Banton, shortly after Petitioner was hired, all people who had knowledge of her conviction had left employment with OHCC. Ms. Stanley had taken employment elsewhere. Ms. Banton also left employment with OHCC in August 1994 because of rumors involving management problems with which she did not want to be involved. Somewhere between two and three weeks after leaving OHCC, however, Ms. Banton received a call from Mr. Allen, the owner of the company, asking her to come back to OHCC as Director of Nursing to replace Ms. O’Brien whom he intended to discharge. She agreed, and when she assumed her new role, she quickly received a phone call from Mr. Allen. In this telephone call, Mr. Allen asked if Petitioner was employed at OHCC. When Banton replied that she was, Allen reportedly revealed he had received a background check on Petitioner which indicated she had a felony conviction. According to Banton, Allen, who did not want any felons working in his nursing homes, directed Banton to check Petitioner’s background to see if the conviction had been noted on her application. She did, and when she reported to Allen that it had not been listed, he directed Banton by telephone to fire the Petitioner. Ms. Banton did what she had been directed to do. Petitioner contends that Banton’s attitude at the time of discharge was cavalier. Ms. Banton admits that at the time she had the discussion with Mr. Allen, she knew that Petitioner had served time in prison, but did not know why. She also claims that she did not know that Petitioner had discussed the conviction with Stanley and O’Brien and had been advised not to list it. Petitioner’s termination from employment with OHCC was based on her failure to disclose her felony conviction. Petitioner claims the termination was based on her speaking out for the other nursing assistants, all of whom were minority, when they were accused of incompetence. Ms. Banton, however, cites instances where when she would come in at night to check on how things were going, she would find pillows and chairs scattered around as if people were sleeping on their shift. She discussed this with Petitioner and admits the discussions were sometimes loud, but she never took any disciplinary action against Petitioner or wrote her up for this. Banton absolutely denies having ever disciplined any employee in public, always taking an employee to a private area to take corrective action. Petitioner is adamant in her contention that the fundamental basis for her discharge from employment with OHCC is retaliation for her standing up for the minority nursing assistants who were accused of incompetence. She firmly believes that her failure to list her felony conviction was seized upon as a pretext upon which to support the unlawful basis for her discharge. She cites that both Banton and O’Brien knew of her conviction and the fact that she had served time, when they all were employed at Winter Park Memorial, and that though it was not listed on her application for employment with OHCC, O’Brien knew about it at the time of her hiring, and Banton knew about it when she, Banton, subsequently came to work at OHCC. Coincidentally, Petitioner claims to have been instrumental in Banton’s obtaining employment at OHCC.
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 determining that Petitioner, Pricilla Young, was not subjected to racial discrimination or retaliation because of her advocacy on behalf of minority employees; that her discharge from employment with Respondent, BAT Management Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Orlando Health Care Center was based on a determination by Mr. Allen, the owner thereof, that her prior felony conviction disqualified her from employment at the facility; and that she is not entitled to back pay, expenses, or compensatory damages as a result thereof. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2000 COPIES FURNISHED: Priscilla M. Young 312 Lime Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805 Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Scruggs & Carmichael, P.A. One Southeast First Avenue Post Office Box 23109 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
