The Issue Whether or not Respondent, Seminole County Public Schools, discriminated against Petitioner, Juanita O. Jones, in employment by reason of race, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, and documentary evidence, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a black female, who has been employed by Respondent since 1991. She has served Respondent as an Executive Secretary, Elementary Education; Executive Secretary to the Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent; and a Technical Assistant, Media Center, Sanford Middle School. Prior to her employment by Respondent, Petitioner was employed as a word processing systems operator by the Florida Department of Corrections. In late 1999 or early 2000, Petitioner applied for the advertised position of Specialist, Applications Software. Respondent had advertised three separate Specialist, Applications Software, position vacancies during a two-month period. Although interviewed for the vacancies for the first two positions, Petitioner was not selected for the first two advertised vacancies. Petitioner does not contend that her non- selection for the first two positions was a result of unlawful discrimination. Applicants for the three Specialist, Applications Software, positions were interviewed by a two-person panel: Regina Klaers and John Davis. Ms. Klaers is Supervisor, Student Support; Mr. Davis is Manager, Student Support and Information Services. These individuals supervised the Specialist, Applications Software, position and were intimately familiar with the job requirements. Thirteen individuals applied for the third Specialist, Applications Software, position. Of the thirteen, ten met the minimum qualifications. Three applicants were interviewed. Applicants who had been previously interviewed, Petitioner among them, were not interviewed an additional time as the interviewers felt they had sufficient knowledge from the previous interviews. Petitioner had been interviewed twice previously. The interviews focused on three areas: (1) school- based experience with student data; (2) customer service experience; and (3) "people skills." These were critical areas for the position. The interviews were particularly important in assessing an applicant's "people skills." It was the opinion of the interviewers that one applicant's qualifications in these critical areas exceeded the other applicants', including Petitioner's. Based on the interviews, Elizabeth Jean Smith, a white female, was selected for the position. Ms. Smith had significantly greater school-based "data-entry" experience with the student data systems, WANG and SASI, than did Petitioner. Immediately prior to being selected for the position in question, Ms. Smith's position was Clerk/Receptionist-Customer Service. Both interviewers agreed that Ms. Smith demonstrated better "people skills." Credible evidence supported the selection of Ms. Smith based on her extensive school-based experience with student data systems and her customer service experience. While "people skills" are less empirically quantifiable than the other critical areas of the interviewers' focus, nothing revealed during the final hearing led the undersigned to believe that Petitioner had better "people skills" than did the individual selected for the position. Respondent selected Elizabeth Jean Smith for the Specialist, Applications Software, position because she was more qualified for the position than other applicants, including Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Alberto E. Lugo-Janer, Esquire 3501 West Vine Street, Suite 281 Kissimmee, Florida 34741-4673 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 22A- 13.002(2), (3), and (4), Florida Administrative Code, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final hearing in this case was consolidated, for purposes of hearing only, with the final hearing in two related cases; namely, Case Nos. 87-5321 and 87-5437. At the final hearing all parties presented testimony and the Petitioner also offered six exhibits, all of which were received without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties agreed to a ten-day deadline for the filing of proposed orders. All parties have filed proposed orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order and specific rulings on all proposed findings are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this final order.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mr. Parsons, is employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") as an "Assistant Mental Health Hospital Administrator." He is a career Service employee of the State of Florida. By memorandum dated October 23, 1987, Mr. Parsons submitted a "Notice Of Intent To Run For Local Political Office." The memorandum was directed to Mr. Parsons' supervisor, Mr. Britton D. Dennis. The memorandum sought approval from DHRS and from the Department of Administration ("DOA"), described the nature of the political office Petitioner is seeking, and described the working hours of the position and the salary. In the memorandum, Mr. Parsons stated that he would not campaign on job time, and would not make use of any of the state's facilities in regard to campaign activities. He also stated his intention to request a leave of absence and that he would resign from his current position with DHRS, if elected. The District Administrator of DHRS denied Mr. Parson's request for approval to become a candidate by letter dated October 30, 1987. The Administrator stated that the request was being denied "... because your candidacy would be in violation of Chapter 22A-13.002, Personnel Rules and Regulations, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes." On October 30, 1987, Mr. Parsons' supervisor, Mr. Britton D. Dennis, indicated that he would deny the request for leave of absence because he felt that the position held by Mr. Parsons could not be vacant for an extended period of time. Mr. Parsons responded that he nonetheless desired to be a candidate for the local political office, and that he would not campaign on the job, nor use state facilities for campaign purposes. By letter dated November 5, 1987, the Secretary of DOA stated that she was unable to approve Mr. Parsons' request because it had been denied by DHRS, and because, if elected, the duties would be performed during assigned working hours. The Secretary of DOA cited DOA Rule 22A-13.002(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. This proceeding ensued. Mr. Parsons filed a petition challenging the denial of his request by DHRS, a petition challenging the denial of his request by DOA, and a petition challenging the validity of the DOA rules that had been cited in support of the denials. Mr. Parsons is seeking to stand for election to the position of County Judge in Gadsden County, Florida. The position of County Judge is a full-time position. If elected, Mr. Parsons could not continue in his employment with DHRS. He has clearly stated that if elected he would resign from his employment with DHRS. The challenged rule provisions read as follows: 22A-13.002 Statements of Policy Section 110.233(4)(a) further provides that no employee shall hold or be a candidate for public or political office while in the employment of the state unless: The employee is seeking or holding a local public office and; Such candidacy and office is authorized by the employee's agency head and approved by the Department of Administration as involving no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his/her state employment. Candidacy for or holding a local public office shall be presumed to involve an interest which conflicts with an employee's state employment when the campaign or the office, if elected, is likely to give rise to a situation in which regard for a private or local interest tends to lead to a disregard of the employee's duty as a state employee. Candidacy for or holding local public office shall be presumed to involve activities which interfere with an employee's state employment in the following instances: The office is a full-time office. Campaign or, if elected, office activities are performed during the employee's assigned working hours with the State. Campaign or, if elected, office activities will involve the use of State space, personnel, time, equipment, or supplies. In its application of the challenged rule provisions, DOA reads those provisions in conjunction with Rule 22A-13.0031, Florida Administrative Code, regarding procedures. DOA has interpreted and applied the presumptions in the challenged rule provisions as rebuttable presumptions, rather than as conclusive presumptions. On at least one prior occasion since the challenged rule provisions went into effect, the DOA and the DHRS granted approval for an employee of DHRS to become a candidate for the office of County Judge without requiring resignation from state employment.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Leatharine Leon. She has been employed by Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, for more than 13 years. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner was employed in the position of Criminal Justice Administrator. Petitioner supervised a section within the Crime Information Bureau. In October, 1988, Martha Wright, a white female, became the Bureau Chief of the Crime Information Bureau. After evaluating the needs and personnel of the Bureau, Wright consulted with other Respondent management personnel and began the implementation of organizational changes within the Bureau. On or about November 22, 1988, Wright notified Petitioner that she was to be reassigned to duties as an Administrative Assistant II. The position was specifically created to provide administrative support to the Bureau. Wright wanted Petitioner to accept the transfer voluntarily. After thinking overnight about the matter, Petitioner refused and the reassignment was made on an involuntary basis. Upon the expiration of a required 14 day notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner in the early part of December, 1988, to the administrative assistant position. Petitioner continued to enjoy her same salary and pay grade. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-238, Respondent's transfer to the Administrative Assistant II position was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. At the time of Wright's action transferring Petitioner, Wright had already determined to make other organizational changes to the Bureau. Subsequently, implementation of those changes resulted in the merger of two sections of the Bureau; the criminal history input section formerly headed by Petitioner, a black female, and the criminal history bureau section headed by a white female. The white female head of the criminal history bureau section, Judi Croney, became a unit supervisor within the new section and was given additional special projects. Iris Morgan, a senior management analyst employed in a position with a higher pay grade than that held by Petitioner, assumed Petitioner's previous supervisory duties. Further, Morgan assumed additional duties and responsibilities associated with determining the viability of the merger of the two bureau sections and then supervising the merger. Respondent's management wanted to continue a higher level manager position over the enlarged section resulting from the merger action. Wright envisioned that the new section supervisor position would require an individual adept at conceptual work, as opposed to operational management. Since she met all minimum qualifications for the position, Morgan was selected to continue as the new section head. Petitioner did not adapt well to her position as the Administrative Assistant II. She was unable to perform duties of the position in an independent fashion. Consequently, she received below satisfactory performance evaluations on March 28, 1989, May 2, 1989, June 1, 1989, and July 28, 1989. After the last unsatisfactory performance evaluation, Petitioner was demoted from the Administrative Assistant II position, a pay grade 18 position, to a technician position with a pay grade of 14. However, Petitioner's salary was not reduced and has not been reduced to date. After Petitioner was removed from the Administrative Assistant II position in July or August of 1989, the position was filled by Jerrie Bell, a black female, who is still employed in that position. Bell has performed satisfactorily in the position and has the ability to work independently without constant instruction and supervision. As a result of reorganization, supervisory positions were reduced from ten to seven positions within the Bureau. All other affected supervisors, a total of five individuals, were white. All but one of them voiced objection to Respondent's actions; however, none of the objections varied or prevented implementation of Respondent's proposed changes. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's race. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4270 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-45. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 46.-48. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 49. Adopted by reference. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq.. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Leatharine Leon 1751 Centerville Road Tallahassee, FL 32317 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department of Children and Family Services discriminated against Petitioner when it terminated her employment.
Findings Of Fact The Department agrees in its proposed recommended order that Petitioner is an African-American female. There is no evidence as to her age. Petitioner began employment with the Department on June 15, 2007, as a child protective investigator (hereinafter "CPI"). As a new employee, she was subject to the requirement that she successfully complete a probationary period of one year. CPIs receive extensive and structured training through the University of South Florida and subsequently by the Department. The training is expensive, so decisions to terminate a CPI are not made casually since the Department has invested time and revenue in training that CPI. CPIs investigate reports of possible child abuse or neglect under strict statutory deadlines to ensure the safety of at-risk children. New reports received by the Department are assigned to individual CPIs on a rotating basis, and there are schedules so employees will know who is "on rotation." From October 2007 through approximately mid-January, Petitioner was taken off rotation so as to not receive new cases and her existing caseload was distributed to other CPIs in her unit. Relieving her of her responsibilities was necessary because Petitioner was disqualified from her employment position due to a felony conviction, and it was necessary for her to obtain an exemption from that disqualification. Petitioner was successful in obtaining that exemption and was able to resume her job duties. By March 2008, it was necessary to take Petitioner off rotation again so that she could get current on her existing caseload rather than continuing to miss statutory deadlines. From that time until Petitioner was terminated from her employment as a CPI in June, it was necessary to take Petitioner off rotation for approximately one week every month so she could catch up. No other CPI has been taken off rotation due to performance deficiencies. When Petitioner was taken off her regular duties until she obtained an exemption and during each of the time periods she was taken off rotation, the other CPIs in her work unit had to absorb her caseload and all of the new cases. There was, understandably, some dissatisfaction among her co-workers who had to do her work in addition to their own. Further, Petitioner had the lowest caseload of all the CPIs in her unit. Christine Henegar, Petitioner's immediate supervisor and the person who hired her, assigned an experienced CPI to be Petitioner's mentor due to Petitioner's performance deficiencies both as to her investigations and as to her documentation. Although Petitioner was directed to meet with her mentor weekly, she did not. When her mentor attempted to assist her, Petitioner responded with resistance. Petitioner's mentor reported to Henegar frequently regarding Petitioner's poor performance, her resistance, her lack of comprehension, and the need for her co- workers to absorb Petitioner's caseload. Both he and Henegar shared an ongoing concern regarding the safety of the children whose cases were assigned to Petitioner. They were concerned that children were being left at risk due to Petitioner's inadequate or inaccurate assessment of risk factors. Once Petitioner had received her exemption and resumed handling a caseload, it became apparent by February or March that her performance was deficient in a number of ways. E-mails between Petitioner and Henegar between March 26, 2008, and June 10, 2008, reflect the same concerns regarding Petitioner's deficiencies throughout that time period. In May, Henegar held two formal conferences with Petitioner to address her continued deficiencies, but no improvement was noted. As Petitioner approached the end of her probationary period without adequate improvement, Henegar consulted with her supervisors regarding Petitioner's continuing deficiencies. As required for all employees, Henegar prepared a written performance evaluation of Petitioner on the required form. She gave Petitioner a rating of l.8, although she testified that she was generous in her scoring of Petitioner and scored Petitioner higher than Petitioner deserved. A score of "1" means the employee's performance is consistently below expectations, and a score of "2" means the employee's performance sometimes meets expectations and needs improvement. The Department terminates employees who do not successfully complete their probationary period rather than allowing them to become permanent employees. However, the Department did not terminate Petitioner; rather, it gave Petitioner a position with ACCESS, a different program under the Department's jurisdiction. When Petitioner did not successfully complete her one-year probationary period in that program, she was terminated. Petitioner affirmatively states that she was not discriminated against relative to her employment in or dismissal from the ACCESS program. Janet Stott is a white female who started her probationary period as a CPI at the same time as Petitioner. She is not a similarly-situated employee. Although she and Petitioner assumed the same job duties at the same time, her performance improved over the course of her probationary period while Petitioner's deteriorated. By the end of her probation, Stott was a very good investigator. Petitioner's termination as a CPI was not based upon any single incident or her handling of the two cases that she attempted to focus on during the final hearing. Rather, it was based solely upon her over-all performance, which was reviewed during three meetings among her supervisors over a period of two months. Petitioner's race and/or her age were not considered by those decision-makers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed in her burden of proof and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 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 21st day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 430 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Beverly Joe O. Greenwade 106 Academy Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Larry Kranert, 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
Findings Of Fact The non-teaching staff of the University of South Florida (USF) includes both the University Services Personnel System and the Administrative and Professional staff (A & P). The former is a career service personnel system that includes the prohibition against terminating an employee except for cause. A & P employees do not acquire tenure, and A & P employees can be "non- reappointed" at will, subject to applicable personnel procedures and, in the case of some A & P employees, subject to the provisions of a union contract covering those employees. The Petitioner's position is not covered by any union contract. Besides, the union contracts that cover some of the other A & P employees do not affect the "non-reappointment" of A & P employees. USF hired the Petitioner as a coordinator of student affairs on January 29, 1991. This position was and is part of USF's Administrative and Professional staff. It normally is a one-year contract of employment. The Petitioner's initial contract expired on August 6, 1991. The Petitioner's contract was renewed in August, 1991, and again in August, 1992. The last annual contract was to expire on August 8, 1993. On November 23, 1992, USF's Provost, Gerry G. Meisels, wrote the Petitioner a letter advising the Petitioner that USF would not be re-appointing him upon expiration of his contract on August 8, 1993. The letter included reasons for the decision not to re-appoint the Petitioner. The Petitioner's compensation continued through the remainder of his contract. The Petitioner filed a grievance pertaining to USF's notice of non- reappointment. After Step 2 of the grievance proceeding, the Petitioner requested administrative proceedings under Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the University of South Florida, enter a final order dismissing the petition for administrative proceedings in this case. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Walker, Esquire 1432 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Henry W. Lavandera, Esquire Assistant General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 Gerry G. Meisels, Provost University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 226 Tampa, Florida 33620-6100 Noreen Segrest, Esquire Acting General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Fredrick Bass, was subjected to employment discrimination by the Respondent, The University of West Florida, on account of his race or disability or as retaliation because of his past filing of an EEOC complaint against a former employer.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black male with a disability involving a post- traumatic, arthritic condition of the left knee. In his past work history, the Petitioner had been a firefighter. When he was thus employed, on one occasion, he filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the fire department where he was employed. The Respondent is the University of West Florida, a state agency. It became embroiled in the disputes at issue when it first advertised for the filling of a vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor and, after the advertising and interviewing process described below, hired another black male with a disability, instead of the Petitioner. The Respondent advertised to fill the vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor because of the death of the person who had previously occupied that position. There was an insufficient response to the first advertisement of the vacancy, and Dan Simpler, the Director of Building Services for the Respondent, who would supervise the occupant of that position, requested that the position be re-advertised. The Petitioner had not responded to the first advertisement, in any event. The second advertisement was issued in August of 1993. This time, the Petitioner was one of the applicants who responded. Several applicants withdrew after learning that the salary for the position would be at the lower-end of the advertised salary range and was insufficient for their needs. This left the Respondent with only three remaining applicants, who appeared to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. One of the three applicants was the Petitioner. The Respondent, in the conduct of its application and selection process, inquired of former employers, concerning whether they would give an applicant a favorable recommendation. The Respondent so inquired of the Petitioner's former employers. The Respondent was unable to obtain a favorable recommendation from any of the Petitioner's former employers. In response to Mr. Simpler's inquiry, the Chief of the Fire Department at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Petitioner's most recent former employer, informed Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner had informed Mr. Simpler that he believed that the Chief of the Fire Department would not give him a favorable recommendation because the Petitioner had once filed a complaint with the EEOC against that employer. In any event, Mr. Simpler deemed that having a pool of only three applicants gave the Respondent insufficient choices for the position. Therefore, he requested that the position be advertised for a third time in order to obtain a larger pool of applicants. In response to the third advertisement, a number of other applications were received. One of them was that of James O. Rankins, who is a male, African-American, who also has a disability. See Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Mr. Rankins' application reflected considerable supervisory experience, both during his service with the United States Army and his position as a Site Manager for Service Master, Inc. at the Monsanto plant near Pensacola, Florida. He retired from the United States Army as a Sergeant Major, the highest non- commissioned rank. In the opinion of Mr. Simpler and others involved in the hiring at the University, this demonstrated a high level of leadership capability. Since his military retirement, in his capacity as the Site Manager for Service Master, Inc., the maintenance contractor, at the Monsanto chemical plant near Pensacola, Florida, he had supervised 45 custodial personnel. He was responsible for cleaning and maintenance of 150 buildings and shops, as well as over 250 offices and restrooms. The Petitioner was an applicant in the third pool of applications in response to the third advertisement. Mr. Simpler learned of a former employer, Lanyap Corporation, and questioned the former owner concerning the Petitioner's previous employment at that firm. Larry Wiggins, the former owner of Lanyap Corporation, told Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. Mr. Wiggins advised Mr. Simpler that the Petitioner had not been employed as a Supervisor by Lanyap Corporation, although the Petitioner had indicated that to be the case on his application for employment filed with the Respondent. The five persons on the Respondent's selection committee, charged with hiring to fill the subject position, considered the qualifications and experience of all of the applicants. After evaluating all of the applicants, with the assistance of personal interviews, the committee recommended that James Rankins be employed as the Senior Custodial Supervisor. Members of the selection committee recommended Mr. Rankins for the position based upon his superior qualifications and experience, including his demonstrated leadership and supervisory abilities. The Petitioner's race and disability were not factors in the selection process. Indeed, Mr. Rankins is an African-American, also with a disability, as shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Ms. Bertha Mae Jones is the staff member at the University who interviewed the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Rankins. Ms. Jones is black and has been employed at the University for 27 years. She does not recall hearing the Petitioner mention his handicap or disability but stated that it would not have mattered if he had one, as long as he could do the job in question. She also interviewed Mr. Rankins and felt that Mr. Rankins had much superior qualifications and experience. He demonstrated that he had had a long-term ability for good supervision. Because of his superior qualifications, Ms. Jones recommended that Mr. Rankins be hired instead of the Petitioner. None of the members of the selection committee, other than the Director of Building Services, knew that the Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against one of his former employers. The filing of that complaint was shown to have had no effect on the hiring decision made by the Respondent's selection committee. The selection committee's recommendation that Mr. Rankins be employed to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor was forwarded to the head of the department and to the Vice-President for Administrative Affairs. The recommendation was accepted. Mr. Rankins, a black male with a disability, was hired by the Respondent to fill the subject position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order concluding that the Respondent, the University of West Florida, did not commit an unlawful employment practice, by employing James O. Rankins to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor, instead of the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2450 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The following numbers assigned to proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner do not correspond to any numbered paragraphs in the Petitioner's letter/proposed recommended order because there were no such numbered paragraphs. The Petitioner did prove that he belonged to a racial minority, and that proposed finding is accepted. The Petitioner's assertion that he was qualified for the position in question has not been proven, and that is rejected. The Petitioner's proposed finding that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected for the position, is rejected because he was found to be less qualified than the applicant chosen for the position. The Petitioner's proposed finding to the effect that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with his qualifications, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderance of the evidence. The relevant advertisement and interviewing process was that after the third advertisement, when the Petitioner remained an applicant and Mr. Rankins' application was received, the position did not remain open, Mr. Rankins was hired at the conclusion of that third advertisement and interview selection process. The remainder of the Petitioner's "proposed findings", in essence, constitute argument concerning the weight of the testimony and evidence but to the extent that he attempts to assert that it has been proven factually that Mr. Simpler had not talked to the fire chief, the Petitioner's former employer, because the telephone numbers at the relevant fire station were not the same as the fire chief's actual telephone number, does not prove that Mr. Simpler did not talk to the fire chief. In fact, it is found that he did. This proposed finding, to the extent that it is one, is rejected. The apparent proposed finding that the five board members on the selection committee found the Petitioner qualified, subject to the fact that it had received bad recommendations from former employers, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. In fact, the Petitioner was not the best qualified person for the position, Mr. Rankins was. These are the only proposed findings of fact that can be gleaned from the letter filed by the Petitioner. The remainder constitutes an attempt at legal and factual argument which do not constitute proposed findings of fact amenable to specific rulings. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fredrick Bass 75 South Madison Drive Pensacola, Florida 32505 M. J. Menge, Esquire SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race or age when he was not selected as Lead Mechanic in Area I KA/Nitric.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male who was over 40 at the time he applied for the Area I (One) Lead Mechanic position. At the time Petitioner applied for the Area I Lead Mechanic position, he was a lead mechanic in the Central Maintenance Compressor and Gear Box shop, pay grade level 28 position. Pay grade level 28 is the highest nonexempt pay grade at Solutia, Inc. On January 25, 1999, Solutia posted a job opening for a lead mechanic position in Area I KA/Nitric, a pay grade level 28 position. Petitioner applied for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. Had Petitioner been selected for the Area I Lead Mechanic position, it would have been a lateral transfer and not a promotion because Petitioner was already at a level 28 pay grade. No evidence was received that the incumbent of the Area I Lead Mechanic position would have had more authority or promotion opportunities than the position previously held. Petitioner, along with three other mechanics, interviewed for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. The other three applicants were: William G. Cook (a white male); Joseph S. Mann (a white male); and David Wolfe (a white male). Petitioner admits that all the applicants were qualified for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. Respondent used a ranking procedure to evaluate the applicants for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. The applicants were ranked by subjectively grading their answers to questions in five areas: 1) problem-solving and decision-making ability; 2) teamwork and coaching ability; (3) communication ability; (4) honoring differences; and (5) results orientation and initiative. The applicants were given a score from one to five by each panel member based upon the panel members' subjective assessment of applicants’ answers on each of the five criteria. Five was the highest grade and one being the lowest. The points were totaled and converted into a percentage score. The applicant having the highest overall score was selected to fill the job. The applicants were interviewed by a panel composed of six employees: Nikki Owens; Mike Conley; Darren Dobson; Tony Williams (a black male); Terry Wilcox (who was over 40 at the time of the interview); and Greg Barker. All of these persons were from Area I. The majority of the panel worked regularly with the person ultimately selected. Petitioner admits that there was no overtly discriminatory questions or activity in the interview. There were no questions or discussions amongst the panel members about the applicants' race or age. The panel members scored each applicant separately without knowing how the other panel members scored the applicants. The panel members scored the applicants as follows: W. Cook S. Holly J. Mann D. Wolfe Nikki Owens 45% 77% 90% 67% Michael Conley 53.3% 63.3% 70% 63.6% Darren Dobson 40% 63% 70% 67% Greg Barker 40% 57% 73% 57% Tony Williams 57% 73% 67% 50% Terry Wilcox 33% 66.6% 76.6% 57.7% After the individual panel members totaled their respective scores, the applicants were ranked. Joseph Mann was ranked first by five of the six panel members, and one panel member, the black male, ranked Petitioner first. The panel discussed the results and reached a unanimous consensus to offer the Area I Lead Mechanic position to Joseph Mann. The panel prepared and provided feedback to all the applicants. Petitioner's shortcoming was that he failed to give specific examples to questions posted during his interview. When he was not selected, Petitioner complained about the outcome, believing he was the most qualified applicant and was rejected for racially motivated reasons. Rachel Gold (a black female) and Lerissa Rowe, who both worked in Respondent's Human Resources Department, investigated Petitioner's complaint. During their investigation, it came to their attention that a panel member, Terry Wilcox, stated to a co-employee, "I don't think that there would ever be two black people in charge of a group of white mechanics in a shop." After learning of Terry Wilcox' comment, Respondent took the following action: (a) Respondent recalculated the panel's score leaving out Terry Wilcox' score; and (b) Respondent disciplined Terry Wilcox by suspending him for two days without pay. After recalculating the scores, Joseph Mann still had the highest overall score. Petitioner's overall score remained the same. Petitioner remained with Respondent until he voluntarily retired effective November 1, 1999. No one forced Petitioner to retire. The decision was Petitioner's alone, prompted in part by a change in Respondent's retirement plan. Petitioner admits that none of the panel members had ever discriminated against him because of his race or age prior to the complained of selection. Since retiring, Petitioner has not sought employment elsewhere. He is basically enjoying retirement.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the instant petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 30th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sylvester A. Holly, Jr. Post Office Box 301 Cantonment, Florida 32533 Erick M. Drlicka, Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32596 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The matter presented here for consideration concerns the termination of the Petitioner, George Nelson, from his employment with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, premised upon the purported authority set forth in Rule 22A-13.04, Florida Administrative Code, following the Petitioner's alleged decision to qualify as a candidate for office in the State of Florida, without first gaining permission of the appropriate authorities as set forth in Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22A-13, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, George Nelson, was a permanent status Career Service employee on July 14, 1980, working for the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. His specific employment was a firefighter. On the subject date, by correspondence directed to an official within the Division of Forestry, namely, Larry Wood, the petitioner notified the Respondent of his intention to run for a School Board seat, District IV, in Wakulla County, Florida. A copy of that notification may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. As stated in the correspondence, Nelson had made an attempt to determine the necessary steps to gain the approval of his agency before taking the oath of candidacy for the aforementioned position. (This request was made following a conversation with the same Larry Wood held on July 10, 1980, on the subject of Nelson's candidacy. On July 10, a letter was sent addressed only to "Larry" and at Mr. Wood's instigation the subsequent letter of July 14, 1980, was dispatched referring to Wood as "Mr. Larry Wood", for appearance sake.) As set forth in the Nelson correspondence, the last date for qualifying for the School Board position was July 22, 1980, at 12:00 Noon. Prior to that date, the Petitioner's request to run was forwarded through the decision-making channels within the Division of Forestry. At the time Nelson dispatched his letter of July 14, 1980, there was some concern expressed by Wood to the effect that there might be some scheduling conflict between Nelson's primary employment duties as a forest ranger and his duties as a School Board Member; however, Wood indicated that the scheduling matter could probably be accommodated. Wood offered no guarantee to the petitioner that the request to run for office would be approved by the appropriate agency officials. On July 18, 1980, and again on July 21, 1980, officials with the Division of Forestry orally indicated to the petitioner that he would not be allowed to run for the School Board. In view of the fact that the last day for qualifying was July 22, 1980, the petitioner determined to offer his candidacy without the permission of his agency head, and on that date he took the loyalty oath for public office for the School Board, District IV, Wakulla County, Florida, as may be seen by a Joint Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the Loyalty Oath and the Oath of Candidacy and Statement of Candidacy. On July 23, 1980, Larry Wood, District Forester and supervisor to the Petitioner, contacted the petitioner to inquire why the petitioner had offered his candidacy without permission of the agency. The petitioner responded that he did so because he did not feel that there was any conflict between school board duties and that of forest ranger. Wood informed him that he would hear from the Division of Forestry on the subject. Following the conversation with Wood, on July 24, 1980, the petitioner received two items in response to his request. One of those items was dated July 21, 1980, from John M. Bethea, Director, Division of Forestry, addressed to Larry Wood, in which the subject of the Petitioner's candidacy was discussed and the indication given that it would not be approved due to scheduling problems and conflict and controversies "that are generated by any local governmental political body". The memorandum went on to say, "These controversies might affect the Forestry Division's ability to carry out the responsibilities with the very segments of the public." A copy of this memorandum may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The second item received by the Petitioner on July 24, 1980, was dated on that date, and addressed to George Nelson from Larry Wood, indicating a denial of the petitioner's request to run for public office. This correspondence may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 3, a copy of which has been admitted into evidence. After the Petitioner had received the memoranda discussed herein, there ensued a series of meetings between the Petitioner and various officials within the agency in which the agency tried to persuade him to withdraw his candidacy in view of the fact that he had not gained their permission to run for the School Board. Throughout these discussions, the Petitioner continued to assert the conviction that unless some conflict of interest could be shown to him, he did not intend to withdraw as a candidate. In the discussions, the agency further stated that the choices open to the petitioner were ones of resignation from his position as Forest Ranger or withdrawal from the School Board race. They also stated that if he were caused to resign, there could be no rights to appeal beyond that point. In the course of the process, the Petitioner met with Director Bethea, who explained the Director's position on the Petitioner's right to run for office and reiterated his opposition, based upon his problems of scheduling to accommodate the needs of the Division of Forestry and the needs of the School Board of Wakulla County and also -he concern of possible conflicts and controversies arising out of the necessity for forest rangers to go on the property of the citizens of the several counties in the State of Florida and the fact that this might create a problem in view of the nature of the functions of a school board member. Although the Director generally held the philosophy that employees in positions such as the Petitioner's should not normally be allowed to run for local office, he did not absolutely foreclose the possibility that someone might persuade him to the contrary and thereby cause him to allow them to seek a local office. Each case would be reviewed on its own merits. The matter was also presented before representatives of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, who took the same position as had been taken by the other authorities within the Department, and again the Petitioner indicated that he would decline to withdraw as a candidate. Following the meeting with the Department officials, Wood made one other contact to ascertain if the petitioner had changed his mind about withdrawing his name as a candidate and the Petitioner indicated that he had not. Subsequent to that latter conversation with Wood, the petitioner was hand-delivered a letter dated August 12, 1980, which may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 5. This letter informed the petitioner that he was deemed to have resigned his position as Forest Ranger effective August 15, 1980, and offered as a statement of authority Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes. That correspondence from Carl T. Dierking, Chief of Personnel Management and Employee Relations for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, went on to say that in view of the Petitioner's decision to qualify as a candidate being made after the request to allow him to run had been initially denied by the Department and in keeping with Rule 22A-13.032, Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner could request an administrative hearing "toward obtaining an additional review of your situation." This request was to be forwarded through Robert Chastain, Esquire, General Counsel, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. After August 15, 1980, the petitioner was removed as a permanent party Career Service employee with the Respondent. On August 27, 1980, the Petitioner corresponded with Mr. Chastain through a letter which stated, "I would like to have an appeal of my dismissal of August 15, 1980, reason, not just cause." A copy of this petition letter may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In turn Mr. Chastain contacted the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that a Hearing Officer be assigned and a hearing be set. A copy of that correspondence addressed to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. Through that correspondence, Mr. Chastain expressed his opinion that Rule 22A-13.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an employee has the right to a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing. Subsequent to the case assignment herein, the Petitioner through his counsel has filed a rules challenge to the Rules 22A-13.04 and 22A-7.10(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which may be found in the Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-1925R. In addition, the Petitioner in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-2049R has attacked the Joint Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, by contending that those aforementioned exhibits constitute invalid rules for reason that they were not duly promulgated. In fact, the Petitioner's duty assignment as a forest ranger would conflict at times with his function so School Board Member, in that some of the meetings of the School Board would be held at times when the Petitioner was actively on duty. In addition, the Petitioner is also on call and required to be available in his off-duty time should an emergency arise requiring his assistance as a forest ranger. The petitioner continued to work beyond August 15, 1980, and was eventually reinstated as a probationary employee with the Division of Forestry and holds the position of probationary forest ranger at this time.
Findings Of Fact The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Chapter 447.203(10), Florida Statutes. The Charging Party was certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission on February 4, 1975. At all times material herein Jack Present, was the City Manager of the Respondent, the City of South Miami, Florida and was an agent of the Respondent, acting in its behalf, and/or a managerial employee within the meaning of Chapter 447.203(4) Florida Statutes. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein a public employer within the meaning of Chapter 447.203 (2) Florida Statutes and has as its principal 1ace of business located in Dade County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a municipality. The Respondent is created directly by the Florida State Constitution or legislative body so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government and is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate. During the course of contact between the Charging Party and the Respondent, a charge of unfair labor practices was brought by the Charging Party on October 30, 1975, and was served on the Respondent on October 29, 1975, as shown in PERC Exhibit #1A, admitted into evidence. This charge has been withdrawn by the Public Employees Relations Commission. Subsequent to October 30, 1975, an amended charge was filed by the Charging Party dated January 10, 1976, and was served on the Respondent on January 9, 1976, and this amended charge is PERC Exhibit #1B, admitted into evidence. A second amended charge was filed by the Charging Party on January 12, 1976, and was served on the Respondent on January 12, 1976, and this charge is PERC Exhibit #10, admitted into evidence. Pursuant to Chapter 447.503(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 8H-4.03, Florida Administrative Code, the Public Employees Relations Commission issued a complaint and notice of hearing. A copy of the original complaint and notice of hearing for May 6, 1976, at 9:00 A.M., Room 358, State of Florida Office Building, 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida is PERC Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence. This exhibit shows some amendments which were offered in the course of the hearing on May 6, 1976; however, the final statement of amendment to the complaint was by an amended complaint and notice of hearing to be held on June 3, 1976, at 9:00 A. M. in Room 360, State Office Building, 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. A copy of the amended complaint and notice of hearing is Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1, an exhibit admitted subsequent to the hearing. After the parties began to negotiate on May 14, 1975, the Charging Party submitted a set of contract proposals to the Respondent. A copy of this set of Contract proposals is PERC Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence. One of the articles in these proposals was Article #5 pertaining to dues check off. This article did not make mention of the Respondent charging a fee for providing services for this check off. Later on July 29, 1975, a formal request was made of the Respondent that it deduct fees and dues for the authorized employees of the Charging Party. In that same month of July, 1975, the City of South Miami submitted its own proposals for contract, which is FREE Exhibit #7, admitted into evidence. The management proposal also contains an Article #5, containing dues check off, which does not carry with it a request for payment of a fee to the City for the implementation of such a dues check off system. On September 1, 1975, because of certain disagreements, the parties appeared before a special master in accordance with Chapter 447.403, Florida Statutes. At the special master's hearing, the question of dues check off was considered. The City of South Miami presented an addendum to the previously agreed upon Article #5, which addendum requested that the union pay for the services for any dues check off service performed by the City. This addendum was rejected by the special master and a recommendation was made that the parties may wish to consider renegotiating the Article #5 on dues check off. Statement of the Special Master's position is found in PERC Exhibit #4, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the Special Master's Report and is specifically found on page 3 of that document. On November 13, 1975, at a negotiating session for purposes of finalizing the contract agreement, further demand was made by the Charging Party that the City implement a dues check off system. PERC Exhibit #2, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the proposed agreement entered into by Mr. Jack Present, a negotiator for the Respondent, has within it an Article #5 pertaining to dues checkoff. That article does not contain a clause on reimbursement to the City for services rendered in the dues check off system. This agreement was the consummation of the efforts of the session of November 13, 1975, and therefore gives an accurate account of agreement on the check off question. Nonetheless, a dues check off system has not been implemented by the City of South Miami at the time of the hearing before the undersigned. While the negotiations were underway the Respondent was in the process of designing new personnel rules and the initial draft of those rules came out on July 29, 1975. The copy of those proposed rules, as they were passed on March 2, 1976, is Respondent's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence. It is the testimony of the City of South Miami witnesses, that mention had been made in negotiations with the Charging Party about the proposed rules, prior to the draft of July 29, 1976. They further stated that these initial drafts were given to the Charging Party in August, 1975. It was the understanding of the Respondent, that the proposed rules would be the basis for any contract agreement with the Charging Party. The recollection of the witnesses of the Charging Party was to the effect that the proposed rules were afforded to them on September 11, 1975, the date of the special master's hearing. In their mind, these proposed rules were only given as a matter of background and were not indicated as effective in the negotiations. The proposed rules are in conflict with the contract proposals recommended by the Charging Party in PERC Exhibit #3 and this supports the theory that the Charging Party was not considering the utilization of the proposed personnel rules when it made its initial proposal of agreement to the Respondent. This document is followed by the agreement between the City of South Miami and the Charging Party as negotiated by the representatives of those parties with its attendant introductory correspondence of November 14, 1975. It states in its Articles 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 that the personnel rules contemplated by the agreement are those rules currently in effect. Again, this contract refers to PERC Exhibit #2. The statement found in those articles refer to current policy and the current policies are stated in the then personnel rules. On November 14, 1975, the personnel rules in effect here as shown by PERC Exhibit #6, admitted into evidence. these rules varied in content from the set of rules finally passed by the City of South Miami, City Council, on March 2, 1976. Both of the sets of personnel rules were introduced at the special master's hearing, as Exhibit #B1 for the current personnel rules as of that date and Exhibit #B2 for the proposed personnel regulations; however, no further comment is made by the Special Master Report as to what rules would have application in any agreement entered into by tie parties. On November 4, 1975, the City Council of the City of South Miami met to consider the impasse articles which were brought before the special master, and on that date no mention was made of which personnel rules would have application The next order of events after November 4, 1975, was the meating of November 13, 1975 held by the parties to consider the finalization of the contract. On December 2, 1975, the City Council considered the passage of the agreement reached between the negotiators of the Charging Party and the Respondent. At that time, members of the council expressed the opinion that the proposed personnel rules would be the rules involved in any contract negotiation and felt that failure to include such changes as shown in the proposed personnel regulations would cause problems in their accepting the agreement between the parties. The City Manager as a negotiator for the Respondent was directed to verify the position of the Charging Party on the question of which personnel rules would be in effect. On December 17, 1975, a meeting was held between the parties and discussion was conducted about which personnel rules would apply. The Charging Party was concerned that it not enter into an agreement to implement rules which had not been finally passed by the City Council and they felt the existing personnel rules would have application. On January 5, 1976, a further workshop meeting was held to consider the proposed personnel rules and the Charging Party indicated that those personnel rules were not acceptable and indicated that they would not negotiate further on those matters. The position of the City of South Miami on January 5, 1976, was that the implementation of the proposed personnel rules was a matter of strong concern for the City, to the extent that any contract agreement which failed to implement those rules would be in serious jeopardy. On January 6, 1975, the full City Council met and voted to reject the agreement entered by its representative and the Charging Party. This vote was by resolution which directed that its City Manager, as negotiator, further negotiate beyond the agreement which they rejected. This resolution is found as Respondent's Exhibit #6 admitted into evidence. Another item considered in the complaint pertains to the statements of paragraphs 5 through 10 of that complaint. The items set forth in those paragraphs were addressed as impasse subjects in the Special Master's Hearing on September 11, 1975. The recommendation of the special master on the subject of that impasse article #29, Section 9d(ii) is found on page 9 of the Special Master's report. In the November 4, 1975, public meeting to consider the impasse items, the City Council voted to accept the Special Master's recommendation on Section 9d(ii). Likewise, in considering the recommendation of the Special Master on Article #29, Section 9d(iv) at page 10 of the Special Master's report, the City Council accepted the Special Master's recommendation with the addition of the words "except for emergencies", which was added at the end of the Special Master's recommendation. Finally, in considering impasse Article #43, Section 10(c), of the Special Master's recommendation on that article, found at page 10 of the Special Master's report, the City Council voted to approve his recommendation with the modification which stated, "unless it becomes necessary to change the hours because of an emergency, it may do so." A tape was made of this meeting of November 4, 1975. After listening to Respondent's Exhibit #7, admitted into evidence after the hearing, there is evidently a great deal of confusion by the City Council about their votes on the impasse articles; however, the tape clearly demonstrates their approval of the three sections previously referred to, with the subjet modification. At the December 2, 1975, meeting of the full council of the City of South Miami, there was some question in the minds of the members of the council about their vote on the impasse items of November 4, 1975. Furthermore at the December 16, 1975, meeting of the full council there was still some question about the impasse articles. Respondent's Exhibit #4, minutes on that meeting, indicates that members of the council felt that the impasse articles of the Special Master that had been voted on, which were found in Article #29 through #31 of the proposed contract (PERC Exhibit #2), should be stricken. These comments on Article #29 through #31 were given as instructions to the City Manager for his negotiating session of December 17, 1975, which has previously been discussed. At the meeting of December 17, 1975, mention was made of the continuing distress that the City Council members had over some of these articles referred to. This mention was made, notwithstanding the City Attorney' s assurance to the Charging Party that he had advised the council that they could not overturn their agreement on impasse articles. This was followed on January 6, 1976, by the vote of the full council to reject the proposed agreement negotiated by the City Manager. On December 2, 1975, at a regular meeting, the City Council passed Resolution 134-75-3362, which appropriated the amount of $900 for the purpose of purchasing turkeys for each and every employee of the City of South Miami. Minutes on this item are found in Respondent's Exhibit 63, admitted into evidence. Payment for the turkeys was made from operating funds of the Mayor and members of the City Council, and these funds are an independent line item of the budget. They are subject to be utilized by the Mayor and other members of the City Council as deemed appropriate by those persons. This action was taken subsequent to a statement by the Respondent at the Special Master's Hearing of September 11, to the effect that wage demands by the Charging Party could not be met because the budget from October 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976, for the City of South Miami, had been passed and could not be changed to meet those demands during the negotiating period. A full explanation of this statement is found ill the Special Master's Report, PERU Exhibit #4 At present negotiations between the Respondent and Charging Party have been discontinued.
Recommendation Based upon the violations of Chapter 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Public Employees Relations Commission issue an order requiring that the Respondent cease and desist from bargaining in bad faith by committing those violations which are set forth in the conclusions of law section of this recommended order, and by their order take such further steps as are necessary to achieve prompt agreement between the parties. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Sugarman, Esquire Kaplan, Dorsey, Sicking & Hessen, P.A. Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Edward N. Moore, Esquire Moore, Kessler & Sheradsky 1995 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue Whether the City of Ocala (the City or Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Nyleah Jackson (Petitioner) because of her race.
Findings Of Fact On May 2, 2016, Petitioner, who is an African-American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II in its Electric Utility Department. On October 10, 2016, Petitioner moved to a lateral Administrative Specialist II position with the City’s Public Works Department to perform generally the same type of duties in that department’s sanitation division. An Administrative Specialist II is expected to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. As an Administrative Specialist II, Petitioner received mostly satisfactory, although never exceptional, ratings in her performance evaluation reviews in both the City’s Electric and Public Works Departments. In each of Petitioner’s performance evaluation reviews, her rater or supervisor was tasked with assigning a 1, 2, or 3 rating for each of 10 different tasks, examples of which include “Quality of Work,” “Efficiency,” “Responsibility,” and “Customer Focus.” A rating of 1 means that the employee performed a task below the standard. A rating of means that the employee meets task requirements. A rating of means the employee exceeds standards. Petitioner received a rating of 2 (Meets Standard) for every task on every review produced by the City, except for her April 19, 2017, evaluation on which Petitioner received a 1 in the category of “Responsibility” due to alleged problems related to tardiness and failure to properly notify her supervisors of absences. During January 2017, an Administrative Specialist III position became available within the City’s sanitation division because the person previously filling that position moved into another position. In accordance with the City’s hiring process governed by its City Employee Handbook, the City’s Human Resources Department (HR) reviewed the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, confirmed that it was budgeted and set to be filled, and evaluated whether it was governed by any collective bargaining agreements. Upon determining that the position was governed by the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, on January 13, 2017, the City posted the job internally for five days to allow existing City employees to apply for the position before allowing external applications. Similar to the Administrative Specialist II position, the City’s Administrative Specialist III position is required to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. An Administrative Specialist III, however, has expanded duties and responsibilities. While all administrative specialists throughout the City perform similar tasks, each division in the City may have a different distribution of duties for its employees due to the kind of work required for that division’s services. These differences would not be reflected in the listing for an open Administrative Specialist III position. Such listings were drafted by an outside consultant to generally describe the Administrative Specialist III position for all departments throughout the City. For the sanitation division, the Administrative Specialist III position has a substantial customer service component. Specifically, the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division is required to answer a large volume of phone calls from angry citizens for various sanitation complaints. For that reason, the hiring managers placed importance on the applicants’ people skills, patience, and ability to maintain a calm, customer-friendly demeanor when dealing with angry citizens. Petitioner testified that the director of the City’s Public Works Department, Darren Park, suggested that she apply for the open Administrative Specialist III position due to Mr. Park’s belief that she had performed well in a previous interview. Therefore, Petitioner explained, on January 23, 2017, she applied for the City’s vacant Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. In accordance with City policy, HR reviewed all of the internal applications for the position to preliminarily screen applicants who did not meet the minimal qualifications. Petitioner’s application and three other internal candidates’ applications were found to have met the minimal qualifications and were forwarded to the department’s hiring managers for interviews. Of the four internal applicants forwarded by HR to the hiring managers, the only other minority applicant was a Hispanic male. Shortly after the internal applications were submitted, the two hiring managers, Dwayne Drake and Cloretha McReynolds, reviewed the applications and interviewed the City’s internal applicants. Dwayne Drake, a Caucasian male, was the division head of sanitation. Cloretha McReynolds, an African-American female, was a supervisor in the sanitation division. A few days after the City received Petitioner’s application, Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds interviewed Petitioner for the open position. During Petitioner’s interview, as well as in all of the other interviews for the position, the hiring managers used a list of prepared questions, entitled “Sanitation Administrative Specialist III Behavioral Interview Questions.” The questions were designed to allow the hiring managers to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an applicant’s personality traits, people skills, and behavioral characteristics. During her interview for the position, Petitioner admitted that one of her weaknesses was that her assertiveness could sometimes be mistaken for aggressiveness. This comment by Petitioner concerned Mr. Drake because the sanitation division has many callers already upset when they call. Mr. Drake felt that Petitioner’s comment was a “big hurdle” that Petitioner would have to overcome in order to be selected for the Administrative Specialist III position. Similarly, Ms. McReynolds testified that Petitioner’s response that her assertiveness could be misinterpreted as aggressiveness concerned her because “we were looking for a specific – we were looking for someone with a great personality.” When further pressed by Petitioner why customer service was valued so highly for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. McReynolds testified: Q. Okay. Are there different weights that you hold for one question than the other? For example, someone said they don’t have experience in payroll, but they also said that they are very well with handling customers, is there a system for you that you say: “Hey, well, this is more important than the other one? This one holds more weight than the other one”? A. Anyone can be taught to do payroll. Q. Right. A. Anyone can’t be taught to be respectful on the phone and customer friendly. I can teach someone how to do payroll, I can teach someone to do billing. I can teach someone how to do that position, but I can’t teach someone to be nice to the customers. And I needed a nice person, a person who is going to be able to, when they get yelled at, better keep calm and deal with it, calm the customer down. And that’s what I was looking for. After the internal interviews, and as provided for by the City Employee Handbook and its collective bargaining agreements, the hiring managers decided to list the available Administrative Specialist III position externally. Petitioner testified that, following her interview, Mr. Drake came to her office and told her that the hiring managers were looking for a “better fit” for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position and that the City would advertise the position externally. Petitioner testified that, based on this statement, she inferred that the hiring managers had already determined that the City would not hire any of the internal applicants for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position because they had already determined that none of the internal applicants were qualified. In his testimony, Mr. Drake confirmed that he spoke with Petitioner following her interview, but denied that he told Petitioner, or any other City employee applicant, that they were already disqualified. Instead, Mr. Drake explained that, following the internal applicant interviews, he spoke to Petitioner because she was a Public Works employee and he wanted to tell her in person that they were going to look for external applicants. Mr. Drake’s testimony is credited. After the open Administrative Specialist III position was listed externally, three external applications were forwarded to the hiring managers, who interviewed those candidates consistent with City policy, using the same prepared questions as used in the internal interviews. After completing the external interviews, the managers both decided Jenna Hylkema, a Caucasian female and external applicant, to be the best applicant, and she was hired for the position. Ms. Hylkema had a high school diploma, a bachelor degree in criminal justice and had previously worked for the City as a dispatcher for the Ocala Police Department. At the time she was hired for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. Hylkema was working at the Department of Children and Families investigating child abuse cases and related issues. Both of the hiring managers agreed that Ms. Hylkema’s employment history and performance in her interview made her the strongest candidate for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. Notably, Ms. McReynolds testified that Ms. Hylkema “was a call – a 911 call person [at the police department], and she was able to deal with - I thought she would be better to deal with the stress level, as far as – and also her personality in accepting calls.” Both Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds confirmed that their ranking preference was informal and not reduced to writing, but that, after all of the interviews, they discussed each of their orders of preference out of the seven applicants. According to both hiring managers, Petitioner ranked third or fourth of the seven applicants. Although they believed Petitioner was qualified, the hiring managers thought that Jenna Hylkema’s work experience and performance in her interview made her the most qualified applicant for the position. Also notable, Ms. Hylkema performed better on the objective components of the interview process. Petitioner herself confirmed that Ms. Hylkema performed better than she had in the objective portions of the interview, including scoring twice as high in an objective typing speed test. Both hiring managers credibly testified that neither Petitioner’s race, Jenna Hylkema’s race, nor anyone else’s race influenced their decision to hire Ms. Hylkema for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. A few months after Ms. Hylkema was hired for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, another Administrative Specialist III position opened in the Public Works Street Division, which was filled by Erica Wilson, an African-American woman who, like Petitioner, was working as an Administrative Specialist II when she applied. Petitioner did not apply for this position. Petitioner confirmed this, but failed to provide any explanation as to why the City’s policies discriminated against her, as an African-American woman, but apparently did not discriminate against Erica Wilson in their decision to hire her for another open Administrative Specialist III only a few months later. When asked why she did not apply for the other Administrative Specialist III position, Petitioner testified that she wanted the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. Despite evidence indicating that there was no illegal discrimination in the City’s process of filling the position for which Petitioner had applied, Petitioner alleged that there were irregularities in the selection process. For example, Petitioner contends that Ms. Hylkema was not qualified because Ms. Hylkema held a criminal justice degree that did not include advanced business or secretarial classes in college. The evidence, however, demonstrated that the City’s hiring process was flexible enough to allow certain criteria to be waived in favor of other experience, and that all applicants who were interviewed met the minimal qualifications for the position. Petitioner also alleged improprieties in the hiring process on the grounds that the City’s hiring managers did not use a formal numerical scoring in their evaluations and failed to keep complete notes during their interviews to confirm that each question was asked to every candidate. The City’s hiring process for vacant positions, however, does not require any specific numerical scoring system or prescribed notation process. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the hiring managers appropriately weighed their impressions of the candidates through their interviews and the other materials provided to determine who would be best to respond to angry phone calls that the City’s sanitation department would receive. Throughout that process, and with no evidence of illegal discrimination, the managers appropriately ranked Petitioner as the third or fourth best candidate for the Administrative Specialist III position. The evidence at the hearing did not reasonably suggest that the process used during the selection process was suspicious, vulnerable to arbitrariness, or indicative of illegal discrimination. When asked about the City’s interview procedure, Petitioner said that she had no objection to the City asking questions to discern whether or not, subjectively, the interviewers thought an applicant was a good fit for the job. In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was not hired for the open position for which she applied because of her race, or that the City otherwise engaged in illegal discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2018.
