The Issue Whether the Respondent, Mario Medero, discriminated against the Petitioner, Sharon L. Zbikowski, on the basis of her sex, female?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Sharon L. Zbikowski, is a female. The Respondent, Mario Medero, is a male. Dr. Medero is a physician. He practices medicine as a professional association. Dr. Medero is the chief executive officer and the supervisor or principal of the professional association. The professional association operates a medical office in Ocala, Florida. The medical practice performed by Dr. Medero consists primarily of treating individuals who have been injured on the job and who are covered by workers compensation insurance. Ms. Zbikowski's Employment. On August 20, 1992, Ms. Zbikowski was hired for employment by Dr. Medero's professional association as the front desk receptionist at Dr. Medero's office. At the time she was hired, Ms. Zbikowski was told that she would be considered for an accounts payable clerk position at the office. The position was held by Barbara Redding if Ms. Redding left the position. Ms. Zbikowski was told at the time of her employment that her consideration for the position of accounts payable clerk was dependent upon Ms. Redding actually leaving. Ms. Redding ultimately decided not to resign her position. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Zbikowski was hired as a bookkeeper or accounts payable clerk, or that she was not placed in the position she was hired to fill. Ms. Zbikowski's Performance. Ms. Zbikowski worked initially at the front desk. Her performance was considered inadequate by Marilyn Hartsel, the office manager and Ms. Zbikowski's immediate supervisor. Ms. Zbikowski was moved to other positions within the office. She worked for a while in medical records and for approximately one day in accounts payable with Ms. Redding. Ms. Zbikowski's performance in medical records and in accounts payable was also considered inadequate by Ms. Hartsel. Within three or four weeks after Ms. Zbikowski began her employment, Ms. Hartsel had decided to recommend that Ms. Zbikowski be terminated because of the inadequacy of her work. Ms. Zbikowski's Employment by Dr. Medero. At the time that Ms. Zbikowski was initially employed at Dr. Medero's office, Dr. Medero had caused the office to advertise for a housekeeper for his home. Ms. Zbikowski discussed the position with Dr. Medero. Dr. Medero agreed to employ Ms. Zbikowski as his housekeeper and Ms. Zbikowski agreed to work as Dr. Medero's housekeeper. Ms. Zbikowski agreed to clean Dr. Medero's house, run errands for him and the office, pick up his son from school and take his son to and from tennis lessons, meet Dr. Medero's former wife half way between Ocala and Tampa to pick up or to drop off Dr. Medero's daughter, who was in the custody of his former wife, and generally oversee his household. Although the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Zbikowski performed services in her capacity as housekeeper for anyone other than Dr. Medero, Ms. Zbikowski was paid for her services out of accounts of the professional association and Ms. Hartsel continued to be her immediate supervisor. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Zbikowski was forced in any way to accept employment as Dr. Medero's housekeeper. The evidence proved that she accepted the position voluntarily and without coercion. Ms. Zbikowski continued to work as Dr. Medero's housekeeper until September 28, 1992. During her employment as Dr. Medero's housekeeper, Dr. Medero was satisfied with Ms. Zbikowski's performance. Alleged Sexual Harassment. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Medero sexually harassed Ms. Zbikowski. Ms. Zbikowski testified about very few specific alleged incidents involving Dr. Medero and the evidence failed to substantiate those incidents. Ms. Zbikowski admitted that she had had no physical contact with Dr. Medero except for one occasion when she hugged him from advancing funds to her to pay for her son's day care and on another occasion when he gave her a physical examination after being in an automobile accident. The evidence failed to prove that either incident involved improper conduct by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski's testimony that Dr. Medero evidenced a "flirtatious manner" was not substantiated by competent substantial evidence of specific incidents. The most specific incident, and the incident which led to Ms. Zbikowski's termination from employment, took place on Thursday, September 24, 1992. At lunch on that day, Ms. Zbikowski and her four year old son were in Dr. Medero's back yard. Ms. Zbikowski was cleaning lawn furniture. Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding came to Dr. Medero's house, waved at Ms. Zbikowski and went into Dr. Medero's bedroom. The curtains/blinds to the bedroom windows were closed soon after Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding went into the room. Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding, both of whom were not married at the time, were lovers. Ms. Zbikowski was aware of their relationship. At no time did Ms. Zbikowski see Dr. Medero or Ms. Redding in Dr. Medero's bedroom. Ms. Zbikowski believes that Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding engaged in sexual intercourse while in the bedroom. This belief was not, however, substantiated by competent substantial evidence. Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding, who is not longer involved personally or in a working relationship with Dr. Medero, both testified that they did not engage in sexual intercourse. Ms. Zbikowski did not see them engage in intercourse. At best, Ms. Zbikowski's belief was based upon hearing "giggling" and "these little, um, sounds and things" from the bedroom. Ms. Zbikowski's Termination from Employment. On the afternoon of September 24, 1992, Ms. Zbikowski spoke with Ms. Hartsel and told her that Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding had sexual intercourse in her presence and her son's presence. Ms. Zbikowski was very upset and Ms. Hartsel told her to take the afternoon off and report to the office the next morning. Ms. Zbikowski also made other allegations, which the evidence failed to substantiate, of incidents of sexual harassment by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski left a beeper and a garage door opener she had been provided by Dr. Medero at Dr. Medero's home and left. The next morning, Friday, September 25, 1992, Ms. Zbikowski reported to the office. She was told that she would be expected to the work at the office in the mornings and then work at Dr. Medero's home in the afternoons. Ms. Zbikowski left at lunch and did not return. Ms. Zbikowski informed Ms. Hartsel that she did not intend to return that day because she did not want to return to Dr. Medero's home. Ms. Hartsel told Ms. Zbikowski that she would discuss the matter with Dr. Medero. Ms. Hartsel did not, however, order Ms. Zbikowski to return to work that day or inform her that she was not authorized to stay home. After speaking to Ms. Hartsel by telephone that weekend and being told that Ms. Hartsel had not yet discussed the matter with Dr. Medero, Ms. Zbikowski reported to work Monday, September 29, 1992. By the time that Ms. Zbikowski returned to the office on Monday, Dr. Medero had been informed of the allegations of sexual harassment she had made against him to Ms. Hartsel. Shortly after arriving at the office, Ms. Zbikowski was escorted to her automobile by Dr. Medero, Ms. Hartsel and a nurse and was told by Dr. Medero not to return. Ms. Zbikowski was, therefore, fired by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski was terminated because of the allegations she made concerning Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding and the other allegations of sexual harassment. Ms. Zbikowski was not terminated because she was not performing her duties as Dr. Medero's housekeeper in a satisfactory manner. Ms. Zbikowski's Subsequent Employment. Ms. Zbikowski was employed, and eventually terminated, by other physicians after her termination from employment by Dr. Medero. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Medero was involved in any manner in Ms. Zbikowski's subsequent terminations from employment. Ms. Zbikowski's Charge of Discrimination. Ms. Zbikowski filed a Charge of Discrimination against Dr. Medero with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Zbikowski alleged that she had been discriminated against based upon the following: I am a female. I worked for the above named respondent since August 20, 1992, until September 28, 1992 when I was discharged from my position of maid. During my employment I was subjected to sexual harassment by Dr. Mario Medero, and also I was subjected to different terms and conditions in my employment. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. On September 2, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Zbikowski filed a Petition for Relief, requesting a formal administrative hearing on October 19, 1993. In the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission Ms. Zbikowski alleged, in part, the following: Respondent has violated the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, in the manner specifically described below: Petitioner did not abandoned [sic] her job. Petitioner was hired for one position and was told to accept another position 1 1/2 weeks into her employment which was not mentioned, nor described as part of original position. The disputed issues of material fact, if any, are as listed below: Petitioner did not abandoned [sic] her job. Petitioner was hired for one position and was told to accept another position 1 1/2 weeks into her employment which was not mentioned, nor described as part of original position. The ultimate facts alleged and entitlement to relief are as listed below: . . . . The alleged fact memos are that Petitioner was hired for a "Bookkeeping" position but was never given the opportunity to work in this position as original Bookkeeper (Dr. Medero's girlfriend) decided not to leave her position, so Petitioner was given a less meaningful job as "Housekeeper" but was subjected to harassing sexual misconduct by Respondent. The relief is as follows: Petitioner has for 1 year been trying to maintain and seek employment in the Medical field, one which she has worked in for 13 years, but because of Dr. Medero's influence in the Medical field has made it very hard for Petitioner to continue in this field. Petitioner is seeking recovery for the discriminating position he placed her in while under his employment plus relief from the undue hardship which has been placed upon her because of his lies in this matter. . . . . . . . Ms. Zbikowski proved the following allegations contained in her Charge of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief: "I am a female." "I worked for the above named respondent since August 20, 1992, until September 28, 1992, when I was discharged from my position of maid." "Petitioner did not abandoned [sic] her job." The remaining allegations contained in the Charge of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief were not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Zbikowski. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that any action of Dr. Medero was based upon Ms. Zbikowski's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not sexually harassed and she was not terminated because of her sex. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that any policy or standard of Dr. Medero or his office had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that she was replaced by a male or that other female employees with comparable or lessor qualifications were retained. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that she was sexually harassed by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that Dr. Medero or his office discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, based on her sex or in retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013).2/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, was at all times relevant hereto an employee of the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs (Respondent or Department), is the state agency responsible for administering human services programs for the elderly and for developing policy recommendations for long-term care. See § 430.03, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent operates a Comprehensive Assessment and Review for Long-Term Care (CARES) program to assess individuals for Medicaid long-term care services, whether in a nursing facility, in a private home, or in another community setting. The CARES program operates 19 offices statewide and one central office in Tallahassee. Medical assessments are conducted by CARES Assessors (CAs), and Senior CAs. CAs and Senior CAs are supervised by a Program Operations Administrator (POA) in each office, who reports to a Regional Program Supervisor (RPS). The RPS reports to the Deputy Bureau Chief in Tallahassee, who reports to the Bureau Chief; who, in turn, reports to the Division Director for Statewide and Community- Based Services. In January 2013, Petitioner began employment as a CA in Respondent’s Gainesville office. Petitioner began in a one-year probationary employment status. The record did not clearly establish how many individuals were employed in the Gainesville office with Petitioner. There was an office assistant, Rose Gonzalez; at least four other CAs, including Justin Keels; a registered nurse; and their supervisor, POA Sam Rutledge. Freadda Zeigler was the RPS for the region, which included the Gainesville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Daytona Beach offices. Ms. Zeigler commuted from her home in Broward County. In Tallahassee, Jay Hudson was the Deputy Bureau Chief, Paula James was the Bureau Chief, Carol Carr was the Deputy Division Director, and Marcy Hajdukiewicz was the Division Director. The Gainesville territory covered from Marion County north to the Florida/Georgia line, west to the Leon County line, and east to the Duval County line. CAs were assigned to particular locations within the office’s jurisdiction. CAs traveled to both health care facilities (e.g., nursing homes, assisted living facilities) and private homes to meet with and personally evaluate the needs of the client. Petitioner was primarily assigned to cover facilities in Jasper, Live Oak, Dowling Park, Mayo, and Lake City. Petitioner was in the field conducting evaluations two to three times per week. Her assignments required some long commutes, up to one and one-half hours to Jasper (just south of the Georgia line) and over an hour to Dowling Park and Live Oak. In February 2013, a senior CA position became open in Gainesville. Both Petitioner and Mr. Keels applied and were interviewed for the position. Mr. Keels was selected for the position in March. As senior CA, Mr. Keels did not supervise other CAs in the Gainesville office, but was “put in charge” when Mr. Rutledge was out of the office. When Petitioner began her employment in Gainesville, she was told that a desk was being ordered for her. She was given a folding table to use in her workspace. Petitioner’s workspace was in an open area of the office. Other employees would pass through and occasionally gather in her workspace on breaks or on their way to lunch. Petitioner testified that Mr. Rutledge often came into the open area to interact with other employees around lunchtime to see if anyone wanted to “get food.” Sexual Harassment Claim4/ One day in late March 2013, Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Keels were in Petitioner’s workspace and began discussing a restaurant with the word “cooter” in its name. During this conversation, the two men stood on opposite sides of Petitioner’s worktable, where Petitioner was seated. One of the men asked Petitioner if she knew what the word “cooter” meant, and she responded that she did not. One of the men stated that it meant “vagina.” Petitioner testified that she was embarrassed, uncomfortable, and felt trapped at her worktable where the men stood on either side of her. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone at first. Petitioner testified that she was afraid that if she said anything, she would be fired. Petitioner’s ambivalence was due in no small part to the fact that Mr. Rutledge was her supervisor. Petitioner described another incident that occurred shortly before the “cooter” incident. Mr. Rutledge called Petitioner into his office and asked her to look at a picture on his computer screen. The picture was of a woman in a bikini. Mr. Rutledge said something to the effect of “that is what my ex-wife used to look like.” Petitioner was embarrassed and left Mr. Rutledge’s office. Respondent maintains a sexual harassment policy of which Petitioner was aware. The policy provides, in part, that “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she is the victim of sexual harassment . . . may make an oral or written complaint to the General Counsel or Director of Internal & External Affairs within 365 days of the alleged discriminatory action.” In April 2013, approximately a week after the “cooter” incident, Respondent’s Inspector General Taroub King began an investigation of Mr. Rutledge, prompted by an anonymous complaint. Among the allegations investigated were that Mr. Rutledge borrowed money from employees, encouraged employees to participate in an investment scheme (or schemes), and utilized employees to witness signatures and notarize documents of a personal nature. The complaint described Mr. Rutledge as maintaining no management structure, lacking basic documentation, and essentially performing no work of any kind. Petitioner was interviewed in connection with the investigation by Ms. King and another investigator from the Inspector General’s office on April 4, 2013. Petitioner was placed under oath and her interview was audio-recorded. Petitioner was questioned about the allegations in the complaint against Mr. Rutledge, and she fully cooperated with the investigators. At the end of the interview, Ms. King asked Petitioner if she had any other information to relay. At that point, Petitioner reported that inappropriate comments and banter of a sexual nature occurred in the office. Petitioner did not report any other details. Ms. King asked Petitioner for particular examples. In response, Petitioner shared the “cooter” incident and the “bikini” incident. All of the employees in the Gainesville office were interviewed by Ms. King. Mr. Keels was interviewed after Petitioner and was questioned about the “cooter” incident and office banter of a sexual nature. At the final hearing, Petitioner maintained that there was both frequent sexual banter and inappropriate conversations in the Gainesville office. She testified that the staff nurse once referred to a patient as having “balls the size of a bull.” She also reported that Mr. Rutledge made hand gestures indicating that Ms. Gonzalez was large-breasted. Petitioner did not share these details with Ms. King during her interview. As with the “bikini” incident, Petitioner was able to walk away from, or otherwise ignore, the comments and gestures of a sexual nature in the workplace. Upon her return to Tallahassee, Ms. King reported her investigative findings to members of Respondent’s Human Resources Department, the Deputy Secretary, and the Director of Internal and External Affairs. Petitioner testified that she sent Ms. King an email sometime after her interview asking whether more information was needed from Petitioner regarding her complaints of inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. Ms. King denied that Petitioner sent any follow-up email of that nature. Ms. King did recall an email from Petitioner requesting public records. Respondent terminated Mr. Rutledge on April 8, 2013, four days after Petitioner was interviewed by Ms. King. The decision to terminate Mr. Rutledge was made by management in the Tallahassee office. Both Mr. Hudson, the Deputy Bureau Chief, and Ms. James, the Bureau Chief, traveled from Tallahassee to Gainesville to terminate Mr. Rutledge. Ms. Zeigler was likewise present at the Gainesville office for the termination of Mr. Rutledge. However, Ms. Zeigler claimed not to have been informed ahead of time about the termination. She said the appearance of Mr. Hudson and Ms. James at the Gainesville office on April 8, 2013, was a surprise to her. In early May 2013, a significant remodel of the Gainesville office was initiated. The remodel created confusion in the Gainesville office, with furniture being moved around, office files and equipment being boxed up, and the general mess associated with construction in the workplace. At some point, Petitioner lost track of an entire box of her files and later found them on the floor under a pile of chairs she assumed the painters had moved.5/ Alleged Acts of Retaliation Respondent named Mr. Keels as Acting POA, effective April 8, 2013. Ms. James testified, credibly, that Mr. Keels was named Acting POA because he was the senior CA in the office. Mr. Keels was questioned about the “cooter” incident during his interview by the Inspector General. Thus, there is sufficient evidence from which the undersigned can infer that Mr. Keels was aware Petitioner had reported the “cooter” incident to the Inspector General during the investigation of Mr. Rutledge. Petitioner complained that she was ostracized by other employees in Gainesville after Mr. Rutledge was terminated. Petitioner also complained that Mr. Keels treated her unfairly in his capacity as acting POA. First, Petitioner maintained that Mr. Keels increased her caseload, from about 27 to about 44 cases, which made her job very difficult given the lengthy commutes to her assigned facilities. Petitioner introduced no evidence, other than her testimony, that her caseload substantially increased after Mr. Keels became acting POA. Petitioner complained to the Inspector General on April 4, 2013, that her caseload under Mr. Rutledge’s supervision was inordinately heavy. Petitioner also shared with the Inspector General that Mr. Keels, in his capacity as senior CA, was unfair in case distribution. Further, Petitioner testified that although her caseload was heavy in early May, it later declined. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Keels assigned Petitioner an inordinately heavy caseload following her complaints to the Inspector General and Mr. Keels’ temporary promotion to acting POA. Sometime after Mr. Keels became acting POA, he took away Petitioner’s worktable. According to Petitioner, Mr. Keels said he took the table for use in the conference room for “staffings,” a term that was not explained by any witness. Petitioner testified there were other tables available in the meeting room which could have been used for that purpose. For the next two months, Petitioner completed her in- office work at a window ledge. She placed her laptop and files on the ledge and utilized extra chairs for additional workspace. In June 2013, Petitioner was presented with a new desk. Petitioner’s Termination During Mr. Rutledge’s tenure as POA, the Bureau had rolled out significant changes to the CARES program. Those changes had not been implemented by Mr. Rutledge, much less communicated to the Gainesville staff. After Mr. Rutledge’s termination, CARES management began monitoring the Gainesville office very closely. During the next few months, Ms. Zeigler was more frequently present in the Gainesville office and was in almost constant contact with Mr. Hudson regarding the activities of the Gainesville office. However, Ms. Zeigler was unaware of any discussions Mr. Hudson may have had with the Bureau Chief or the Division Director. Shortly after Mr. Rutledge’s departure, Ms. Zeigler met with the Gainesville staff to explain new procedures. Among the procedures was a requirement to include on employees’ GroupWise calendars, an entry of every planned field visit. The CAs’ GroupWise calendars were accessible not only to their immediate supervising POA, but also to the RPS and higher-level managers. The calendar was an important management tool used by Respondent both to perform quality assurance checks and to monitor employee performance. On May 9, 2013, Ms. Zeigler sent the following email to the CAs in Gainesville: Good afternoon all, As mentioned in the past meeting in your office, it was requested that I be given access to your GroupWise calendars to help monitor accountability for field visits with Specialization. I would like to thank each of you for adhering to the request, and would like to ask each of you to add the following information to your calendars: First and Last name of client visiting Facility name where client will be visited Home address if visiting client in the home Purpose of visit Time of visit (include estimated travel time) * * * This information is needed for accountability purposes, and also used to check that assessments are being entered in CIRTS, per the attached CARES policy #PPH Update No2011_2, that is still currently in place. Effective immediately, I would like for each worker to add this information to their calendars prior to making a visit. You should also add any approved leave time that you will be taking as well. If your visit schedule changes, it needs to be noted on the calendar with the appropriate change. Please revisit this memo for a thorough understanding. On May 14, 2013, Ms. Zeigler sent an email to Petitioner informing Petitioner that information on her calendar was incorrect. On May 31, 2013, Ms. Zeigler issued a formal counseling memorandum to Petitioner for failure to list her client visits on her GroupWise calendar as directed. The following excerpt is especially relevant: You were instructed to submit your plans for field visits [sic] travel at least one day in advance of the actual travel. A review of your calendar clearly showed that you either did not put any information on your calendar as required and/or you entered incorrect data, for the following dates: April 16, 2013, May 6, 2013, May 7, 2013, May 9, 2013, May 10, 2013, and again on May 14, 2013. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not deny that she failed to enter required information on her calendar. Instead, Petitioner offered a series of excuses, including system connectivity issues, her travel schedule, and confusion regarding a transition from GroupWise to the Outlook calendar system. With regard to connectivity, Petitioner explained that there were problems connecting to the Department’s computer system from remote locations and, occasionally, in the Gainesville office. Petitioner likewise testified that she would not return home until 6:00 p.m. or later on days she traveled to Jasper and other remote field locations. Petitioner complained that connectivity issues prevented her access to GroupWise from home, and thus, was unable to enter the visits scheduled for the following day. Petitioner testified that she complained to the information technology department in Tallahassee about connectivity issues and diligently tried to address these concerns. Petitioner introduced in evidence an email exchange between herself and Ms. Zeigler in which she complained about, and Ms. Zeigler resolved, an issue with Petitioner’s access to CIRTS – the Department’s online case input system. The email string is dated July 17, 2013, well after the date of Petitioner’s documented missing calendar entries. Further, the email relates to access to the case input system and is irrelevant to Petitioner’s claim of issues with connectivity to the computer system in general. Finally, Petitioner explained that the Department changed from GroupWise to the Outlook system, and she was confused about whether to continue adding entries on her GroupWise calendar during that transition. In the May 31, 2013, counseling memorandum, Ms. Zeigler referred to the program’s transition from the GroupWise to the Outlook calendaring system, as follows: The Microsoft Outlook Email and Calendar program was installed on all computers in DOEA, migrating existing GroupWise information to the new Outlook program on May 28, 2013. Instruction videos and online documentation were made available to all DOEA employees to learn how to utilize the new program. You were instructed to give proxy access to the RPS via email from the acting Supervisor. It is evident that you were successful in accessing the Outlook Calendar, as you sent the RPS a request to share your calendar on May 30, 2013. On the same date, you left the office to go to the field at 12:55 p.m., and failed to update/place any information on your calendar before departing. The sign in sheet indicated that you were going to a nursing facility. This repeated failure to comply with procedures is unacceptable. As a result of this failure, your supervisor was unaware of what facility and/or client you were seeing and how long it would take time wise for the field visit. You effectively prohibited your supervisor from knowing your whereabouts and/or the client(s) to be seen. In light of the facts, Petitioner’s alleged confusion about whether to continue adding information to her GroupWise calendar is not credible. Petitioner did not send an Outlook calendar-sharing invite to Ms. Zeigler until May 30, 2013, well after her missing GroupWise calendar entries of April 16 and May 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14, 2013. Further, Petitioner failed to calendar her appointments the same day she sent Ms. Zeigler the calendar- sharing invitation, thus belying any excuse that she had connectivity issues, at least on that particular date. In an effort to minimize the significance of her failure to document her field visits on her calendar, Petitioner testified that she noted her field visits on a daily sign-in log physically maintained in the Gainesville office. Petitioner introduced a composite exhibit purporting to be copies of the daily sign-in logs from April, May, June, and July 2013. Even if the exhibit was reliable evidence of Petitioner’s whereabouts, the logs are irrelevant to the issue of whether Petitioner complied with the electronic calendaring requirement. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the daily sign-in log was an acceptable alternative to Ms. Zeigler’s specific, clear, and repeated direction to all Gainesville employees to use their GroupWise, and later Outlook, calendars to note their planned field visits with required details. The evidence conflicted as to whether Ms. Zeigler’s May 31, 2013, counseling memorandum constituted discipline. Petitioner testified that the memorandum was a training tool. Ms. Zeigler testified alternately, and with hesitancy, that the memorandum was “almost like a verbal warning type of thing,” and “unofficially formal.” On cross-examination, Ms. Zeigler testified, “I don’t think that that would be a reason to fire somebody after one counseling memo. I mean that would be absurd.” Ms. James testified that the memorandum constituted a first-step disciplinary action. Ms. James explained that a counseling memorandum is preceded by a verbal warning from the supervisor. The Department’s disciplinary policy was not introduced in evidence. In light of Petitioner’s probationary employment status, the issue of whether the counseling memorandum constituted discipline is largely irrelevant. The counseling memorandum is evidence of poor job performance during Petitioner’s probationary employment period. At some point after Mr. Rutledge’s termination, the Department advertised for the open POA position. Both Petitioner and Mr. Keels applied for the position. Mr. Hudson and Ms. Zeigler conducted interviews for the position. Petitioner was not responsive to Ms. Zeigler’s efforts to schedule Petitioner’s interview for the position. Eventually, Ms. Zeigler did interview Petitioner for the position. Ms. Zeigler also interviewed Mr. Keels. In June 2013, Ms. Zeigler prepared performance evaluations of the Gainesville staff. Ms. Zeigler had little knowledge of staff performance prior to Mr. Rutledge’s termination, as Ms. Zeigler was new to the region. Ms. Zeigler gave all the Gainesville employees ratings of “3,” satisfactory performance, across the board. In late July 2013, Ms. Carr and Ms. Hajdukiewicz from the Tallahassee office came to the Gainesville office and personally terminated Mr. Keels. Ms. James did not directly make the decision to terminate Mr. Keels, but she agreed with the decision. Ms. James stated that Mr. Keels was terminated based on his actions after he became acting POA in Gainesville. Ms. James did not elaborate and neither counsel asked any follow-up question. On July 31, 2013, Ms. Carr and Ms. James came to the Gainesville office from Tallahassee, met with Petitioner, and offered her a choice of resignation or termination. Petitioner chose termination. That same day, after leaving the office, Petitioner called the Department of Human Resources and requested to change her termination to resignation. The request was granted. Petitioner did not ask why she was being terminated or asked to resign. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. Carr nor Ms. James gave her a reason. Ms. Zeigler resigned from the Department in October 2013. The circumstances of Ms. Zeigler’s resignation were not introduced in evidence. In that regard, Ms. Zeigler testified as follows: I had a lot of questions with the State that probably should not come up here, but there are a lot of questionable things that were going on with the State at the time which led to my resignation. So I did not question it. I did not question [Petitioner’s] termination based off of my ability to run the office, because I almost felt like it was being run above me.[6/] Ms. Zeigler’s testimony was introduced in support of Petitioner’s claims. However, Ms. Zeigler had difficulty recalling events, including the timing of relevant events. Of note, Ms. Zeigler testified that she was the RPS for Gainesville about a year, meaning she would have begun in the position in October 2012. Later, she testified that Mr. Rutledge was terminated “not long after I was there [as RPS].” Her testimony was hesitant, hedging, and sometimes conflicting. Ms. Zeigler testified that she was in daily contact with Mr. Hudson about issues in the Gainesville office after Mr. Rutledge was terminated, but claimed to have had no advance notice of either Mr. Keels’ or Petitioner’s termination. As such, the undersigned finds Ms. Zeigler’s testimony to be both unreliable and unpersuasive. Ms. Zeigler’s counseling memorandum to Petitioner regarding calendaring is credible evidence of Petitioner’s job performance which cannot be discounted by Ms. Zeigler’s after-the-fact, and apparently biased, testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, did commit an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, and prohibiting the practice. However, under the specific facts of the case, the undersigned recommends no affirmative relief from the effects of the practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 5th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by retaliating against Petitioner for filing a charge of discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jacques Pierre (Petitioner or Mr. Pierre) is black and his national origin is Haitian. He has worked in the United States for 24 years. On or about January 25, 2006, Mr. Pierre filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a charge of discrimination against his employer, Respondent, SSA Security, Inc., a/k/a Security Services of America, a California Corporation (Respondent or SSA). SSA, under a subcontract with a federal government contractor, Alutiiq-Mele, provided security services for a federal building in Miami. SSA continued to employ Petitioner as a security guard when it took over the contract from his previous employer, Superior Protection. Contractors and managers changed, in the past, but the security guards stayed the same. On August 10, 2006, and August 15, 2006, first Mr. Pierre, then a representative for SSA signed an agreement to settle the EEOC complaint. With a letter dated August 23, 2006, Mr. Pierre received a settlement check in the amount of $1,257.04, and he was advised to report any future unlawful harassment or discrimination charges by use of a "Harassment Hotline and [to] speak with your local area manager, Barry Hirsch [sic]." Captain Barry Hersch was Mr. Pierre's immediate supervisor. The agreement was approved, in principle, by Kent Jurney, Sr., an SSA corporate officer. The language of the agreement is, in relevant part, as follows: Removal of all Disciplinary Notices in File. Company agrees to remove all writings related to disciplinary actions taken against Employee from Employee's personnel file maintained by the Company. Employee understands that the removal of said documents does not prevent the Company from issuing disciplinary notices and/or taking disciplinary action against Employee as necessary in the future should Employee violate the Company's rules of [sic] policies. * * * 4. Confidentiality Clause. The Employee and the Company agree to the following confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement: (a) The parties represent and agree that they will keep the terms and amount of this agreement completely confidential. The parties will not hereafter disclose any information concerning this agreement to anyone, including but not limited to, any past, present or prospective employee of the Company or any prospective employer of the Employee. On August 25, 2006, the federal government changed the requirements in the contract. No longer would security guards be allowed to take breaks at the start or end of their shifts, but only during the middle. Mr. Pierre was made aware of the change. In violation of the requirement, on September 1, 2006, Mr. Pierre took his break at the end of his shift. The federal government contract also prohibited security guards from being on the work premises more than 30 minutes before or after their shifts. On August 28, 2006, Mr. Pierre returned to his work site and entered the building more than 30 minutes after his shift to retrieve keys and a telephone charger. Mr. Pierre also got into a loud and profane argument with another worker during his unauthorized return to the building. Mr. Pierre admitted he had an incident where he got into an argument with and "fired back" at a supervisor in 1995 or 1996. Beginning on or about July 10, 2006, Petitioner began to request, but initially was denied, leave. Mr. Pierre was feeling threatened and harassed by his supervisors and was suffering physically as a result. On a form dated August 25, 2006, Mr. Pierre said he was requesting leave from September 11 to September 25, with a return date of September 27, 2006. Spaces on the form to indicate whether it was approved or disapproved, and by whom are blank. As the reason for the request, Mr. Pierre indicated "stress related: as a result of retaliation.” This time, Captain Hersch, approved the request and Mr. Pierre went on vacation in September 2006. On September 5, 2006, as instructed by Mr. Jurney, another Miami supervisor, Bill Graham, issued a memorandum to Mr. Pierre requiring him to attend a mandatory meeting "about several important issues and notifying him of his "temporary removal from the schedule until this meeting has taken place." Copies of the memorandum were sent to Mr. Jurney and Captain Hersch. The evidence is insufficient to determine if other security guards who violated the same rules were subjected to the same consequences, or if discipline was uniformly applied. Mr. Pierre requested, either through his supervisor, Captain Hersch, or directly to Mr. Graham, that the attorney who handled his EEOC complaint and settlement agreement be allowed to attend the meeting with him. Mr. Jurney denied the request. Because he never attended a meeting, Mr. Pierre remained "off the schedule." For the remainder of 2006 and in early 2007, he was working part-time only at his second job with the State Department of Corrections. Mr. Pierre's income was reduced from $15 an hour ($17 minus $2 for insurance) for 40-hour weeks with SSA, plus $1,000 every two weeks from Corrections to only his Corrections pay. The evidence is insufficient to determine how long Mr. Pierre was, or if he still has, a lower income and what, if any, efforts he has taken to secure alternate employment to mitigate damages. SSA supposedly notified Mr. Pierre, in a memorandum dated September 22, 2006, that he was suspended without pay for two weeks for his rule violations and his failure to attend the mandatory meeting. The authenticity of the memorandum was questioned, and no witnesses testified to sponsor it or to explain why it was necessary, given the fact that Mr. Pierre was already "off the schedule." On October 3, 2006, Mr. Pierre filed a charge of retaliation with the Florida Commission on Human Relations which, on July 2, 2008, found that reasonable cause existed to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. In the fall of 2006, Mr. Pierre applied for a job with the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (Miami- Dade). It was his understanding that his background investigation had been successfully completed, but that SSA had not responded to a reference form. Mr. Pierre took the form to SSA. The form, dated October 4, 2006, was completed by Captain Hersch, who responded, in relevant part, as follows: Reason for termination (voluntary/fired)? NON APPLICABLE Describe the applicant's work performance. GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE Describe the applicant's attendance record. GOOD OVERALL Was the applicant ever disciplined for any reason? If YES, please explain. YES CONFIDENTIAL." Is applicant able to work well with others? YES Is applicant trustworthy? YES Describe applicant's work habits? KNOWS HIS JOB, AND DOES IT Is applicant eligible for re-employment? If NO, please explain why. STILL EMPLOYED There is no explanation why Captain Hersch mentioned the confidential agreement, but not the subsequent disciplinary actions that were the focus of concern to Mr. Jurney and Mr. Graham, which could have been disclosed without violating the agreement. Based on the earlier assurances from Miami-Dade, Mr. Pierre, having put "no" when asked about discipline of his job application, believes the contradictory response from SSA caused him not to get the job. He received a letter informing him, but without giving specific reasons, that he was not hired by Miami-Dade. He failed to prove the correctness of his belief. Mr. Pierre testified, but presented no supporting evidence, that he could have earned up to $120,000 a year with Miami-Dade. SSA received notice on the second anniversary of its contract, in October 2006, that the federal government contract would not be renewed. Some time in 2007, most likely in February, at Mr. Pierre's request, he met with Mr. Jurney. It was not until that meeting, Mr. Pierre remembered, that Mr. Jurney had someone remove pre-settlement discipline records from his personnel file. By that time, SSA no longer had a contract with the federal government and was transferring its personnel over to work for the next contractor, Alutiiq. Mr. Pierre asked to be transferred and Mr. Jurney testified that he contacted someone at Alutiiq and asked for Mr. Pierre to be interviewed, but the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that SSA attempted to transfer Mr. Pierre to Alutiiq, or what the routine procedures were for transferring security guards. When Mr. Pierre found out that the necessary paperwork was never sent from SSA to Alutiiq, he tried unsuccessfully for two or three weeks to contact SSA. It is reasonable to believe that SSA, while not allowing Mr. Pierre to work, would not help him transfer over to the next contractor. Mr. Pierre was not transferred and was not employed by Alutiiq. Mr. Jurney testified unconvincingly that he made non-federal contract job offers to Mr. Pierre and Mr. Pierre found the offers acceptable, “but he didn’t accept them.” It is inconceivable that Mr. Pierre, who has three children to support and a wife who works part-time, would have rejected any legitimate job offer at that time. Mr. Pierre and Mr. Jurney, a former highway patrol trooper and member of an advisory board for the Florida Highway Patrol, discussed Mr. Pierre’s desire to be a trooper. Mr. Jurney offered to assist him but that employment never materialized. As a corporate officer, Mr. Jurney was responsible for overseeing hundreds of contracts involving 1,500 employees. He was senior to Mr. Graham and Captain Hersch. Yet, once he authorized the EEOC settlement, he became directly involved in the decision-making concerning discipline and consequences for Mr. Pierre. There is no evidence that Mr. Pierre had ever come to his attention before he approved the settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order directing that Respondent cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $15.00 an hour for each normal 40-hour work week between September 5, 2006, and the date of the final order, offset by earnings from substitute employment, if any. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 27th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald G. Polly, Esquire Hawkins & Parnell, LLP 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243 Jacques Pierre 19601 Northwest 12th Court Miami, Florida 33169 Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Petitioner was discriminatorily dismissed from her employment by the Respondent on the basis of race and whether she was retaliated against by the Respondent for filing a complaint of discrimination with the City of Jacksonville.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, the University of Florida, is a state university located in Gainesville, Florida. The Respondent, through its Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, operates a Cooperative Extension Service, which maintains a county extension office in each of the 67 counties in the State of Florida. Each of these offices is headed by a county extension director. On September 13, 1991, the Petitioner, Pamela R. Dallis, was hired by the University of Florida as a part-time secretary for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) in the Duval County Extension Office located in Jacksonville, Florida, which is headed by Mr. Thomas Braddock. The Petitioner was hired in a temporary position known as Other Personal Services (OPS). The Petitioner was initially interviewed for a permanent position, but she did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position because she did not achieve the required score (35 c.w.p.m.) on the typing test. The Respondent changed the classification of the position from permanent to temporary in order to be able to hire the Petitioner despite her typing deficiency. As an OPS employee, she did not have permanent status in the position and was not subject to a probationary period or to periodic written evaluations concerning her performance. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Ms. Deborah Patterson, provided the Petitioner training as to the policies and procedures applicable to her position. Specifically, the Petitioner received training concerning data entry, reimbursement of expenses incurred for EFNEP and travel reimbursement vouchers. The Petitioner was also provided assistance concerning computer data entry from another employee in EFNEP. The Petitioner was provided oral counseling concerning deficiencies in her performance on several occasions beginning on January 7, 1992. By June 22, 1992, Respondent considered dismissing the Petitioner from her employment because of her performance deficiencies. Due to budgetary constraints, the decision was made to work more closely with the Petitioner because if she were dismissed, there was no assurance that her position could be filled by another individual. On July 6, 1992, in order to provide closer supervision to the Petitioner, the Respondent moved the Petitioner's work station to a location close to her supervisor's office. Prior to this time, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor had requested to Mr. Braddock that this move be made. Mr. Braddock did not approve the request and recommended that the Petitioner be counseled concerning her work performance. In July, 1992, Mr. Braddock agreed to the move because the Petitioner's performance had not improved despite the performance counseling provided. On July 24, 1993, a few weeks after the Petitioner's work station was moved, she reported to Mr. Braddock an incident that had occurred with a white co-worker, Rachel Fleming. Mr. Braddock spoke separately with each employee and asked for their written description of the incident. There were no other witnesses to the incident. Mr. Braddock received conflicting reports from the Petitioner and Ms. Fleming. The Petitioner stated that on July 24, 1992, after informing Ms. Fleming of her dislike for "chain letters" while talking in the printing room, Ms. Fleming placed a chain letter on the Petitioner's desk with her name on it. The Petitioner scratched her name, placed Ms. Fleming's name on the letter and taped it on Ms. Fleming's desk drawer. The Petitioner stated that she later went to the restroom, and as she was exiting, Ms. Fleming came in, blocked her exit, pushed and grabbed her, and said, "I don't like you no more than you like me, bitch!" Ms. Fleming then allowed her to exit. Ms. Fleming acknowledged in her statement that she had an exchange of words with the Petitioner concerning a chain letter that she had given the Petitioner. Ms. Fleming stated that the Petitioner told her, "This is stupid and so are you." Ms. Fleming also stated that about 15 minutes later, she saw the Petitioner as she was leaving the restroom, asked to speak with her, but the Petitioner "brushed past her" saying nothing. Ms. Fleming grabbed the Petitioner, turned to face her and told her that they did not like each other and to "leave me the hell alone". Ms. Fleming denied pushing the Petitioner or calling her a "bitch". She said she called the Petitioner "a biddy". Based upon the unsubstantiated conflicting reports given by each employee, Mr. Braddock determined that no disciplinary action was warranted and counseled each employee. A few weeks after the incident with Ms. Fleming, the Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office of the City of Jacksonville on the basis that Ms. Fleming had not been disciplined. After having learned of the complaint, the Petitioner's second level supervisor, Ms. Halusky, advised the Petitioner that the proper avenue for her to file a complaint was through the University's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, not the City of Jacksonville. The City of Jacksonville did not proceed with the Petitioner's complaint because she was not an employee of the City of Jacksonville. The Petitioner never filed a complaint with the University of Florida. Despite the performance counseling and assistance provided to the Petitioner, her performance did not improve. The deficiencies concerning the Petitioner's data entry skills continued. Two reports that were due in September, 1992 at the main EFNEP office in Gainesville were late because the work done by the Petitioner had to be redone. The Petitioner's supervisor decided that the Petitioner's continuing performance deficiencies were causing additional work for the EFNEP staff and, even without the assurance of a replacement, it was better to have the position vacant rather than having to redo the Petitioner's work to correct the mistakes. By letter dated September 10, 1992, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor advised her of her termination effective at the close of business that day. The reason given for her dismissal was that she had not developed in her job as expected and because of performance deficiencies. Sixty-six percent of the employees in EFNEP in the Duval County Office are African American. They serve a clientele that is 75 percent African American. Thus, EFNEP is interested in hiring and retaining African American employees for the program. Three of the individuals who testified at the Petitioner's request are African Americans who work at the Duval County Extension Office. They testified that they had not experienced discrimination in their employment at the Duval County Extension Office. Two of those three employees are in EFNEP. One has been an employee in the office for 23 years, and the other has been an employee for 14 years.
Recommendation Based on 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 enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. 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 2nd day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are all accepted. The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Pamela R. Dallis 8050 Arlington Expressway #C-401 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Isis Carbajal de Garcia, Esq. Associate General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices as alleged in the Petition for Relief. AUTHORITY Chapters 120 and 760, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was born August 13, 1928, and was, at the time of final hearing, 65 years of age. On April 11, 1993, Petitioner saw a newspaper advertisement for the position of Analyst I with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBOBE). On April 12, 1993, Petitioner went to the office of the employment agency which the FBOBE was using to locate and screen applicants. Petitioner was told that he would not be allowed to apply or take the pre- employment test for the position because he had a graduate degree and only persons who have a Bachelor's degree but no graduate degree(s) were allowed to apply. On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that the FBOBE requirement that no one would be considered for the position of Analyst I who had a higher level degree than the minimum required Bachelor's degree, served the "intended purpose" of eliminating older applicants, especially those over Petitioner further alleged that the existence and implementation of such FBOBE policy was in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Respondent hired two persons to fill the April 1993 advertised position of Analyst I. One of the persons hired was 24 and the other was 23 years of age. The FBOBE is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Florida and charged by the court with the responsibility of evaluating the character, fitness and competence of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar. Petitioner has established that he is a person in a protected group; that adverse employment action was taken against him; that the persons hired for the position in question were outside the protected group; and that, but for his graduate degree, he was qualified for the position in question. The FBOBE has a current staff of 29 full time employees. As of March 30, 1994, of those employees, three were 40 years or older at the time of employment. Nine of these employees are currently 40 or older. The employment application used by the FBOBE does not request any information regarding an applicant's age. The FBOBE have hired individuals in the past who were 40 years of age or older. The FBOBE uses the American Employment Agency, Inc. to advertise vacancies and to conduct preliminary screening. Kathryn E. Ressel has been employed by the Respondent for over 22 years and is currently the Deputy Executive Director of the FBOBE. Ms. Ressel is responsible for the instructions given to the employment agency concerning the qualifications for the position of Analyst I. Ms. Ressel testified that the reason for the FBOBE policy of excluding applicants with post graduate college or university degrees is not intended to restrict employment opportunities to younger persons and is not related to the age of any applicant. Ms. Ressel's testimony is that past experience in hiring persons with graduate degrees has indicated that such persons tend to stay in the Analyst positions for short periods of time and leave when an employment opportunity presents itself in the field for which the person is educated. Ms. Ressel testified that the Analyst I position is an entry level position and that the Analyst receives extensive on-the-job training to enable the newly hired employee to perform assigned duties and meet job related responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, according to Ms. Ressel, when Analyst I's leave the employment of the FBOBE after a short time on the job, the Respondent is unable to recoup the time, energy and expense involved in training such individuals. Ms. Ressel's testimony articulates a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis for the employment practice at issue. Ms. Ressel's testimony indicates that the employment policy at issue is age neutral in that it is applied to all individuals who apply for the position of Analyst I, regardless of age. Ms. Ressel's testimony in this regard is unrefuted. Official notice is taken that a given individual is generally older at the time such person receives a graduate degree than when the same individual receives a Bachelor's degree. It does not follow, however, and Petitioner has failed to prove (statistically or otherwise), that in any specific job applicant pool available to the Respondent to fill Analyst I positions, potential applicants with graduate degrees are older than potential applicants who possess only Bachelor's degrees. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (statistical or otherwise) that the employment policy at issue has a disparate impact on persons 40 years of age or older. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the FBOBE as the basis for rejecting Petitioner's application is in fact a pretext and/or that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed in this case be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 19th day of May, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Human Rights Act by maintaining racially segregated restroom facilities, as alleged by Petitioner; and, if so, the affirmative relief which should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the COMPANY operated a business establishment located at Pompano Beach, Florida. BOYKIN a black male, was employed by the COMPANY during a one-week period in 1978. During BOYKIN'S employment, the COMPANY maintained separate restroom facilities, segregated on the basis of race. (Testimony of Boykin.) The COMPANY'S two restroom facilities were racially segregated by the use of signs affixed to the outside door of each restroom--one sign labeled "Colored," and the other, "White." (Testimony of Boykin.) The COMPANY'S maintenance of racially segregated restrooms was offensive to BOYKIN, and the other black employees. (Testimony of Boykin.) As of September 26, 1980, the offending signs by which the COMPANY racially segregated its restrooms were no longer affixed to the restroom doors. (Viewing by hearing officer, accompanied by parties.) The COMPANY presented no evidence controverting BOYKIN'S allegation that it maintained racially segregated restrooms during the time in question. Neither did it assert a legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose for maintaining segregated restroom facilities. BOYKIN presented no evidence to establish that the COMPANY employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during 1977 or 1978.
Conclusions Conclusions: Respondent company maintained racially segregated restrooms for Petitioner and its other employees. The signs, by which the restrooms were labeled, "Colored" and "White" were no longer affixed to the restrooms at the time of final hearing. However, Petitioner failed to prove an essential elements of his claim-- that Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. Recommendation: That the Petitioner for Relief be DISMISSED. Background: On November 27, 1978, Petitioner Michael C. Boykin ("BOYKIN") filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations a complaint of unlawful discrimination against Respondent H. L. Westberry Paving and Trucking Company ("COMPANY"). The gravamen of BOYKIN'S complaint was that he was subjected to an unlawful condition of employment by virtue of the COMPANY'S maintenance of racially segregated restroom facilities. After investigation, the Commission on Human Relations issued its determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that the COMPANY had engaged in an unlawful employment practice, as alleged, in violation of the Human Rights Act, Sections 23.161, et seq., Florida Statutes. After an unsuccessful effort to effect voluntary conciliation of the dispute, the Commission issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation on June 11, 1980. Within the requisite 30-day period thereafter, BOYKIN filed a Petition for Relief from the alleged unlawful employment practice. Notwithstanding the COMPANY'S failure to file any pleading responding to BOYKIN'S Petition for Relief, or request a hearing thereon, the Commission forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 10, 1980, for the assignment of a hearing officer. By Notice of Hearing, final hearing was thereafter set for September 26, 1980. At final hearing, counsel for the COMPANY represented that on September 25, 1980, he received a telephone call from an unidentified employee of the Commission purporting to cancel the hearing scheduled for September 26, 1980. As a result, he asserted his witness was not present at final hearing; he then proffered that, if present, his witness could testify that signs indicating "Colored" and "White" were not now affixed to the doors of the separate restrooms located on the COMPANY'S premises. In order to avoid continuing the hearing, the parties agreed that the undersigned hearing officer should determine whether or not the described signs were present by conducting a viewing of the COMPANY'S premises. In light of this viewing, the COMPANY declined to request a continuance, and indicted that it wished to present no further evidence. The COMPANY also moved to dismiss the Petition for Relief, claiming that the Commission lacked jurisdiction based on: (1) federal preemption of the area by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (2) failure of the Commission to complete its proceeding within 120 days from the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's deferral of this matter to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was offered, and received in support of the motion, after which the motion was denied. The only witness who testified at final hearing was BOYKIN. No other exhibits were offered by either party. The Florida Commission on Human Relations was not represented at final hearing; BOYKIN represented himself, in proper person, and without assistance by the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael C. Boykin 801 Powerline road, #161 Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Thomas P. Quinn, Esquire 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard Suite 605, International Building Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33404
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 22, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who began her employment with Respondent on May 7, 2004. Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. At all times while she was employed by Respondent, Petitioner worked as a child protective investigator (CPI) and was on probationary status. That is, she had not yet achieved permanent status in the Career Service System and was an "at will" employee. After being hired as a CPI, Petitioner received classroom pre-service training and computer training which is provided to every new CPI. Following this initial training, new CPI's are assigned a limited case load, as was Petitioner. Allegations of Race Discrimination Wilfredo Gonzalez is a child protective investigator supervisor (CPIS) and has been a supervisor for approximately 10 years. At all times material to this proceeding he was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Gonzalez is an Hispanic male. After Petitioner was assigned cases, she received additional on-the-job training and coaching by Mr. Gonzalez. Other child protective investigator supervisors and experienced CPI staff were also available to the Petitioner to answer questions. The work of new CPIs is carefully scrutinized by supervisors. They are expected to learn from mistakes and become increasingly proficient at the job. Mr. Gonzalez did not give Petitioner a semi-annual performance evaluation at the mid-point of her probationary period due to workload issues, although he was supposed to have done so. However, Mr. Gonzalez regularly met with Petitioner, in his office and in hers, to discuss the progress of her cases and to advise her of areas in which she needed improvement. He also provided e-mail comments and other instruction with regard to her performance on specific cases as well as on Department policy. He also provided her with reports from Respondent's computer case system, HomeSafeNet, which showed whether or not she was meeting certain performance standards. During these communications with Petitioner, Mr. Gonzalez informed Petitioner of problems with her performance. In addition to Mr. Gonzalez, there are two other CPISs in the Alachua County office of Respondent: Haydee Shanata and Patricia Alvarado, who are white females. In instances in which a person's immediate supervisor is unavailable, other CPISs review a CPI's work and deal with other office issues. Because of the nature of the work involved, CPIs and CPISs have to work weekends, nights, and holidays. If a CPI works at a time that his or her immediate supervisor is not on duty, the CPI reports to the CPIS on duty at that time. During the fall of 2004, Ms. Shanata prepared a holiday "on-call" schedule for December 2004. This was done with input from the other CPSIs. Leave was approved for certain employees, including Petitioner, during the holidays. However, due to some CPIs being out due to illness, the holiday on-call schedule had to be revised so that there would be sufficient staff to cover the holidays. The revisions in the holiday on-call schedule placed Petitioner on-call on days that she originally did not have to work. She was upset to see the revised on-call list. Upon learning that she would have to work on days when she originally was not scheduled, she called Ms. Shanata on her cell phone to ask her about these changes. Ms. Shanata explained that the changes were due to not having enough staff scheduled to cover the work. On December 10, 2004, Petitioner complained to Mr. Gonzalez about the revised holiday on-call schedule. During that meeting, Petitioner called CPIS Shanata a liar to Mr. Gonzalez. In addition, Petitioner wrote an e-mail entitled "Poor Holiday Planning." Petitioner sent the e-mail to the three CPISs, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Shanata, and Ms. Alvarado. The e-mail also copied their supervisor, Barbara Ross, and the District Administrator, Ester Tibbs. The e-mail reads in pertinent part: I am writing to express my total dissatisfaction with the planning for the holidays by the supervisors here at the Alachua County office. It is apparent to myself as a new employee and should have been apparent to the experienced supervisors here at the Alachua County office that about half of the current staff here is new. I understand that there are some time difficulties and that in the normal day of conducting business that things can be hectic as you are unaware of what may happen however, there is no excuse for poor planning and then FORCING a new investigator to cover three on call shifts during both Christmas and New Years holiday weekends within a seven day work week when originally being scheduled for only one day. As I know that sometimes duty calls however, no organization should infringe on the personal lives of their employees. From this day on, I will be sure not to make plans with my son, as the supervisors here in Alachua County can easily cover their failure to plan properly by dictating to me what time I can spend with my family and when. Also, I was told in a conversation with Haydee Shanata when the schedules were originally created that I did not want to work any more back to back on-call days (clarified by two days within a three day period) and Haydee assured me that she would not schedule me any more back to back days and then I was randomly selected for two additional on-call days which included both Christmas and New Year weekends without my agreement. This e-mail did not complain of race or sex discrimination. The racial composition of those persons whose on-call schedules were changed is not in evidence. Mr. Gonzalez responded the same day with an e-mail that read as follows: Demetria at the writing of your email you had 21 open cases. I was actually locking a case. A case in which I was helping you by going ahead and editing the evidence entries and also entering the findings that you had failed to enter. I was doing this because I know you have been overwhelmed and also to help you get some cases closed that you are soon to roll-over so that you can attend the conference next week. I locked that case and now you have 20 open cases. I try to provide as much support as possible. Earlier this afternoon I pointed out that Myrtle Hodges will be assisting you with your cases so you can get over that hump created by the number of cases you received in Oct. In addition to that--while on-call supervisor for the month of November I specifically limited the number of cases the trainees would receive. In November you were one of the CPI's with the fewest cases at 9 total. This month CPIS Shanata worked hard to try and prevent those staff who will be here at the end of the month from receiving a lot of cases. You are one of those again who benefited. You have been off rotation since Wednesday and as of today you have received only one case for the month of December. On-call is a function of the CPI and CPIS position. This months on- call was an experience unlike any I've experienced since being a supervisor. I have been a supervisor for quite some time. We limited the leave requests we approved. In addition we tried to help persons plan by preparing and presenting the schedules in advance. Since then we've had a CPI out on extended leave as well as other action that limited the number of staff available to accept reports. Because of this we have had to revise the schedule. No doubt that in the work we do, someone has to work holidays and around the holidays. This IS a job that in a sense infringes on our personal lives. Every time I get a call in the middle of the night to assist a CPI investigating a case can be perceived that way but it is not. It's my job. As supervisors we do the best we can and hopefully in the process we learn along the way. Barbara has come to morning meetings and indicated that when there are concerns you should follow the chain of command. Though you addressed the email to me and the other supervisors you copied Barbara as well as Ester Tibbs. Give us the chance to resolve the issues before you send it up the chain of command. (emphasis in original) Incredibly, Petitioner responded with another e-mail to Mr. Gonzales with copies to Ms. Shanata, Ms. Alvarado, and Ms. Ross, accusing the supervisors of being inconsiderate, not courteous or professional, and that the supervisors "shoved it" in her face. On December 15, 2004, Petitioner wrote an apology for the choice of words she used in the series of e-mails regarding the holiday on-call schedule and for violating the chain-of command. Mr. Gonzalez wrote a letter of counseling dated December 27, 2004, to Petitioner regarding her unprofessional behavior toward Ms. Shanata and the insubordinate and disrespectful nature of her e-mails. Mr. Gonzalez admonished her for not following the chain of command and reminded her that she must treat her supervisors and co-workers with respect and courtesy. He also reminded her that she was not a permanent employee and that failure of her to use appropriate behavior would result in her immediate dismissal. The December 27, 2004, memo was the first time that Mr. Gonzalez had issued a counseling memo to Petitioner. Petitioner believes that her e-mail complaining about the holiday on-call schedule was the trigger for what she inaccurately believes was retaliation. Petitioner was scheduled to attend a conference in January 2005. The conference, referred to as the Dependency Summit, involved participants from throughout Florida and involved discussions and training that was separate from the general training given to CPIs when they begin employment with the Department. At some point, Petitioner's name was removed from the list of persons approved to attend the conference. Of the seven CPIs approved to attend the conference, four were African-American. During the early months of 2005, both Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Shanata expressed concerns over Petitioner's work performance. Ms. Shanata sent several e-mails to Mr. Gonzalez documenting incidents in which Petitioner failed to respond to her e-mails requesting information or directing action on a case. Of particular concern was Petitioner's failure to contact law enforcement on cases in which law enforcement should have been called, such as cases involving sex abuse allegations. According to Ms. Shanata, if a criminal act has occurred, law enforcement must be notified immediately and they then take the lead in the case investigation. Mr. Gonzalez had instructed Petitioner on several occasions to involve law enforcement immediately in certain types of investigations. On March 7, 2005, Ms. Shanata received a telephone call from Detective Sherry French of the Alachua County Sheriff's Office regarding cases assigned to Petitioner that should have been referred to law enforcement, but had not. Ms. Shanata's supervisor, Ms. Ross, instructed Ms. Shanata to review Petitioner's cases which Detective French called her about. During her review, Ms. Shanata became concerned about Petitioner's handling of a case that involved a child who had been taken to the hospital on December 31, 2004. In that case, the child had tears to her vaginal area, which is an indication of possible sexual abuse. Ms. Shanata noted that Ms. Alvarado had "backed down" the case from being classified as an immediate case to a 24-hour case. In this type of case, it is important that the Child Protection Team become involved immediately to conduct their examination of the child, as vaginal tears heal quickly. Ms. Shanata discussed this case with Ms. Alvarado who recalled the circumstances of the case. According to Ms. Alvarado, Petitioner informed Ms. Alvarado that the Child Protection Team had seen the child, which led Ms. Alvarado to authorize that the case be "backed down." Ms. Alvarado considered receiving inaccurate information regarding a case of this nature to be an extremely serious problem. During her review, Ms. Shanata found other cases in which Petitioner had not followed Department policy and operating procedures. Ms. Shanata reported her findings to her supervisor, Ms. Ross, and to Mr. Gonzalez in an e-mail dated March 10, 2005. On March 24, 2005, Petitioner was directed to take a child to the Child Advocacy Center for a forensic interview. However, she failed to do so. In addition to these job performance issues, Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Shanata expressed concern that Petitioner was habitually late to morning meetings at which cases are presented and discussed. On March 24, 2005, Mr. Gonzalez completed a Performance Evaluation of Petitioner. Performance ratings range from one to five points, with "5" being the highest rating in any category. A rating of "2" means that the employee's performance sometimes meets expectations and needs improvement. Petitioner received a "2" rating in three performance expectations. Her overall rating was a 2.70. A rating of "3" means that an employee's performance consistently achieves expectations. On March 29, 2006, Mr. Gonzalez wrote a memorandum to Marc Williams, District Operations Manager, detailing concerns about Petitioner's work and recommending that Petitioner be removed from her position. Mr. Williams is a white male. Petitioner was reassigned to a non-CPI position on March 26, 2005. She received the same pay and benefits during her period of reassignment. Consistent with Department policy, the reassignment was done abruptly and Petitioner was no longer allowed access to the Department's case management system. Petitioner requested a meeting with Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Williams. Petitioner met with Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Williams and Bonnie Robison on March 29, 2005, to discuss the Department's concerns and to give her a chance to present her side of the story. Petitioner was presented with a copy of her performance appraisal at this meeting. At the meeting, Petitioner requested a list of the issues regarding her job performance and an opportunity to respond to their concerns. The meeting lasted two to three hours. Petitioner was provided a bulleted list of concerns on April 1, 2005, which contained issues of concern that Mr. Williams felt she had not adequately refuted at the March 29, 2005, meeting. Petitioner provided a response on April 6, 2005. Probationary employees may be fired at will. The employing agency only needs to notify the employee that he or she has failed to complete the probationary period. Although probationary employees may be fired at will, Mr. Williams does not lightly recommend dismissal of a CPI investigator. However, Mr. Williams expects mistakes to diminish over time and, in Petitioner's case, the mistakes had not diminished and supervisors found that she was not receptive to coaching. Further, Mr. Williams felt that they had reason to doubt Petitioner's word. He recommended Petitioner's dismissal to Ester Tibbs. Ester Tibbs is the District 3 Administrator of the Department. She has the final authority in making the decision with regard to whether or not to terminate an employee. Ms. Tibbs is an African-American woman. According to Ms. Tibbs, she expects supervisors and managers to present compelling reasons as to why a probationary CPI should not be retained in a permanent status. This is because recruitment and training of CPIs are costly and terminating a probationary CPI interrupts investigations and adds to the workloads of other CPIs. In order to make the decision to terminate the employee, she must be convinced that the Department has provided appropriate training, necessary coaching, and support and that, despite their best efforts, she is convinced that the employee cannot carry out the demands of the job. Ms. Tibbs approved Petitioner's termination. On March 31, 2005, Petitioner filed a Career Service Employee Grievance seeking reinstatement of employment, and modification of her performance appraisal. The grievance alleges that she had been harassed by Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Shanata, and Ms. Alvarado; that she disagreed with her performance appraisal; and that she was discriminated against based on sexual orientation on July 1, 2005. The grievance does not allege race discrimination. As a probationary employee, Petitioner was not entitled to a grievance process regarding her dismissal. The record is not clear as to whether Petitioner should have been provided an opportunity to grieve the portion of her grievance relating to her performance appraisal, since she had already been informed she was being terminated at the time she filed the grievance. In any event, there is no evidence that not granting her request for a grievance process was based upon race. Other Employees in the Alachua County Office of Respondent Amanda Mash is a senior CPI with five years experience and permanent career service status. Ms. Mash is a white female. She was frequently late to morning meetings. However, if she was going to be late for a morning meeting, she called to let her supervisor know that she would be late. She has turned in cases late. She has not received disciplinary action. Ms. Mash never called a supervisor late at night and failed to inform of critical information; never failed to take a child to a child advocacy center appointment when asked to do so; never failed to respond to e-mails from supervisors asking information about cases; never neglected to submit her files to her supervisor when required to do so; and never called her supervisor a liar. Melissa Delcher is a CPI and is a white female. In February 2005, she interviewed a child in a case that was not assigned to her. The case was assigned to Petitioner. The child had disclosed to Ms. Delcher that he had been hit, but she did not see any visible signs of injury. According to Ms. Delcher, she did not contact the child protection team or law enforcement because the case was not assigned to her. Crystal Long-Lewis, an African-American female, was secretary for Mr. Gonzalez from July 2003 through April 2005. She was terminated from her position for conduct unbecoming a state employee and falsifying documents. She was a permanent career service employee at the time of her termination. It is Ms. Long-Lewis's perception that she was not treated fairly because of her race and her young age. She believed that there was favoritism of white CPIs over non-minority CPIs. Myrtle Hodges, an African-American female, became a probationary CPI when her other job with the Department was privatized. She received a below standards evaluation and was encouraged to resign rather than face termination. When asked was it possible that she was terminated based upon her race, she responded, "No, I don't think I was terminated on race." Torrey Kincade, an African-American male, was a CPI in the Alachua County office until he was transferred to another city where he currently works for Respondent. His supervisor while in Alachua County was Ms. Alvarado. He believes that when he worked for Ms. Alvarado, that she targeted him by giving him more tasks and "riding him" harder than a non-minority CPI. He believes he was held to a different standard regarding the dress code. He also believes that he did not receive as high a pay increase as his coworkers, who did not testify. There was no evidence presented as to employees' salaries or amount of pay increases for Mr. Kincade or any of his coworkers. Regarding his perception of the office while he worked under Ms. Alvarado's supervision, he stated, "I definitely--I can't say its discriminatory behavior, but I could say that each minority in the office was at one point targeted." Monica Felder is an African-American female who was employed by the Department for approximately a year and a-half. She was terminated from employment in January 2006 for personal misuse of the cell phone issued to her by the Department and failure to reimburse the Department for the personal calls. As a permanent career service employee, she appealed her dismissal to the Public Employees Relations Commission which affirmed her dismissal. In March 2005, Ms. Felder had received a satisfactory performance appraisal from Ms. Alvarado. Ms. Alvarado made positive comments on Ms. Felder's March 2005, performance evaluation. In January 2004, an employee of Respondent sent an e- mail to Ms. Tibbs regarding concerns about Ms. Alvarado, including an allegation of racism. Ms. Tibbs determined that an internal investigation was needed, and one was conducted. The investigative report concluded that while certain employees held this perception, there was no evidence that Ms. Alvarado targeted anyone based on race. The remaining allegations concerned Ms. Alvarado's management style. Allegation of Sex Discrimination In July 2004, Mr. Gonzalez was approached by another CPI in his unit. Mr. Gonzalez was informed by the CPI that Petitioner had been seen hugging another female CPI in her office in a "romantic way." He instructed that person not to repeat that information and then conferred with his supervisor at that time, Lori Walker. As a result of hearing this allegation, Mr. Gonzalez called Petitioner into his office and told her that there was a rumor in the office that she was having a relationship with another female employee, that her conduct needed to be professional, and that she should keep her door open when that CPI was in her office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007),2 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Omni, advertised as "Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate," is a golf resort located in the Orlando tourist corridor near Walt Disney World. The Omni is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Suhra Merdanovic, is a Bosnian female, and her first language is Bosnian. She speaks and understands English, but is more fluent and comfortable using her native language. Ms. Merdanovic was employed by the Omni from approximately August 22, 2006, to October 9, 2006. Ms. Merdanovic worked in the kitchen of the Broadway Deli, a sandwich shop located in the resort. The Broadway Deli was one of several restaurants in the Omni complex. During the brief period of Ms. Merdanovic's employment, the Broadway Deli did not have a full-time manager. Ms. Merdanovic reported to Silvio Rosalen, the sous chef at Teri's Restaurant, near the Broadway Deli in the Omni complex. Mr. Rosalen reported to Robert Fohr, the assistant food and beverage manager for the Omni. The Omni has established a policy that prohibits harassment in the workplace. The policy defines harassment as: ny unwelcome verbal, non-verbal, physical or other conduct or behavior relating to an individual's race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or any other categories protected by state, federal or local law, that is made a term or condition of employment, is used as the basis for employment or advancement decisions, or has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. The policy "strictly prohibit[s]" employees, supervisors, and members of management from harassing other employees, supervisors, or members of management. The policy directs an employee who has a complaint of harassment to report that complaint to any manager or supervisor, the human resources director, the general manager, or the regional vice president of operations. The complaint triggers a formal investigation, usually conducted by the human resources director. The Omni's harassment and equal employment opportunity policies are set forth in the Omni's Associate Handbook, which is provided to all employees. The handbook is reviewed during an orientation session that all newly hired Omni employees must attend. Ms. Merdanovic attended an orientation session on August 26, 2006, and testified that she was familiar with the harassment policy. The Omni calls the first 90 days of employment an "introductory period." The Associate Handbook describes the introductory period as follows: During this time you will have a chance to see whether you like your job and Omni Hotels will have an opportunity to evaluate your performance and suitability for your position. If Omni Hotels concludes that your job performance and/or suitability have been unsatisfactory, you may be dismissed at any time during the introductory period at Omni Hotels' complete discretion. You may also be dismissed at any time after the introductory period at the sole discretion of Omni Hotels. Both during and after the introductory period, all associates are associates at will. If an employee's manager determines within the first 90 days of employment that an employee's job performance and/or "suitability" is unsatisfactory, the manager will meet with the employee to review the manager's concerns. After this meeting, the employee's job status is "suspended pending investigation" while the manager confers with the human resources department to review the issues. If the manager and the human resources department agree that the employee should be terminated, then human resources will advise the employee of the decision. Ms. Merdanovic testified that two Hispanic co-workers, Erica Torres and Charlotte Ruiz, harassed her because of her nationality. Ms. Torres asked her what she was doing in America and refused to go into the kitchen with her. Both women made jokes and laughed about Ms. Merdanovic being from Bosnia. Ms. Merdanovic testified that her co-workers also disliked her, because she refused to give them free food from the Broadway Deli's kitchen. Ms. Merdanovic did not complain to a manager, supervisor, or any other Omni employee about the harassment she claimed to have experienced. Mr. Rosalen testified that he received numerous complaints about Ms. Merdanovic's job performance from her co- workers. The co-workers told him that Ms. Merdanovic failed to follow instructions, argued with guests and co-workers, interrupted co-workers who were trying to explain how to complete job tasks, gave guests the wrong order at least twice, and failed to comply with the posted work schedule. Mr. Rosalen personally observed Ms. Merdanovic's performance deficiencies on several occasions. The guest complaints were most significant to Mr. Rosalen. On one occasion, the guest had ordered a turkey sandwich, but was served a pastrami sandwich by Ms. Merdanovic. Rather than correcting the order immediately, Ms. Merdanovic attempted to convince the guest to keep the pastrami sandwich by telling him it was good and he would like it. On a second occasion, a guest ordered a milkshake and was served iced coffee.3 At the hearing, Ms. Merdanovic testified that she was unaware of any complaints about sandwiches. She stated that she has worked in kitchens for years and understands how to make sandwiches in a deli. She did complain that she was never trained to operate the "front of the store" equipment such as the milkshake machine or coffee machine, yet was expected to somehow be able to operate them. Mr. Rosalen orally counseled Ms. Merdanovic on multiple occasions regarding her performance deficiencies, but he never observed any improvement. Pursuant to the process for terminating employees during their introductory period, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr decided to meet with Ms. Merdanovic to discuss her performance deficiencies and to advise her not to return to work until she heard from human resources. After this meeting, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr would meet with the human resources director to discuss whether to terminate Ms. Merdanovic's employment. Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr prepared a "Problem/Solution Notice" form, dated October 2, 2006, that set out the performance deficiencies and possible corrective actions for Ms. Merdanovic. This notice was intended to be the outline for discussion during the meeting with Ms. Merdanovic. Under the heading "Specific Nature of Problem" were various categories, including absenteeism, tardiness, violation of company policies, and unsafe actions. Ms. Merdanovic's problem was categorized as "Performance Below Standards." The specific performance problems were set out as follows: There have been numerous complaints about Suhra Merdanovic's job performance from several of her co-workers. These complaints include: Does not follow training of food preparation techniques and quantities. Does not follow food, coffee and drink recipes. Does not know what all the ingredients are to be able to make recipe. Looses [sic] tickets for orders. Has become argumentative with employees and guests when told that the product is wrong. Has tried to convince guests that mistakenly prepared food is good and tried to get them to take it. Does not understand the schedule after repeatedly having it explained. Interrupts employees and does not let people finish talking when trying to explain how a task needs to be completed. Is not a team player. The notice set forth the following under the heading, "Expected performance or conduct/corrective action required": Suhra must adhere to the following guidelines: Must be receptive to and accept training in all facets of Broadway Deli culinary operations with a positive attitude. Must follow all standard recipes without deviation to achieve a consistent product. Must produce orders in timely fashion in accordance to [sic] the guest's specifications. Must never become argumentative with a guest and try to force a guest to take a product they do not want. Must get along with and assist teammates with all guest needs. The notice concluded that the "disciplinary action taken" would be "Suspension/Termination." On October 2, 2006, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Ms. Merdanovic in Mr. Fohr's office to review the contents of the Problem/Solution Notice. When her supervisors began reviewing her performance deficiencies, Ms. Merdanovic interrupted to argue with them. Mr. Fohr pointed out that this was the same sort of conduct that led to this counseling session in the first place. Before Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr could present her with the notice and commence the formal suspension/termination process, Ms. Merdanovic began to cry in a way that Mr. Rosalen described as "almost hysterical" for several minutes. Ms. Merdanovic then walked to the kitchen of the Broadway Deli. Mr. Rosalen followed her, both to make sure she was all right and to escort her off the Omni property. Ms. Merdanovic again began crying and saying that she could not breathe. She described her condition as "couldn't breathe, couldn't think, couldn't stay." Mr. Rosalen called in the Omni's security team, which also acts as the resort's first responder in medical emergencies. The entry of the security guards threw Ms. Merdanovic into a greater panic. Eventually, at Ms. Merdanovic's request, the Omni called an ambulance service, which transported her to Florida Hospital in Orlando. Ms. Merdanovic was diagnosed with high blood pressure and discharged after an overnight stay in the hospital.4 After the incident leading to Ms. Merdanovic's hospitalization, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Lisa Borde- Christie, the Omni's human resources manager, to discuss their meeting with Ms. Merdanovic, the complaints about her from guests and co-workers, and Mr. Rosalen's observations of her performance deficiencies and his previous attempts to correct them. Ms. Borde-Christie agreed that Ms. Merdanovic was not meeting the Omni's performance expectations for her position. In light of Ms. Merdanovic's failure to improve her performance despite Mr. Rosalen's several attempts at verbal counseling, Ms. Borde-Christie, Mr. Fohr, and Mr. Rosalen agreed it was unlikely that Ms. Merdanovic's performance would improve in the future. They decided to terminate her employment. On October 9, 2006, Ms. Borde-Christie and Mr. Rosalen met with Ms. Merdanovic to tell her that her employment was terminated and to review the performance deficiencies that caused her termination. When Ms. Borde-Christie attempted to review the performance issues, Ms. Merdanovic became argumentative, stating that these issues were all lies and that her co-workers did not like her. Ms. Borde-Christie testified that Ms. Merdanovic said nothing about her national origin being an issue in the workplace. Ms. Merdanovic produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. The Omni's management did not become aware of her allegations of harassment due to her national origin by her co-workers until Ms. Merdanovic filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, more than two months after her dismissal. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination all related to her job performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Omni Hotel Resort did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of age for the reasons stated in the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact In the summer of 1997, Respondent advertised several employment positions. The advertised positions included a position for Corporate Training Representative and a position for Coordinator of Continuing Education. The advertisement informed potential applicants of the minimum qualifications; the knowledge, abilities, and skills associated with each position; and the application deadline for each position. Petitioner was one of approximately 65 candidates who applied for the position of Corporate Training Representative. Petitioner was also one of 85 candidates who applied for the position of Coordinator of Continuing Education. Petitioner was over age 40 at the time he applied for both positions. Petitioner's application, like the application of each candidate, included an application supplement. The application supplement identified the applicant's gender, ethnic origin, birth date, and included a statement of how the candidate learned of the open position. Respondent uses application supplements to collect data needed to respond to inquiries from the Commission, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Veterans Administration, and the U.S. Department of Labor. Respondent directs completed applications to Respondent's Human Resources office. The Human Resources office separates the application supplement attached to each application, files the application supplement in a separate location, and forwards each application to the selection committee responsible for filling the position to which the application pertains. After, the position is filled, the Human Resources office re-attaches the application to the application supplement and retains the documents in data files maintained by the Human Resources office. The selection committee, responsible for reviewing the applications submitted for the two positions sought by Petitioner, was comprised of four members. The selection committee reviewed each application, selected candidates for interview, and recommended those candidates the committee determined to be best suited for the position. In selecting candidates for interview, the selection committee reviewed only the application of each candidate. The selection committee did not have access to any of the application supplements. The application supplements originally attached to the applications had been previously separated by the Human Resources office and retained in separate files in the Human Resources office. No one on the selection committee considered the age of an applicant, including Petitioner, when selecting a candidate for interview. The selection committee did not select Petitioner for an interview. The selection committee selected for an interview only eight of the 65 applicants for the position of Corporate Training Representative and only eight of the 85 applicants for the position of Coordinator of Continuing Education. Six of the eight applicants selected for interview for the position of Corporate Training Representative were over 40 years of age at the time they applied. Three of those applicants were aged 50 or older. Four of the eight applicants selected for interview for the position of Coordinator of Continuing Education were aged 40 or older. The applicant ultimately hired was in her mid-forties at the time. No employee or representative of Respondent made any derogatory comments about Petitioner's age. No member of the selection committee discussed the age of any applicant. Petitioner admits that had he been selected for an interview he might not have been selected as the successful candidate.
