The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination due to Petitioner’s national origin.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Employer is a paper packaging plant located in Cantonment, Florida. It fills orders from retailers as specified on purchase order forms (POFs). Respondent manufactures a variety of bags for containing retail goods. Petitioner worked for Respondent for more than eight years. During part of this time, he was a member of a union which had a collective bargaining contract with Respondent. At all times material, he did shift work involving heavy machinery "on the floor." Petitioner was terminated on June 13, 2003, after a series of disciplinary actions, the last of which arose out of events occurring on June 9, 2003. Petitioner contends in his Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent did not follow the guarantees of his union’s collective bargaining contract, the established grievance procedures, and/or Respondent’s policy and procedure manual for tier-disciplining or for counseling him. However, Respondent’s failure to comply with these artificial standards, or Respondent's failure to only partially comply with them, is not determinative of any issue under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, unless Petitioner also can show that other employees, who were not of Petitioner’s protected class, were treated differently or more favorably than Petitioner in a similar situation. It appears, however, that each time Petitioner requested union representation, he was provided with union representation. When he did not request union representation, he was not provided with union representation. On his Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner checked only the box for “national origin.” He did not check the box for “race.” However, under the portion of the form reserved for “The Particulars Are:”, Petitioner filled in: During my employment, I was constantly harassed by being called racially derogatory names. On June 13, 2003, I was terminated because of national origin (Native American). I was told that I was terminated for negligence. On his Petition for Relief, Petitioner complained, among other things, of “ethnic slurs” such as: Hay [sic.] Indian called Derogatory – names such as two Dog about my color and race. About a year before his termination, Petitioner had a feud with a white male co-employee, Clifford Stuckey. This feud is described below more fully and in sequence with other events. Generally, however, Petitioner was a non-confrontational employee with a good work ethic. With regard to his job performance, Petitioner was a model employee until he was promoted to machine operator more than two years before his termination. Petitioner had done well as an assistant machine operator, but after promotion, Petitioner was disciplined for a rash of quality control errors. The nature of his quality control errors was the same as that of many other similarly-situated employees, but his errors differed from other employees' errors in that he accumulated more quality control errors in a shorter period of time than any of his co- workers; he demonstrated too many such flaws within a single twelve-month period; and he cost the employer a considerable amount of money in wasted goods. For the eight-plus years of his employment, nicknames were the common way Petitioner and his co-employees addressed one another, day-in and day-out on the floor of the plant. Some supervisors picked up these nicknames due to their regular and pervasive use among subordinates. Many employees had nicknames that they did not object- to. One Black male employee purchased a vanity license plate which read "African," so co-employees called him "African," without anyone considering the nickname to be a racial slur or otherwise derogatory. Carl Broadnax (Black male) was proud to be called "Black Stud." Ronald Moran (white male) was known as "Big Ron." A Puerto Rican employee named Tony Crevice (phonetic spelling) was called "Julio." Eric Adkins (Black male) called another employee (race and gender unspecified) "Pooh Bear." Wesley N. Houston (white male) was called "Cowboy." In the course of disciplinary actions against him during the last fifteen months of his employment, (see Findings of Fact 52-53, 65-70, 80 and 81), Petitioner told Nancy Glass, Respondent's white female Human Resources Director, that he was an "Indian." She understood that he perceived himself to be an "Indian." During his eight-plus years in Respondent's employ, Petitioner was perceived by many of his co-employees as an “Indian” or “Native American.” Some of them called him by his first name, "James," but most of them also called him by the nicknames, “Indian,” “Two Dog,” “Two Dogs,” and/or “Two Dogs Fucking.” No clear evidence was presented as to how often any or all of these nicknames were used to address, or in reference to, Petitioner, but their usage must have been as common, continual, and pervasive as any of the other nicknames used day- in and day-out on the floor. The foregoing nicknames for Petitioner were used by co- employees and accepted by Petitioner for more than eight years without rancor or dismay on either side. For more than eight years, the users did not perceive that the nicknames might be racially provocative or demeaning of Petitioner's race or national origin, and they did not sense that he might be hurt by the nicknames, because he did not express hurt feelings or offense to anyone. Only one witness thought Petitioner's nicknames were a bad thing. Ronald Williams (Black male and current union president) knew that "Two Dogs" was a common name given to Petitioner and that it was an abbreviation for "Two Dogs Fucking." He heard the abbreviation "Two Dogs" directed to Petitioner, but he never heard the full phrase even used around Petitioner. He considered both phrases to be racial in origin and racial in context, but even Williams could not say that Petitioner ever reacted oppositionally to any of the nicknames. No other witness acknowledged hearing the nickname "Two Dogs Fucking." All of them thought the other nicknames which were applied to Petitioner were neither racial nor offensive. For instance, on a regular basis, Ricky Mitchell (white male) called Petitioner "Indian," without considering it a racial slur. Petitioner addressed Mitchell as "Paw Paw." Ronald Moran (white male) called Petitioner "Two Dogs," as a nickname, without assuming any racial connotation. Frank Talamo (white male, and sometimes-union shop steward) has used the term "Nigger" in his private life, but stated that he would not use it on the job, because it is, in his opinion, a racial slur. Mr. Talamo heard Petitioner referred-to as "Indian" and "Two Dogs" on a regular basis. Mr. Talamo testified that although he did not, himself, use the nicknames "Indian" and "Two Dogs" with Petitioner, he also did not consider them to be racial slurs, as he would have considered the word "Nigger." Eric Adkins (Black male) heard Petitioner called some "bad" or "harsh" names, but he did not specify what the names were; he also did not characterize the bad or harsh names as "racial." Carl Broadnax (Black male) testified that he called Petitioner "Two Dogs" because Petitioner's Cousin Joey, another Indian who worked in the plant, told Broadnax to call Petitioner by his Indian name, "Two Dogs" or to call Petitioner "James," Petitioner's given name. Because of Joey's instruction, Mr. Broadnax thought everybody called Petitioner "Two Dogs." Mr. Broadnax heard Petitioner called "Indian" by others. Ivory Stallworth (white female) heard Petitioner called "Two Dog." Aaron Hodges' paternal grandmother is "Indian" or "Native American." Mr. Hodges does not make a distinction between the two designations, "Indian" and "Native American," and does not consider either designation to be derogatory language toward his grandmother or toward anyone else. He picked up the nickname, "Two Dogs" from its general usage on the plant floor to, and about, Petitioner. Cynthia Perkins (white female) stated that Petitioner was called "Two Dogs" in "general talking." Wesley N. Houston heard Petitioner called "Indian" and "Two Dogs," but did not consider these nicknames to be racist remarks or derogatory language. Clifford Stuckey (white male), with whom Petitioner feuded for a time, regularly called Petitioner "James" and "Two Dogs," because those names were what Petitioner was being generally called when Mr. Stuckey came to work for Respondent. He only knew Petitioner by his nicknames for two years, while they were "on the job friends" and "house visiting friends." Stuckey never heard anything else added to "Two Dogs." Apparently, Stuckey called Petitioner both "James" and "Two Dogs" before, during, and after the height of their feud, described more fully below. Also, at least two supervisors (Allen Givens and Eddie Jeffres) used some of these nicknames in addressing Petitioner. Jeffres participated in an early disciplinary action against Petitioner, but neither Jeffres or Grimes participated in Petitioner's eventual termination. Allen Givens was a machine operator, and thus a co- employee of Petitioner. Sometimes, he was also an "acting supervisor" over Petitioner. He heard others on the floor call Petitioner "Indian" and "Two Dogs." He personally called Petitioner "Indian" or "James." Givens testified that if Petitioner had ever intimated, while Givens was "acting supervisor," that Petitioner had a problem with any nickname, he, Givens, would have put a stop to it. At some point, Givens, while he was "acting supervisor" over Petitioner's shift, took Petitioner into the office and explained that Petitioner needed to do something about his body odor. The meeting between Givens and Petitioner was one-on-one, with no union representative or other employees present, and it was not written-up. Petitioner did not testify concerning this meeting. Givens was the only other person in the meeting, and he testified that he had initiated the conversation informally when he did, because he personally had noticed Petitioner's unpleasant body odor that day and because other employees had complained to him that day about Petitioner's body odor. Givens, whose grandmother is an American Indian or Native American, did not consider his comments to Petitioner about body odor to be racial in nature, and race or national origin was never mentioned by either himself or Petitioner during their meeting. Givens further testified, without refutation, that such a meeting happened only the one time; that the conversation was in the nature of "counseling," as opposed to the formal disciplinary step of "coaching" Petitioner; that he had felt he was protecting Petitioner's feelings and privacy by not making a record of this counseling session; and that no record was made because it was not part of the employer's three- tiered disciplinary formula. Other witnesses confirmed that general day-to-day supervision, which did not lead to some form of oral or written warning or other standardized disciplinary action against an employee, was not normally written-up for the employee's personnel file. Not making a record of a minor counseling session was to the employee's advantage, because once something was recorded, it could be used against the employee as part of the employer's three-tier progressive discipline formula. Although all witnesses concurred that working in the employer's un-air-conditioned plant, around heavy machinery, was sweaty work and that everyone smelled bad at some time or other, Frank Talamo, Eric Adkins, and Aaron Hodges also testified that at some point, Petitioner had a particularly offensive body odor. On one occasion, Talamo had asked a foreman to speak to Petitioner about it. No witness attributed Petitioner's body odor problem to his national origin or his race. Although Petitioner may have been the only employee counseled about body odor by Givens, other supervisors had counseled other employees. After being told about his body odor problem, Petitioner kept deodorant in his tool box and used it. Respondent never disciplined Petitioner for body odor. Eddie Jeffres, (white male) was Petitioner's team manager/supervisor. Many witnesses heard Jeffres address Petitioner as "Two Dogs." Mr. Jeffres addressed Petitioner as "Two Dogs," without any add-on, because that was the nickname Petitioner's co-workers used. He testified that he did not consider the nickname "professional," but he used it in a spirit of levity and camaraderie. He further testified that he would not have used it if, at any time, Petitioner had objected to it or had acted embarrassed by it. Because Petitioner always replied professionally and without rancor when the nickname was used, Mr. Jeffres did not equate its use with giving offense or hurting feelings. Jackie Hodge was department manager. He considers himself to be "Cherokee-Irish." He never heard "Two Dogs" used with an add-on. He did not hear the abbreviated form used in Petitioner's presence, either, but he heard Petitioner referred- to as "Two Dogs." He, personally, did not refer to Petitioner as "Two Dogs," but he also did not think the term was racially demeaning. If he had thought that the term were racially demeaning, he would have sought out Petitioner's opinion on the matter. If Petitioner had complained to him, he would have prevented use of the nickname by other employees. However, it is his managerial style not to start an inquiry unless an employee complains, and Petitioner never came to him directly. Indeed, none of Respondent's co-employees or supervisors thought Petitioner objected to any of the nicknames used to his face or used about him in general conversation, because Petitioner answered to the nicknames and did not complain or answer back with rancor when the nicknames were used. Additionally, Ms. Stallworth thought "everyone was okay with what was going on," because Petitioner answered to "Two Dog." Robert McCollough was production manager. He considers himself to be "an American with an Indian great-grandmother who was full-blooded Cherokee." McCollough's wife of over 30 years is a Creek Indian, and his children went to college on an Indian grant. He never heard of "Two Dogs" and was not aware it was being used to refer to Petitioner, but he testified that unless Petitioner complained about the nicknames, the employer's management would not root out a problem where none was perceived. Respondent Employer's predecessor in interest had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy in its employee's manual as of 1988. This policy was carried over by Respondent Employer. Petitioner received, and signed for, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy when he was first employed by Respondent Employer in approximately 1995. In 1999, when Respondent promulgated a similar Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy that specifically prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, Petitioner received a copy of it.6/ The employer's Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy incorporates a procedure for confidentially addressing employee discrimination complaints, including harassment complaints. Briefly, that policy provides that an employee who feels harassed should directly tell his or her harasser what act or speech is offensive. If that confrontation does not end the problem, the offended employee is encouraged to go to the Human Resources Office, or to any supervisor on the chain of command, to lodge a confidential complaint. Even an "800" telephone number is provided so that a harassed employee may report the problem in complete confidentiality to the employer's legal office. Since 1999, Petitioner has attended annual meetings discussing the Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy.7/ The Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy is posted in the plant where any employee can refer to it, and it is sent out to employees' homes in newsletters. Respondent Employer also has in place, and has posted, an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. All witnesses agreed that while employed, Petitioner never raised his nicknames as a harassment or racial issue or as an issue of national origin to anybody.8/ Nancy Glass confirmed that, despite her "open door policy," Petitioner never filed a formal written protest with the employer's Human Resources Office because of any nickname. Petitioner took the machine operator certification course, but he did not pass it the first time. The second time he took the course, he passed. He became an operator about 1999. Prior to that time, he was an assistant operator a/k/a "a feeder" or "a helper." Machine operators receive an Operator Skills Training Handbook during their initial 40-hour machine operator certification course. The handbook describes the functions of the machines on which the operators work and the policies and procedures that operators and their assistants are required to follow, including proper preset procedures, proper set-up procedures, proper sleeve types, and how often quality checks should be done by both operators and assistant operators. As an operator, Petitioner received quality assurance training twice-a-year. If an employee's job performance requires correction, he first would be provided additional training. This training would be documented as a coaching session, rather than as discipline. Other than that, the employer has a three-tiered corrective action (discipline) program in place, as set out in the employees' handbook. All levels of discipline are documented in writing, even oral warnings. If supervisors do not perceive an error as correctable by retraining an employee, an "oral warning" is issued "in writing" for the employee's first error. The employee's next substandard performance results in a "written warning." The third step is to put the employee on paid Decision Making Leave (DML) for one day, to go home and think about how to correct his flaws and to write out a letter saying how he is going to accomplish that correction. If all three steps occur in a 12 month-period, a fourth error is supposed to result in termination. If the employee passes the 12 months' mark without a third error, the tiers recycle. On average, the employer expects its operators and assistant operators to check their machines for accuracy every half hour. Usually, the operator and assistant operator stagger their respective checks in hourly sequences, so one man checks on the hour and one man checks on the half-hour. This means that the machine/product is checked every half hour by one or the other of them. Some POFs require more frequent quality control checks. At the beginning of each shift, each new operator coming on duty is responsible for comparing the POF to be run, or still running from the last shift, with the product currently coming off the end of his machine. If that operator does a quality check at the very beginning of his shift, and then checks repeatedly at the required intervals throughout his shift, no more than thirty minutes (and thirty minutes' equivalent of non-conforming bags) can go by before an error is noticed. The point of quality control checks is to ensure that the employer avoids running non-conforming bags. Sometimes, non-conforming bags can be sold to a different buyer, often at a lesser profit. More often, they cannot be sold, cannot be recycled, and must be trashed. There was no substantial difference in the discipline the employer applied to employees producing non-conforming bags which could be sold to a different buyer and the discipline it applied to employees who produced non-conforming bags, all of which had to be destroyed for a total loss. The employer has been reasonably consistent in holding responsible everybody associated with a machine's quality control error who was on the shift when the quality control error was discovered, such as that shift's assistant operator, operator, and ending supervisor, for the same machine. Depending upon when respective POFs were started and finished, the employer has also held responsible whichever operator preset the machine on the previous shift and that operator's assistant operator, both of whom should have performed the quality control checks on the previous shift. Sometimes that shift's ending manager was disciplined, too. Usually, the operator coming on shift and his assistant operator also have both been disciplined if non-conforming bags are run. Sometimes that shift ending manager was also disciplined. Basically, if the prior operator and his assistant run bad bags, they are disciplined for their own error, and if the next shift operator comes on shift and does not immediately check to prevent further errors, both operators and their assistants are written-up. Put another way, if there was a bad pre-set by an earlier shift, the operator, assistant, and manager on that shift are disciplined for the bad bags they have actually run, and the next shift operator, his assistant, and his manager are disciplined if bad bags result from the new operator's failure to check the pre-set as soon as the new operator comes on duty. If it is a totally new set-up by the new shift operator, then only that operator, his assistant, and his ending manager, are disciplined. The degree of discipline for quality control flaws imposed upon any of the respective employees from either shift depended upon whether they already had gone through any of the three tiers of progressive discipline within the preceding 12 months. Neither race, national origin, nor union membership affected who was disciplined or the degree of discipline any employee, including Petitioner, received for producing non- conforming bags. On March 19, 2002, a random quality audit was performed by a manager. Petitioner received an oral warning which was written-up, because he had personal items (two packs of cigarettes) on his work bench/machine, and for failing to make on-going quality control checks of the weight of the bags his machine was running. No evidence of other employees also being written up for the offense of personal items in view was offered, but there also was no evidence others had personal items on their work benches in the same time frame without being written-up. Several witnesses testified that at one time having personal possessions in view had been permissible, but then a rule or instruction by the employer had prohibited this "in view" practice. Petitioner did not contest this discipline at the time. On April 3, 2002, Petitioner set the product up to run with the wrong sleeve paper and then went off shift. His feeder had brought him the wrong sleeve paper. The feeder had not been disciplined previously, so she received a write-up of oral coaching. Petitioner did not run non-conforming bags himself, but he failed to follow the preset procedure, so he did not catch the feeder's error. The wrong sleeve paper resulted in 12,500 defective bags being run on the following shift. These bags could not be used and had to be thrown away. Petitioner was orally counseled, by two supervisors, regarding his quality control flaw, and received a written warning for his failure to follow proper preset procedures. Eric Adkins, the operator on the next shift, and Adkins' helper, Larry Calhoun, both of whom actually ran the non-conforming bags using Petitioner's improper preset, and supervisor Eddie Jeffres, also were written-up for this error. The type of write-up each person got depended upon where his particular error ranked in the sequence of his respective number of prior errors, if any. Petitioner did not dispute this discipline at the time. Clifford Stuckey had come to work for Respondent about three years after Petitioner. This was perhaps early 1998. Petitioner and Stuckey were "on-the-job friends" and "house- visiting friends" in their private lives for awhile. Unfortunately, about a year before Petitioner was terminated, perhaps June 2002, they had a falling-out. Because Petitioner did not testify, the only first- hand explanation of what started their feud came from Stuckey. Apparently, Petitioner left his wife's car at Stuckey's home, with the intent of buying a second car for use as parts. The two men had an expectation that Mr. Stuckey, who was a good shade tree mechanic, would use the parts of the second car to fix Petitioner's wife's car. However, Petitioner's wife's car was left at Stuckey's home, without the "parts" car being supplied by Petitioner, for seven months, a period of time that was longer than Stuckey thought appropriate. Stuckey gave Petitioner an ultimatum that if Petitioner's wife's car were not removed, Stuckey would leave it on the road. When Petitioner and his wife arrived at Stuckey's home to get the car, Stuckey was still on the job at the plant. Petitioner and his wife phoned Stuckey from a neighbor's home, but Stuckey refused to leave work and come home with the key to his house so that Petitioner and his wife could get their car key. Harsh words were exchanged over the telephone, and Stuckey addressed Petitioner's wife disrespectfully. It is unclear whether Stuckey also made an oral threat of unexplained consequences against Petitioner over the phone, but it is clear that Stuckey was in no position to physically assault Petitioner or his wife over the telephone line. Later, Petitioner and his wife found their car in a ditch by the side of the road leading to Stuckey's home. Stuckey testified that for awhile after the car incident, Petitioner, while passing Stuckey's work station in Respondent's plant on his way to the restroom, would grab his own crotch or "flip me the finger." These are universal signs of contempt, designed to provoke another into striking the first blow. After one such crude challenge by Petitioner, Stuckey told Petitioner "if he did it again, I would whip his tail." It is presumed that Stuckey's foregoing on-premises oral threat was actually delivered in somewhat cruder and more urgent language than he admitted-to on the witness stand. Nancy Glass testified that shortly after the car incident, and still about a year before Petitioner's termination, Petitioner approached her and Robert McCullough in her office, and told them that he was "not saying he wouldn't or couldn't work with Stuckey," but that there had been an off- premises incident involving Petitioner's car being found on the road; that the dispute between himself and Stuckey had gotten "pretty nasty"; and that Stuckey had "smart-mouthed" him in the plant, as they had passed each other when Stuckey was going off shift and Petitioner was coming on shift. Petitioner acknowledged to them that no one had witnessed the "smart-mouth" incident. Petitioner did not tell Glass or McCullough that he had been threatened by Stuckey or that his feud with Stuckey involved any discrimination against him. He told them he did not want to have a sit-down discussion with Stuckey and that he did not want to make a big deal out of the incident, but he thought they should know about it. Petitioner said nothing about discrimination on the basis of his being Indian or Native American. He said nothing about any nicknames applied to himself. Since Petitioner did not wish to pursue the matter, Glass just told him to let them know if there were any further trouble between himself and Stuckey. Robert McCullough recollected, not that Petitioner had mentioned Stuckey in a meeting in Glass's office, but that Petitioner told McCullough while they were both on the plant's floor, that he and Stuckey had "a cussing" at one another off the plant premises. McCullough also did not recall Petitioner ever saying any incident had occurred on the plant premises or that Petitioner wanted to stay away from Stuckey. Petitioner said nothing to McCullough about discrimination, race, or national origin before his termination a year later. (See Finding of Fact 81.) For an indeterminate period of time, Petitioner and Stuckey avoided each other at the plant, and it was clear to some co-workers that there was "bad blood" between them. During this time, never proven rumors circulated on the floor that Petitioner and/or his wife had been threatened by Stuckey. A never proven rumor reached Stuckey that Petitioner and his wife had "telephoned" Robert McCullough about the car problem. However, Nancy Glass confirmed that Petitioner never filed a formal protest concerning his problems, whatever they might have been, with Stuckey, and he never said anything more about their feud to her for the year leading up to his June 2003 termination. Some co-employees never heard about the feud until after Petitioner's termination, when a never proven rumor started that Stuckey had sabotaged Petitioner's machine after Petitioner went off shift, thereby subjecting Petitioner to the final discipline of termination (see Findings of Fact 83-84) There was another never-proven rumor that Stuckey had rifled Petitioner's tool box while Petitioner was on suspension. Still other co-employees did not hear about the feud between Petitioner and Stuckey until a few days before the merits hearing on this case, when one party or the other contacted them about subpoenas. Most of the co-employees who had heard of Petitioner's and Stuckey's feud before Petitioner's termination thought the feud had blown over by the time Petitioner was terminated in June 2003. On December 3, 2002, Petitioner was given a "written warning" for failing to follow an order approval on a quality checklist which resulted in 1,500 defective bags being run. These bags had to be thrown away because they were created with a crease cut so that they could not be filled with the customer's product. The error should have been detected on the set up or on a later quality check. Petitioner was counseled regarding this error, as was the manager who approved the bag. Because Petitioner already had received an "oral warning" and a "written warning," his December 3, 2002, error should have resulted in Petitioner being placed on DML. However, Jackie Hodge wanted to work with Petitioner, rather than to have to retrain someone new. Hodge also felt that steps in the disciplinary tier system should not be duplicated. Therefore, he reduced Petitioner's December 3, 2002, write-up to a "coaching session" and required Petitioner to retrain on the order approval procedure for the type of bag he created and on its quality checklist procedures. Petitioner's manager was also counseled. On January 13, 2003, Petitioner was placed on DML, with one day's pay, for failing to perform quality check procedures which resulted in approximately 6,000 bags, with cuts on the main score, which had to be scrapped. If Petitioner had made the required quality checks, the error would not have occurred. Petitioner's union representative attended the meeting in which Petitioner was placed on DML. Jackie Hodge also gave Petitioner a card for confidential Employee Assistance counseling, which is an employee benefit. Petitioner's manager was also counseled and written-up, consistent with his own respective number of substandard performances. Petitioner returned to work with his DML letter dated January 24, 2003. The DML letter Petitioner composed and turned in did not set a specific date for formal review of his performance and improvement progress.9/ However, in the letter, Petitioner pledged to follow quality control procedures in the future. The letter was accepted by management, and Petitioner was put back to work. Because the management team had not been physically able to meet with Petitioner within one day to review his DML letter, and because DML is technically a suspension, Jackie Hodge arranged for Petitioner to be paid for a second day without his actually working. This was a deviation from the standard disciplinary policy, but it was a deviation to Petitioner's advantage. On May 16, 2003, although Petitioner's quality checklist accompanying an order indicated that quality checks had been performed every half hour, the sleeve construction and placement on the bags produced were not correct. As a result, nearly 7,000 defective tubes had to be thrown away. Petitioner, his manager, and his helper were all disciplined for this quality control error. One of the concerns of management at this stage was that Petitioner and his helper may have falsified their checklists showing that the quality control checks had been made when the checks were not, in fact, made. If the checks had been made, in reality, and not just the paper work filled-out, the error would have to have been "caught" in less than an hour, and far fewer non-conforming bags would have been created. If the checks had been made and apparent errors corrected at any stage, 7,000 non-conforming bags could not possibly have been created. Petitioner's union representative signed-off on his suspension. Petitioner met with Jackie Hodge, Ron Williams, Nancy Glass, Robert McCullough, and Leo Willoughby on May 22, 2003, while he was on suspension, pending probable termination for too many progressive disciplines within a 12-month period. Petitioner agreed that if they brought him back to work, he would follow all plant procedures, including quality control checks. Management side-stepped a union grievance and brought him back to work, with the understanding that if he again failed to follow instructions, he would be terminated. It was Jackie Hodge's job to schedule available workers' hours and shifts in order to keep Respondent's plant fully operational at all times. On June 9, 2003, he assigned Petitioner, as operator, and Stuckey, as assistant operator, to the same machine on the same shift. Stuckey testified, without refutation, that it was "just luck" he and Petitioner were not scheduled to work together on the same shift or same machine while their feud had been in progress. It was management's mind-set that in the absence of discrimination, "problems were not moved, but solved," and that any disputes arising off-premises were up to employees to work out on their own. The same was essentially true for personal, non-discrimination problems arising within the plant. There is a discrepancy in the testimony as to when, precisely, Jackie Hodge found out that Petitioner and Stuckey had their feud. Nancy Glass testified that she "thought" she told Hodge about the off-premises car incident and on-premises "smart mouth" incidents a year before June 9, 2003. (See Findings of Fact 57-58). Hodge, himself, testified that he knew nothing about the off-premises car incident and on-premises "smart mouth" remark until Petitioner was "on suspension." Because Petitioner was on suspension of some kind on January 13, 2003, May 16, 2003, and after June 9, 2003 (See Findings of Facts 67-70 and 79-81) it is hard to say with any assurance whether or not Hodge knew, when he assigned them to the same machine for June 9, 2003, that Petitioner and Stuckey had feuded a year before. Yet, regardless of when Jackie Hodge knew Petitioner and Stuckey did not get along, there is absolutely no evidence that Petitioner's and Stuckey's personal problems, on or off the employer's premises, were motivated, affected, or prolonged because of discrimination against Petitioner as an Indian or Native American. Moreover, Stuckey testified that although he and Petitioner never sat down and formally discussed their problems or agreed to be friends again, he also testified, without refutation, that he thought that he and Petitioner had resumed their friendship by the time they were scheduled to work together on Petitioner's last night of employment, June 9, 2003. Finally, after Jackie Hodge posted the machine and shift assignments for June 9, 2003, neither Stuckey nor Petitioner approached him to request that he reassign one or the other of them to a different shift or machine. Petitioner and Stuckey worked the same machine on the same shift on June 9, 2003. When Petitioner and Stuckey went off shift on June 9, 2003, their machine was producing bags without a tuck-in sleeve, contrary to the POF. Defective bags were created with the glue under the valve, in the wrong position on the bag. If Petitioner and Stuckey had performed the required quality control checks, the machine should have been producing the correct type of bag when they turned it over to the next shift. Because they had left the incorrect set up, and because the operator coming on shift after them did not immediately catch their error, the machine continued to create unusable, non- conforming bags well into the following shift. Petitioner's June 9, 2003, quality checklist indicated that he had performed all the quality checks. However, the order ran at the rate of 2,000 bags per hour and the order called for quality checks to be performed every 15 minutes. Thus, during the six hours it took to run close to 12,000 bags, a total of 24 quality checks should have been performed by Petitioner, Stuckey, and the next operator and his assistant, each of which checks could have caught the error. Because the error was not caught during the quality check procedure, all 10,850 bags actually produced had to be scrapped. Petitioner and Stuckey were both disciplined for the June 9, 2003, problem. At this point, Petitioner's accumulated disciplinary record clearly required that he be terminated. As before, he was suspended, pending a decision on termination. Stuckey's situation had not reached that stage, and he received a written warning. After a review by McCullough and McCullough's superior, the decision was made to terminate Petitioner and he was notified by telephone. Petitioner filed a union grievance. During the review and grievance process, Petitioner admitted to McCullough that he and Stuckey had been signing off on the quality control checks for each other on June 9, 2003. Only after these reviews and grievance procedures were completed and the grievance was denied, did Respondent consider Petitioner "terminated," as opposed to "suspended." In all, the employer calculated that Petitioner was fully or partially responsible for 39,000 bad bags at approximately 33 cents per bag, or $12,870.00, worth of bad bags. Stuckey testified without refutation that he had not altered the machine in question. After some more operators (race and national origin unspecified) were disciplined for quality control errors on the same machine to which Petitioner and Stuckey had been assigned on June 9, 2003, it was discovered that a part on the machine was gradually slipping a little more each half hour so that the bags became increasingly non-conforming as time progressed. That discovery enabled Respondent to fix the machine, but the discovery did not alter anyone's prior discipline because timely quality control checks still would have prevented the production of so many non-conforming bags. There was no evidence that any of Petitioner's disciplinary problems was due to his race or national origin. There was no evidence that any of Petitioner's disciplinary problems or quality control issues arose from errors he made because of the nicknames he was called.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2004.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a residential program for young, homeless women who are pregnant or have infants. Respondent is required by applicable state law to maintain minimum staffing requirements or expose its license to disciplinary action. Respondent employed Petitioner as a residential staff assistant (RSA) from sometime in August 2002 until February 2, 2004. Petitioner worked five days a week during shift hours that varied during her employment. As an RSA, Petitioner's duties included assisting residents with care for their babies, babysitting, assisting residents with meal planning and budgeting, writing staff notes for parent and child, driving residents to and from medical appointments, and otherwise "assist mother and child in anyway." With the exception of excessive absences discussed hereinafter, it is undisputed that Petitioner was able to perform the essential functions of her job and did so satisfactorily to Respondent. Sometime in May 2003, Petitioner suffered a back injury while riding a horse. Petitioner suffered a herniated disc located at L5-S1. After the injury, Petitioner experienced right-side pain and sought treatment initially from chiropractic therapy and acupuncture. However, Petitioner's symptoms persisted. Petitioner sought medical treatment sometime prior to July 2003. An MRI conducted on July 21, 2003, diagnosed the herniated disc, and Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery on September 11, 2003, identified in the record as a laminectomy. By a physician's note on a prescription pad dated October 29, 2003, the treating physician authorized Petitioner to return to work on November 2, 2003. The physician's note did not prescribe any limitations for Petitioner. Petitioner returned to work on the prescribed date. On November 10, 2003, a director for Respondent required Petitioner and a co-worker to close the security gate to the facility. The electric motor for the gate was not functioning, and the two co-workers had to close a heavy security gate by manually pulling until the facility was secure. By a physician's note on a prescription pad dated November 14, 2003, the treating physician prescribed "light duty" for Petitioner. The light-duty restrictions were limited to "no pulling." A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Respondent required Petitioner to perform any "pulling" after November 10, 2003. Petitioner's back condition is an impairment within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12112, et seq. (ADA), and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, et seq., Florida Statutes (2003) (FCRA). After surgery, Petitioner continued to experience pain in her right side and, due to inactivity, gained approximately 100 pounds. Petitioner's resulting impairment has limited her ability to work by impairing her ability to sit for long periods, pull, lift, bend to retrieve files from lower file drawers, and drive. Petitioner's impairment is permanent. The surgery did not eliminate Petitioner's impairment, and Petitioner is relegated to physical therapy and pain medication as the sole medical treatment for her condition. After more than two years of such treatment, Petitioner's impairment persists. Petitioner's impairment did not prevent her from satisfactorily performing her job duties other than attendance. Disputed requests for accommodations in the form of a particular chair that was comfortable for Petitioner and in the form of the location of files in higher drawers for easier access by Petitioner were not necessary for Petitioner to perform the essential functions of her job. It is undisputed that Petitioner satisfactorily performed her job duties without those accommodations. Petitioner's impairment caused her to be absent from work six of 20 workdays between November 2 and 30, 2003, and nine of 52 workdays between December 4, 2003, and February 2, 2004. The first six absences were excessive pursuant to Respondent's written Policy HR 103. In addition, Petitioner did not provide a supervisor with prior notice or cause of absences. However, each absence was required for Petitioner to either attend physical therapy or for Petitioner to recover from physical therapy. After the first absence, Respondent knew the causes of the absences. On December 3, 2003, Petitioner and Respondent executed a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in which Petitioner agreed there would be no further unscheduled absences. Respondent agreed to reduce the time required in HR 103 for prior notice from eight to six hours. After executing the CAP, Petitioner had nine unscheduled absences during approximately 52 workdays between December 3, 2003, and February 2, 2004. Petitioner was unable to call in to her supervisors because of problems with telephones and voicemails, including those at the facility and cellular telephones maintained by supervisors. However, Petitioner knew of the telephone problem and knew her therapy schedule. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner requested Respondent either to utilize an alternative method of communication or to arrange her work schedule to accommodate Petitioner's therapy schedule. On January 30, 2003, Respondent notified Petitioner that Respondent was changing Petitioner's employment status to "on-call" because Petitioner was unable to satisfy the attendance requirements of an RSA. Petitioner refused to accept the change in status due to the uncertainties of pay and the loss of benefits. On February 2, 2004, Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment. Petitioner's impairment is neither a "disability" nor a "handicap" within the meaning of the ADA and FCRA, respectively. The impairment did not substantially limit Petitioner's ability to perform the major life activity of working. Petitioner's impairment did not prevent her from satisfactorily performing her job duties other than attendance. A preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner's impairment precludes her from either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. Petitioner showed that she has made a reasonable effort to secure other employment without success. However, a preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner's impairment is the cause of her inability to obtain employment. The Social Security Administration denied Petitioner's disability claim. The agency found that Petitioner has received treatment for her impairment and that the impairment does affect her ability to work. However, the agency found that Petitioner is "still capable of performing" the duties of an RSA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of a disability or handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 31st day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Phyllis J. Towzey, Esquire Law Office of Phyllis J. Towzey, P.A. The Kress Building, Suite 401 475 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Theresa A. Deeb, Esquire Deeb & Brainard, P.A. 5999 Central Avenue, Suite 202 St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in her employment based on her gender or disability, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Respondent had employed Petitioner as a Toll Equipment Technician/OMST III for over ten years at the time of her termination. Her responsibilities included maintaining the equipment at the toll plaza, troubleshooting shop work, traveling to various work sites, and communicating with the public. On November 17, 1998, while working in the vicinity of traffic at a toll plaza, Respondent was struck by a passing truck. Petitioner went to a clinic where her injuries were examined. When Petitioner returned to work about three days after the accident, she performed light duty for three days. After three days, Petitioner worked without restrictions and performed her full job functions. On January 16, 2000, Petitioner reinjured her back while attempting to lift a monitor over her head while at work. On March 28, 2000, Dr. Hubert Aronson performed a surgery on Petitioner for a herniated disc. On June 6, 2000, Dr. Aronson determined that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement, and he rated her with a permanent partial physical impairment of seven percent. He ordered a functional assessment test to identify any work restrictions, prior to releasing her for work. On June 22, 2000, staff of HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital conducted a functional assessment test on Petitioner. Based on the assessment, by note dated July 31, 2000, Dr. Aronson returned Petitioner to regular work duties, without restrictions, as of August 1, 2000. Unsure that Petitioner's physician understood the physical demands of Petitioner's job, Mr. Ayala ordered that the Division of Risk Management obtain another functional assessment of Petitioner. By report dated August 18, 2000, Options Plus noted that it had documented the demands of Petitioner's work and presented this material to Dr. Aronson, who again released Petitioner to return to her regular job. Although Mr. Ayala was doubtful of her ability to perform her regular job duties, Petitioner performed her work until Christmas 2000, when she went on leave. While on leave, Petitioner reinjured her back. Petitioner called in sick on January 7, 2001, and informed Mr. Ayala that her back was hurting. A workers' compensation representative called Petitioner and suggested that she visit Dr. Bernard Chapnick, who examined Petitioner on January 9, 2001. Dr. Chapnick restricted Petitioner to light duty and stated that she was not to work, if no light duty were available. Dr. Chapnick made a follow-up appointment for Petitioner on January 16, 2001. When Petitioner returned to work and gave Mr. Ayala the doctor's note, he responded that he had no light duty. He made an imaginary swing with a golf club, implying that Petitioner had injured her back while playing golf. Respondent then placed Petitioner on unpaid medical leave, and Mr. Ayala informed Petitioner that she would be required to resume her regular duties on April 23, 2001. On April 23, 2001, Dr. Aronson released Petitioner for work, but still on light duty. When Petitioner returned to work seeking light duty, Mr. Ayala informed her again that none was available. He offered her another period of unpaid medical leave, but Petitioner declined the offer. By letter dated May 10, 2001, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to dismiss her, effective no sooner than ten days from the date of the letter. The reason for dismissal, as stated in the letter, is Petitioner's inability to perform her duties and absence without leave for three or more workdays. Following a Predetermination Conference, by letter dated June 27, 2001, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was terminated, effective June 29, 2001, due to her inability to perform the duties of her position and absence without leave for three or more workdays. Petitioner's complaint that a disabled male coworker received preferential treatment is groundless. At all material times, he was medically cleared to lift up to 50 pounds, which was considerably more than was permitted by Petitioner's light duty.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roselisa Cocalis 15471 Southwest 110th Terrace Miami, Florida 33196 J. Ann Cowles Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Consideration of the matter set forth in the September 22, 1977, letter of suspension served on Respondent, for events which allegedly transpired from September 13 through September 20, 1977, concerning the Respondent's fitness for duty and duty performance in the job position Pharmacist II, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact Aldridge M. McMahan is a Career Service employee with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. His specific employment is as a Pharmacist II, permanent status. This case concerns the action by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, in which the Petitioner by letter of September 22, 1977, suspended the Respondent, Aldridge M. McMahan, for a period of thirty (30) days without pay, effective September 21, 1977. The suspension without pay was subject to being lifted upon receipt by the Petitioner of a satisfactory report prior to the end of the thirty (30) day suspension, on the question of the Respondent's fitness for duty. It was further stated in the letter of suspension that if such a satisfactory report was forthcoming, the Respondent would be afforded necessary sick leave to attend to his health needs, thus taking the amount of remaining time in the thirty day suspension out of the category of a disciplinary action without pay and placing it into sick leave status with pay, if the Respondent had earned sufficient sick leave time. The Respondent has disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the Petitioner and has appealed the action of suspension. To clearly understand the steps taken by Petitioner, it is necessary to consider the events of late 1976 and early 1977 pertaining to the Respondent's employment status. Beginning in October, 1976, the Respondent had occasions when he appeared to be groggy, was unable to speak intelligibly and had problems in filling prescriptions which was his primary duty within his employment position. Several alternatives were considered to assist Mr. McMahan with those difficulties including possible psychiatric counselling. In the beginning of 1977 the problems of Mr. McMahan intensified and he was required to see a psychiatrist. Eventually, Mr. McMahan was treated by David Hicks, M.D., a psychiatrist in Jacksonville, Florida. The contact began in earnest in March, 1977, and on April 19, 1977, Mr. McMahan was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital for assessment. At that point, Mr. McMahan was asking for tranquilizing medication for his condition. Mr. McMahan was discharged from the treatment with outpatient follow-up. The discharge occurred on May 3, 1977. On May 18, 1977, McMahan saw Dr. Hicks again and Mr. McMahan appeared very tired. Some of the tests that were performed in April of 1977 indicated that Mr. McMahan had been showing declining levels of long-acting barbiturates, specifically between April 19 and April 26, 1977. Dr. Hicks felt that the taking of barbiturates was consistent with the mannerisms of slurred speech and problems of communication. During the treatment with Dr. Hicks, and particularly from April 18, 1977, the Respondent by agreement with his employer was allowed to take sick leave to be treated for his condition and in fact took 160 hours of sick leave. When the Respondent returned, his work performance improved and there was no difficulty with his ability to perform his job, until September, 1977. The events in September, as stated before, give rise to the current action. Beginning in the middle part of September, 1977, identified as being September 13 through September 20, 1977, excluding the intervening weekend, McMahan was observed to have been hesitant in his walking and wavering in his walking, to have run into walls; to have evident slurred speech, to have appeared to have been dozing while sitting in the chair in his office, to have taken a number of pills and to have been extremely difficult to communicate with in the context of his job. All these matters occurred in the aforementioned period, September 13 through September 20, 1977, while Mr. McMahan was at work. He also evidenced a poor physical appearance in the sense of being gray in appearance, in terms of skin coloring. One of his coworkers who is a pharmacist in the same office felt that Mr. McMahan was rushing the prescriptions too quickly during this time sequence and it was also stated at the hearing that some complaints had been received about filling the prescriptions. Those complaints were rendered from outside sources other than by the Petitioner. It is significant that the symptoms observed by a number of employees who work with Mr. McMahan were the same symptoms that they had observed in April, 1977, when Mr. McMahan took leave to be treated for a problem with meprobamate. During the course of events between September 13 and September 20, 1977, no specific discussion was had with the Petitioner other than one occasion in which Embry Coalson, Chief of the Consumer Drugs and Devices Control Section of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, made inquiry about why the Respondent had come to work on September 16 after his wife had called in saying that Respondent was ill. The Respondent had shown up for work looking very ill on that date. Nonetheless, after gathering all the facts and details of the events of September 13 through September 20, 1977, Mr. Coalson called the Respondent in to apprise him that he was being placed on suspension under the terms that are discussed above. Respondent indicated in the course of the discussion that was held on September 21, 1977, that he felt it was unfair treatment because he had been sick with diarrhea and had been taking Dramamine and Lomotil for this condition. In Respondent's mind this would appear to make him drowsy. Coalson suggested that a medical evaluation be made of the Respondent's condition and the Respondent suggested that he would be willing to have a blood test to show that there were no inappropriate drugs in his system. The conversation of September 21, 1977, ended with the Respondent being told that he could have a medical evaluation and blood test done and that of the report was satisfactory to the employer, the Respondent would be reinstated. The Petitioner was not willing to go with the Respondent on the date of the actual interview, i.e., September 21, 1977, to have tests done in the presence of the employer's representative. Coalson took the position that the responsibility to clear the matter resided with the Respondent and not the Petitioner. The attitude by the employer's representative was premised on the idea that the performance during the period of September 13 through September 20, 1977, on the part of the Respondent showed him to be unfit for duty and below standards in the duty performance; however, it allowed the punishment to be mitigated upon a satisfactory explanation of the Respondent's condition during the period in question. Beginning September 26, 1977, the Respondent went to see Dr. Hicks, the psychiatrist, who in his deposition in the course of the hearing indicated that he was convinced that McMahan's drowsiness was part of the physical ailment associated with nausea and diarrhea and not due to any drug-related problem. Dr. Hicks was of this persuasion although he administered no test for drugs and even though he had not observed Mr. McMahan's demeanor during the period of September 13 through September 20, 1977. A letter was written from Dr. Hicks to Mr. Coalson which was dated October 10, 1977, expressing the opinion of Dr. Hicks on the question of whether or not Mr. McMahan was suffering sensorial disturbance or other physical or psychiatric phenomenon suggesting any use of any chemical at the time of the initial interview with Dr. Hicks which took place on September 26, 1977. Mr. Coalson found this letter and explanation sufficient to reinstate the Respondent in is job position and Respondent remains in that position today. After analyzing all the facts in this cause, it is uncertain whether or not Mr. McMahan was truly ill at the time of September 13 through September 20, 1977, while he was at his work station. However, it is apparent that Mr. McMahan was unfit to perform duties of his position and performed those duties at such a substandard level that he was subject to the suspension that was entered against him, and not entitled to any reinstatement until the employer's representative received Dr. Hicks' letter and accepted it for purposes of establishing the reinstatement.
Recommendation It is recommended that the appeal of the Respondent be denied and that the suspension of September 22, 1977, be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire 1320 Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed for 22 years at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (GPWMH) as a human services worker I. She was a permanent career service employee. It is undisputed that Petitioner failed to report to work or to seek approval for leave after March 5, 1987. A notice was sent to Petitioner on or about April 14, 1987 by M. H. Townsend, Personnel Manager at GPWMH, informing her that an employee who is absent without authorized leave for three consecutive work days is deemed to have abandoned her position. On April 16, 1987 Petitioner signed a return receipt acknowledging receipt of this notice. She continued to be absent from her position without authorized leave and was notified on April 27, 1987 that she was deemed to have abandoned her position. Petitioner was therefore separated from her position with GPWMH. Petitioner offered no evidence to explain her unauthorized absence from March 5, 1987 to her separation on April 27, 1987. She testified she was not physically able to work, but did not support this testimony with any medical evidence. To the contrary, medical records introduced on behalf of Respondent indicate Petitioner was examined and determined to be able to return to light duty work in February, 1987. Respondent had thereafter assigned Petitioner to a light duty program consistent with her medical evaluation.
Recommendation The final hearing in this case was held on August 6, 1987, in Arcadia, Florida before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented as follows: Petitioner: Marjorie R. Miller, pro se 1002 Rainbow Avenue Arcadia, Florida 33221 Respondent: George Oujevolk, Esquire Post Office Box 129 Arcadia, Florida 33221 The issue in this case is whether Marjorie R. Miller (Petitioner) abandoned her position at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital by being absent without authorized leave for three consecutive work days. Petitioner has requested the Department of Administration to review the facts of this case and to issue a ruling as to whether the circumstances constitute an abandonment of her position. At the hearings Petitioner testified on her own behalf and also called Georgia Edwards and May Robinson. Respondent called M. H. Townsend, Louise Bell, Denise Wood, and Ellen Walters. Respondent introduced eight exhibits. No transcript or proposed findings of fact have been filed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Shirley Arnold and Joannie Greer, are black females and were high school students at the time pertinent to this proceeding. They were employed by Burger Queen Systems, Inc. from the latter part of November, 1979 through January 8, 1980. Burger Queen Systems, Inc., at that time, operated a "fast food" restaurant at which the Petitioners were employed in Arcadia, Florida. The Petitioners complain that they were terminated from their positions because of their race. They assert in support of that position that they were not given as much training by their employer as white employees were given, nor that they were allowed to rotate through all job positions, with training in all job duties (especially operating the cash register and making sales) as were white employees. The Petitioners were enrolled in a vocational training program in their senior year of high school which allowed them to work up to 20 hours per week part-time and it was through this program that they received part-time jobs at the Respondent's restaurant in Arcadia. They were given training in food preparation and in preparing the various kinds of hamburgers and cheeseburgers sold by the restaurant. They were rotated through a number of different duties and given training in the performance of each one. In the case of Joannie Greer, however, it was established that in addition to receiving training in preparing the various kinds of sandwiches sold at the restaurant, she was given some training in operating the cash register; and indeed, was trained in most phases of the "fast food" restaurant's food preparation and sales, with the exception of operating the cooking grill and cooking hamburgers, cheeseburgers and the like. The Petitioners were informed by their Vocational teacher that they could work up to 20 hours per week, and in Joannie Greer's case, at least, she worked up to 16 hours per week, but both Petitioners worked varying numbers of hours according to a schedule provided them by their employer because they were part- time workers still attending high school. Both Petitioners knew they were part-time employees when they were hired and Joannie Greer admitted they were not excluded from any formal training course. Although the Petitioners did not rotate through and train for each duty involved in operating the restaurant, they were informed that they would be allowed to do so, but neither was employed for a sufficient period of time to train in all available duties. It was the restaurant's consistent business practice to train only management personnel in all duties required to operate the restaurant, including cooking and running the cash register, and that no part-time employees were given training in every field. It was not established by Petitioners that white part-time employees were given different or additional training than black part-time employees, including the Petitioners. All starting employees were paid the same rate. Both Petitioners knew they were part-time employees only and Joannie Greer acknowledged that they were not promised any definite length or hours of employment, but rather worked on a flexible, part-time schedule. During the time the Petitioners were employed at the restaurant, Burger Queen Systems, Inc. was in financial difficulties. It operated 19 stores at the time, but by July, 1982 was forced to close all stores due to insufficient revenue and excessive expenses. It was a regular management practice of Burger Queen Systems to send in a management person from its home office in order to attempt to make an unprofitable store profitable. The Arcadia store involved herein was operating at a loss at the time the Petitioners were employed. It was Burger Queen System's regular business practice in order to turn unprofitable stores into profitable operations, to change management and even change any or all personnel if that was required, in order to improve the profit and loss posture of a given restaurant. In any event, Ann West was dispatched from the home office to the Arcadia store to attempt to improve operations there so it would become profitable. As part of that process, both white and black employees were reduced in the number of hours they could work and employees who did not perform properly were dismissed. Satisfactory employees were dismissed as well for cost control-reasons. The Petitioners were dismissed because they performed their duties too slowly and in a substandard fashion. In this connection, Petitioner's witness Sonia Murphy, attributed an unsubstantiated statement as being made by Ann West to the effect that she had "to get rid of" some black employees. In other portions of her testimony however, Sonia Murphy acknowledged that Ms. West desired to keep some employees, including some black employees, and indeed, some black employees were retained after the Petitioners were terminated. Sonia Murphy was herself in charge of Joannie Greer's training and she, in conducting her training, was told by unspecified management personnel, to have the Petitioner do "other things," that is, rotate her through several jobs, training her in each. This testimony, coupled with that of Petitioner Joannie Greer herself, to the effect that she was well-treated by management personnel and was not excluded front any training programs as compared to other part-time employees, as well as Greer's testimony that a management employee by the name of "Dusty" actually informed her that she was terminated, coupled with Sonia Murphy's testimony that she could not remember the names of the store managers indicates no attempt by Ms. West or other management personnel to single out blacks, and particularly the Petitioners for dismissal, reduction in work hours or reduced training for racially discriminatory reasons. Thus, the totality of the testimony of these two witnesses, coupled with Witness Murphy's general demeanor on the stand, renders her testimony that this statement was made, unreliable and not direct, credible evidence of racially discriminatory practices. Even if the statement had been made by Ms. West, the evidence of record independently establishes that the statement did not represent the motivating factor for the termination of Petitioners. The Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were the only employees, black or white, terminated for the above reasons. Indeed, in the ensuing period of time prior to hearing, the Respondent ultimately closed all of its stores because of its financial difficulties, such that the Respondent corporation only retains one employee, Casey Richards, its accountant and home office manager, who established from contemporaneous personnel records the above reason for the termination of the two Petitioners. In short, the Respondent ultimately terminated all its restaurant employees due to its financial difficulties and in the case of the Petitioners, for the additional reasons of substandard job performance. There was no substantial prima facie evidence adduced to establish that the Petitioners were terminated solely for reasons of race, nor that, while they were employed, they were discriminated against through the provision of inferior training compared to other non-black employees, nor that the Petitioners got less desirable work than non-black employees. The Petitioners thus did not establish that the conditions of their employment, including training opportunities, nor the reasons for their termination, were due to their race and moreover, the Respondent employer established valid business reasons for their termination, and indeed ultimately for all its employees, that is, severe financial difficulties culminating in ultimate business failure, and in the case of these two Petitioners, substandard job performance. This last was the reason provided by the employer, in writing, to the Petitioners high school teacher in charge of their vocational training, part- time job program.
Conclusions For Petitioners: James F. Mensing, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Drawer 1449 305 North Jackson Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 For Respondent: Gilbert Bentley, Esquire Post Office Box 577 Maitland, Florida 32751 This cause arose when Petitioners Shirley Arnold and Joannie Greer filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that they were victims of an unlawful employment practice by the Respondent, Burger Queen Systems, Inc. The petitions generally allege that the Petitioners were discriminated against because of their race (black) and were unlawfully terminated from their jobs with the Respondent for this reason. The petitions were filed on May 14, 1984 and were, in due course, transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing. On August 21, 1984, some three months after the case had been opened at the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the statute of limitations had run on the cause of action and that the Division of Administrative Hearings had no jurisdiction in the matter. That motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. On August 31, 1984, the Hearing Officer noticed the hearing for Tuesday, November 27, 1984. On November 20, 1984, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Determination of Facts Not In Dispute, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer which the Petitioner maintains is mandatory pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 22T-9.08. That rule provides that each Respondent shall file an answer with the Commission within 20 days from service of the petition, and that if a Respondent fails to timely answer, the failure shall be deemed to constitute an admission of the material facts alleged in the petition. That motion should be denied inasmuch as it was not timely raised. The petitions were filed May 14, 1984, accordingly the motion attacking the failure of the Respondent to file an answer was not filed until almost six months after the issue concerning the Respondent's failure to answer became ripe for determination by appropriate motion. During this time discovery was conducted, all parties conducted preparation for trial and the motion was never raised until one week prior to hearing, after significant expense in time and preparation was incurred by the parties. Further, the Petitioners were-on notice, through pre-trial preparation and no later than the date of filing of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, that the factual allegations of the petitions were genuinely disputed and showed no prejudice occasioned by the failure of Respondent to frame the disputed issues of fact in a formal answer. The hearing was held as scheduled on November 27, 1984 because the response time to the motion had-not elapsed prior to the time set for trial, thus, argument on the motion was heard at trial, at the conclusion of which, the Hearing Officer announced that his recommendation would be to deny the motion. Given the circumstances of this case, the motion clearly was not timely and to grant it would unduly prejudice the Respondent, thus it is denied. See Shepherd v. Board of Dentistry, 385 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). At the consolidated hearing, the Petitioners presented the testimony of Joannie Greer and Sonia Murphy and the Respondent presented the testimony of Harold Kite, the President and owner of Burger Queen Systems, Inc. and Casey Richards. Additionally, the Petitioners called Casey Richards as a rebuttal witness. Petitioner Shirley Arnold did not testify nor personally appear at the hearing. At the conclusion of the proceeding, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the authority of McWilliams v. Escambia County School Board, 658 Fed. 2d 326 (5th Cir. 1981), asserting in effect, that the Petitioners had not established a prima facie case of employment discrimination for reasons of race. That motion is dealt with by the Conclusions of Law below. Additionally, at the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties requested the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after obtaining a transcript of the proceedings. No transcript was ever obtained and filed with the Hearing Officer however. All proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and supporting arguments have been considered. To the extent that they are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein, they are accepted. To the extent that the proposed findings, conclusions and arguments asserted are inconsistent herewith, they are rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions are omitted as not relevant nor as necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses c is not in accord with the findings herein, it is not credited. See, Sonny's Italian Restaurant v. Department of Business Regulation, 414 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sierra Club v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 436 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The issue concerns whether the Petitioners were the victims of unlawful employment practices inflicted upon them by the Respondent by virtue of their race.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Petitions for Relief filed by Shirley Arnold and Joannie Greer be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Mensing, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Drawer 1499 Bartow, Florida 33830 Gilbert Bentley, Esquire Post Office Box 577 Lakeland, Florida 32751 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F - Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Aurelio Durana, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F - Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact David M. Blackketter is a Career Service Employee with appellate rights who was suspended for two days by the Department of Transportation and who filed a timely appeal of said suspension to the Career Service Commission. David M. Blackketter was employed by the Department of Transportation in June 1976 as a Highway Technician III with duties as a crew foreman for the Department of Transportation. On June 28, 1976, T. C. Bradford, District Maintenance Engineer, was in his office at the Department of Transportation maintenance facility and from the window of said office observed what appeared to him to be a fight. (T-7) He observed John Knight, a Highway Technician II, swinging his fist at the Appellant, David M. Blackketter. Blackketter was several feet from Knight and was moving toward Knight. (See T-8) Bradford did not see Blackketter strike at Knight, although he saw Blackketter move toward Knight with his hands in front of him. (T-10,11) Bradford directed Angel Alvarez, his Maintenance Supervisor, who was present in Bradford's office, to go out into the yard and stop the men and have them report to Bradford that afternoon. (T-7) Angel Alverez left Bradford's office and went to where the men were. When he left Bradford's office, he observed the Appellant Blackketter moving towards John Knight and Knight taking off his cap and sun glasses, throwing them to the ground, and moving toward Blackketter. (T-21,23) The men immediately thereafter adopted a boxing-type combative stance several feet from one another. At this point Alvarez observed that Blackketter was cut above the eye and on the mouth in such a manner that it appeared to him that Blackketter had been struck in the face. He saw no marks on Knight. (T-24) He did not observe either man strike at the other. (T-22) At that point, Alvarez directed them to stop, at which point both Blackketter and Knight stopped. Alvarez directed both men to report to Bradford that afternoon. That afternoon, Blackketter stated that Knight had hit him unexpectedly while the men were engaged in an argument, which is consistent with the injuries Alvarez observed. Having presented the foregoing testimony, the Department of Transportation rested its case and the Appellant moved for a directed verdict.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the facts and reached the foregoing Conclusions of Law recommends to the Career Service Commission that the Agency's action be reversed, and the two-day suspension be set aside. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ephraim Collins, Esquire Atlantic Plaza 6856 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed October 17, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Valou Enterprises is a Florida corporation located in Miami, Florida, which does business under the fictitious name of "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" ("Mr. Rooter"). Leslie McMillan is part- owner and the President of Valou Enterprises. Pedro Rolle is part-owner and the Treasurer of Valou Enterprises, and he is responsible for the business's day-to-day management. Welthial McMillan is part-owner and the Secretary of Valou Enterprises. Mr. Rooter is a franchise that engages in the business of providing plumbing services and repairs. According to franchise documents, among the services offered by Mr. Rooter are HydroScrubbing™ sewer lines to remove blockages; water heater installation; kitchen and bath installation and repairs, including faucets, sinks, tubs and toilets; and leak detection and water line repair and installation.2 On its website, Valou Enterprises advertises that Mr. Rooter provides full-service plumbing, including bath sinks, bathtubs and showers, drain pipes, faucets, floor drains, gas meters, gas vents, kitchen sinks, pipe repair, sewer lines, and water softeners.3 Mr. McMillan is a Florida-certified plumbing contractor, and he is the qualifier for Mr. Rooter. Mr. and Mrs. McMillan and Mr. Rolle, have elected, as officers of a corporation engaged in the construction industry, to be exempt from Florida's workers' compensation law, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 440.02(15)(b)2. and 440.05(3), Florida Statutes. Valou Enterprises hires plumbing technicians to provide plumbing services to Mr. Rooter's customers. These plumbing technicians are not licensed; rather, they work under Mr. McMillan's plumbing contractor's license. They do not receive a salary and do not have regular hours during which they must be at the Mr. Rooter office or at a jobsite. The plumbing technicians are paid commissions based on the work they perform, and they are required to supply their own tools. The plumbing technicians are on-call with Mr. Rooter at all times, but they only perform services for Mr. Rooter when actually dispatched to a job. When a plumbing technician is called and notified of a job, he is free either to accept or to reject the job. Mr. Rooter also dispatches plumbing helpers when a plumbing technician needs assistance. Valou Enterprises employs Catia Duque, who takes calls and dispatches plumbing technicians to Mr. Rooter jobs. Kenneth Mecure runs errands for Valou Enterprises part-time when needed, on a part-time basis. Late in the afternoon on Friday, June 27, 2008, a compliance investigator working for the Division of Workers' Compensation stopped at the Mr. Rooter office, which was located in a warehouse district. The visit was random, initiated when the investigator saw white vans parked in front of the office, with the name "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" and logo on the sides of the vans. When the investigator entered the office, she observed four men wearing shirts with the "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" logo. When the investigator requested information about Valou Enterprises's workers' compensation insurance coverage, Mr. Rolle referred her to Ms. Duque. Ms. Duque told the investigator that she would send whatever information she had regarding workers' compensation insurance coverage by facsimile transmittal, but the investigator did not receive any information from Ms. Duque. After her visit on June 27, 2008, the compliance investigator conducted research through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database, which provides information on workers' compensation insurance coverage and exemptions. The investigator's research revealed that Mr. McMillan, Mrs. McMillan, and Mr. Rolle had exemptions from the workers' compensation law as officers of a corporation engaged in the construction industry and that none of the persons she observed in the Mr. Rooter office on June 27, 2008, were covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy. The investigator confirmed the lack of workers' compensation insurance coverage by consulting the website for the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The compliance investigator returned to the Mr. Rooter office on Monday, July 1, 2008, and spoke with Mr. McMillan. Mr. McMillan was unable to provide her with proof that Valou Enterprises had workers' compensation insurance coverage. The investigator then prepared a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment, which she hand-delivered to Mr. McMillan on July 2, 2008, and posted at the Mr. Rooter office. At the same time, the investigator served Mr. McMillan with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations. The Stop-Work Order required Valou Enterprises to "cease all business operations for all worksites in the state." An Order of Penalty Assessment was included in the Stop-Work Order, in which Valou Enterprises was advised that a penalty would be assessed in an amount [e]qual to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 3-year period, or $1,000, whichever is greater. Section 440.107(7)(d), F.S. In addition, the Order of Penalty Assessment also advised Valou Enterprises that a penalty of "[u]p to $5,000 for each employee who the Employer misclassified as an independent contractor" would be imposed pursuant to Sections 440.10(1)(f) and 440.107(7)(f), Florida Statutes. On July 3, 2008, the compliance investigator returned to the Mr. Rooter office. The office was closed, but she observed a white van turning out of the office parking lot. The van had the "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" name and logo on the side, and it was driven by Michael Dassell, a plumbing technician the investigator had met during her visit to the Mr. Rooter office on July 27, 2008. The investigator questioned Mr. Dassell, who told her that he was on-call that day. Mr. Dassell had not been dispatched on a job or called into the office but had gone to the office to pick up a commission check. Mr. Dassell had not been told that the Mr. Rooter office was closed on July 3, 2008. Mr. McMillan provided the compliance investigator the payroll and other records requested in the business records request. Based on these records, the compliance investigator calculated the penalty to be imposed on Valou Enterprises for its failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage in the amount of $59,652.93. The investigator also imposed a penalty of $1,000.00 for a one-day violation of the Stop-Work Order and a penalty of $35,000.00 for "misrepresenting the status of the employee(s) as an independent contractor(s)." The total penalty of $95,652.93 was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that the investigator hand-delivered the order to Mr. McMillan on July 9, 2008. Valou Enterprises obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage effective July 4, 2008, and, on July 9, 2008, Mr. McMillan entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, remitting at the time a down payment of 10 percent of the penalty, or $9,566.00. As a result, an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order was entered on July 9, 2008. The compliance investigator subsequently recalculated the penalty assessment and prepared a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated October 17, 2008. The $35,000.00 penalty assessed for misclassifying employees as independent contractors was deleted for lack of evidence, and the final penalty assessment was in the amount of $60,652.93, which consisted of a $59,652.93 penalty for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for Valou Enterprises employees and a $1,000.00 penalty for violating the Stop-Work Order.4 The compliance investigator looked to the NCCI SCOPES Basic Manual of Classifications ("SCOPES Manual") for classification codes attributable to the various workplace operations of the persons working for Valou Enterprises. The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to the plumbing technicians and plumbing helpers performing work for Valou Enterprises was Code 5183.5 According to the SCOPES Manual and to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1)(r), Code 5183 is a code applicable to the construction industry and covers "Plumbing NOC and Drivers." The description of the scope of Code 5183 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: Applicable to gas, steam, hot water or other types of pipe fitting. Includes house connections and shop operations. * * * Code 5183 is applicable to plumbing operations provided that the work performed is "not otherwise classified" (NOC). Insureds contemplated by Code 5183 may install, remove, or repair equipment that is used to direct gas or water supplies to a destination. This equipment includes but is not limited to piping and related fixtures, appliances, and accessories. No limits have been established as to the size of the pipe being repaired or installed. The operations contemplated by Code 5183 also include "the cleaning of building sewer connections using portable equipment" and "the installation or service of domestic water softener systems." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 5183 was $10.04 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 5183 was $8.13 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 5183 was $6.75 per $100.00 of payroll.6 The classification code found in the SCOPES Manual assigned to Ms. Duque and to Paul Anderson, who was a clerical worker in the Valou Enterprises office in 2006, was Code 8810. According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 8810 covers "Clerical Office Employees."7 The description of the scope of Code 8810 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: "The duties of a clerical office employee include . . . telephone duties." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 8810 was $.58 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 8810 was $.48 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 8810 was $.37 per $100.00 of payroll.8 The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to Kevin Mecure, a part-time employee who ran errands for Valou Enterprises, was Code 7380.9 According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 7380 covers "Drivers, Chauffeurs & Their Helpers NOC - Commercial." The description of the scope of Code 7380 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: "The term "drivers" refers to employees who engage in duties on or in connection with vehicles " The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 7380 was $12.20 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 7380 was $10.18 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 7380 was $8.74 per $100.00 of payroll.10 The compliance investigator calculated the total penalty attributable to Valou Enterprises's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for the plumbing technicians, clerical workers, and drivers using the Department's Penalty Worksheet. She obtained the names of each of the individuals included in her calculations and the amount of the gross payroll for each individual from the payroll information provided by Mr. McMillan in response to the business records request. The compliance investigator calculated the penalty as follows: She listed Valou Enterprises's employees on the Penalty Worksheet; assigned each employee a classification code based on the definitions of workplace operations that most closely described the work they performed for Valou Enterprises; set out the dates during which Valou Enterprises did not provide workers' compensation insurance coverage11; entered the annual or pro-rated gross payroll for each employee during the period of non-compliance; divided the gross payroll for each employee by 100; set out the approved manual rate for each employee during the period of non-compliance in accordance with his or her classification code; determined the premium that Valou Enterprises would have paid for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee during the period of non-compliance by multiplying the approved manual rate and one one-hundredth of the gross payroll for each employee; calculated the penalty attributable to each employee during the period of non- compliance by multiplying the premium for each employee by 1.5; and, finally, calculated the total penalty owed by Valou Enterprises attributable to its failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Valou Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Mr. Rooter Plumbing, failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $59,652.93 for the failure to provide the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has a claim that is cognizable under Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes, and if so, whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a black female, began working for Respondent as a child protection investigator (PI) in Respondent's District 13, Unit 42, Ocala, Marion County, Florida, in 1993. Petitioner transferred to Respondent's Marion County office from Dade County, where she held a similar position. Petitioner's supervisor in Marion County was Ms. Charlene Bartsch. At first, Petitioner and Ms. Bartsch had a good working relationship. Ms. Bartsch did not testify at the hearing. In 1994, Petitioner learned that she was diabetic. From that time forward, Ms. Bartsch occasionally expressed her concern to Petitioner that the stress of the job was exacerbating Petitioner's medical condition. Petitioner's testimony that Ms. Bartsch made these comments to persuade Petitioner to find another job is not credible. Persuasive evidence indicates that in the beginning of their professional relationship, Petitioner often freely discussed the stress of her job and personal life with Ms. Bartsch. Moreover, there is no evidence that Ms. Bartsch ever suggested that Petitioner think about looking for another job. Ms. Bartsch gave Petitioner an "achieves" on an annual performance appraisal signed by Ms. Bartsch on February 11, 1994, and by Petitioner on February 14, 1994. The appraisal gave Petitioner an overall rating of "achieves performance standards." Petitioner believed that she had earned the higher overall rating of "exceeds performance standards" on the appraisal. Ms. Bartsch wrote the following comment in the February 1994 performance appraisal: During this period of time, Ms. Ausby has found herself on numerous occasions apologizing for something said that was misunderstood or taken wrongly. Ms. Ausby is aware that others at times have difficulty coping with her admittedly outspoken nature. Since she is aware of the problem, I'm sure that she will now work on the professional demeanor needed for working with co-workers and the public. It is only because of this area that Ms. Ausby does not meet the "exceeds overall." Petitioner complained to Respondent's personnel manager about her performance appraisal. The personnel manager did not change the rating but gave Petitioner an opportunity to respond point-by-point in writing to the appraisal. Petitioner testified that Ms. Bartsch gave Gerard King, a white male PI, an "achieves below performance standards" on a performance appraisal in January 1994. Petitioner also testified that Respondent's management subsequently changed Mr. King's appraisal to "achieves." The basis for Petitioner's knowledge of these facts is unclear. In any event, there is no competent evidence that the circumstances under which Respondent changed Mr. King's performance appraisal were similar to the circumstances under which Respondent declined to change Petitioner's performance appraisal. In January 1994, Ms. Bartsch decided to let the employees have the option of working a four-day week. Petitioner opted to work Monday through Thursday with Friday through Saturday off. Petitioner, and all other employees who elected to do so, worked this four-day work schedule for approximately four months. In May 1994, Ms. Bartsch required all employees to return to a five-day work schedule. Persuasive evidence indicates that the unit as a whole voted to return to a five-day work schedule on a day that Petitioner was not in the office. A subsequent memorandum written by Petitioner shows that she believed she had a right to negotiate her work schedule with Ms. Bartsch on an individual basis because Ms. Bartsch was the person who hired her. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Bartsch made this decision based solely on the complaint of a white male PI who claimed that the unit received more cases on Friday, a day that Petitioner was off and the white male was at work. On February 15, 1994, Ms. Bartsch had a conference with Petitioner. A memorandum created during this conference and signed by Ms. Bartsch and Petitioner contains the following comments: Strengths: being perfectionist; works in timely manner helps other people; always available lot of knowledge re HRS/investigations hard worker organized Areas Needing Improvement: (1) personality problems with co-workers The following changes will be made: isolate and stay from others letting Gloria speak in place On April 14, 1994, Ms. Bartsch had another conference with Petitioner. The memorandum documenting this conference and signed by Ms. Bartsch and Petitioner states as follows: Issues: court problems. calendar needs organization getting not enough support from attorneys doing better at getting along with people continue not allowing others to lean too much There is no credible evidence that Ms. Bartsch ever yelled at Petitioner for helping her co-workers. Persuasive evidence indicates that Ms. Bartsch at times commended Petitioner and her co-workers for helping each other and working as a team. Petitioner testified that Ms. Bartsch began to assign Petitioner to more "on-call" weekend duty than other PIs in May 1994. The documentation that Petitioner offered to support her testimony is not competent. Petitioner's testimony in this regard did not take into consideration the different lengths of employment and levels of experience of other PIs, as well as their race and gender. Petitioner's testimony alone is not credible and is insufficient to determine at any point in time that Ms. Bartsch assigned Petitioner more "on-call" duty than other similarly situated white and/or male PIs. On May 10, 1994, Ms. Bartsch had a third individual conference with Petitioner. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Petitioner's work and interpersonal relations in the office. The memorandum documenting this meeting and signed by Ms. Bartsch and Petitioner states as follows: Issues: fantastic - no backlog work on trying to UPS or petition without removing kids if not in imminent danger interpersonal relations ignore other's comments say nothing to hurt people's feelings Cindy feels co-workers are venting their anger and causing friction in the unit and specifically towards her She feels best way to handle is to withdraw On May 26, 1994, Ms. Bartsch assigned a June 1994 "on-call" weekend to Petitioner when she had plans to attend a social function. As a general rule, Ms. Bartsch let employees switch "on-call" weekends with each other. Petitioner testified that Ms. Bartsch questioned a colleague's offer to switch "on-call" weekends with Petitioner on the relevant weekend. According to Petitioner's testimony, Ms. Bartsch became upset and stated that she wanted Petitioner to work her assigned weekends. Petitioner's testimony did not consider whether there were other circumstance existing in the unit at the time, making it necessary for all PIs to abide by the pre-assigned weekend duty roster, established by a rotating log. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she and her co-worker were allowed to switch "on-call" duty in the month of June 1994. Respondent requires its investigators to keep their cases updated in the computer. In June 1994, Ms. Bartsch told Petitioner to update her cases on the computer. Petitioner only had one case, which she was unaware of, to update. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Bartsch treated Petitioner differently from her white male co-workers in this regard. This is true even if one co-worker, a white male, had cases that had not been updated since 1993. During some staff meetings, Petitioner felt that Ms. Bartsch allowed other supervisors and/or co-workers to treat Petitioner rudely. On one occasion, Respondent's operations program assistant, Lynn Peirson, agreed with Petitioner that Ms. Bartsch should have intervened on Petitioner's behalf during a meeting. There is no evidence that Ms. Peirson's comment related to a specific incident where a white and/or male employee was rude to Petitioner. Persuasive evidence indicates that Ms. Bartsch often inappropriately tolerated unprofessional conduct among all members of her staff, regardless of their race or gender. Additionally, there is no credible evidence that Ms. Bartsch assigned Petitioner to an "on-call" weekend in retaliation for complaining to Ms. Peirson. Petitioner testified that Ms. Bartsch assigned Petitioner more cases to work than other investigators. Petitioner also testified that Ms. Bartsch gave Petitioner the most difficult cases. There is no competent evidence that the case assignments given to Petitioner were more numerous or difficult in relation to the race, gender, length of employment, or experience of other PIs. Petitioner often expressed her opinion and complained to her co-workers that she worked harder than they did. There is evidence that Petitioner was the most experienced PI in the unit and that she worked hard but no harder than other similarly situated PIs. Petitioner testified that Ms. Bartsch interpreted Petitioner's complaints about her workload as meaning that Petitioner felt she worked harder than her co-workers. There is no competent evidence to support this testimony. There is persuasive evidence that Petitioner often misinterpreted Ms. Bartsch's statements. There is no credible evidence that, at some point in time, two of Respondent's white male employees called Petitioner "nigger" or that Ms. Bartsch ever called Petitioner an "uppity nigger." Likewise, there is no credible evidence that a white male co-worker left one of Ms. Bartsch's staff meetings, calling Petitioner a "bitch" and slamming the door. In fact, the most persuasive evidence indicates no one in Respondent's employ ever used such inappropriate language directed toward Petitioner. To the extent that such inappropriate language was used, Petitioner never informed anyone in a position of authority in time to give Respondent an opportunity to correct the transgression. Petitioner did not include a timely reference to any of these racial slurs in any of her numerous memorandums that expressed her displeasure in the unit's operations or Ms. Bartsch's management style and that set forth her claims of discrimination and disparate treatment. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was raising the allegation that Ms. Bartsch called Petitioner an "uppity nigger" for the first time. There is competent evidence of friction and personality conflicts between the employees in general, and specifically between Petitioner and her co-workers. On October 13, 1994, Ms. Bartsch sent a memorandum to her staff. In the memorandum, Ms Bartsch announced that Petitioner and Erwin Crawford would be the designated staff to take cases to court. Ms. Bartsch asked her staff to properly investigate and document each of the cases before transferring them to Petitioner or Mr. Crawford. The October 13, 1994, memorandum requested the staff to propose new performance standards for the office and to put future complaints in writing. Ms. Bartsch stated that she would start responding to the staff's concerns in writing. Ms. Bartsch's October 13, 1994, memorandum encouraged the staff to work as a team. She acknowledged that everyone was at each other's throats. She wanted staff members to find a way to solve problems with their co-workers. Ms. Bartsch advised that she would start documenting more and using more oral and written reprimands. Ms. Bartsch's October 13, 1994, memorandum listed some regulations that she thought were problems in the office and added her comments. Regarding "disruptive conduct," including speaking rudely or contemptuously to others and the slamming of doors, Ms. Bartsch stated that problems occur when people accuse each other of things. She stated as follows: "Shouting matches are out. Swearing is out. Yelling at your clients is out. Rudeness to anyone is out." Ms. Bartsch advised everyone to sign up for a class entitled "Working with Difficult People" and also suggested that everyone take a stress management class. Regarding "failure to follow instructions," Ms. Bartsch's October 13, 1994, memorandum instructed the staff to take whatever cases they are assigned without complaint. This included taking cases as they were received according to the rotation of names on a rotation log. Ms. Bartsch's October 13, 1994, memorandum also included definitions of insubordination and falsification of records or statements. On December 7, 1994, Petitioner sent Ms. Bartsch a memorandum. Petitioner explained that she no longer wanted to represent the office in filing legal petitions to remove children from their homes with the court. Petitioner made this decision because she felt her co-workers did not respect and appreciate her. Instead, Petitioner believed that the other PIs, regardless of race or gender, left work undone on cases before prematurely transferring the cases to Petitioner, making her job more difficult. On one occasion, Petitioner had so much work to do preparing three court petitions, with no help from any other PI except for one white male, that she was late getting to court and had to apologize to the judge. In this memorandum, Petitioner announced that she was returning all cases to Ms. Bartsch for reassignment that were not originally assigned to her. Petitioner's memorandum makes it clear that from that time forward she was only willing to help one other PI who appreciated her work. On December 19, 1994, Ms. Bartsch wrote a memorandum to Petitioner. This memorandum was subsequently placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Ms. Bartsch's December 19, 1994, memorandum discusses Ms. Bartsch's concern for the stress that Petitioner was experiencing at work and the negative impact that the stress was having on Petitioner's job performance. The December 19, 1994, memorandum states as follows in pertinent part: Admitted stress of dealing with your co-workers. It is my understanding at the class on "How to Deal with Difficult People," you made it very clear to the group that your problem was getting along with your co-workers. You also dramatically distanced yourself from other members of your unit. The stress of trying to work court cases. This was impacted by what you felt was lack of support from your co-workers. Stress affecting your judgment on some cases. I.E. Spragg--where you did not want to shelter even though I insisted; Coleman where the doctors adamantly state it was a situation of child abuse. Our attorney states you have a misperception of what it takes to shelter a child. Your method of coping with others in the unit by distancing yourself by staying in your room with the door shut and not interacting unless absolutely required causes other concerns. There is added stress when you compare your reputation and acceptance working with Dade County judges and attorneys with how the Marion County judicial process works. Stress from me, your supervisor. Our communication has had some strains because you interpret things differently than what I feel I've expressed to you. You've shared some personal stressors from your home situation. No doubt the stress as well in your personal life only helps to compound the issue. * * * This is to be considered a letter of counsel. The next step in the changed order of career service rules is what is called a PIP or Performance Improvement Plan. There are two "core" standards which must be met on the new RAPP form. They are: Courtesy - Treats customers, the public and staff with courtesy, respect and dignity and presents a positive public image. Team Work - Supports the unit, department and/or organization and works with others in an effort to accomplish the goals of the unit, department and/or organization. You have made tremendous strides in the aspect of courtesy with our clients. I have not been receiving the phone calls of complaints as I used to do. Your ability to make corrections in this area has obviously been dramatic. Now I would ask that you also make those changes towards your co- workers. You view them as people who do not work as hard as you. You are critical of the way they work their cases. You have been quite vocal to everyone about this. They strongly take this as lack of respect towards them on your part. Team work is an issue that we have been addressing for months. I'm sure the easiest way for you to deal with the stress has been through isolation. But I did not make the new standard; I do strongly endorse it and encourage you to make changes in this area also. You have tremendous skills and abilities that have been of great help to children and families in the past. I want this to continue. But I'm also very serious about the fact that you must get the help you need, now, for the stress you are under before your health is more seriously affected. In the past you have made great strides to correct things that have been pointed out to you. No one doubts your conscientiousness about the way you approach your work. I'm sure you will see the importance of dealing with these issues. Petitioner responded to the December 19, 1994, memorandum with a long memorandum dated January 3, 1995. Petitioner's written response was directed to Don Dixon, Respondent's assistant district administrator who was a black male, requesting him to remove Ms. Bartsch's December 19, 1994, memorandum from Petitioner's personnel file. Petitioner's January 3, 1995, memorandum responded point-by-point to the matters of concern raised by Ms. Bartsch's December 19, 1994, memorandum. In general, Petitioner denied that she had a stress problem. Instead, Petitioner indicated that Ms. Bartsch was the problem because of Ms. Bartsch's failure to address Petitioner's complaints and Ms. Bartsch's retaliatory conduct. Specifically, Petitioner disputed Ms. Bartsch's representation of the facts as follows: (a) Regarding the class on "How to Deal with Difficult People," Petitioner denied that she isolated herself from the other staff members because she always chose to sit up front when given the opportunity and admitted making the statement that she wanted to determine if her problems with her co-workers were her own fault, and if so, what she needed to do to change; (b) Regarding Petitioner's management of her court cases, Petitioner claimed that on December 7, 1994, Petitioner had to prepare three court cases and was late to court because only one person offered to help; In regard to the Coleman case, Petitioner insisted that there was not enough evidence to show that the child was abused until a doctor provided that evidence at a later date; (d) In regard to the Spragg case, Petitioner stated that, based on later evidence, a court petition to remove the children for neglect would have been rejected because the family had access to electricity; (e) Petitioner admitted that she and Ms. Bartsch occasionally disagreed on the removal of children from their homes, but asserted that no attorney on Respondent's legal staff made a statement regarding Petitioner misunderstanding of what it takes to shelter a child; (f) Petitioner asserted that she works with her door closed to avoid distractions and so she can concentrate on her work like other employees do without receiving a letter of counsel; (g) Petitioner took the position that most employees have trouble with the judicial system but accept what cannot be changed; (h) Petitioner asserted that in reprisal for her complaints, she received more cases to work than her co-workers as reflected by her overtime hours; (i) Petitioner asserted she revealed her diabetic condition, which was controlled by taking medicine, and the problems she had with a child in her custody only for purposes of stating a reason for taking leave and that in the future, the only reason Petitioner would give for taking leave would be to state it was "personal." In conclusion, Petitioner's memorandum stated that she agreed to attend a stress class but requested a job transfer. On January 19, 1995, Petitioner wrote a memorandum to Respondent's personnel manager, Jeff Carr. She again responded to Ms. Bartsch's December 19, 1994, memorandum, requesting that it be removed from Petitioner's personnel file. On January 19, 1995, Mr. Crawford complained to Ms. Bartsch that he had 24 court cases and needed some relief. Ms. Bartsch sent Mr. Crawford's memorandum to the office staff asking everyone to help Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford was sick at the time with AIDS. On January 24, 1995, Ms. Bartsch wrote a memorandum to her staff. In the memorandum, Ms. Bartsch explained that Mr. Crawford would no longer just handle court cases. Instead, Mr. Crawford would carry a normal caseload and everyone would be responsible for his or her own court cases. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Bartsch treated Petitioner differently than Mr. Crawford in this regard. In fact, Ms. Bartsch seemed to agree that the staff had not treated Petitioner and Mr. Crawford fairly by stating as follows in her memorandum: "Would you want to do that . . . many court cases in a row: I think you were being somewhat unfair if you weren't willing to be a partner for awhile with either Cindy or Erwin. Anyway, it is too late now." In 1995, Petitioner was a member of Respondent's equal employment opportunity committee. In time, one of Petitioner's co-workers asked Petitioner to represent her in an employee grievance hearing. There is no credible evidence that the head of the committee told Petitioner she might be blackballed if she got involved in the grievance proceeding. During the hearing, Petitioner presented insufficient details about the alleged grievance proceeding to determine whether there were any repercussions. Sometime thereafter, Respondent's personnel manager and Ms. Bartsch pulled Petitioner's mileage reimbursement/travel vouchers for audit. Ms. Bartsch took the time to verify Petitioner's mileage claims, finding numerous errors and miscalculations. On May 23, 1995, Petitioner wrote Ms. Bartsch and Ms. Peirson a memorandum. The memorandum reviewed the issues discussed in a meeting that Ms. Bartsch and Ms. Peirson had with Petitioner concerning her travel vouchers from March 15, 1995, through May 7, 1995. The memorandum also outlines Petitioner's responses to each allegation that her travel vouchers needed to be corrected. Persuasive evidence indicates that Petitioner did not dispute the need to correct some of the vouchers. There is no competent evidence that Ms. Bartsch and Ms. Peirson singled Petitioner out from her white and/or male co-workers to audit her travel vouchers or that they did so for any retaliatory purpose. On June 20, 1995, Petitioner wrote a memorandum to Respondent's assistant district administrator, Don Dixon, regarding the removal of Ms. Bartsch's December 19, 1994, memorandum from Petitioner's personnel file. At this time, Petitioner advised that she had accepted a job with Respondent's office in Lake County, Florida. At some undetermined point in time, Ms. Bartsch accepted Petitioner's suggestion that the office go into the community schools to advise teachers about abuse and neglect of children. Ms. Bartsch then assigned a co-worker to perform this function. This action by Ms. Bartsch may have caused Petitioner to feel slighted, but is not evidence that Ms. Bartsch was deliberately harassing Petitioner. There is no evidence that Petitioner ever requested to be designated as the unit's spokesperson. On June 14, 1995, Petitioner resigned from Respondent's equal employment opportunity committee. Petitioner resigned from the committee because she felt she was being discriminated against. There is no credible evidence to indicate that any of Respondent's employees told Petitioner that she would be blackballed if she filed a civil rights action. Persuasive evidence indicates that Petitioner voluntarily resigned from the committee because she no longer had confidence in an organization that she believed was discriminating against her. On July 20, 1995, Ms. Bartsch wrote Petitioner a "Letter of Counsel." This letter advised Petitioner that her failure to properly claim mileage reimbursement in the future could result in discipline, including dismissal. The letter states that the current problem would be dealt with under a performance improvement plan (PIP). On or about July 21, 1995, Ms. Bartsch prepared a PIP for Petitioner. The plan was based on the following work deficiency: "Travel vouchers not being filled out properly not in a timely manner." The plan included an attachment, outlining the corrective action to be taken. The corrective action included the following statement: "These corrective actions may be modified to meet Lake County guidelines, if so desired by your new supervisor, Chuck Herkel." When Petitioner got the job in Lake City, Florida, a copy of the July 20, 1995, memorandum and the July 21, 1995, PIP was sent to Mr. Herkel. Petitioner's testimony that Ms. Bartsch's sent this information to Mr. Herkel in an effort to continue her alleged discrimination, harassment, or retaliation is not supported by competent evidence. Moreover, the sending of the information to Mr. Herkel necessarily occurred after July 21, 1995, the date that FCHR has identified as the last date that an alleged violation occurred. On July 28, 1995, Petitioner began working for Respondent in Lake City, Florida. On January 19, 1996, Mr. Herkel, her supervisor, made the following comments about Petitioner's job performance on a review and performance planning form covering the period of time from July 28, 1995, through January 19, 1996: Cindy transferred to Lake County from Marion County 07-28-95. Cindy is an experienced P.I. who has excellent knowledge of her program. Cindy believes in child protection and family preservation. Cindy has an excellent work ethic, is dependable, and believes in teamwork. Cindy is commended for her good work. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner continued to work for Respondent as a specialist, providing policy and guidance for Respondent's protective services and foster-care programs in Lake City, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter an order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cynthia Ausby 5 Hemlock Loop Lane Ocala, Florida 34472 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158
