Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a correction officer for the 16-month period between March, 1981 and July, 1982. She was assigned to the St. Johns County Jail, where her duties included booking and releasing both male and female inmates, taking mug shots, obtaining fingerprints, delivering food and mail, and providing general security. Petitioner satisfactorily completed a one-year probationary period and achieved permanent status. She became aware of her pregnancy in March, 1982, and informed her supervisor of this fact. 1/ She was initially told by her supervisor to report "downtown" for reassignment. However, the officer in charge of that department knew nothing of the proposed change in assignment and sent Petitioner back to the jail. Petitioner then resumed her correctional duties but was assigned exclusively to the booking desk based on her pregnancy. Around May, 1982, Petitioner was reassigned within the jail to the canteen, where her duties were clerical rather than correctional. On May 28, 1982, the jail administrator wrote to Petitioner's physician inquiring as to whether Petitioner could continue to perform correctional duties based on her physical ability and safety considerations. The physician's reply established that her physical ability would permit her to continue working until the date of her confinement, which he anticipated would occur about October 14, 1982. The physician declined to evaluate her condition in terms of job safety. In mid-July, Petitioner was told by her immediate supervisor, Sgt. Threet, that she should take maternity leave. Petitioner declined in the belief that she had a choice in the matter and that she was able to continue working. However, her unwillingness to take leave was not communicated to Captain Janson, who advised her by letter that he was placing her on leave as agreed. A meeting was held to discuss the proposed leave, but apparently the misunderstanding continued. Petitioner reported for work on July 21, 1982 and was directed to leave by her former supervisor, who advised Petitioner that she was no longer on the payroll. Petitioner's apparent termination on July 21, 1982 was confirmed by a letter from the St. Johns County Sheriff dated July 30, 1982 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The Sheriff's letter and other after-the-fact statements of subordinate officials indicated their belief that Petitioner and her fetus were in "obvious jeopardy" (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), so long as she continued to have contact with jail inmates. Additional reasons given for her removal were that she could not backup her commands to inmates because of her physical condition, and that she was becoming too large physically to work behind the booking desk (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The lack of any policy with respect to pregnancy and the confusion in this case were evident in the two attempted reassignments of Petitioner prior to her discharge and referral of the matter, at one point, to Petitioner's physician. Both Petitioner and her immediate supervisor, Sgt. (now Lieutenant) Threet are women of small physical stature. They are essentially unarmed while on duty and must rely on outside help if there is a major disturbance within the jail. Lieutenant Threet concedes that she would not be able to overpower a strong male prisoner if confronted by one. Therefore, the physical demands of the correctional officer position must be considered limited. There was no medical evidence presented that indicated Petitioner was unable to perform her assigned duties at the time of her discharge. She was aware of the physical risk to herself and fetus (although the degree of such risk was not established) and accepted this responsibility as a condition of her continued employment. The argument regarding Petitioner's alleged physical difficulty at the booking desk is rejected as pretextual and was not pursued at the hearing. Her alleged inability to backup commands to inmates due to her condition is likewise rejected in that she, as well as her female supervisor, were not at anytime capable of physically enforcing their commands with respect to the large and stronger male prisoners.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order directing that Petitioner be reinstated by Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 31st day of December, 1984.
The Issue The ultimate issues are whether ACT Corporation (ACT) engaged in unlawful employment practices by discriminating against Petitioners Rosa Gibson (Gibson) or Lillian Brown (Brown) on account of race. More specifically, both Petitioners allege that they were terminated based on race.
Findings Of Fact ACT Corporation is a comprehensive community mental health provider. In 1989, it had five major clinical departments and employed approximately 500 people, of whom 24% were minority employees and 18% were black. One of the clinical departments includes two residential facilities for mentally ill clients, Big Pine and Big Tree. The Petitioners herein have been employed at both facilities, but were on the staff of Big Tree at the time of their terminations. Brown began working for ACT on September 14, 1982. She worked at several different facilities, but was working at Big Pine in 1987 as a Residential Specialist or Residential Advisor (RA) under the immediate supervision of the house manager, Myra Morris, who is black. Gibson began working for ACT in November, 1987, as Residential Specialist or Residential Advisor (RA) at Big Pine under Morris. Gibson was often tardy for work and Morris counseled with her about the problem. During one discussion between Morris and Gibson about tardiness, Gibson became haughty and verbally aggressive toward Morris. Morris would have terminated Gibson for this aggression, but she knew Gibson needed the job. Instead, Morris had Gibson transferred to Big Tree. In early 1988, Morris was transferred to another position with ACT. She was replaced as house manager by Kenneth Polite, a black employee. Brown continued as an RA at Big Pine. Brown was transferred to Big Tree and promoted to House Manager on September 30, 1988. Gibson continued as an RA at Big Tree under Brown. In January, 1989, Ann Turley became the Clinical Administrator for Adult Services and the immediate supervisor over both facilities. Brown was still on probation in the House Manager position because Turley's supervisor, Chris Kennedy, had extended Brown's probation. The extension resulted from Brown's poor performance, including poor follow through on assignments, incorrect preparation of reports and paperwork, inability to communicate effectively, and inability to conceptually grasp and carry out programs. Turley kept Brown on in the House Manager position despite the poor performance because Brown told her that Kennedy and she just did not understand all that Brown was doing. Turley told Brown to keep a written record to show what she was doing. In July, 1989, Polite left employment with ACT. Turley made some organizational changes at that time. ACT and her department needed to come up with $100,000 in revenue or in expense reduction. Turley made the decision to cut back one staff person at Big Pine. The position of house manager at Big Pine was eliminated. The two facilities were reorganized to have a Team Leader at Big Pine and a Residential Coordinator at Big Tree. Turley told Brown of these changes before they were announced. Brown was promoted to the Residential Coordinator position. Donna Dooley, a white employee was made Team Leader at Big Pine. She received a 5% raise, not a raise to the salary level of House Manager. Turley made the selection for Team Leader from the five eligible employees remaining at Big Pine. All five had been employed at ACT by Turley's predecessor. Turley examined the personnel files of the five employees, including performance evaluations. The employee with the best evaluation, within the most recent evaluations made by Polite, was Dooley. Polite noted in her evaluation that Dooley had filled in for him and had done a good job at it and that the other staff at Big Pine came to Dooley for leadership and advice. Turley's decision was poorly received by some of the staff. Polite had wanted the house manager position to go to his roommate, a black employee. Other staff thought the position should have been awarded based on seniority. Staff from the various facilities of ACT asked Turley by letter to meet with them to discuss the position. Turley met with the staff, but no real discussion occurred. The staff in attendance was racially mixed. Individual staff members, including Gibson, verbally attacked Turley because they failed to understand that the house manager position had been eliminated and that the Team Leader position was not its equivalent. Turley was quite emotionally upset about the hostile tone displayed at the meeting. She was also concerned that Brown had signed the staffs' letter requesting a meeting and had attended the meeting, because Brown was a supervisor and not a member of the supporting staff. Brown also had been told before anyone else the reasons for the reorganization and she knew that she was being promoted to Residential Coordinator. Turley had made the decision to promote Brown as Residential Coordinator because the reorganization had to go through and Brown's duties would not change that dramatically. The Residential Coordinator would work closely with the Team Leader to organize and coordinate the operation of both facilities. The position of House Manager ceased to exist at either facility. Brown's inadequate performance continued while she was on probation as Residential Coordinator. The same problems were apparent and some new ones arose. One significant problem was in Brown's supervision and discipline of Gibson. Gibson was repeatedly late for work and she brought her child to work with her. Brown was told by Turley to take certain corrective and disciplinary actions with Gibson, but she failed to do so. Gibson also was rude to a case manager at medication clinic (med clinic), refused to get a client's chart for a case worker, and repeatedly yelled at, demeaned and was uncooperative with the staff at med clinic. Turley instructed Brown to give a counseling statement to Gibson for this behavior, but again Brown did not do so. Because of Brown's lack of appropriate job performance, Turley demoted her from Residential Coordinator to Residential Advisor at Big Tree on September 7, 1989. Turley assumed Brown's job duties temporarily. Brown and Gibson were very upset over this demotion. The evidence taken as a whole shows that Brown and Gibson developed an "us versus them" attitude which significantly interfered with their job performance thereafter. After Brown's demotion, Turley discovered a new fiscal problem. One option for addressing the problem was to change Big Tree from a level two to a level one facility. That change would require a change in staffing patterns such that licensed practical nurses would be required around the clock and a registered nurse as the supervisor of the LPNs. Turley rewrote the job description for the Residential Coordinator position to require a registered nurse's license. In October, 1989, Darlene Hasenkamp, who is white, was hired as the Residential Coordinator because she was an RN and had experience with mentally ill patient care. As Residential Coordinator, Hasenkamp supervised all staff at both Big Tree and Big Pine. Donna Dooley, the Team Leader at Big Pine was the person immediately below Hasenkamp in the supervisory chain. While the staff at Big Tree were not immediately responsible to Dooley, Dooley did have some supervisory responsibilities over the staff at both facilities when Hasenkamp was not there. Brown and Gibson did not like working for Hasenkamp or Dooley. Both were subtly resistant and uncooperative with Hasenkamp and Dooley. Mentho Saafir is another black Residential Advisor with ACT. Her observation is that Brown and Gibson were part of a small tight group of black employees. The group got mad because Dooley was made Team Leader. Then when Brown was demoted and Hasenkamp was hired, they became openly oppositional to any encounter with Dooley. Gibson was especially hostile and uncooperative with Dooley. On a Saturday during November, 1989, Dooley and Hasenkamp were both off work, but they were on call for their respective facilities. A client at Big Pine was suicidal. The one staff person working at Big Pine was managing the client and called Dooley for assistance in getting the van and transporting the client to the hospital. The van was parked at Big Tree because Big Tree always had two staff persons on duty and Big Pine only had one. Therefore in an emergency, one staff person could leave Big Tree to take the van to Big Pine to assist. Dooley was at home and called Big Tree to get the van delivered to Big Pine. Gibson answered the telephone at Big Tree. She was evasive and refused to answer Dooley's questions about who was working at Big Tree and where that person was. Dooley told Gibson that she needed the van for a suicidal client. Gibson kept saying that her coworker wasn't there and finally told Dooley that if she needed the van "I suggest you come and get it yourself." After much pressing by Dooley, Gibson acknowledged that her coworker was Brown and Brown was not there. Dooley called Hasenkamp and explained the problem and described Gibson's evasiveness and lack of cooperation. Hasenkamp told Dooley to meet her at Big Tree. When Dooley arrived at Big Tree, Hasenkamp was discussing with Gibson her rude and uncooperative behavior toward Dooley on the telephone. As Dooley walked in to Big Tree, Gibson jumped up, leaned over the desk and shouted that Dooley was not her supervisor and she did not have to report (or listen) to Dooley. In order to avoid a confrontation and to get the van to the client in need, Hasenkamp told Dooley to take the van. Dooley left. Hasenkamp sat down and waited for Brown to return to work. When Brown came in 45 minutes later, she had a bag of fast food. Hasenkamp asked where she had been and Brown advised that she had been getting breakfast. Brown said she had only been gone 25 to 30 minutes. Hasenkamp told Brown that it was against normal procedures to leave like that while on duty. Brown simply said she didn't know that. Hasenkamp then took Brown to Big Pine to relieve Dooley who was there alone, having sent the staff person in the van with the client. On the way, Hasenkamp stopped at her home and at her mother's home. When they arrived at Big Pine, Hasenkamp's briefcase fell open to reveal a counseling statement to Brown regarding some furniture, however, that counseling statement was administered at a later time. The counseling statement about the furniture arose from Hasenkamp's direct instructions to Brown to inspect some furniture that was to be delivered before signing the invoice. Brown did not inspect the furniture, but did sign the invoice. When the furniture was finally inspected by Hasenkamp, a tear was discovered in one chair. Brown claimed that she had told the maintenance man to look at the furniture, but that was contrary to Hasenkamp's direct instruction. Brown was "written up" for this failure to carry out her supervisor's instructions. Brown and Gibson were also written up for the incident regarding the van. Gibson was also written up regarding another matter. Hasenkamp had sent a memo to all of the staff about eating pastry in the office. She instructed all staff to initial and sign-off on the memo by a certain date. Everyone signed the memo except Gibson, who refused. The time for signing the memo passed, but rather than write Gibson up for failing to carry out her instructions, Hasenkamp called Gibson to find out why she had not signed the memo. Gibson was off work at the time and Hasenkamp called her at home. Gibson was extremely rude, told Hasenkamp that she had no business bothering her at home, and refused to discuss the memo. Gibson gave Hasenkamp no choice except to write her up again. On December 12, 1989, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Hasenkamp and Dooley drove up to Big Tree. Dooley went in for Hasenkamp because Hasenkamp was on crutches. Brown came outside to the car and told Hasenkamp she needed to come inside regarding a problem. Dooley and Hasenkamp observed Gibson holding and comforting a client, Janice, who was suffering a locked jaw and an extremely painful muscular reaction as a side effect of her psychotropic medication. The patient had to have been in severe discomfort for a couple of hours. The side effects are counteracted by another medication, Cogentin. It was obvious to Hasenkamp that the client needed emergency medical care. Hasenkamp asked if the client had been given her Cogentin. The Cogentin is to be given every day at 9:00 p.m., so Hasenkamp asked to see the medication records from December 11, 1989, to see whether the client had received her Cogentin. Gibson and Brown were the staff people for the 4 to 12 p.m. shift on both December 11 and 12, 1989. Hasenkamp asked Gibson if she had given the client the Cogentin on December 11th. Gibson said yes. Hasenkamp then looked at the medication records and found that no one had initialed to show that they had given the Cogentin on December 11th. Hasenkamp again asked Gibson, but when Gibson was shown the unsigned medication record, she admitted that she did not know if she had given the medication. Hasenkamp sent Gibson to take the client to the emergency room. The client was given an injection of Cogentin. When Gibson asked Hasenkamp if she should give the December 12th dose of Cogentin to the client, Hasenkamp told her no, because the injection would serve in place of the dose. Hasenkamp told Gibson to initial the medication record for December 12th to show that Cogentin was given. Hasenkamp also instructed Brown to hold the client back from work the next morning and to make sure the client was sent to med clinic so that the psychiatrist could review and adjust her medications. The next morning, December 13, 1989, Hasenkamp arrived at Big Tree just as the van was leaving with clients for med clinic. She flagged down the van and asked the driver, Rosario Rizzo, if that client, Janice, was on the van. Rizzo said "no" because no one had told him to take that client. Hasenkamp told Rizzo what had happened the night before, because Rizzo is a nurse. She then sent Rizzo to find the client and take her to med clinic. When Rizzo had arrived that morning, he went to the office and spoke with Brown and Nadine Banning. Banning was the person who had been on duty from midnight to 8:00 a.m. He personally asked Brown and Banning who was scheduled to go to med clinic. Brown read him the names off of a list, but did not mention Janice. At Hasenkamp's instructions, Rizzo found Janice at the bus stop, waiting to go to work. He took her to med clinic. When Hasenkamp went into Big Tree, she immediately asked Brown why she had failed to hold Janice and send her to med clinic. Brown's only reply was "It doesn't matter anyway because the psychiatrist won't see Janice without an appointment." Hasenkamp then went to look at the medication records for Janice and discovered that Gibson had gone back and filled in her initials to show that she had given the missed dose of Cogentin to Janice on December 11th. When Hasenkamp asked Gibson about this, Gibson told her that she remembered that she had given the medication on the 11th. In fact, it is not possible for the client to have had such a severe side effect reaction on December 12th if she had been given her medication on the 11th. Hasenkamp determined that Gibson and Brown had endangered the safety and health of a client and had failed to follow her direct instructions, because Gibson did not properly given the medication and Brown did not hold Janice for med clinic. Gibson's late "memory" that she had given the medication further undermined her confidence in Gibson. She felt she could no longer trust their judgment and could no longer entrust the care of patients to them. Hasenkamp recommended that both be terminated. Turley took that recommendation and did an investigation. From that investigation, she determined that they had, in fact, endangered the client. Specifically, Turley found that Gibson had failed to ensure that the medication was taken and had then tried to cover up that failure and that Brown had failed to get the client to med clinic as instructed. Turley terminated Brown and Gibson on December 14, 1989. The reason given to each in the letter of termination was "insubordination." This reason was given in writing because the personnel director of ACT recommended that they not say "endangerment of a client's health and safety" for liability reasons. Both Gibson and Brown filed a grievance with ACT's affirmative action officer, Carolyn Fleming, a black employee. Fleming did an extensive investigation of all of Gibson's and Brown's allegations of harassment and termination based on racial discrimination. Fleming determined that there was no racial discrimination in ACT's actions. Based on an observation of the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses and on a review of the contradictions in the testimony, it is determined that the testimony of Brown and Gibson is less credible than that of the witnesses for ACT. Both Brown and Gibson gave testimony that was calculated to show them in the best light. While it is not determined that their testimony was untrue, it is found that their memories of these events are skewed so as to diminish the severity of their failures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitions for Relief filed by Rosa Gibson and Lillian Brown be DENIED and DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 2nd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Rosa Gibson 1129 Hillcrest Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117 Reginald E. Moore Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1848 Daytona Beach, FL 32015 Mitchell A. Gordon Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, FL 32120
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of trust.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with protecting vulnerable persons, such as Medicaid recipients and the Medicaid program, and, in that capacity, it maintains discretion to approve or deny requests for exemption from disqualification. Petitioner is seeking to work as a certified nursing assistant. Petitioner’s employment goals require her to have a Level 2 criminal background screening to ensure she does not have any disqualifying offenses to prohibit her from working with AHCA-regulated facilities. Petitioner’s background screening of February 5, 2020, identified the following five criminal offenses: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting executive officer with minor injury. By letter dated February 5, 2020, AHCA notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to the disqualifying offense of “04/22/2017 Sheriff’s Office San Diego, Obstruct/Resist Exec Off.” The letter also informed Petitioner that she may be eligible to apply for an exemption from disqualification and how to apply. On or around February 7, 2020, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption from disqualification and supporting documentation to AHCA. By letter dated February 18, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption. On April 6, 2020, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Exemption (“exemption package”) to AHCA. Petitioner’s exemption package contained documentation including employment history, education/training, a criminal history report, arrest reports, investigation reports, a California Department of Public Health investigation report, and a 12-month suspension of nurse assistant certification. By letter dated April 7, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption, stating Petitioner is not eligible for the exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: ELDER/DEP ADULT CRUELTY, Case number CN3772399 Petitioner contested the denial and requested a formal administrative hearing. AHCA acknowledged the disqualifying offense error in the denial letter of April 7, 2020, and corrected its denial letter. The corrected denial letter dated September 8, 2020, deemed Petitioner not eligible for an exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: Corrected Disqualifying Offense: 04/22/2017 SHERIFF’S OFFICE SAN DIEGO, RESISTING AN OFFICER (California Penal Code section 148,) Case Number CN372399. Hearing At hearing, Petitioner testified about the incident that occurred on April 22, 2017, while working at Fallbrook Skilled Nursing (“Fallbrook”) in California. Petitioner explained that three police officers came to her job at Fallbrook while she was working her shift and asked to speak to her outside the facility about allegations of resident abuse. Petitioner testified she refused to leave the facility upon multiple instructions from the police to leave. Petitioner admitted that after an officer told her several times he was going to arrest her, she told the police “you don’t have a right to arrest me.” Petitioner detailed how she did not allow the police to put handcuffs on her because she believed the reports about her were lies. Ultimately, the incident escalated--Petitioner testified that when she did not allow the police to handcuff her, the three police officers put her on the ground, one put his knee on her back, and she was handcuffed. Petitioner weighed approximately 125 pounds when arrested. After the police got Petitioner outside, the three police officers picked her up, put her in the police car, and took her to jail. Petitioner was charged with: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting an officer, all stemming from the same April 22, 2017, incident. The elder abuse and trespass charges against Lalanne were dismissed. On January 30, 2018, Petitioner proceeded to a bench trial before a judge on the resisting an officer charge. At trial, Petitioner was found guilty and convicted of “count 1 PC 148 (a)(1), resisting an officer” in case number CN372399. That same day, the judge sentenced Petitioner to three years’ probation2 and community service for the resisting an officer conviction. Subsequently, the County of San Diego, California, probation department provided Petitioner a certificate of completion for completing her three days of public work service on or about September 13, 2018. Petitioner testified that she made a mistake when she did not listen to the officers and it was a lesson for her. She also testified that she believed there was no harm to the police and her offense is a misdemeanor not a felony. Vanessa Risch (“Risch”), AHCA’s operations and management consultant manager in the Background Screening Unit, testified that because Petitioner’s offense occurred in California, AHCA had to evaluate the nature of the offense, what occurred during the incident, and the final outcome of the case to determine the correlating criminal offense in Florida. Risch testified that she contacted the California Clerk of Courts to validate the outcome of Petitioner’s case and probationary status. Risch testified that, through her investigation, she confirmed that Petitioner’s probation started on January 30, 2018, and terminates on January 30, 2021. Risch also detailed how AHCA converted Petitioner’s California resisting an officer charge to a Florida resisting arrest with violence felony offense, after determining the officers in California had to force Petitioner’s body to the ground after Petitioner did not comply with the officers’ repeated instructions. AHCA concluded that Petitioner’s actions of opposing the three 2 The compelling evidence at hearing supports Petitioner’s probationary sentence. The undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to testify honestly and forthright regarding her three-year probationary period. First, Petitioner denied knowledge of any probationary period even though probation was listed on the sentencing documents Petitioner presented as Exhibit 1. Also, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 is from the probation department. Additionally, Petitioner testified that her lawyer told her she had probation, which confirms Petitioner’s knowledge of her probationary period. officers is equivalent to the criminal offense of resisting arrest with violence in Florida. Risch testified that resisting an officer with violence is a disqualifying felony offense. Risch testified further that AHCA ultimately concluded that Petitioner was not eligible to apply for an exemption. Risch explained that Petitioner’s current probationary status prohibited her from being eligible to apply for an exemption because eligibility starts three years after Petitioner’s probationary period for the disqualifying felony offense is terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order denying Shaddainah Lalanne’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 9th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaddainah Sherly Lalanne Apartment 206 6609 Woods Island Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 (eServed) Katie Jackson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Bill Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shevaun L. Harris, Acting Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Baypoint Hotel Associates operates a hotel at Marriott's Bay Point Resort in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner, Jerry D. Hicks, was employed by Respondent, Baypoint Hotel Associates, for approximately five and one Petitioner worked as a bell captain at Respondent's Panama City Beach, Florida, hotel for approximately two and one termination of his employment with Respondent. The bell captain's job required some heavy lifting. There was no dispute regarding the fact that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act, and that all jurisdictional requirements have been met. Petitioner requested, and was granted, a leave of absence from his job effective December 17, 1991, in order to have back surgery to repair a herniated disc. By electing to take a leave of absence, Petitioner understood that he was not guaranteed his bell captain's job upon his return. In fact, he was not guaranteed any job upon his return, but would be given preference should there be an opening in any employment position for which he was qualified. There was no evidence that Respondent's leave of absence policy was not consistently applied or applied in a discriminatory manner. As a result of his surgery, Petitioner was unable to work from December 17, 1991, until April 9, 1992, when he was released by his doctor to return to work. No medical evidence was presented that Petitioner's "back problem" constituted a handicap or was perceived as a handicap by his employer. During Petitioner's absence from work, his job duties were reassigned to two assistant bell captains. After being released by his doctor to return to work, Petitioner informed Respondent's Human Resources Department, on or about the week of April 13, 1992, that he was ready to return to work, but that he would temporarily not be able to perform all of the duties, namely heavy lifting, of his former job as bell captain because of his surgery. After Petitioner requested to return to his job as a bell captain, Respondent's Director of Human Resources informed Petitioner that his former job was no longer available because Respondent's management had reassigned the bell captain's duties to two assistant bell captains and that Respondent did not plan to refill the job of bell captain under a reorganization of that service area. In lieu of returning Petitioner to his former job as bell captain, Respondent's human resource director informed Petitioner that he could interview for several available jobs at Respondent's hotel, including the jobs of telephone operator/supervisor, front desk clerk or reservation sales agent. Petitioner testified that he was unwilling to consider any job that paid less money than he was paid in his former job as a bell captain. By the time Petitioner informed Respondent's human resource director on April 28, 1992, that he was ready to interview for the reservation job; however, the reservations job had already been filled. Petitioner had waited an inordinate amount of time in advising Respondent of his interest in the reservations job and therefore lost his opportunity to apply. There was no evidence of any discrimination on the part of Respondent.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October, 1993. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 29th day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1504 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Hicks 1202 Parker Drive Panama City, Florida 32401 Michael D. Giles, Esquire 1410 AmSouth Harbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2602 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F (Suite 240) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ms. Sharon Moultry Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1993, Petitioner filed a complaint, including attachments, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) alleging that Respondent had discriminated against him on the basis of sex/gender (male) and marital status (single) in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act. In his complaint, Petitioner states in pertinent part: I am writing to file a FORMAL SEX/MARTIAL STATUS DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT against: 7) Lighthouse Academy at 3701 NE 22nd Avenue, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064. * * * 6) Lighthouse Point Academy - Many times throughout the year I contacted +/or applied for positions at this private school for special education children. Because of their lack of acknowledgement, I question whether or not their hiring practices are discrim- inating. On August 9, 1993, Petitioner filed the same complaint with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but alleging that the discrimination was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). On May 23, 1995, the EEOC issued its determination that Respondent had not considered Petitioner's gender or marital status and that no violation of Title VII had been committed. Furthermore, the EEOC notified Petitioner in its determination that he had 90 days in which to file a civil suit in federal district court and that the suit was his exclusive remedy. On or about August 5, 1995, Petitioner requested a formal hearing from the FCHR which had not issued a determination on the complaint filed with it. Petitioner requested a hearing on his claim of discrimination based on gender/sex (male) and marital status (single). On August 14, 1995, Petitioner filed suit in federal district court alleging that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. On April 30, 1996, the federal district court issued a final judgment in Respondent's favor, resulting from cross-motions for summary final judgment. 1/ The court determined that, based upon the motions, the record, and the status of the case, and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Petitioner, Petitioner had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that he was intentionally discriminated against by Respondent on the basis of sex. In the instant case, at no time material hereto did Respondent make inquiry as to Petitioner's marital status. In the case at hand, at no time material hereto did Petitioner inform Respondent as to his marital status. In the instant case, at no time material hereto did Respondent have any knowledge of Petitioner's marital status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Steve J. Longariello be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 13th day of June, 1996.
