The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner based on her race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent initially hired Petitioner through a temporary labor service. Petitioner worked for approximately 60 days as a temporary employee in the position of a medical transcriptionist preparing medical chronologies. At the end of the 60-day period, Respondent decided to eliminate Petitioner's position. Petitioner decided to enhance her career opportunities by applying for a position as a paralegal with Respondent. In a letter dated June 19, 1996, Petitioner expressed her interest in working for Respondent as a full-time employee. According to the letter, Petitioner had worked for over 20 years as a secretary/administrative assistant, including some experience in the areas of management and supervision. The letter, together with Petitioner's resumé, indicated that she had experience as a legal secretary. In a letter dated August 26, 1997, Respondent offered Petitioner a job as a paralegal. Petitioner accepted the offer. Randy Fischer, Esquire, explained the duties of a paralegal to Petitioner and gave her a copy of a paralegal's job description. The duties included, but were not limited to, the following: (a) drafting pleadings and correspondence; (b) drafting discovery requests; (c) organizing files and preparing file indexes; (d) investigating cases; (e) scheduling depositions; (f) attending document productions, exhibit exchanges, and pretrial conferences; and (g) assisting in legal research. Respondent gave Petitioner an employee handbook. The handbook included, among other things, information about attendance, discipline, and the firm's anti-discrimination policies and procedures. Petitioner also received a paralegal manual and billing guidelines. Respondent's anti-discrimination policy communicated to employees that sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination would not be tolerated. Respondent had an "open door" policy by which employees could report discrimination to the office manager or the office-managing partner. At all times material here, Mr. Fischer was the office-managing partner, and Janet Siefert was the office manager. Petitioner never took advantage of the opportunity to report any alleged racial discrimination to anyone on Respondent's staff. From the beginning of her employment as a paralegal, Mr. Fischer communicated to Petitioner that she would be expected to schedule, coordinate, and calendar activities for attorneys. He frequently was critical of Petitioner's performance because she failed to meet these expectations. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Fischer's criticisms were racially motivated. Respondent regularly provided written performance evaluations of employees. Petitioner's first review took place in December 1997. The evaluation indicated that Petitioner's attendance or dependability and teamwork were "highly acceptable." Her performance in oral expression, writing ability, decision-making ability, work product accurateness, and work product volume was "acceptable." Petitioner "needed to improve" in the following areas: (a) knowing subject matter; (b) analyzing problems; (c) obtaining information; (d) meeting deadlines; (e) performing assignments resourcefully and creatively; (f) recording billable time; (g) showing initiative; and (h) following through on assignments. Petitioner's overall rating on the evaluation was "acceptable." During the evaluation, Mr. Fischer counseled Petitioner about her job deficiencies. He particularly discussed Petitioner's need to follow appropriate guidelines for billing. This was important because Respondent routinely had to reduce Petitioner's excessive billing time in some areas. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was singled out in terms of having billing time entries removed from the timesheets. In February 1998, Petitioner began having problems with her attendance and low work productivity. A written disciplinary action dated February 11, 1998, outlined the following deficiencies: (a) inattention to detail in handling files by failing to schedule the continuation of a deposition; poor performance in handling the Angela Davis file; leaving the building during work hours without proper authorization; (d) being late for work on numerous occasions; and (e) taking numerous personal absences. Regarding the Angela Davis file, Petitioner's failure to follow instructions adversely affected Mr. Fischer's handling of the file. Mr. Fischer became angry because it took Petitioner two hours to drive from Ocala, Florida, to Gainesville, Florida, with only a portion of the Angela Davis file that he had requested. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Fischer's anger was racially motivated. Petitioner admits that she occasionally left the building during her work breaks to go to the bank or for other personal reasons instead of spending that time in the employees' break room. She asserts that she did not know she had to have permission to do so and that she had to sign in and out. According to Petitioner, other employees were allowed these privileges without being reprimanded. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credible. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that her attendance record was problematic due to personal problems. On at least one occasion, Mr. Fischer agreed to let Petitioner make up some of the time she had lost. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent's attendance policy was applied more rigidly to Petitioner than to any other employee. More importantly, Petitioner admitted that she was not qualified to perform all of the duties of a paralegal when she accepted the position. It is clear that she had difficulty learning "on-the-job." On February 20, 1998, Mr. Fischer wrote Petitioner and another paralegal a note regarding the importance of pulling a file together and following directions. Mr. Fischer had gone to mediation without the necessary file documents because Petitioner and her co-worker had not followed his directions. On March 12, 1998, Mr. Fischer reminded Petitioner and another paralegal about the importance of providing him with daily timesheets in a timely manner. Petitioner and her co-worker were at least a week behind in providing him with their timesheets. On March 26, 1998, Petitioner used the firm's copy machine and other supplies for personal reasons. On April 8, 1998, Petitioner was late to work due to a flat tire. In May 1998, Petitioner requested a more flexible work schedule so that she could attend class in Orlando, Florida, one afternoon each week. Mr. Fischer responded that her billing hours were already low and that she was routinely late to work. However, Mr. Fischer agreed to give her the time off for a 30-day period if she documented her time at the office, improved her productivity, and billed a minimum of 25 billed hours per week. In June 1998, Mr. Fischer had to remind Petitioner again about the importance of keeping calendars for the attorneys. Because Petitioner failed to follow instructions, no attorney from Respondent's office attended a scene viewing. In July 1998, Mr. Fischer sent Petitioner an e-mail message criticizing her for not properly issuing a subpoena and deposition notice. When he realized that Petitioner was not at fault, he promptly apologized in a subsequent message. On August 18 and 19, 1998, Petitioner received two personal facsimile transmissions at the office. On August 25, 1998, Mr. Fischer gave Petitioner a written disciplinary action and placed her on probationary status. The discipline was based on the following reasons: (a) Petitioner had been out of the office for various personal reasons 31 times in the last 90 days; (b) Petitioner had provided Respondent with inaccurate or incomplete reasons for those absences; (c) Petitioner's productivity was below office standards; (d) Petitioner had failed to properly schedule activities and calendar events for an attorney; (e) Petitioner had failed to follow repeated instructions in relation to file handling, scheduling depositions, and scheduling meetings; (f) Petitioner had used firm time to receive and review personal facsimile transmissions, to discuss personal information, and to participate in personal telephone calls; and (g) Petitioner had inappropriately used firm resources. On September 16, 1998, Mr. Fischer gave Petitioner another written disciplinary action. The memorandum outlined continued problems with Petitioner's performance. One example of Petitioner's poor performance involved her failure to properly arrange for a deposition. Other examples involved excessive billing for making summaries of records; the lack of time billed for other case activities, such as setting and noticing depositions and hearings; failure to resolve unpaid costs on a case; and modification of timesheets after they had been edited. The September 16, 1998, disciplinary action also reviewed continued problems with Petitioner's attendance and attitude. Respondent's paralegals are required to bill 100-105 hours per month. Some examples of Petitioner's billing hours are as follows: (a) March 1998, 97.3 hours; (b) April 1998, 58.9 hours; (c) May 1998, 74.3 hours; and (d) June 1998, 69.7 hours. Respondent fired Petitioner on September 25, 1998. Her termination was based on cumulative reasons, including low productivity, failure to be attentive to detail in the handling of files, and frequent absences and tardiness. During the time that Petitioner worked for Respondent, Mr. Fischer fired Robin Carr, a white female, for similar reasons that Petitioner was terminated: excessive absences, inappropriate use of personal time in the office, and excessive personal telephone calls. Mr. Fischer also fired Art Monig, a white male, for low work productivity. Ms. Carr and Mr. Monig both worked as paralegals. Petitioner testified that, on one occasion, Ms. Carr and other employees were in the employees' break room discussing the turnover of staff in the office. Petitioner testified that Ms. Carr made the statement that Petitioner did not have to worry about losing her job because she was a "token." In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Seifert made this comment. Ms. Carr did not testify at the hearing but Ms. Seifert did testify and denies making such a statement or ever hearing it made. Similarly, Jennifer Whitehead, who was Mr. Fischer's secretary from February 1997 through May 2001, testified that she never heard anyone in the office make a statement that Petitioner was a "token" or a "quota." Nevertheless, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is persuasive. Petitioner admits that she never reported the statement allegedly made by Ms. Carr to anyone in Respondent's office. She admits that Mr. Fischer never made inappropriate racial comments in her presence. Mr. Fischer's dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance may have caused Petitioner to be uncomfortable from time to time, but there is no evidence that his reactions to her poor performance were racially motivated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, 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 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorine Alexander 1421 Southwest 27th Avenue Apartment No. 1807 Ocala, Florida 34474 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Fischer, Esquire Boehm, Brown, Fischer & Harwood, P.A. Post Office Box 4140 Ocala, Florida 34478 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, based on her sex or in retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013).2/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, was at all times relevant hereto an employee of the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs (Respondent or Department), is the state agency responsible for administering human services programs for the elderly and for developing policy recommendations for long-term care. See § 430.03, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent operates a Comprehensive Assessment and Review for Long-Term Care (CARES) program to assess individuals for Medicaid long-term care services, whether in a nursing facility, in a private home, or in another community setting. The CARES program operates 19 offices statewide and one central office in Tallahassee. Medical assessments are conducted by CARES Assessors (CAs), and Senior CAs. CAs and Senior CAs are supervised by a Program Operations Administrator (POA) in each office, who reports to a Regional Program Supervisor (RPS). The RPS reports to the Deputy Bureau Chief in Tallahassee, who reports to the Bureau Chief; who, in turn, reports to the Division Director for Statewide and Community- Based Services. In January 2013, Petitioner began employment as a CA in Respondent’s Gainesville office. Petitioner began in a one-year probationary employment status. The record did not clearly establish how many individuals were employed in the Gainesville office with Petitioner. There was an office assistant, Rose Gonzalez; at least four other CAs, including Justin Keels; a registered nurse; and their supervisor, POA Sam Rutledge. Freadda Zeigler was the RPS for the region, which included the Gainesville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Daytona Beach offices. Ms. Zeigler commuted from her home in Broward County. In Tallahassee, Jay Hudson was the Deputy Bureau Chief, Paula James was the Bureau Chief, Carol Carr was the Deputy Division Director, and Marcy Hajdukiewicz was the Division Director. The Gainesville territory covered from Marion County north to the Florida/Georgia line, west to the Leon County line, and east to the Duval County line. CAs were assigned to particular locations within the office’s jurisdiction. CAs traveled to both health care facilities (e.g., nursing homes, assisted living facilities) and private homes to meet with and personally evaluate the needs of the client. Petitioner was primarily assigned to cover facilities in Jasper, Live Oak, Dowling Park, Mayo, and Lake City. Petitioner was in the field conducting evaluations two to three times per week. Her assignments required some long commutes, up to one and one-half hours to Jasper (just south of the Georgia line) and over an hour to Dowling Park and Live Oak. In February 2013, a senior CA position became open in Gainesville. Both Petitioner and Mr. Keels applied and were interviewed for the position. Mr. Keels was selected for the position in March. As senior CA, Mr. Keels did not supervise other CAs in the Gainesville office, but was “put in charge” when Mr. Rutledge was out of the office. When Petitioner began her employment in Gainesville, she was told that a desk was being ordered for her. She was given a folding table to use in her workspace. Petitioner’s workspace was in an open area of the office. Other employees would pass through and occasionally gather in her workspace on breaks or on their way to lunch. Petitioner testified that Mr. Rutledge often came into the open area to interact with other employees around lunchtime to see if anyone wanted to “get food.” Sexual Harassment Claim4/ One day in late March 2013, Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Keels were in Petitioner’s workspace and began discussing a restaurant with the word “cooter” in its name. During this conversation, the two men stood on opposite sides of Petitioner’s worktable, where Petitioner was seated. One of the men asked Petitioner if she knew what the word “cooter” meant, and she responded that she did not. One of the men stated that it meant “vagina.” Petitioner testified that she was embarrassed, uncomfortable, and felt trapped at her worktable where the men stood on either side of her. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone at first. Petitioner testified that she was afraid that if she said anything, she would be fired. Petitioner’s ambivalence was due in no small part to the fact that Mr. Rutledge was her supervisor. Petitioner described another incident that occurred shortly before the “cooter” incident. Mr. Rutledge called Petitioner into his office and asked her to look at a picture on his computer screen. The picture was of a woman in a bikini. Mr. Rutledge said something to the effect of “that is what my ex-wife used to look like.” Petitioner was embarrassed and left Mr. Rutledge’s office. Respondent maintains a sexual harassment policy of which Petitioner was aware. The policy provides, in part, that “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she is the victim of sexual harassment . . . may make an oral or written complaint to the General Counsel or Director of Internal & External Affairs within 365 days of the alleged discriminatory action.” In April 2013, approximately a week after the “cooter” incident, Respondent’s Inspector General Taroub King began an investigation of Mr. Rutledge, prompted by an anonymous complaint. Among the allegations investigated were that Mr. Rutledge borrowed money from employees, encouraged employees to participate in an investment scheme (or schemes), and utilized employees to witness signatures and notarize documents of a personal nature. The complaint described Mr. Rutledge as maintaining no management structure, lacking basic documentation, and essentially performing no work of any kind. Petitioner was interviewed in connection with the investigation by Ms. King and another investigator from the Inspector General’s office on April 4, 2013. Petitioner was placed under oath and her interview was audio-recorded. Petitioner was questioned about the allegations in the complaint against Mr. Rutledge, and she fully cooperated with the investigators. At the end of the interview, Ms. King asked Petitioner if she had any other information to relay. At that point, Petitioner reported that inappropriate comments and banter of a sexual nature occurred in the office. Petitioner did not report any other details. Ms. King asked Petitioner for particular examples. In response, Petitioner shared the “cooter” incident and the “bikini” incident. All of the employees in the Gainesville office were interviewed by Ms. King. Mr. Keels was interviewed after Petitioner and was questioned about the “cooter” incident and office banter of a sexual nature. At the final hearing, Petitioner maintained that there was both frequent sexual banter and inappropriate conversations in the Gainesville office. She testified that the staff nurse once referred to a patient as having “balls the size of a bull.” She also reported that Mr. Rutledge made hand gestures indicating that Ms. Gonzalez was large-breasted. Petitioner did not share these details with Ms. King during her interview. As with the “bikini” incident, Petitioner was able to walk away from, or otherwise ignore, the comments and gestures of a sexual nature in the workplace. Upon her return to Tallahassee, Ms. King reported her investigative findings to members of Respondent’s Human Resources Department, the Deputy Secretary, and the Director of Internal and External Affairs. Petitioner testified that she sent Ms. King an email sometime after her interview asking whether more information was needed from Petitioner regarding her complaints of inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. Ms. King denied that Petitioner sent any follow-up email of that nature. Ms. King did recall an email from Petitioner requesting public records. Respondent terminated Mr. Rutledge on April 8, 2013, four days after Petitioner was interviewed by Ms. King. The decision to terminate Mr. Rutledge was made by management in the Tallahassee office. Both Mr. Hudson, the Deputy Bureau Chief, and Ms. James, the Bureau Chief, traveled from Tallahassee to Gainesville to terminate Mr. Rutledge. Ms. Zeigler was likewise present at the Gainesville office for the termination of Mr. Rutledge. However, Ms. Zeigler claimed not to have been informed ahead of time about the termination. She said the appearance of Mr. Hudson and Ms. James at the Gainesville office on April 8, 2013, was a surprise to her. In early May 2013, a significant remodel of the Gainesville office was initiated. The remodel created confusion in the Gainesville office, with furniture being moved around, office files and equipment being boxed up, and the general mess associated with construction in the workplace. At some point, Petitioner lost track of an entire box of her files and later found them on the floor under a pile of chairs she assumed the painters had moved.5/ Alleged Acts of Retaliation Respondent named Mr. Keels as Acting POA, effective April 8, 2013. Ms. James testified, credibly, that Mr. Keels was named Acting POA because he was the senior CA in the office. Mr. Keels was questioned about the “cooter” incident during his interview by the Inspector General. Thus, there is sufficient evidence from which the undersigned can infer that Mr. Keels was aware Petitioner had reported the “cooter” incident to the Inspector General during the investigation of Mr. Rutledge. Petitioner complained that she was ostracized by other employees in Gainesville after Mr. Rutledge was terminated. Petitioner also complained that Mr. Keels treated her unfairly in his capacity as acting POA. First, Petitioner maintained that Mr. Keels increased her caseload, from about 27 to about 44 cases, which made her job very difficult given the lengthy commutes to her assigned facilities. Petitioner introduced no evidence, other than her testimony, that her caseload substantially increased after Mr. Keels became acting POA. Petitioner complained to the Inspector General on April 4, 2013, that her caseload under Mr. Rutledge’s supervision was inordinately heavy. Petitioner also shared with the Inspector General that Mr. Keels, in his capacity as senior CA, was unfair in case distribution. Further, Petitioner testified that although her caseload was heavy in early May, it later declined. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Keels assigned Petitioner an inordinately heavy caseload following her complaints to the Inspector General and Mr. Keels’ temporary promotion to acting POA. Sometime after Mr. Keels became acting POA, he took away Petitioner’s worktable. According to Petitioner, Mr. Keels said he took the table for use in the conference room for “staffings,” a term that was not explained by any witness. Petitioner testified there were other tables available in the meeting room which could have been used for that purpose. For the next two months, Petitioner completed her in- office work at a window ledge. She placed her laptop and files on the ledge and utilized extra chairs for additional workspace. In June 2013, Petitioner was presented with a new desk. Petitioner’s Termination During Mr. Rutledge’s tenure as POA, the Bureau had rolled out significant changes to the CARES program. Those changes had not been implemented by Mr. Rutledge, much less communicated to the Gainesville staff. After Mr. Rutledge’s termination, CARES management began monitoring the Gainesville office very closely. During the next few months, Ms. Zeigler was more frequently present in the Gainesville office and was in almost constant contact with Mr. Hudson regarding the activities of the Gainesville office. However, Ms. Zeigler was unaware of any discussions Mr. Hudson may have had with the Bureau Chief or the Division Director. Shortly after Mr. Rutledge’s departure, Ms. Zeigler met with the Gainesville staff to explain new procedures. Among the procedures was a requirement to include on employees’ GroupWise calendars, an entry of every planned field visit. The CAs’ GroupWise calendars were accessible not only to their immediate supervising POA, but also to the RPS and higher-level managers. The calendar was an important management tool used by Respondent both to perform quality assurance checks and to monitor employee performance. On May 9, 2013, Ms. Zeigler sent the following email to the CAs in Gainesville: Good afternoon all, As mentioned in the past meeting in your office, it was requested that I be given access to your GroupWise calendars to help monitor accountability for field visits with Specialization. I would like to thank each of you for adhering to the request, and would like to ask each of you to add the following information to your calendars: First and Last name of client visiting Facility name where client will be visited Home address if visiting client in the home Purpose of visit Time of visit (include estimated travel time) * * * This information is needed for accountability purposes, and also used to check that assessments are being entered in CIRTS, per the attached CARES policy #PPH Update No2011_2, that is still currently in place. Effective immediately, I would like for each worker to add this information to their calendars prior to making a visit. You should also add any approved leave time that you will be taking as well. If your visit schedule changes, it needs to be noted on the calendar with the appropriate change. Please revisit this memo for a thorough understanding. On May 14, 2013, Ms. Zeigler sent an email to Petitioner informing Petitioner that information on her calendar was incorrect. On May 31, 2013, Ms. Zeigler issued a formal counseling memorandum to Petitioner for failure to list her client visits on her GroupWise calendar as directed. The following excerpt is especially relevant: You were instructed to submit your plans for field visits [sic] travel at least one day in advance of the actual travel. A review of your calendar clearly showed that you either did not put any information on your calendar as required and/or you entered incorrect data, for the following dates: April 16, 2013, May 6, 2013, May 7, 2013, May 9, 2013, May 10, 2013, and again on May 14, 2013. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not deny that she failed to enter required information on her calendar. Instead, Petitioner offered a series of excuses, including system connectivity issues, her travel schedule, and confusion regarding a transition from GroupWise to the Outlook calendar system. With regard to connectivity, Petitioner explained that there were problems connecting to the Department’s computer system from remote locations and, occasionally, in the Gainesville office. Petitioner likewise testified that she would not return home until 6:00 p.m. or later on days she traveled to Jasper and other remote field locations. Petitioner complained that connectivity issues prevented her access to GroupWise from home, and thus, was unable to enter the visits scheduled for the following day. Petitioner testified that she complained to the information technology department in Tallahassee about connectivity issues and diligently tried to address these concerns. Petitioner introduced in evidence an email exchange between herself and Ms. Zeigler in which she complained about, and Ms. Zeigler resolved, an issue with Petitioner’s access to CIRTS – the Department’s online case input system. The email string is dated July 17, 2013, well after the date of Petitioner’s documented missing calendar entries. Further, the email relates to access to the case input system and is irrelevant to Petitioner’s claim of issues with connectivity to the computer system in general. Finally, Petitioner explained that the Department changed from GroupWise to the Outlook system, and she was confused about whether to continue adding entries on her GroupWise calendar during that transition. In the May 31, 2013, counseling memorandum, Ms. Zeigler referred to the program’s transition from the GroupWise to the Outlook calendaring system, as follows: The Microsoft Outlook Email and Calendar program was installed on all computers in DOEA, migrating existing GroupWise information to the new Outlook program on May 28, 2013. Instruction videos and online documentation were made available to all DOEA employees to learn how to utilize the new program. You were instructed to give proxy access to the RPS via email from the acting Supervisor. It is evident that you were successful in accessing the Outlook Calendar, as you sent the RPS a request to share your calendar on May 30, 2013. On the same date, you left the office to go to the field at 12:55 p.m., and failed to update/place any information on your calendar before departing. The sign in sheet indicated that you were going to a nursing facility. This repeated failure to comply with procedures is unacceptable. As a result of this failure, your supervisor was unaware of what facility and/or client you were seeing and how long it would take time wise for the field visit. You effectively prohibited your supervisor from knowing your whereabouts and/or the client(s) to be seen. In light of the facts, Petitioner’s alleged confusion about whether to continue adding information to her GroupWise calendar is not credible. Petitioner did not send an Outlook calendar-sharing invite to Ms. Zeigler until May 30, 2013, well after her missing GroupWise calendar entries of April 16 and May 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14, 2013. Further, Petitioner failed to calendar her appointments the same day she sent Ms. Zeigler the calendar- sharing invitation, thus belying any excuse that she had connectivity issues, at least on that particular date. In an effort to minimize the significance of her failure to document her field visits on her calendar, Petitioner testified that she noted her field visits on a daily sign-in log physically maintained in the Gainesville office. Petitioner introduced a composite exhibit purporting to be copies of the daily sign-in logs from April, May, June, and July 2013. Even if the exhibit was reliable evidence of Petitioner’s whereabouts, the logs are irrelevant to the issue of whether Petitioner complied with the electronic calendaring requirement. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the daily sign-in log was an acceptable alternative to Ms. Zeigler’s specific, clear, and repeated direction to all Gainesville employees to use their GroupWise, and later Outlook, calendars to note their planned field visits with required details. The evidence conflicted as to whether Ms. Zeigler’s May 31, 2013, counseling memorandum constituted discipline. Petitioner testified that the memorandum was a training tool. Ms. Zeigler testified alternately, and with hesitancy, that the memorandum was “almost like a verbal warning type of thing,” and “unofficially formal.” On cross-examination, Ms. Zeigler testified, “I don’t think that that would be a reason to fire somebody after one counseling memo. I mean that would be absurd.” Ms. James testified that the memorandum constituted a first-step disciplinary action. Ms. James explained that a counseling memorandum is preceded by a verbal warning from the supervisor. The Department’s disciplinary policy was not introduced in evidence. In light of Petitioner’s probationary employment status, the issue of whether the counseling memorandum constituted discipline is largely irrelevant. The counseling memorandum is evidence of poor job performance during Petitioner’s probationary employment period. At some point after Mr. Rutledge’s termination, the Department advertised for the open POA position. Both Petitioner and Mr. Keels applied for the position. Mr. Hudson and Ms. Zeigler conducted interviews for the position. Petitioner was not responsive to Ms. Zeigler’s efforts to schedule Petitioner’s interview for the position. Eventually, Ms. Zeigler did interview Petitioner for the position. Ms. Zeigler also interviewed Mr. Keels. In June 2013, Ms. Zeigler prepared performance evaluations of the Gainesville staff. Ms. Zeigler had little knowledge of staff performance prior to Mr. Rutledge’s termination, as Ms. Zeigler was new to the region. Ms. Zeigler gave all the Gainesville employees ratings of “3,” satisfactory performance, across the board. In late July 2013, Ms. Carr and Ms. Hajdukiewicz from the Tallahassee office came to the Gainesville office and personally terminated Mr. Keels. Ms. James did not directly make the decision to terminate Mr. Keels, but she agreed with the decision. Ms. James stated that Mr. Keels was terminated based on his actions after he became acting POA in Gainesville. Ms. James did not elaborate and neither counsel asked any follow-up question. On July 31, 2013, Ms. Carr and Ms. James came to the Gainesville office from Tallahassee, met with Petitioner, and offered her a choice of resignation or termination. Petitioner chose termination. That same day, after leaving the office, Petitioner called the Department of Human Resources and requested to change her termination to resignation. The request was granted. Petitioner did not ask why she was being terminated or asked to resign. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. Carr nor Ms. James gave her a reason. Ms. Zeigler resigned from the Department in October 2013. The circumstances of Ms. Zeigler’s resignation were not introduced in evidence. In that regard, Ms. Zeigler testified as follows: I had a lot of questions with the State that probably should not come up here, but there are a lot of questionable things that were going on with the State at the time which led to my resignation. So I did not question it. I did not question [Petitioner’s] termination based off of my ability to run the office, because I almost felt like it was being run above me.[6/] Ms. Zeigler’s testimony was introduced in support of Petitioner’s claims. However, Ms. Zeigler had difficulty recalling events, including the timing of relevant events. Of note, Ms. Zeigler testified that she was the RPS for Gainesville about a year, meaning she would have begun in the position in October 2012. Later, she testified that Mr. Rutledge was terminated “not long after I was there [as RPS].” Her testimony was hesitant, hedging, and sometimes conflicting. Ms. Zeigler testified that she was in daily contact with Mr. Hudson about issues in the Gainesville office after Mr. Rutledge was terminated, but claimed to have had no advance notice of either Mr. Keels’ or Petitioner’s termination. As such, the undersigned finds Ms. Zeigler’s testimony to be both unreliable and unpersuasive. Ms. Zeigler’s counseling memorandum to Petitioner regarding calendaring is credible evidence of Petitioner’s job performance which cannot be discounted by Ms. Zeigler’s after-the-fact, and apparently biased, testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, did commit an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, and prohibiting the practice. However, under the specific facts of the case, the undersigned recommends no affirmative relief from the effects of the practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 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
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department of Children and Family Services discriminated against Petitioner when it terminated her employment.
Findings Of Fact The Department agrees in its proposed recommended order that Petitioner is an African-American female. There is no evidence as to her age. Petitioner began employment with the Department on June 15, 2007, as a child protective investigator (hereinafter "CPI"). As a new employee, she was subject to the requirement that she successfully complete a probationary period of one year. CPIs receive extensive and structured training through the University of South Florida and subsequently by the Department. The training is expensive, so decisions to terminate a CPI are not made casually since the Department has invested time and revenue in training that CPI. CPIs investigate reports of possible child abuse or neglect under strict statutory deadlines to ensure the safety of at-risk children. New reports received by the Department are assigned to individual CPIs on a rotating basis, and there are schedules so employees will know who is "on rotation." From October 2007 through approximately mid-January, Petitioner was taken off rotation so as to not receive new cases and her existing caseload was distributed to other CPIs in her unit. Relieving her of her responsibilities was necessary because Petitioner was disqualified from her employment position due to a felony conviction, and it was necessary for her to obtain an exemption from that disqualification. Petitioner was successful in obtaining that exemption and was able to resume her job duties. By March 2008, it was necessary to take Petitioner off rotation again so that she could get current on her existing caseload rather than continuing to miss statutory deadlines. From that time until Petitioner was terminated from her employment as a CPI in June, it was necessary to take Petitioner off rotation for approximately one week every month so she could catch up. No other CPI has been taken off rotation due to performance deficiencies. When Petitioner was taken off her regular duties until she obtained an exemption and during each of the time periods she was taken off rotation, the other CPIs in her work unit had to absorb her caseload and all of the new cases. There was, understandably, some dissatisfaction among her co-workers who had to do her work in addition to their own. Further, Petitioner had the lowest caseload of all the CPIs in her unit. Christine Henegar, Petitioner's immediate supervisor and the person who hired her, assigned an experienced CPI to be Petitioner's mentor due to Petitioner's performance deficiencies both as to her investigations and as to her documentation. Although Petitioner was directed to meet with her mentor weekly, she did not. When her mentor attempted to assist her, Petitioner responded with resistance. Petitioner's mentor reported to Henegar frequently regarding Petitioner's poor performance, her resistance, her lack of comprehension, and the need for her co- workers to absorb Petitioner's caseload. Both he and Henegar shared an ongoing concern regarding the safety of the children whose cases were assigned to Petitioner. They were concerned that children were being left at risk due to Petitioner's inadequate or inaccurate assessment of risk factors. Once Petitioner had received her exemption and resumed handling a caseload, it became apparent by February or March that her performance was deficient in a number of ways. E-mails between Petitioner and Henegar between March 26, 2008, and June 10, 2008, reflect the same concerns regarding Petitioner's deficiencies throughout that time period. In May, Henegar held two formal conferences with Petitioner to address her continued deficiencies, but no improvement was noted. As Petitioner approached the end of her probationary period without adequate improvement, Henegar consulted with her supervisors regarding Petitioner's continuing deficiencies. As required for all employees, Henegar prepared a written performance evaluation of Petitioner on the required form. She gave Petitioner a rating of l.8, although she testified that she was generous in her scoring of Petitioner and scored Petitioner higher than Petitioner deserved. A score of "1" means the employee's performance is consistently below expectations, and a score of "2" means the employee's performance sometimes meets expectations and needs improvement. The Department terminates employees who do not successfully complete their probationary period rather than allowing them to become permanent employees. However, the Department did not terminate Petitioner; rather, it gave Petitioner a position with ACCESS, a different program under the Department's jurisdiction. When Petitioner did not successfully complete her one-year probationary period in that program, she was terminated. Petitioner affirmatively states that she was not discriminated against relative to her employment in or dismissal from the ACCESS program. Janet Stott is a white female who started her probationary period as a CPI at the same time as Petitioner. She is not a similarly-situated employee. Although she and Petitioner assumed the same job duties at the same time, her performance improved over the course of her probationary period while Petitioner's deteriorated. By the end of her probation, Stott was a very good investigator. Petitioner's termination as a CPI was not based upon any single incident or her handling of the two cases that she attempted to focus on during the final hearing. Rather, it was based solely upon her over-all performance, which was reviewed during three meetings among her supervisors over a period of two months. Petitioner's race and/or her age were not considered by those decision-makers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed in her burden of proof and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 430 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Beverly Joe O. Greenwade 106 Academy Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by terminating her employment in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act.
Findings Of Fact Lombardi started her employment as a judicial assistant with Dade County in 1971. Judge Mattie Belle Davis was the first judge who hired Petitioner. Judicial Assistants serve at the pleasure of the appointing Judge.1 Judge Bruce Levy hired Lombardi as his judicial assistant after Judge Davis retired. In December 2004, Judge Levy lost his re-election bid and Petitioner no longer had a full-time position as a judicial assistant with a judge. Lombardi started working in the temporary pool of judicial assistants. The position allowed Petitioner to retain her benefits while seeking a permanent judicial assistant position. While serving in the pool, Petitioner worked for Judge Leon Firtel from February 14, 2005, through February 28, 2006, before he let her go. Petitioner then worked for Judge Rosa Rodriguez from April 1, 2006, through May 23, 2007, until she let her go. Petitioner last worked for Dade County when she served as retired Judge Roger Silver's ("Silver") judicial assistant from September 1, 2007, until January 7, 2008. Lombardi was terminated in Silver's chambers with a bailiff and Ms. Suarez from Human Resources present. Silver informed the Petitioner her services were no longer needed and he was letting her go. Petitioner questioned why she was being terminated; however, Silver did not provide an explanation. Silver terminated Petitioner because he was not happy with her work performance. Silver testified that Petitioner had the following problems regarding her work: taking lunch breaks beyond the one hour he had discussed with her; numerous complaints from attorneys; selling Avon at the work place; not answering the phones and allowing calls to go to voicemail; and repeatedly setting unnecessary hearings on the docket. Prior to terminating Lombardi, Silver inquired with Human Resources about a replacement and was informed that he could not be assured that he would be able to get a temporary assistant to replace Lombardi due to the unavailability of funding. He still choose to terminate Petitioner because, "[he] felt having no one was better than what [he] had under the circumstances." Petitioner was not able to go back in the "temporary pool" of judicial assistants as she had in the past after Silver terminated her. In 2008, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit had a hiring freeze whereby the temporary pool was no longer funded. Human Resources eventually sent Elizabeth Gonzalez, whose date of birth is May 26, 1965, to Silver as a temporary judicial assistant. Silver had never met Gonzalez prior to her coming to work for him. There was no discussion of age when Silver requested a judicial assistant or when Gonzalez was assigned to him. Gonzalez served as Silver's temporary judicial assistant for a number of weeks and, when personnel advised him he could hire someone, including Gonzalez, Silver hired Gonzalez on or about March 10, 2008, because he was pleased with her work. Gonzalez worked with him until his retirement in December 2008. At the time when Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner was unaware of the exact age of her replacement. Petitioner's date of birth is May 18, 1948.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a 62-year-old African-American female began working for Respondent on July 7, 1989. Petitioner initially worked in Respondent's Adult Day Care Center (the Center) as an on-call Activity Nursing Assistant. At the time of her termination on February 2, 2009, she was a full-time Activity Nursing Assistant. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (FCRA). Respondent currently employs over 15 people. It provides services to elderly clients in the Center. The main purpose of the Center is to provide a structured day for the clients in a calm, soft-spoken and friendly environment. At all times relevant here, Sandy Holtry was the Director of the Center. Ms. Holtry was Petitioner's supervisor. Patricia Bryan is a volunteer at the Center. The record does not establish Ms. Bryan's exact age, but it appears that she is somewhat younger than Petitioner. During Petitioner's 2008 birthday party at the Center, Ms. Bryan asked Petitioner how old she was. After Petitioner revealed her age, Ms. Bryan responded that she wished she looked as good as Petitioner did. In another incident, Ms. Bryan asked Petitioner if “she felt the same today as the day before.” This question was in reference to Petitioner’s birthday the day before. On another occasion, Ms. Bryan told Petitioner that when she retires, she could work for a florist shop. Ms. Bryan made this comment because Petitioner was really good at creating floral arrangements. Judith Tatum is a 58-year-old nurse who has worked for the Center for five years. On one occasion, Ms. Tatum remarked that she could not have worked at the Center for as long as the Petitioner did. On other occasions, Ms. Tatum asked the Petitioner if she was planning to work until she turned 65 years of age. Petitioner does not contend that her supervisor or anyone other than Ms. Bryan and Ms. Tatum has made any age- related comments to her while she was employed by Respondent. Petitioner's claim that Respondent always hired younger people is not supported by specific evidence relating to the individuals hired and their date of hire. Respondent has many employees who are older than Petitioner. Respondent has an 88-year-old employee and several employees who are in their seventies. Petitioner was involved in an altercation with Tameka Mullins, a 33-year-old employee at the Center on January 28, 2009. During this altercation, Petitioner and Ms. Mullins were raising their voices during the Center's “quiet time.” The altercation was loud enough to be heard through the closed door of a nearby kitchen by another employee. “Quiet Time,” usually takes place after lunch. It is a state-required rest period that lasts for about 35 to 45 minutes. During "quiet time," the clients rest with the lights turned off. Ms. Tatum witnessed the loud altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Mullins. She saw Petitioner and Ms. Mullins “pushing” and “shoving” in an attempt to get into Ms. Holtry's office. The office was located off an open hallway between the activity room and the kitchen. Ms. Holtry was in the nearby kitchen when she heard the loud commotion between Petitioner and Ms. Mullins. Ms. Holtry attempted to calm both parties down, to no avail, and then tried to get them into her office to discuss the incident. After the incident, Ms. Holtry spoke to Ms. Rosa Sakalarois, Respondent's Vice President of Human Resources. Petitioner and Ms. Mullins were then sent home. Several of the clients after the altercation were upset, pacing, and appeared disturbed. Ms. Holtry and Ms. Sakalarois conducted an investigation. They interviewed every staff person working on the day of the incident, including Petitioner and Ms. Mullins. After the investigation, John Clark, Respondent's President, Ms. Sakalarois, and Ms. Holtry met and reviewed Petitioner’s and Ms. Mullins’ past performance evaluations and prior disciplinary actions. According to past evaluations, Petitioner received numerous warnings from different project directors about Petitioner's need to control her emotions when dealing with co- workers and clients. Additionally, Respondent suspended Petitioner on two prior occasions. Her first suspension was for using loud and harsh tones with a former employee. Her second suspension was for using loud and harsh tones towards two clients. Respondent required Petitioner to attend anger- management classes after the second suspension. The Center requires that staff at all times behave in a calm and professional manner due to the purpose and nature of the program. Many of its daily clients have Alzheimer’s disease. Therefore, any variation of the schedule is disruptive to the clients. Because the clients are emotionally frail, employees are encouraged to provide a calm, soft-spoken, and friendly environment. The Center has an annual Alzheimer training on the different behaviors of Alzheimer patients and how to care for them. The Center also provides on-going in-service training on how to talk to the clients. On February 2, 2009, Respondent decided to terminate the employment of Petitioner and Ms. Mullins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 1st day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Russell F. Van Sickle, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2950 Patricia A. Keaton 3824 North 10th Avenue, Apt. B Pensacola, Florida 32503 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue In two separate Petitions For Relief From An Unlawful Employment Practice, Petitioner, George F. Carter, alleges that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age and as retaliation for his previous filing of a complaint alleging age discrimination by DER. Petitioner alleges that as a result of the discrimination and retaliation, Petitioner was not chosen for various positions for which he applied and was given performance evaluations lower than he deserved. DER's position is that there are legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons for the actions Petitioner complains of, and that these reasons are not pretextual.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the stipulations of the parties, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on stipulations Petitioner, George R. Carter, is an-employee of DER in the Northeast District Office in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner became an employee of DER after its creation in 1975. He was first employed as a Field Inspector (Position No. 0532). He was previously employed by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and by the Department of Agriculture. On January 3, 1977, Petitioner took a voluntary demotion (deleting lead worker status) to transfer from the Gainesville office to the Jacksonville Office (Position No. 0097). On June 15, 1977, Petitioner was promoted to an Environmental Specialist I position (0097) when his Pollution Control Specialist position was deleted. On May 16, 1980, Petitioner was promoted to an Environmental Specialist II position (No. 0532). At that time Petitioner was given a 10% salary increase. On March 1, 1982, Environmental Specialist II positions were reclassified by the Legislature as Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner was placed into the new class and given a salary increase. On October 21, 1982, Petitioner received a written reprimand for taking unauthorized leave. On July 1, 1985, Petitioner was voluntarily assigned to another ESI position (00597) in Jacksonville. On February 20, 1986, Petitioner was voluntarily reassigned to another ESI position (00524) in Jacksonville. The rest of the findings Petitioner was born February 1, 1915. On January 11, 1980, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida. Commission on Human Relations in which he asserted that DER had discriminated against him because of his age. On August 2, 1982, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in which he asserted that DER had discriminated against him because of his complaint of January 11, 1980. On October 19, 1976, Petitioner received a written reprimand for: (1) falsification of timekeeping records, (2) unauthorized use of a state vehicle, and (3) unauthorized leave. Petitioner was suspended without pay April 27 through April 29, 1983, for insubordination. The suspension was upheld by order of the Career Service Commission dated January 7, 1986. Petitioner has appealed the suspension to the Duval County Court. Petitioner's principal claim of age discrimination concerns his non-selection for an Environmental Specialist II position (No. 00354) in Tallahassee in 1978. Petitioner filed a grievance with DER alleging age discrimination. DER investigated the grievance and then dismissed it as unwarranted. The State Personnel Director adopted the DER recommendations and conclusions. Petitioner appealed the State Personnel Director's decision to the Career Service Commission, which assigned the case Docket No. 79-58. By order dated September 21, 1979, the Career Service Commission sustained the decision of the State Personnel Director that Petitioner's complaint of age discrimination was without foundation. In addition to that specific complaint, Petitioner broadly contends that he has been discriminated against because of his age by DER's failure to hire him for a large number of other positions for which he applied, which positions are listed on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33A. The only basis for this aspect of Petitioner's charge of discrimination is that a younger person was chosen to fill each position. In 1979 Petitioner filed a grievance with DER alleging age discrimination regarding the positions listed in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33A. DER investigated the charges. The investigation included an examination of interview summaries from twenty-three of the positions for which Petitioner applied. DER concluded that there was no evidence of age discrimination in the selection process. During the course of the investigation Petitioner admitted that age was never mentioned when he was interviewed for the positions. Most of the positions for which Petitioner applied were high level positions which would have involved several steps of promotion for Petitioner. It is unusual for a person in DER to be so quickly promoted without working his way through the ranks. It is a legitimate consideration when hiring a person to look at his pattern of application for positions. If a person applied for a broad range of positions without an apparent sincere interest, that would weigh negatively against the indiscriminate applicant. The positions for which Petitioner applied were in widely varied fields, e.g., hazardous waste, solid waste, dredge and fill, potable water, groundwater, coastal zone management, limnology, noise control, domestic and industrial wastewater, water analysis, water resources restoration, grant coordination, enforcement, and quality assurance. DER could have legitimately concluded that Petitioner was indiscriminately applying for positions and weighed this against Petitioner when making its selection decisions. Petitioner claims to have a Ph.D. degree in Biology from Pacific Southern University in Seattle, granted in 1976 while Petitioner was employed by DER in Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's applications formerly listed a Ph.D. and Petitioner attached a copy of his supposed degree. Petitioner's current resume does not include a copy of his degree and notes that PSU is unaccredited. Searches by DER in 1977 and 1978 were unable to confirm the existence of PSU. The address listed on Petitioner's transcript was at the time of the search occupied by Marcia's Steno and Message Center. According to Petitioner, after discovering that PSU was unaccredited, Petitioner changed his resume to reflect that fact. Falsification or misrepresentation of credentials on an employment application can properly be a negative consideration when making a personnel decision. DER could have appropriately used this information in deciding to not promote Petitioner. An employee's history of adherence to established policies and procedures is a valid consideration when making personnel decisions. DER could reasonably have considered Petitioner's disciplinary history when making personnel decisions concerning Petitioner. Petitioner's disciplinary history would be particularly relevant to the supervisory positions he sought. Since 1980 the Petitioner has received the following performance evaluation ratings: September 1, 1980 to August 31, 1981: 6.86 September 1, 1981 to August 31, 1982: 5.6 August 31, 1982 to July 14, 1983: 4.14 July 14, 1983 to September 1, 1983: 4.93 September 1, 1983 to August 31, 1984: 5.1 September 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985: 6.0 Petitioner was rated by the same supervisor, Jeremy Tyler, from 1980 through 1985. Mr. Tyler explained that Petitioner's initial evaluation was fairly high because he had not known Petitioner for a long time and had not had a good opportunity to appraise his work. Mr. Tyler explained that he lowered Petitioner's ratings in subsequent evaluations so that they accurately reflected Petitioner's performance in relation to his co-workers. This method of rating Petitioner was in accord with a memorandum from the Secretary of DER in 1981 requiring that performance evaluations be fair and accurate, and that outstanding evaluations be given only in instances of truly outstanding work. Petitioner has been a good employee and has done acceptable work, but he has not been an outstanding employee. Petitioner's performance evaluations accurately reflect his performance. All of Petitioner's evaluations fall into the satisfactory or above satisfactory categories, (or, for the 1985 evaluation, the "achieves performance standards" category) except for the special evaluation of 4.14 which was triggered by the incident of insubordination which led to Petitioner's suspension. DER's Internal Management Policies and Procedures Manual explains that "Achieves Performance Standards" means "fully satisfactory performance or 'a job well done.'" The policy manual recognizes that the majority of the workforce should receive this rating. Some employees in similar positions did less work than Petitioner or performed their work in a less timely manner than Petitioner, but had performance ratings higher than Petitioner. This was because Petitioner's supervisor attempted to evaluate his employees relative to each other based on their total performance, not on just one facet of their performance. While some employees performed fewer inspections than Petitioner, their inspections were more complex and demanded more time. While some employees were habitually late with their inspection reports, the high quality of their reports compensated for their untimeliness and the reports were never so late as to prejudice DER. With each employee's performance taken as a whole, Petitioner's performance evaluations were fair and accurate. Petitioner is openly disdainful of authority. He frequently questions the decisions and policy choices of his supervisor and even of the Secretary of DER. In the incident that led to Petitioner's suspension for insubordination, Petitioner admitted that he wrote a letter (stating that DER would not allow development on a piece of property) in order to help a private individual escape a contract which Petitioner determined was fraudulent. Such a letter was not authorized by Petitioner's superiors, but Petitioner wrote it because he felt that it was the proper thing to do. Petitioner will frequently independently evaluate a situation and do what he believes is right, regardless of whether such action is authorized or in accordance with agency policy. Additionally, Petitioner claims, with sincerity. that he is an expert in a multitude of fields, although his claims of expertise have not been borne out by his performance or the observations of his superiors. Petitioner's broad claims of expertise reduce his credibility when he is being considered for positions, even when Petitioner actually may be competent in the subject matter of the position under consideration. Further, Petitioner is overly considerate of the needs and desires of the public, bending and breaking the rules as he feels is appropriate in order to aid members of the public seeking permits from DER. Petitioner does not apologize for his unauthorized and improper actions (such as doing construction drawings for applicants or requesting information by telephone instead of in Writing as required by DER rules); rather, Petitioner takes pride in helping citizens avoid the bureaucratic "red tape." DER has not discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age, nor has DER retaliated against Petitioner because of his having filed a discrimination charge against DER. DER has had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for denying promotions to Petitioner, and those reasons have not been pretextual. Petitioner's performance evaluation ratings have been fair and do not reflect discrimination or retaliation against Petitioner in any way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing both of the Petitions For Relief filed by George F. Carter. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. 4 MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. George F. Carter Post Office Box 17949 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ms. Betsy Howard, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the post-hearing submissions of the parties. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Suggested Stipulations For Settlement does not contain any proposed findings of fact. Accordingly, no specific rulings on proposed findings of fact are addressed to that document. Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Summary Of Appellant's Presentation contains a mixture of Petitioner's factual contentions, legal contentions, conclusions, and arguments, all of which are substantially intertwined. A large number of Petitioner's comments in the subject document are irrelevant to the issues to be decided in these consolidated cases. Similarly, much of what is included in Petitioner's post- hearing summary consists of subordinate details and unwarranted conclusions. Addressing first the top half of the first page of the summary, the factual contentions in the first three numbered paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as in large part not supported by competent substantial evidence. The unnumbered paragraph addressing low morale is rejected for several reasons, including being irrelevant to the issues in this case and not supported by competent substantial evidence. With regard to the contentions at the bottom half of page one and at the top of page two to the effect that Petitioner is an "outstanding employee," the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner is on the whole a good employee or a satisfactory employee, but not an outstanding employee. While Petitioner certainly has some outstanding qualities, he has also displayed characteristics which detract from his job performance. Some of these characteristics are summarized in DER Exhibit No. 11. Other characteristics which contraindicate classification of Petitioner as an outstanding employee are reflected in the incidents described in the findings of fact which led to disciplinary action against Petitioner. With regard to the contentions on page two of Petitioner's summary to the effect that his evaluation was unjust, the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. Paragraph number one is rejected because it is in part inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Further it fails to take into account the quality of work, which is a major factor in evaluations. Paragraphs number two, three, four and five are rejected because they are for the most part irrelevant. They contain inferences not warranted by the evidence and are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The unnumbered paragraph at the bottom of page two is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings, as not supported by competent substantial evidence, and as constituting inferences not supported by the evidence. With regard to the contentions on pages three and four of Petitioner's summary on the subject of the alleged pattern of harassment, discrimination, reprimand, and reprisal, the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. Paragraph number one is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number two is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number three is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number four is accepted in part and rejected in part. The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs number five and six are rejected as irrelevant, as not supported by competent substantial evidence, and as inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph number seven is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. The top two unnumbered paragraphs on page four are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph number six at the top of page four is accepted. With regard to the contentions on page four of Petitioner's summary under the caption "REPRISALS," the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. The first unnumbered paragraph under the subject caption is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number one is rejected as subordinate and as irrelevant in light of other more persuasive evidence as to why Petitioner was not promoted or given higher evaluations. Paragraph number two is rejected because it consists of conclusions not warranted by the evidence, is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and is for the most part irrelevant to the issues in this case. With regard to the contentions on page four and five of Petitioner's summary under the caption "DISCRIMINATION," the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. The first unnumbered paragraph under the subject caption is rejected because the first sentence is irrelevant standing alone and the second sentence is not supported by competent substantial evidence and incorporates inferences not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph number one is accepted in part and rejected in part. The substance of the first two sentences is accepted. The last three sentences are rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraphs number two, three, and four are rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph number five is rejected because it includes conclusions not warranted by the evidence and is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number six is rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. The paragraphs on pages five and six under the caption "PROTEST AND SUGGESTION ON HANDLING OF GRIEVANCES" do not constitute proposed findings of fact. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings Paragraphs 1 through 11 of Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected because it is a discussion of the issues rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. Paragraph 18 is for the most part rejected as redundant or as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. The substance of paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected because it is a discussion of the issues rather than a proposed finding of fact. The substance of paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 is accepted with the exception of certain gratuitous editorial comments.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Fredrick Bass, was subjected to employment discrimination by the Respondent, The University of West Florida, on account of his race or disability or as retaliation because of his past filing of an EEOC complaint against a former employer.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black male with a disability involving a post- traumatic, arthritic condition of the left knee. In his past work history, the Petitioner had been a firefighter. When he was thus employed, on one occasion, he filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the fire department where he was employed. The Respondent is the University of West Florida, a state agency. It became embroiled in the disputes at issue when it first advertised for the filling of a vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor and, after the advertising and interviewing process described below, hired another black male with a disability, instead of the Petitioner. The Respondent advertised to fill the vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor because of the death of the person who had previously occupied that position. There was an insufficient response to the first advertisement of the vacancy, and Dan Simpler, the Director of Building Services for the Respondent, who would supervise the occupant of that position, requested that the position be re-advertised. The Petitioner had not responded to the first advertisement, in any event. The second advertisement was issued in August of 1993. This time, the Petitioner was one of the applicants who responded. Several applicants withdrew after learning that the salary for the position would be at the lower-end of the advertised salary range and was insufficient for their needs. This left the Respondent with only three remaining applicants, who appeared to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. One of the three applicants was the Petitioner. The Respondent, in the conduct of its application and selection process, inquired of former employers, concerning whether they would give an applicant a favorable recommendation. The Respondent so inquired of the Petitioner's former employers. The Respondent was unable to obtain a favorable recommendation from any of the Petitioner's former employers. In response to Mr. Simpler's inquiry, the Chief of the Fire Department at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Petitioner's most recent former employer, informed Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner had informed Mr. Simpler that he believed that the Chief of the Fire Department would not give him a favorable recommendation because the Petitioner had once filed a complaint with the EEOC against that employer. In any event, Mr. Simpler deemed that having a pool of only three applicants gave the Respondent insufficient choices for the position. Therefore, he requested that the position be advertised for a third time in order to obtain a larger pool of applicants. In response to the third advertisement, a number of other applications were received. One of them was that of James O. Rankins, who is a male, African-American, who also has a disability. See Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Mr. Rankins' application reflected considerable supervisory experience, both during his service with the United States Army and his position as a Site Manager for Service Master, Inc. at the Monsanto plant near Pensacola, Florida. He retired from the United States Army as a Sergeant Major, the highest non- commissioned rank. In the opinion of Mr. Simpler and others involved in the hiring at the University, this demonstrated a high level of leadership capability. Since his military retirement, in his capacity as the Site Manager for Service Master, Inc., the maintenance contractor, at the Monsanto chemical plant near Pensacola, Florida, he had supervised 45 custodial personnel. He was responsible for cleaning and maintenance of 150 buildings and shops, as well as over 250 offices and restrooms. The Petitioner was an applicant in the third pool of applications in response to the third advertisement. Mr. Simpler learned of a former employer, Lanyap Corporation, and questioned the former owner concerning the Petitioner's previous employment at that firm. Larry Wiggins, the former owner of Lanyap Corporation, told Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. Mr. Wiggins advised Mr. Simpler that the Petitioner had not been employed as a Supervisor by Lanyap Corporation, although the Petitioner had indicated that to be the case on his application for employment filed with the Respondent. The five persons on the Respondent's selection committee, charged with hiring to fill the subject position, considered the qualifications and experience of all of the applicants. After evaluating all of the applicants, with the assistance of personal interviews, the committee recommended that James Rankins be employed as the Senior Custodial Supervisor. Members of the selection committee recommended Mr. Rankins for the position based upon his superior qualifications and experience, including his demonstrated leadership and supervisory abilities. The Petitioner's race and disability were not factors in the selection process. Indeed, Mr. Rankins is an African-American, also with a disability, as shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Ms. Bertha Mae Jones is the staff member at the University who interviewed the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Rankins. Ms. Jones is black and has been employed at the University for 27 years. She does not recall hearing the Petitioner mention his handicap or disability but stated that it would not have mattered if he had one, as long as he could do the job in question. She also interviewed Mr. Rankins and felt that Mr. Rankins had much superior qualifications and experience. He demonstrated that he had had a long-term ability for good supervision. Because of his superior qualifications, Ms. Jones recommended that Mr. Rankins be hired instead of the Petitioner. None of the members of the selection committee, other than the Director of Building Services, knew that the Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against one of his former employers. The filing of that complaint was shown to have had no effect on the hiring decision made by the Respondent's selection committee. The selection committee's recommendation that Mr. Rankins be employed to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor was forwarded to the head of the department and to the Vice-President for Administrative Affairs. The recommendation was accepted. Mr. Rankins, a black male with a disability, was hired by the Respondent to fill the subject position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order concluding that the Respondent, the University of West Florida, did not commit an unlawful employment practice, by employing James O. Rankins to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor, instead of the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2450 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The following numbers assigned to proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner do not correspond to any numbered paragraphs in the Petitioner's letter/proposed recommended order because there were no such numbered paragraphs. The Petitioner did prove that he belonged to a racial minority, and that proposed finding is accepted. The Petitioner's assertion that he was qualified for the position in question has not been proven, and that is rejected. The Petitioner's proposed finding that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected for the position, is rejected because he was found to be less qualified than the applicant chosen for the position. The Petitioner's proposed finding to the effect that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with his qualifications, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderance of the evidence. The relevant advertisement and interviewing process was that after the third advertisement, when the Petitioner remained an applicant and Mr. Rankins' application was received, the position did not remain open, Mr. Rankins was hired at the conclusion of that third advertisement and interview selection process. The remainder of the Petitioner's "proposed findings", in essence, constitute argument concerning the weight of the testimony and evidence but to the extent that he attempts to assert that it has been proven factually that Mr. Simpler had not talked to the fire chief, the Petitioner's former employer, because the telephone numbers at the relevant fire station were not the same as the fire chief's actual telephone number, does not prove that Mr. Simpler did not talk to the fire chief. In fact, it is found that he did. This proposed finding, to the extent that it is one, is rejected. The apparent proposed finding that the five board members on the selection committee found the Petitioner qualified, subject to the fact that it had received bad recommendations from former employers, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. In fact, the Petitioner was not the best qualified person for the position, Mr. Rankins was. These are the only proposed findings of fact that can be gleaned from the letter filed by the Petitioner. The remainder constitutes an attempt at legal and factual argument which do not constitute proposed findings of fact amenable to specific rulings. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fredrick Bass 75 South Madison Drive Pensacola, Florida 32505 M. J. Menge, Esquire SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of an unlawful employment practice by the alleged failure to re-hire him by the Respondent because of his alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed as a machinist operating a "pega" machine for the Respondent at times pertinent hereto, in 1992 and 1993. On or about February 24, 1992, while he was home for lunch, the Petitioner apparently suffered a stroke. He was hospitalized and his wife and a nurse informed his employer of his medical condition. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is a manufacturer of commercial laundry equipment and employs more than 15 employees. Because of the medical condition related to his stroke, the Petitioner applied for and was granted a medical leave of absence on or about February 24, 1992 or shortly thereafter. There is apparently some question whether the Petitioner's supervisor actually signed the leave request, but the employer does not dispute that he was legitimately on a medical leave of absence until August 13, 1992. There is also some dispute concerning whether the Respondent employer knew that the Petitioner had suffered a stroke or not. The complainant's personnel file, however, contained two notes dated March 12, 1992 and August 17, 1992 from Dr. Watts, his treating and attending physician. The March 12, 1992 note confirmed that the Petitioner had been hospitalized and had had an abnormal cerebral imaging result, also suffered from hypertension and, at that time, was unable to return to work. The August 17, 1992 note from Dr. Watts stated that the Petitioner could return to work and stated that there were no restrictions on his activities. Thus, the evidence of record indicates that there was a basis for the Respondent to know that the Petitioner had a stroke or some type of disability between February 24, 1992 and August 17, 1992. Upon his release by his attending physician on August 17, 1992, without medical restriction of his activities, so that he could return to employment, there was no basis for the Respondent to believe from that point forward that the Petitioner had any disability. This is borne out by the Petitioner's own testimony revealing that he repeatedly sought re-employment with the Respondent during the period from August 1992 through February 1993 without advising the Respondent of any employment restrictions due to his medical condition or any purported disability. When the Petitioner returned to the Respondent's place of business on August 17, 1992 and sought to come back to work after his medical leave, the plant manager informed him that he had no openings for him at that time. There were two positions being filled at that time, but they were not positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. One was a position requiring skill at electrical schematic reading, which was an electrical assembly position. The Petitioner was not qualified for this position. The other position was as a "tig welder", a highly-skilled type of welding process. The Petitioner was not qualified to perform this, as well, because of his lack of knowledge of welding. The position, and similar positions, operating "pega" machines (machine tools), which the Petitioner had filled and performed prior to his illness, were all filled and unavailable at the time the Petitioner sought to return to work in August of 1992. Neither the Petitioner nor his physician had given any indication of when the Petitioner could return to work, prior to August 13, 1992, nor was there any communication with the Petitioner or his physician for six months during his leave of absence, other than the provision to the company of the physician's note in March 1992 concerning the brief description of his medical condition. Consequently, on August 13, 1992, when Mr. Rieff, the plant manager, received a note from the Petitioner's physician stating that he could return to work without restriction, there were no positions available for his type of skill and training. Therefore, the company recorded the Petitioner's status, as of August 1992, as being discharged due to the conclusion of his medical leave with no open positions suitable for him being available. The Petitioner testified that he sought employment several times during the period of August 1992 through January 1993 by attempting to contact or contacting Mr. Rieff. He stated that Mr. Rieff told him to check with him every two or three weeks because each time he spoke with him, Mr. Rieff informed him that no openings were available at that time. The Petitioner, however, filed no application for employment until he learned, from a visit to the state employment service office in February of 1993, that the Respondent was looking for a "pega machine operator". The Petitioner filed an application with the company at that time. Upon receiving the application or learning of it, Mr. Horton, Human Resources Director of the company, reviewed it and noted that the Petitioner had had previous experience with the company performing this same job. Mr. Horton had not been with the company at the time the Petitioner had left for his medical leave and, therefore, had no knowledge of his medical history, skills, abilities, and other past history with the company. Consequently, he consulted with Mr. Rieff concerning the advisability of re-hiring the Petitioner. Mr. Rieff advised against re-hiring the Petitioner because the Petitioner had had an attendance problem while he was employed by the company. In fact, although his other job skill and performance ratings were the highest, his attendance rating was the poorest in the company's system and means of rating performance. Consequently, because of Mr. Rieff's negative recommendation, on the basis of the Petitioner's past poor attendance record, which is substantiated by the evidence, Mr. Horton elected not to re-hire him. Mr. Horton did not know at that time of the medical history of the Petitioner because the medical records were housed in a different department of the company. Mr. Horton was the decision-maker for that employment decision. The employment action which resulted in the Petitioner filing the charge of discrimination at issue occurred when the Respondent failed to hire the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that it was on account of his medical condition or disability. The Petitioner verbally sought employment by contacting Mr. Rieff periodically from August 1992 through January 1993. On approximately January 7, 1993, Mr. Rieff effectively told the Petitioner that he would not hire him in the foreseeable future and that if he needed the Petitioner, he could call him. In February 1993, the application was actually filed by the Petitioner for employment, and Mr. Horton took the above negative action with regard to it. It is undisputed that the Respondent granted the Petitioner six months of medical leave. Whether or not the Respondent knew of the precise nature of the medical problem for which the Petitioner was given medical leave, the fact is established that upon the Petitioner being released by his treating physician with no restrictions and able to return to work, the Petitioner had no disability in terms of any impediment to his full employment, performing the full range of duties he had performed before the medical incident occurred in February 1992. Consequently, the Petitioner was not disabled from August 13, 1992 forward. The established reason that the Petitioner was not hired again by the Respondent company was because of his poor attendance record and not because of any perceived disability suffered by the Petitioner. In fact, at the times pertinent hereto when the decision at issue was made not to re-hire the Petitioner, the Petitioner suffered from no disability, and the Respondent had no perception that he did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, Dennis W. Thomas, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2126 The parties were accorded the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders. The Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact, which are accepted (Nos. 1-6) to the extent they do not conflict with or are inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. The Petitioner submitted a post-hearing pleading, in letter form, which really amounts to an argument as to the quantity, quality and weight to be ascribed to the evidence and included citation to the relevant statute, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and a court case which merely is cited for the purpose of pointing out that employment cannot be denied a person on account of illness and disability. That principle is not in dispute in this proceeding. The Petitioner did not separately state proposed findings of fact which can be specifically ruled upon by the Hearing Officer. Nevertheless, all legal and factual issues alluded to in the Petitioner's pleading have been addressed and ruled upon in the body of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis W. Thomas 4396 Clyde Lane Post Office Box 56 Marianna, Florida 32447 Roger W. Horton, III Human Resources Director Unimac Company, Inc. 3595 Industrial Park Drive Marianna, FL 32446-9458 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
