Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed with the Florida Department of Transportation since 1971. He is a graduate of the University of West Florida, with a degree in business management. Petitioner is 38 years old, with a physical disability which limits his use of his left hand and arm, and his left leg is shorter than his right. In 1979, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in its right-of-way section, as a Right-of-Way Agent III. In that position, he was responsible for the coordination of the Acquisition, Relocation and Property Management sections of Respondent's District III. One of Petitioner's subordinates was H. E. Walls, who was in charge of the Acquisition section. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was J. F. Culpepper, Assistant Right-of-Way Administrator. In April, 1980, a new Right-of-Way Administrator, J. A. Alfes, was assigned to District III. In 1980, and again in 1981, Petitioner filed charges of discrimination against Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations premised upon Petitioner's aforementioned disability. The 1980 charge was resolved through the entry of a settlement agreement. The charge filed in 1981 was premised upon the same disability, but that charge was ultimately dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In January, 1981, a hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on one of the charges of discrimination filed by Petitioner. On the day following that hearing, Petitioner was called into Mr. Alfes' office in Chipley, Florida, and was told that the hearing held in Tallahassee had been several hours of "horse shit." On May 18, 1981, Mr. Alfes advised Petitioner of an impending reorganization of the section in which Petitioner was employed. Subsequently, on June 17, 1981, Mr. Alfes told Petitioner that there would be "consequences" as a result of Petitioner's having filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In 1981 a reorganization of functions occurred in all six districts statewide of DOT. This reorganization eliminated one classification of position, Right-of-Way Agent III, which Petitioner had held in District III, and elevated the positions at the head of Acquisition and Relocation sections to the administrator level. At the time this reorganization occurred, Petitioner, as previously mentioned, was a Right-of-Way Agent III, and Herbert Walls headed the Acquisition section. Mr. Alfes, Petitioner's immediate superior, recommended that Petitioner be placed in charge of Relocation, and that Mr. Walls, who had been working in Acquisition, be placed in charge of the Acquisition section in light of his experience in that area since 1978. J. F. Culpepper, who occupied the position on DOT's organization chart to whom the Acquisition section, Relocation section, and Property Management section would report, recommended that the Petitioner be placed in charge of the Acquisition section, based upon his belief that Petitioner was better qualified by reason of his real estate training and college degree. Mr. Walls had only a high school diploma. During the period of his employment with DOT, Petitioner had not handled any complete right-of-way acquisition matters, and had never negotiated for DOT in the acquisition of any right-of-way parcels. Petitioner had, however, attended two relocation seminars while employed by DOT. Mr. Walls had been continually engaged in acquisition work for DOT since at least 1978. DOT's District Engineer, Alan Potter, was the DOT employee ultimately responsible for selecting the heads of the Acquisition and Relocation sections. Mr. Potter concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be placed in charge of the Relocation section, based upon his belief that it was the most important job involved in right-of-way acquisition, and that it required a very thorough and cautious person. Based upon Mr. Potter's evaluation of Petitioner as possessed of high ability, and being very mature and compassionate, Petitioner was placed in charge of the Relocation section. At the time Petitioner was named as head of Relocation and Mr. Walls was placed as head of Acquisition, the two positions were both classified as Right-of-Way Specialist II's, pay grade 22. Later both were reclassified as Right-of-Way Administrator I's, at pay grade 23. The record in this cause establishes that neither position was more prestigious" than the other, or that either position placed the individual holding it in a more favorable posture for promotion or advancement. Subsequently, in the summer of 1981, the reorganization of DOT was completed, with Mr. Walls having been appointed head of Acquisition, with approximately six subordinates. Petitioner became responsible for Relocation, and shared the supervision of a clerical employee with the head of Property Management. After reorganization, Mr. Alfes relocated Petitioner's office in another building 100 feet away from the main office. Petitioner's office was initially located in a passageway and, as a result, Petitioner was required several times a day to make trips to the main building to obtain files necessary to complete his work. In August of 1983, prior to final hearing in this cause, Mr. Alfes retired, and Petitioner's office was relocated in a more spacious office close to the Acquisition section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the petition for relief, and denying the relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of May, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, 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 23rd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: BEN R. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 4289 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32315 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 JEAN OWEN, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS WOODCREST OFFICE CENTER 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD SUITE 240, BUILDING F TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 DONALD A. GRIFFIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Petitioner is a thirty-one (31) year old male who has been a diabetic for approximately twenty-five (25) years and during this time has always taken his insulin as prescribed. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a Correctional Officer 1 (Recreational) and assigned to work at the Florida Correctional Institution at Lowell, Florida (FCI). Petitioner began his employment with Respondent effective April 22, 1985. FCI is a facility for housing female felony offenders who require minimum to close security. The grounds of FCI consist of approximately eight hundred (800) acres, of which one hundred (100) acres is within the compound. FCI houses approximately six hundred seventy-five (675) inmates. FCI has a staff of two hundred twenty (220) employees, however, on weekends and on the 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift, as few as eighteen (18) staff members may be on duty. Petitioner was responsible for maintaining the care, custody and control of the inmates involved in recreational activities and his duties would require his response to emergency situations to prevent escape or suppress inmate disorders. Petitioner advised Respondent prior to being hired that he was diabetic but that his diabetes was kept well under control and presented no problem and that he had sight in only one (1) eye. From February 27, 1984, until Petitioner moved to Florida in April, 1985, Petitioner was being treated for his diabetes in West Virginia by Dr. John P. Griffiths. During this period, Petitioner consulted Dr. Griffiths regarding "blackouts". Although Dr. Griffiths mentioned Petitioner's "kidney problem", he did not diagnose the "kidney problem" as being the potential cause of the Petitioner's "blackouts" and did not suggest a way for Petitioner to avoid having these "blackouts" in the future. Petitioner suffered several "blackouts" while living in West Virginia before accepting employment with Respondent, the last one being approximately a year before moving to Florida. These "blackouts" resulted in Petitioner being taken to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Petitioner did not make Respondent aware of these "blackouts" at the time he applied and was accepted for employment by the Respondent. At the beginning of his employment, Petitioner was required to have a complete physical examination which was administered by Dr. A. Rodriquez, Chief Medical Officer, FCI, and his staff. Among the tests administered was a urinalysis which revealed an abnormal level of protein in the urine. Being concerned over the level of protein in Petitioner's urine, Dr. Rodriquez requested Lester Dinkins, Personnel Manager, FCI, to advise Petitioner to see a private physician in this regard. About a week later, Petitioner consulted Dr. Rodriquez who explained the test results and advised Petitioner to see a nephrologist (kidney specialist). On May 2, 1985, Petitioner was examined by Dr. James J. Mahoney, private physician in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Mahoney did not discuss a possible "kidney problem" or tell Petitioner why there was excess protein in his urine. Dr. Mahoney recommended that Petitioner continue on his blood pressure medication, have his blood pressure checked once a day so that medication adjustments could be made as needed, to see an opthamologist, and to keep check on his diabetes. FCI does not provide non-emergency health care for staff, therefore, Petitioner was unable to get his blood pressure checked by the FCI medical staff and did not get it checked by any outside private facility. Petitioner scheduled a second appointment with Dr. Mahoney which was rescheduled by Dr. Mahoney for a later date. Petitioner was dismissed by Respondent before the second appointment and, therefore, he did not keep the second appointment. On May 3, 1985, the day after Petitioner was examined by Dr. Mahoney, he suffered his first "blackout" while on the job. Petitioner was taken to the emergency room at Monroe Regional Medical Center where the medical personnel raised his glucose level and restored him to consciousness. After Petitioner regained consciousness he refused any further medical treatment. When Petitioner returned to FCI after his first "blackout", he was told to take Saturday and Sunday off and report to work on Monday. On Monday, Petitioner assured George Denman, Superintendent of FCI, that he could and would prevent another "blackout". Although Mr. Denman was concerned about Petitioner's ability to discharge his duties properly, he nevertheless allowed Petitioner to return to work on Petitioner's assurance that he could control the "blackouts". On May 9, 1985, Dr. Mahoney advised Respondent by letter that Petitioner's present condition should not interfere with his employment if Petitioner followed Dr. Mahoney's recommendations set out in Finding of Fact 10. There is sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner did not follow Dr. Mahoney's advice. Petitioner "blacked out" again on May 18, 1985, while he was preparing for a softball game between inmates of FCI and another institution. Petitioner was transported to the FCI infirmary and from there to Harold's Clinic and from there to another hospital. This "blackout" occurred on a Saturday when a staff of approximately eighteen (18) employees were on duty at FCI. Petitioner had keys to various parts of the institution in his possession at this time. Once Petitioner was stabilized after the "blackout", he was instructed to take Sunday off and report in on Monday. On Monday, he reported first to Lester Dinkins and then to Mr. Denman who informed him that he would be dismissed on Friday, May 24, 1986 because of Petitioner's inability to perform his duty to maintain proper care, custody and control of the inmates which placed the security of the institution in jeopardy. The prison superintendent is authorized to allow employees up to three (3) weeks leave without pay under extenuating circumstances, however, for a "brand new" employee, such as Petitioner, it would be exceptional. Leave without pay was not offered to Petitioner at any time before his dismissal to seek help with the problem of "blackouts" because Petitioner assured Mr. Denman that he had his problem under control. Additionally, Petitioner did not request any time off to seek help with his problem of "blackouts". Although Petitioner thought his "blackouts" were related to a serious automobile accident that he was involved in during 1972, there was no medical evidence introduced at the hearing to support Petitioner's theory. At the time Petitioner was dismissed, both parties were aware of Petitioner's kidney problem, but neither knew the exact cause or if the kidney problem was related to the "blackouts" or to the diabetes. Although Petitioner would have accepted other alternatives to dismissal, Respondent had no job openings for which Petitioner qualified for at the time. Lester Dinkins did inquire with other agencies and found a job as a Recreational Therapist with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the Gulf Coast Center in Ft. Myers, Florida. Petitioner rejected that job on the basis of being unable to cope with the emotional stress of working with mentally and physically handicapped individuals, and that by moving he would lose Dr. Donald Mars as his primary care physician. In June, 1985, Dr. Mars, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Shands Teaching Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, diagnosed the cause of Petitioner's "blackouts" as the result of Petitioner's continued use of insulin adversely affecting his kidneys so that protein was being excreted with Petitioner's urine instead of being used by his body which caused episodes of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and, since corrective measures were not taken by Petitioner, "blackouts" resulted. A diabetic can take a measurement of the glucose (sugar) level in his body by using the "finger stick" test. This test can be performed in approximately two (2) minutes, and if there is an indication of a low level of glucose, the diabetic can correct the condition by eating some form of carbohydrate, such as bread or pastry, for quick energy. A diabetic can avoid "blackout's" by performing the required number of "finger stick" tests each day and properly responding to the results. In Petitioner's case, it would require two (2) to four (4) tests each day which could be performed on the job. There are other diabetics on the staff at FCI. Petitioner's job performance, other than during the time of the "blackouts", was satisfactory. Petitioner's "blackouts" put the security of FCI in jeopardy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition For Relief filed by the Petitioner, Stephen Retton. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0975 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Findings of Fact 1 and 2 covered in background material. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6.-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 8.-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 16.-18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 19.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 22. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 23.-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 25. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 26.-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 29.-32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 35.-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 37. 38. Rejected as not comporting evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact to the substantial 15. competent 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as modified. 41.-47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 48.-52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 53. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 54.-56. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 23. 8.-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 15. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas R. Williams, Esquire 359 N.E. First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie L. Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 3230 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact After the motion for continuance was again denied, petitioners declined to offer any evidence and petitioners announced that they would be pursuing certain supposed federal remedies.
Findings Of Fact At the final hearing the following factual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint were either stipulated to by the parties or not disputed by the Petitioner: The Respondent John W. Rohrback is a certified general contractor having been issued license numbers CC C002372, CG CA 02372, PM 0015083 and RF 0036563. The last known address of the Respondent Rohrback is 10282 N.W. 31st Street, Coral Springs, Florida 33065. The Respondent Rohrback, while doing business as Statewide Insulation and Solar Systems, Inc., failed to initially obtain building permits which are required by ordinance on the following job sites: Mrs. Blanche Nelson, 454 N.E. 4th Street, Boca Raton. Mrs. Dorothy Menzel, 784 N.E. 71st, Lot 27, Block C, Boca Harbor. Work started May 17, 1980. Permit taken out on May 19, 1980. Mrs. Meinhard, 1230 S.W. 7th Street, Lot 6, Block 29, Boca Raton Square. Work started on May 7, 1980. Permit taken out on May 19, 1980. Ms. Mary Greenhauer, 986 S.W. 14th Street, Lot 20, Block 63, Boca Raton Square. Work started on May 3, 1980. Permit issued on May 19, 1980. Although the Respondent Rohrback eventually received the permits for these projects, he also initially failed to obtain a license to do contracting in the City of Boca Raton as required by ordinance. On or about August 11, 1980, the City of Boca Raton Contractor's Board suspended the Respondent Rohrback indefinitely from doing business in the city for: using alternate materials and methods without clearance; not obtaining building permit; not filing a proper permit; and not filing proper proof of a certificate of competency. At the time of the hearing before the local contractor's board, the Respondent Rohrback had settled and obtained releases with two of the listed individuals. He was told to settle the remaining two cases, obtain releases and appear before the local Board at a later date. The Respondent appeared on the designated date and discovered that the Board had met the previous day and suspended his license. The Respondent Rohrback contacted the Boca Raton city attorney and a representative of the Department to present the signed releases and cancelled checks he eventually obtained from the four listed individuals in order to obtain a reversal of the local Board's action suspending his license. At the time of hearing, the Respondent had been unsuccessful in obtaining a reversal of the Board's decision. Additionally, the Respondent Rohrback acted as qualifying agent for D.R.K. Company from July 1, 1979 through February 1981. During this period of time, D.R.K. utilized deceptive practices in order to obtain contracts from various individuals. By certified letter dated June 12, 1980, the Respondent informed D.R.K. and pertinent licensing boards that he was withdrawing as qualifying agent for D.R.K. and Statewide Insulation and Solar Systems, Inc., and revoking any presigned permits or letters of authorization that may have been signed by John W. Rohrback. However, the Respondent did not actually attempt to revoke his authorization until October 28, 1980, when a letter was sent to Milton Rubin, administrative assistant to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, outlining the problems he had encountered with D.R.K. and Statewide. On or about February 19, 1981, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners suspended the Respondent Rohrback's privilege to pull building permits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent John W. Rohrback in Case No. 82-2616. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 John W. Rohrback 10282 Northwest 31st Street Coral Springs, Florida 33065 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On October 23, 1978, Petitioner was hired as secretary to W. J. Crist, president of Hygroponics, Inc. On February 26, 1979, W. J. Crist evaluated Petitioner's overall job performance as "good." With respect to cooperation, the Petitioner was rated in the category of "cooperates very well," the highest rating possible for that category of performance. With respect to job knowledge, she was rated as showing "unusual capacity," also the highest rating possible for that category of performance. On March 5, 1979, Petitioner received an increase in salary from $4.18 per hour to $4.51 per hour, based in part upon her increased responsibilities and in part upon demonstrated merit. Following is Hygroponics, Inc.'s office staff organization chart dated May 2, 1979: HYGROPONICS, INC. OFFICE STAFF ORGANIZATION CHART | President | /| W. J. Crist |\ / | | \ / | \ \ \ | Purch. Agent | | Controller | \ | Technical Service | | Dick Destival | | James Jobe |" \ | Dick Jeffery | | | | | "" \ | | " / | | " "\ | " / | | " \" | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | "\ "| | Marsha | | Liz | | Nell | | Arlene | | Carolyn | | Betsy | | | | | | | | | | | | | /|\ Direct lines of authority. Answerable to this person at all times " Indirect lines of authority. Answerable for secondary duties and when direct lines are not available. The above organizational chart does not include the company's chief executive officer. On occasion, members of the company's secretarial staff went directly to the chief executive officer with employment-related problems. In September, 1979, after James Jobe, the controller referenced in the above chart, left the company's employ, W. J. Crist, the company president, advised Petitioner that she was to become office manager. After that time, Petitioner assumed many of the duties of office manager. Petitioner inquired when she would receive a raise commensurate with her increased responsibilities, and was advised that this would be accomplished after the company hired a new controller. Emmett Singleton was hired to fill the position of controller on October 29, 1979. On December 11, 1979, Petitioner formally became acting office manager. On that date Petitioner was evaluated by Emmett Singleton, who rated Petitioner highest in the areas of decision-making and ability to organize, and lowest in the areas of acceptability and responsibility. Specifically, Singleton made the following comments concerning Petitioner's job performance: "Has difficulty in establishing satisfactory relationships with people"; "Average leader, conventional in manner and enthusiasm, conveys ideas but does not motivate group"; "Has problem with admitting an error or fault"; "Reluctant to accept job responsibilities. Supervision and follow-up often required"; "Considers job an eight to five task with scheduled breaks reguardless [sic] of status of workload"; "Employee is preoccupied with the position rather than a concern for getting the job done"; and, "Employee resents being monitored or controlled. Sometimes uncooperative and slow to respond to direction." In addition, members of the company management group, other than Emmett Singleton, commented on this evaluation that Petitioner "alienates co-workers," "Has experienced confusion in the scheduling of grower school," and expressed concern with Petitioner's "attitude." The controller noted on the evaluation form that he planned ". . .to work closely with [Petitioner] for the next 60 days and make an assessment during this time as to whether on [sic] not suited for office manager." Finally, Mr. Singleton noted on Petitioner's performance review form that Petitioner ". . .is classified as Acting Office Manager and is on probation with reguard[sic] to classification. No change in rate of pay is being made at this time. Employee will be reevaluated in 60 days on or about 2/10/80." In order to improve her skills in the area of acceptability and responsibility, Petitioner requested that Mr. Singleton issue a memorandum clarifying the lines of her authority especially since her subordinates had not been advised that she had been given supervisory responsibility over them. Her request was denied at that time because Singleton wanted to first determine whether she could handle the position. On January 12, 1980, Singleton reevaluated Petitioner's job performance. According to Singleton's rating, Petitioner had improved in the areas of acceptability and responsibility, which had been her weak points in the evaluation performed one month earlier. On this same day, Petitioner was reclassified from acting office manager to office manager, and received an increase in pay to $821.60 per month, retroactive to November 1, 1979. Petitioner also assumed the duties of payroll clerk and accounts payable in addition to the duties of office manager. Shortly after receiving this promotion, Petitioner advised employees of Hygroponics, Inc., that she was pregnant. W. J. Crist and Emmett Singleton acknowledged her pregnancy, and the latter inquired concerning her intentions regarding her employment. Petitioner responded that she intended to continue working for the company, and to return to work after the birth of her child. Hygroponics, Inc., had no maternity leave policy. No other female employee had ever given notice of pregnancy and stated her intention to return to work following childbirth. However, at least two other employees had become pregnant during the term of their employment with Hygroponics, Inc. One of these employees, in fact, suffered two miscarriages during her term of employment, and continued working with the company. Another female worker became pregnant, gave birth to a child, and returned to work without ever advising the company or the company ever being aware that she had been pregnant until after she had returned to work. On January 30, 1980, Petitioner submitted a memorandum to Eugene Crist, the company's chief executive officer. The memorandum suggested changes regarding the responsibilities of certain of the office personnel under her supervision. Petitioner had previously discussed these suggested changes with Emmett Singleton, her immediate supervisor, who advised her that he thought her suggestions were a good idea. At the time the memorandum was submitted to the company's chief executive officer, W. J. Crist, the president of the company, was out of the state. On January 30, 1980, Eugene Crist showed the memorandum to Emmett Singleton. The memorandum was then returned to Petitioner by the company's chief executive officer with a notation that the matters contained in the memorandum should be handled through Singleton. Two days later, on February 1, 1980, Singleton asked Petitioner for the memorandum. When Petitioner could not locate the memorandum, and offered to discuss the details of it with Singleton, Singleton advised her that there was no basis for conversation if she could not produce the memorandum. As noted above, Singleton had seen and read the memorandum two days previously when it was shown to him by Eugene Crist. Upon W. J. Crist's return to Florida, Singleton advised him that Petitioner had submitted a memorandum directly to the company's chief executive officer, and that when Singleton asked Petitioner to see the memorandum, she advised him that she had misplaced it. On February 8, 1980, W. J. Crist circulated a memorandum to the Hygroponics, Inc., executive staff concerning Petitioner's ". . .insubordination, poor attitude [and] defiance of executive orders. This memorandum provided, in part, as follows: It is my understanding that Carolyn recently drafted a memorandum on her proposed changes in office duties for many people, changes in accounting procedures, etc. I have been informed that she: "by-passed you, her immediate superior and by-passed me, her next-in-line superior." and delivered this memo directly to Gene, our CEO. Then when Gene informed her to "discuss the memo directly with you," she advised you "she did not even have the memo anymore." I find these actions, on Carolyn's part very distressing and feel we must take disciplinary actions with her. So - what are the problems. Her "uncooperative" and "attitude" problems outlined in your personnel evaluation of her on December 11, 1979 (which she acknowledged) when you put her "on probation," the first time, still persist. She demonstrated anything but teamwork in by-passing her two immediate superiors and going directly to our CEO. This is very bad for an employee to do but even worse for her since she is suppose [sic] to be a leader of our people in her slot as Office Manager. Her disregarding Gene's directive to discuss the memo with you was corrected only by your insistance[sic] that the two of you discuss it. Her statement to you that "she no longer had the memo" is also distressing. Has she destroyed it? This additional negative certainly weakens her argument that "she went directly to Gene because he was going out.[sic] (Original emphasis.) The above-referenced memorandum solicited the views of the company's executive staff as to whether to terminate Petitioner, discipline her in some fashion, or give her an opportunity to resign. The decision was unanimous among all five members of the executive staff to terminate Petitioner. No member of the executive staff questioned Petitioner before concurring in the decision to discharge her. Such a memorandum of concurrence was not the company's standard practice in discharging employees, which generally was for the discharge decision to be made by the employee's supervisor alone. Hygroponics, Inc., was, at all times material to this proceeding, a rather small organization, numbering at the most approximately fifty employees. As a result, many of the internal functions of the company were informal in nature. For example, there were no strict lines of authority for secretarial staff to air grievances or make suggestions. There was, however, a generalized procedure for employees to approach their immediate supervisor with any employment-related problems. There is no direct substantive evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that Petitioner was terminated from her employment because she was either female or pregnant. Further, whatever circumstantial evidence there is in this record to support such a contention is overcome by Respondent's demonstration that Petitioner was at best an employee of average ability who management viewed at times to be a problem employee. It appears, therefore, that the reason for Petitioner's discharge was an accumulation of events, culminating in her memorandum of January 30, 1980, being submitted to the company chief executive officer, and not for any reason relating to her sex.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the Petition for Relief, and denying the relief requested therein, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. White, Jr., Esquire 229 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 John F. Daniel, Esquire Post Office Box 2522 Panama City, Florida 32401 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard E. Williams Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Does correspondence dated August 18, 1997, from John M. Awad, Ph.D., District Administrator for District II, State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services, directed to Theodore R. Buri, Jr., Regional Director, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO, identify Respondent’s agency policy? If yes, is that policy a “Rule” as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996)? If a “Rule," has Respondent promulgated the policy in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996)? If the policy is a “Rule” that has not been promulgated, does a statutory basis exist for its promulgation?
Findings Of Fact The individual Petitioners are employed at the Florida State Hospital. This is a mental health facility operated by the Respondent. The individual Petitioners have contact with the clients who reside in the hospital. Because those individual Petitioners have client contact in performing their employment at the hospital, Respondent, as their employer, is responsible for screening the employees to ascertain whether those individual Petitioners have been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to certain offenses set forth in Sections 435.03 and 435.04, Florida Statutes (1995). Such a finding would disqualify the employees from working directly with the clients. The requirement for screening is in accordance with Section 110.1127(3), and Section 394.4572, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Florida Public Employees Council 79, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), represents the individual Petitioners in collective bargaining between those Petitioners and the State of Florida. Each of the individual Petitioners received notification from Robert B. Williams, Hospital Administrator, Florida State Hospital, that each person had been declared ineligible to hold a position of “special trust” based upon certain offenses attributable to the Petitioners. The basis for the disqualifications was Chapter 435, Florida Statutes (1995). This meant that the individuals could not have client contact. As a consequence, Petitioners were told, through the correspondence notifying them of their disqualifications, that they could seek exemption from disqualification and/or contest the accuracy of the records declaring their disqualifications. All Petitioners sought relief from Respondent in accordance with Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (1995), by requesting exemption from disqualification before the Respondent. Bobby Jones, Clarence Cornell Simmons, Freddie Lee, and Frank Lawrence Dickens were denied exemption. Whether those Petitioners have contested the preliminary decision by Respondent denying their exemption through hearing procedures set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes is not known. The other Petitioners were granted exemption from disqualification by action of the Respondent. Before Respondent made its preliminary determination on eligibility, on August 13, 1997, Theodore R. Buri, Jr., Regional Director of AFSCME Florida Council 79, wrote to Dr. John Awad, District Administrator, District II, Department of Children and Family Services. The purpose of the letter concerned the disqualification of the individual Petitioners to continue work in positions of “special trust” by having contact with clients at Florida State Hospital. That correspondence stated: The above referenced employees have been previously notified of disqualification, allegedly under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. These employees have notified Council 79, through their local union, that they are scheduled for a hearing on a possible exemption from the provisions of Chapter 435 on August 27, 1997. I have reviewed the documents of these individuals and I have found, without exception, that the charges which served as the basis of potential disqualification all occurred prior to October 1, 1995. As I am sure you are aware the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until October 1, 1995. Further, the notations are consistent throughout Chapter 435, indicating that the provisions of Chapter 435 shall apply only to offenses committed subsequent to October 1, 1995. It appears that these, and other, employees are being improperly required by the Department to defend themselves against provisions of Florida Statutes which do not apply to them. I wish you would immediately review this concern with your legal department and direct Florida State Hospital to immediately make the affected employees whole and to terminate the pending actions against these employees. Your prompt attention in this matter is very much appreciated. On August 18, 1997, Dr. Awad responded to Mr. Buri’s inquiry through correspondence, in which Dr. Awad stated: The concerns expressed in your letter dated August 13, 1997, concerning background screenings were reviewed approximately a year and a half ago by an agency statewide workgroup, which included several background screening coordinators, District Legal Counsels, and attorneys from the General Counsel’s office. The legal research from that group resulted in the issuance of Agency policy addressing this and other statewide issues. In response to a question similar to that raised in your letter, Agency policy is that although Section 64 of Chapter 95-228, Laws of Florida, states that “this act shall take effect October 1, 1995, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date,” it applies only to the new criminal offense of “Luring or enticing a child” created by Section 1 of the law and does not apply to screening provisions. Therefore, in accordance with established principals [sic] of statutory construction, a person being rescreened after 10-1-95, must meet the requirements of the law in effect as of the date of the rescreening, which includes the broadened offenses, just as a new job applicant must meet such requirements. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, you may wish to have your attorney discuss this with the Agency’s General Counsel. The exemption hearings before Respondent were held on August 27, 1997, leading to the grant of exemptions for some Petitioners, and denial for others. Through their Petition to determine the invalidity of a “Rule," Petitioners allege and request the following relief: Although Chapter 435 of the Laws of Florida concerning employment screening specifically states that it applies to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995, the Respondent applies employment screening to all employees and to all offenses regardless of the date of the offense. The Respondent articulated this policy of application in correspondence addressed to Theodore R. Buri from John Awad dated August 18, 1997,. . . The Respondent’s policy, as more fully described above, is a 'Rule' within the meaning of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, because it is an 'agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of the agency.' Id. This rule should be declared an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the following reasons: The above described rule has not been adopted in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes; The Respondent has no statutory or rule authority to adopt the above described rule as applied to offenses predating October 1, 1995, thus the rule violates Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The rule imposes a civil penalty against the individually named Petitioners for which there is no specific statutory authority. The rule is arbitrary and capricious as applied to offenses predating October 1, 1995, and thus violates Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The rule adversely affects the Petitioners' substantial interest in continued employment in a position of 'special trust.' The rule is an unconstitutional impairment of the contract of employment. It unfairly burdens the Petitioners and others similarly situated with the duty to timely request and prove by clear and convincing evidence that [sic] either an entitlement to an exemption from disqualification or that the records are inaccurate. It is an oppressive and unreasonable condition of employment. As a penalty attached to an offense committed prior to October 1, 1995, the Rule is unlawful as an ex post facto law. The immediate removal from a position of trust before an employee may be heard denies the employee due process. The rule attacks a protected property and liberty interest of the individually named Petitioners and those similarly situated. The Agency’s actions against the Petitioners based on the Rule stigmatizes the employee. Petitioners also request that they be granted costs and attorneys fees pursuant to Section 120.595(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Chapter 95-228, Laws of Florida, referred to by Dr. Awad in his August 18, 1997, correspondence to Mr. Buri, created Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's allegation of subjection to an unlawful employment practice is barred by Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by Respondent until her termination on November 15, 1996. Petitioner discussed the firing with her attorney in January of 1997. Petitioner was apprised by the attorney that she could file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Prior to August of 1997, Petitioner's attorney informed her that he had filed a Charge of Discrimination on behalf of Petitioner with the EEOC. Petitioner was led to understand that an investigator for EEOC would contact her. Petitioner was never contacted by the EEOC. On April 14, 2000, Petitioner received a notice from her attorney that apprised Petitioner that the attorney had been suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court for a period of 10 days. Later in either May or June, Petitioner read a newspaper article that recounted the suspension of Petitioner's attorney from the practice of law. Petitioner then determined to consult her present counsel in this matter, David Glasser, Esquire, to handle the charge she believed had been filed with the EEOC. Petitioner learned through Glasser that her previous counsel had not filed a complaint or charge with the EEOC. On July 10, 2000, Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR. Petitioner has neither filed a complaint with the Florida Bar Association or filed a legal malpractice suit against her previous counsel.
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 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 David Glasser, Esquire Glasser and Handel 150 South Palmetto Avenue Suite 100, Box N Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Douglas Kreuzkamp, Esquire American Red Cross Blood Services King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1763 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, David Costa Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s (“Costa Enterprises”), discriminated against Petitioner, Labrentae B. Claybrone, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Claybrone is an African-American male, approximately 25 years of age. He resides in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, with his mother. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Claybrone was working at one or another of the 21 McDonald’s restaurants operated by Costa Enterprises. Mr. Claybrone presents as a somewhat effeminate person, with braided, colored hair, earrings, polished fingernails, etc. He admits to being either gay or bisexual despite being married to-–but not living with-–a woman. In his Petition for Relief filed at FCHR, Mr. Claybrone refers to humiliation being imposed on him due to his “transgender and sexual orientation.” In March 2015, Mr. Claybrone was hired as a shift worker at the McDonald’s restaurant located inside the WalMart in Destin, Florida (hereinafter the “WalMart McDonald’s”). He had been hired by the general manager of that store, Ligaya Mumford. Mr. Claybrone did not at any time discuss his sexual orientation with his employer or other store personnel. On or around April 28, 2015, Mr. Claybrone thought he heard the general manager, Mrs. Mumford, refer to him as “ma’am.” He said that Mrs. Mumford also made comments about the way he walked and talked and that he reminded her of a female. Mrs. Mumford, whose testimony under oath at final hearing was entirely credible, denies making any such comments to Mr. Claybrone. Rather, Mrs. Mumford remembers talking to a young female employee on that day as they stood at the grill in the restaurant. The young lady was very respectful and always called Mrs. Mumford “ma’am,” so Mrs. Mumford had responded to the employee in kind, calling her “ma’am” as well. Mrs. Mumford believes Mr. Claybrone mistakenly believed she was referring to him when in fact she was not. As to the other comments Mr. Claybrone testified about, Mrs. Mumford categorically denied making them at all. When Mr. Claybrone went home that night and told his mother what he thought had happened, his mother insisted he complain about the comments. Mr. Claybrone says that his mother immediately called Roza Atanasova, general manager of the WalMart McDonald’s and another store known as the Destin McDonald’s. By virtue of her position as general manager, Ms. Atanasova was Mrs. Mumford’s supervisor. Ellie Montero, shift manager at the Destin McDonald’s, later notified Mrs. Mumford that Mr. Claybrone’s mother had called Ms. Atanasova with a complaint. Mrs. Mumford attempted to call Mr. Claybrone and sent him texts asking Mr. Claybrone to call her. He intentionally ignored the calls and texts because he did not want to talk to Mrs. Mumford. When Mr. Claybrone came to work for his next assigned shift, Mrs. Mumford apologized to him for the comment he (thought he) had heard. According to Mrs. Mumford, Mr. Claybrone was a good employee and never gave anyone trouble. He was kind to the customers and worked hard. She had absolutely no problem with Mr. Claybrone being one of her shift workers. Mrs. Mumford is one of Costa Enterprises’ most dependable, respected, and admired workers. She has received numerous citations and awards relating to her work ethics and skills. She is known to help employees in need, lending them her car, loaning money, and providing other assistance. Within a week after the misunderstanding with Mrs. Mumford, Mr. Claybrone heard that another co-employee, Ken Hislop, had mentioned to a fellow worker that he (Hislop) was surprised to hear that Mr. Claybrone had a child because Mr. Hislop presumed Mr. Claybrone was gay. Mr. Hislop cannot fully remember making the comment, but he meant nothing negative about Mr. Claybrone, it was just an observation. When he was advised that Mr. Claybrone was offended, Mr. Hislop offered an apology. He did not feel like the apology was accepted by Mr. Claybrone. Mr. Claybrone did not feel like the apology was sincere. Mr. Claybrone said that he was uncomfortable working with Mrs. Mumford and Mr. Hislop after the alleged slurs. At some point, it was mutually agreed by Mr. Claybrone and Costa Enterprises that Mr. Claybrone would be transferred to a different store, the Destin McDonald’s. Mr. Claybrone was transferred to the Destin McDonald’s and was, at first, a dependable worker. Then he began to be tardy and to miss his shifts, even though the Destin McDonald’s was closer to his home than the WalMart McDonald’s had been. After a while, Mr. Claybrone’s supervisor reduced his weekly hours in an effort to motivate him to do better about his attendance. Mr. Claybrone took offense to the reduction in hours and, after clocking in one day, immediately clocked out, left the store as he cursed loudly, and did not return. Mr. Claybrone effectively abandoned his position. Meanwhile, Mr. Claybrone filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which ultimately led to the instant action at DOAH. Mr. Claybrone admitted that the alleged discriminatory events all transpired within a few days, no longer than a week in duration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Costa Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s, did not discriminate against Labrentae B. Claybrone. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2016, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). Lloyd A. Perry was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Dana E. Pratt was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Prior to February 17, 1976, Lloyd A. Perry was employed by the Citrus County Road Department for a period of over four years. Immediately prior to the time that his employment was terminated, Perry was a roller operator. Except for rare occasions when he performed work as a flagman, or other work in conjunction with his roller work, Perry operated a tandem road roller. For the several months prior to February, 1976, Perry had continuously operated the same roller machine. Prior to February, 1976, none of Perry's supervisors informed him that his work was unsatisfactory, reprimanded him for performing work in an unsatisfactory manner, or indicated to him in any way that his job was in jeopardy for unsatisfactory performance of his duties. Dana E. Pratt had been employed by the Citrus County Road Department for approximately five years prior to February, 1976. For four years prior to that date he had been a motor grader operator. Pratt had annually received formal evaluations and his evaluations had always been very good. Prior to February, 1976, Pratt had never been criticized for below average or unsatisfactory work. He had never received any written reprimand for unsatisfactory performance on the job. From approximately December, 1973 until February, 1976, Perry had operated the newest grader machine in use by the Citrus County Road Department. No one else had operated the machine since it was acquired by the Citrus County Road Department. During February, 1976, Thomas Hutchinson was the Citrus County Road Superintendent. William Hitt was thee Assistant Road Superintendent. Hutchinson and Hitt served under the direction of the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners. Perry, Pratt, and numerous other employees of the Citrus County Road Department had, prior to February, 1976, become dissatisfied with conditions in the Road Department, primarily the manner of direction given the department by Hutchinson and Hitt. On Sunday, February 8, 1976, Perry drafted a petition specifying numerous grievances against Hutchinson and Hitt. It was his intention to secure the signatures of employees of the Road Department on the petition, and to present it to the Board of County Commissioners. Perry sought the assistance of County Commissioner DeBusk in drafting the petition. DeBusk offered several suggestions and his daughter typed the petition for Perry. Perry secured six or seven signatures on that Sunday. He was the first person to sign the petition, and Dana Pratt was the third. On Monday, February 9, Pratt informed his office that he had business to attend to and would not be at work that day. He did not claim sick leave for the time he missed. Prior to work and during the lunch hour he called as many employees of the Road Department as he could. After working hours he waited at a business establishment called the "Country Store" which was located in close proximity to the place where Road Department employees checked out of work. Forty-six employees of the Road Department signed the petition. Dana Pratt assisted in soliciting people to sign the petition. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that those persons signing the petition did so other than freely and voluntarily. On Tuesday, February 10, 1976, Perry called his supervisor, Mr. Hutchinson, and told him that he had business to attend to. Hutchinson asked him if he was going to solicit more signatures. Perry told him that he was not. The Board of County Commissioners was meeting on that date, and Perry presented the petition to the Board. Members of the Board discussed the petition at length during the meeting. One commissioner asked Perry if he was big enough to go back to work and forget about the matter. Perry said that he was. On February 11, 1976 Perry returned to work at the regular time. Rather than being assigned to his regular duty as a roller operator, he was assigned to flag traffic for a grader operator. He continued in that capacity until Tuesday, February 17. On that date, at approximately 11:00 or 11:30 A.M. Tom Morton, the grader foreman, informed Perry that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Both Morton and William Hitt told Perry that they did not know why he was fired. Dana Pratt attended the County Commission meeting on February 10. He was asked about whether he threatened a Road Department employee named Langley with respect to signing the petition. Pratt told the County Commission that he did not threaten Langley, and no evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that he did. On February 12, 1976, Pratt used the new grader machine that he had been using for some time prior thereto. At the end of that day his supervisors informed him that he would be using the oldest machine in the Department thereafter. He began using it on February 13. It took some time to get it started on that date. It also took some time to get it started on Monday, February 16. This was an old machine, and had been difficult to start for some years prior to the time that it was assigned to Pratt. At 12:30 on February 17, 1976, Tom Morton informed Pratt that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Pratt was never given any reasons for his termination. On February 17, 1976, the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners acted to terminate the employment of Perry and Pratt. These actions were taken upon the recommendation of Mr. Hutchinson. Ostensibly the reason for Pratt's termination was that he had marked out on sick leave on a day when he was not sick. Ostensibly the reason for Perry's termination was that he had been missing from the job for approximately an hour. The evidence would not support a finding that Perry and Pratt were fired for these reasons. These reasons offered by Hutchinson, and followed by the Board of County Commissioners, were used as a ruse. On February 18, 1976, the day after Pratt and Perry were fired, Hutchinson called a meeting of all employees of the Road Department. Hutchinson told the employees that he had nothing to do with the termination, but he also told them that he would tolerate no more petitions and that if anyone did not like working conditions at the Road Department they could leave. He said that he had four County Commissioners in his pocket, and he reminded the employees that unemployment in Citrus County was high. He told the employees that he would take care of any petitions they distributed. During the week the petition was distributed, Hutchinson told one employee of the Road Department, James Johnson, that Johnson could be put in jail for signing the petition. During that same week he told his assistant superintendent, William Hitt, that all of the men who signed the petition had to go. After Perry and Pratt were fired, Hutchinson told Hitt that he got two, and he would get the rest. The basis for Hutchinson's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that Perry and Pratt be terminated was the fact that they participated in the distribution of the petition, and presenting it to the Board of County Commissioners. There was no evidence offerred at the hearing to indicate that any members of the Board of County Commissioners knew Hutchinson was presenting false reasons for the terminations; however, they did act to adopt the recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners did know that Pratt and Perry were among the leaders in distributing the petition highly critical of Hutchinson's work, and was clearly on notice that Hutchinson may have ulterior motives in recommending their dismissal.
