Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: An Overview of Petitioner's Employment with the District Petitioner was employed by the District from June of 1988, until his termination, which was effective January 14, 1992. Prior to his termination he had an unblemished disciplinary record. Petitioner was initially hired by the District as a Construction Representative. In January of 1989, he assumed the duties of a Regulatory Professional I. He was promoted in 1990 to a Regulatory Professional II, a position he held until he was terminated. At the time of his termination, Petitioner had attained regular employee status inasmuch as he had successfully completed his probationary period. As a Regulatory Professional II, Petitioner was responsible for monitoring the public's compliance with the District's regulatory programs, a task that involved the exercise of considerable discretion with minimal supervision as well as frequent and substantial contact with citizens in his assigned territory, which covered all of Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties and parts of Glades and Highlands Counties. Petitioner also supervised one subordinate employee, Donald Hagan, a Regulatory Professional I, who assisted Petitioner in his monitoring activities. Petitioner was assigned a District vehicle for official use during the workday. After hours, the vehicle was secured in the parking lot outside the District field station in Okeechobee where Petitioner was headquartered. Petitioner worked an eight-hour day. His normal work hours were 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., however, he occasionally deviated from this schedule when necessary to accommodate his workload. In addition to a lunch break, Petitioner was allowed to take two 15 minute work breaks during his eight-hour workday, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. He was permitted to take these breaks whether he was in the field station or out in the field. In September and most of October of 1991, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Edward Maciejko. Maciejko was headquartered in West Palm Beach, approximately 60 to 65 miles from the Okeechobee field station out of which Petitioner worked. On October 23, 1991, Alan Goldstein became Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Goldstein's work station was located in Okeechobee approximately three miles from Petitioner's work station. Goldstein remained Petitioner's immediate supervisor until Petitioner's termination. The Employee Handbook The District has an Employee Handbook that is designed to provide information and guidance to District employees regarding employment-related matters. As do all new District employees, Petitioner received a copy of the Employee Handbook upon being hired and its contents were reviewed with him during his orientation. The Employee Handbook contains the District's Attendance and Leave Policy (Policy No. 300), which addresses the subjects of "normal work hours" and "work breaks" as follows: NORMAL WORK HOURS All full-time regular and initial probationary employees shall perform their assigned duties for 40 hours each work week unless otherwise authorized. All part-time regular and temporary employees shall perform their assigned duties for the total number of hours for which compensation is received. The normal workday shall be 8 hours unless otherwise authorized by the employee's Division Director. WORK BREAKS All District employees are provided one work break during the first half of their workday and one work break during the second half of their workday, except in extreme emergency. No single work break shall exceed 15 minutes. An employee is not permitted to accumulate unused work breaks nor may the work break be used to cover an employee's late arrival or early departure from duty. All employees shall take a minimum of one half hour lunch break each workday. The following discussion is found in the Employee Handbook concerning the "Code of Ethics:" Florida has been a leader among the states in establishing ethical standards for public officials and employees and recognizing the right of her people to protect the public trust against abuse. Our state constitution was revised in 1968 to require that (a)a code of ethics for all state employees and non-judicial officers prohibiting conflict between public duty and private interests shall be prescribed by law. Art III, Sec. 18, Fla. Constitution. The "Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees" by which the Legislature carried out this constitutional mandate is found in Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes. The purpose of the Code is to ensure that public officials and employees conduct themselves independently and impartially, not using their offices or positions for private gains other than remuneration provided by law and to avoid conflicts between public duties and private interest. . . . The standards of conduct summarized below generally apply to all District employees. The types of conduct prohibited are: Gifts- No public employee shall solicit or accept anything of value- including a gift, loan, reward, promise of future employment, favor, or service- that is based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the employee would be influenced by such gift. Sec. 112.313(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). Unauthorized Compensation- No public employee or his/her spouse or minor child shall accept any compensation, payment or thing of value which, with the exercise of reasonable care, is known or should be known to influence the official action of such employee. Sec. 112.313(4), Fla. Stat. (1991). Doing Business with One's Agency- No public employee acting as a purchasing agent or acting in his/her official capacity shall, directly or indirectly, purchase, rent, or lease any realty, goods, or services from a business entity in which his/her spouse, or child is an officer, partner, director, or proprietor, or in which his/her spouse, or child (or any combination of them) has a material interest. Nor shall a public employee, acting in a private capacity, rent, lease, or sell any realty, goods or services to his/her own agency. Sec. 112.313(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). Conflicting Employment or Contractual Relationship- No public employee shall hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or agency which is subject to the regulation of, or doing business with, the employee's agency. Nor shall an employee hold any employment or contractual relationship which will pose a recurring conflict between his/her private interests and his/her public duties or which would impede the full and faithful discharge of his/her duties. Sec. 112.313(7), Fla. Stat. (1991). Exemptions- Under certain circumstances the prohibitions of subsections (3) and (7) of Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, may not apply. Misuse of Public Position- No public employee shall corruptly use or attempt to use his/her official position or any property or resource within his/her trust, or perform his/her official duties, to obtain a special privilege, benefit or exemption for himself/ herself or others. Sec. 112.313(6), Fla. Stat. (1991). Disclosure or Use Of Certain Information- No public employee shall disclose or use information not available to the general public and gained by reason of his/her public position for his/her personal gain or benefit or the gain or benefit of others. Sec. 112.313(8), Fla. Stat.(1991). More specific ethics laws address financial disclosure and the reporting requirements which apply to Governing Board members, senior management, and employees with contracting authority. The above information has been provided to help you understand State Ethics Laws. The District supports and enforces these laws to the best of its ability and expects each employee to conduct their activities in a lawful manner. Conflicts of interest may be avoided by greater awareness of these Ethics Laws. If you are in doubt about the applicability of the ethics laws to your own circumstances or the circumstances of a subordinate or co-worker, contact the District's Office of Counsel. They will answer your questions or assist you in obtaining an opinion from the Commission on Ethics. Also included in the Employee Handbook is the District's Corrective Action Policy (Policy No. 803), which establishes standards governing non- executive employee conduct and discipline. Section F. of Policy No. 803 lists those acts of misconduct for which a non-executive District employee who has attained regular status may be disciplined. It provides in pertinent part as follows: The following forms of misconduct are unacceptable and subject an employee to corrective action based on the particular circumstances surrounding the incident. The list is provided merely as examples and is not intended to be all inclusive. The identification of these examples does not preclude the District's right to discipline or dismiss employees for other causes, including acts of misconduct which breach the requirements inherent in the employment relationship. 1. Unbecoming conduct: Any action or conduct by an employee which impedes the District's efforts, brings discredit on the District, impairs the operation or efficiency of the District or any employee, or impairs the employee's ability to perform his or her job. . . . 5. Absence Without Authorized Leave: Failure to obtain approval from the proper authority prior to any absence from work, except in the case of an emergency, illness or accident which requires the employee to be absent prior to receiving approval; Inexcusable or repeated failure to notify the appropriate Supervisor or division office of absence, due to sickness, within ten (10) minutes from the start of the normal work day; Being more than ten (10) minutes late to work for an inexcusable reason or on a repeated basis without notifying the appropriate Supervisor, or division office. . . . Unauthorized Use of District Property, Services, Equipment or Personnel: The use of any District property, services, equipment or personnel for any purpose other than District business. Employees shall be required to reimburse the District for the cost incurred by the District as a result of the unauthorized use of equipment or property. Improper or Careless Use of District Property, Including Vehicles: Failure to care for or properly use District property or equipment such as the failure to observe the proper speed limit while driving a District vehicle. . . . 11. Lying or Failure to Give Truthful or Requested Information: Oral or written statements that are deliberately inaccurate, incorrect or misleading but which do not constitute falsification of records. This includes lying or failure to provide information during an internal investigation. . . . 24. Violation or Disregard of Safety Practices: The failure to follow established safety practices as outlined in the District's Accident Prevention Manual. This includes failure to report any injury or accident; the performance of unsafe acts; or the failure to wear or use appropriate safety equipment. . . . Negligence: The failure to use ordinary or reasonable care, caution, attention, diligence or discretion in the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities. Falsification of a District Record: The intentional issuance of a false or incomplete report or record, either oral or written, or the intentional failure to issue a record regarding the performance of work duties, attendance, injury, illness, job qualifications or other work related matters. Policy No. 803 specifically provides for four basic types of "corrective action" to deal with acts of misconduct. They are, in order of severity: oral reprimand (OR); written reprimand (WR); suspension (S); and dismissal (D). In determining the appropriate "corrective action" to be taken in a particular situation, supervisory personnel must follow the "standards" set forth in Section G. of Policy No. 803, which provides as follows: This section has been established as a guide for use by Supervisors to help ensure that all employees receive similar treatment in like circumstances. The guidelines on severity of corrective action outlined in Section H. is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of all possible acts of misconduct or forms of corrective action. Appropriate corrective action of unlisted acts of misconduct may be derived by comparing the nature and seriousness of the offense to those listed in Section H. In many cases, the guidelines on severity of corrective action are based on the number of occurrences and the seriousness of the offense and are presented as a range of action which covers more than one form of corrective action. The use of a particular form of corrective action is not mandatory simply because it is listed in Section H. Realizing that some of the offenses listed will be more or less serious in certain cases, the supervisor taking the corrective action shall utilize good judgment in light of all available facts. The corrective action selected must ultimately be appropriate in light of the particular circumstances surrounding the incident and the employee's past performance and conduct record. For example, even for offenses where dismissal is not indicated for a first offense, dismissal on a first occurrence may be assessed for an aggravated offense or a continuous pattern of misconduct. Similarly, where dismissal is indicated, a less severe form of corrective action may be taken. This action may be taken so long as it is more severe than that given in the most recent prior occurrence that is still active, and is reasonably consistent with other cases of misconduct for other employees. Temporary and initial probationary employees may be suspended or dismissed without regard to the standards of corrective action. In determining the severity of corrective action to be applied, the authorized Supervisor should take into account the following variables: The severity of the specific act of misconduct. The circumstances under which the violation occurred. The consequences of the employee's actions in regard to its affect on the District operation and on other employees. The guidelines on severity of corrective action outlined in Section H. of this policy. The overall work record of the employee; length of employment; and the employee's prior history of other similar or unrelated corrective actions, including active and inactive offenses. The length of time since earlier corrective action, the similarity or dissimilarity of the offense, and the severity of earlier offenses. The following are among "the guidelines on severity of corrective action outlined in Section H." of Policy No. 803: 1. Unbecoming conduct: 1st occurrence- WR, S or D . . 5. Absence Without Authorized Leave (Does not affect scheduling or work of others): 1st occurrence- OR; 2nd occurrence- WR . . Unauthorized Use of District Property, Services, Equipment, or Personnel (With intent to obtain personal gain: 1) Cost to District of less than $50.00): 1st occurrence- S; 2nd occurrence- S or D; 3rd occurrence: D Unauthorized Use of District Property, Services, Equipment, or Personnel (With intent to obtain personal gain: 2) Cost to District of more than $50.00): 1st occurrence- S or D; 2nd occurrence- D Improper or Careless Use of District Property (Not involving personal injury or property damage): 1st occurrence: OR . . . 11. Lying or Failure to Give Truthful or Requested Information: 1st occurrence- WR or S; 2nd occurrence- S or D; 3rd occurrence- D . . . 24. Violation or Disregard of Safety Practices (Not involving personal injury or property damage): 1st occurrence- OR . . . Negligence (Not involving personal injury or property damage): 1st occurrence- OR . . . Falsification of District Record: 1st occurrence- S or D; 2nd occurrence- D The Accident and Related Events In the latter part of September of 1991, Petitioner's personal vehicle was in an automotive repair shop in Stuart. On September 17, 1991, at Petitioner's request, Donald Hagan, Petitioner's subordinate, drove Petitioner to the repair shop in Stuart, which was outside of their assigned territory, in a District vehicle. The purpose of the trip was to ascertain whether the repairs on Petitioner's personal vehicle had been completed. Upon his arrival at the repair shop, Petitioner was advised that the necessary parts had not come in and that therefore it would be another week until he would be able to pick up his vehicle. A week later, on September 24, 1991, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Hagan was in his District vehicle in the parking lot outside the Okeechobee field station when Petitioner walked up to him. Petitioner told Hagan that the repairs on Petitioner's personal vehicle had been completed. He then asked if Hagan would give him a ride to the repair shop in Stuart so that he could pick up the vehicle. Hagan responded in the affirmative. Petitioner thereupon entered Hagan's District vehicle and sat down in the front passenger seat. After Petitioner was situated, Hagan drove off, headed in the direction of the repair shop. Before reaching their destination, Hagan and Petitioner were involved in an automobile accident when Hagan lost control of the vehicle and it ended up in a ditch. The vehicle was damaged and it was towed to West Palm Beach for repairs. Hagan sustained two fractured ribs as a result of the accident. Petitioner was also injured, but not as seriously as Hagan. Both received medical treatment for their injuries. Hagan's and Petitioner's ill-fated trip did not have any District- related purpose. Nonetheless, following the accident, Petitioner reported otherwise, notwithstanding that he knew that he was providing false information to the District. On the night of the accident, he told his then immediate supervisor, Edward Maciejko, over the telephone that he and Hagan were on their way to conduct an inspection of distressed cypress trees in St. Lucie County when the accident occurred. Petitioner also prepared an accident report in which he made the same misrepresentation. A workers' compensation claim was filed on behalf of Petitioner in reliance upon this misrepresentation. Initially, Hagan corroborated Petitioner's story about the purpose of their September 24, 1991, trip. Later, however, he told supervisory personnel the truth about the matter. For his part in the incident and the subsequent cover-up, he was reprimanded and received a two-day suspension. On two occasions following Hagan's revelation regarding the true purpose of the trip, Petitioner was provided an opportunity by Alan Goldstein, who had recently become Petitioner's immediate supervisor and was looking into allegations of misconduct against Petitioner, to recant the statements he had previously made regarding the matter. Petitioner, however, declined to do so and instead repeated what he had said earlier on the subject. 2/ The Speeding Ticket and Related Events On October 3, 1991, while driving his District vehicle to a work- related meeting in Lake Placid, Florida, to which he did not want to be late, Petitioner was stopped by a Florida Highway Patrol trooper and given a traffic citation for travelling 84 miles per hour in a 55-mile per hour zone. Petitioner had exceeded the posted 55-mile per hour speed limit, but by less than the trooper indicated on the citation. Nonetheless, for convenience sake, Petitioner did not contest the citation. On the day he received the citation, Petitioner telephoned Edward Maciejko, who was still his immediate supervisor at the time, and told Maciejko that he had been "flagged down" by a trooper earlier that day while on his way to Lake Placid in his District vehicle. Subsequently, during an investigation of alleged wrongdoing on Petitioner's part conducted after Alan Goldstein, had become Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Goldstein asked Petitioner if he had informed Maciejko about the traffic citation he had received on October 3, 1991. Petitioner responded in the affirmative to this inquiry. To the best of his recollection, he had so informed Maciejko and therefore believed that he was being truthful in his response to Goldstein's inquiry. The Loan and Related Events Dry Lake Dairy (Dairy) is an Okeechobee dairy farm that has been owned and operated by the Rucks family since 1958. J. Boyd Rucks is President of the Dairy. As President, it is his responsibility to deal with governmental agencies that exercise regulatory authority over the Dairy and its operations. The District is one of these governmental agencies. In or sometime prior to 1990, the Dairy received a surface water management permit from the District. It subsequently obtained a modification to the permit to engage in a ditch clearing operation. In November of 1990, the District issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that the Dairy had violated the terms of its permit. Petitioner was actively involved in the investigation that led to the issuance of the NOV. Following the issuance of the NOV, it was his responsibility to make sure that the necessary steps were being taken by the Dairy to correct the problems identified in the NOV. At first, he visited the Dairy on a regular basis to monitor its compliance efforts. Thereafter, these regular visits ceased and his monitoring activities were confined to flying over the Dairy during his monthly aerial inspection of his territory. By the middle of October of 1991, the Dairy had made substantial progress toward correcting the violation with which it had been charged by the District, but the matter had not been finally resolved. 3/ At the time, Petitioner needed to borrow $500.00. Notwithstanding that the enforcement action against the Dairy, in which he played an integral role, was still ongoing, Petitioner ill-advisedly decided to approach the Dairy's President and its representative in its dealings with the District, J. Boyd Rucks, about loaning him the money. Petitioner knew Rucks through Petitioner's work with the District. Their relationship was purely a professional one. They did not socialize. While Rucks, on behalf of the Dairy, often made cash advances to its employees, neither he nor the Dairy was in the business of making loans to members of the general public. Never before had either of them made a loan to a District employee. At around noon on October 14, 1991, Petitioner was in his District vehicle on his way back from a field inspection when he stopped by Rucks' home and asked Rucks if he would lend Petitioner $500.00. Rucks told Petitioner that he would have to discuss the matter with other members of his family and that Petitioner should return later in the day for an answer. At around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Petitioner returned to Rucks' home in his District vehicle. 4/ Having obtained the approval of the family members to whom he had spoken, Rucks gave Petitioner $500.00 from the Dairy's petty cash fund. Petitioner was to repay the money within ten days. There was no interest charged. Petitioner did not believe that he was doing anything wrong in soliciting and accepting this loan from Rucks. There was no understanding on the part of either Petitioner or Rucks that the making of this loan to Petitioner would in any way influence Petitioner in the discharge of his duties as an employee of the District. Petitioner never suggested, nor did Rucks expect, that the Dairy would receive favorable treatment in its dealings with the District as a result of the loan. The two viewed the transaction as a personal matter unrelated to District business. Because of illness that required hospitalization, Petitioner was unable to repay the loan within ten days. The loan was repaid in full within three weeks. Petitioner's Personal Circumstances During the period of time in which the alleged acts of misconduct in the instant case were committed, Petitioner was experiencing a significant amount of stress in his personal life. He was having money problems. In addition, his relationship with his wife was deteriorating. The day after he received the loan from Rucks, Petitioner was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. He remained hospitalized for two weeks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order (1) finding that disciplinary action, in the form of a suspension covering the period from January 9, 1992, to the date of the issuance of said final order, should be taken against Petitioner, but based only upon those acts of misconduct described in Conclusion of Law 70 of this Recommended Order, (2) reducing Petitioner's dismissal to such a suspension, and (3) reinstating Petitioner to the position he previously held or a comparable position. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 26th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3101 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on what the parties have labelled as "findings of facts" in their proposed recommended orders: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. To the extent that this proposed finding states that "[e]mployees receive the Handbook at new employee orientation," it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Otherwise, it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such testimony; Third sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 4-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 8. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that this proposed finding references Edward Muldowney's participation in the internal investigation and Muldowney's "extensive investigative experience," it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 15-16. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 20-22. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 25a.-25b. To the extent that these proposed findings state that Petitioner was absent during non-break periods of the workday on September 24, 1991, and on October 14, 1991, without the authorization and approval of the appropriate authority, they have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, they have been adopted and incorporated in substance. 25c.-26a. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 26b. Last sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence; Remaining sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. 26c. Last sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Remaining sentences: Rejected because they are more in the nature of summaries of testimony adduced at hearing than findings of fact based upon such testimony. 26d. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 26e. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 26f. Accepted and incorporated in substance. This proposed finding, which states that Petitioner lied or failed to give truthful or requested information on six, rather than three, occasions, has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 27a. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 27b. First, second and sixth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: To the extent that these proposed findings state that Goldstein "specifically asked [Petitioner] if any part of the trip on the day of the accident was for personal reasons" and Petitioner "lied when he responded 'no'" to this question, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. Otherwise, they have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 27c. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Goldstein talked to Petitioner about the September 17, 1991, trip to Stuart during the discussion referenced therein, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 27e. Last sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Remaining sentences: Rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second, third and sixth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Fourth sentence: To the extent that this proposed finding states that Hagan "was a passenger in the vehicle at the time," it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Otherwise, it has been rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based on such testimony; Fifth sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based on such testimony. 30-32d. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 32e. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: To the extent that this proposed suggests that Petitioner did not perform "his regulatory functions, including those at the Dry Lake Dairy, in an unbiased manner" as a result of the loan, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 10/ Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 11/ 33-33b. Rejected because they concern alleged misconduct outside the scope of the charges specified in the notice of termination. 33c. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Petitioner's assigned territory included Martin County, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding recites verbatim the "Grievance Resolution," it has been rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Respondent was "summarily" dismissed upon given his notice of termination without the opportunity to respond and that he never before "had an evaluation which was less than satisfactory," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Petitioner was deprived of "due process," that he was terminated "arbitrarily" and that the charges against him "are so vague as to make them void," it has been rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of legal argument. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent YWCA is a nonprofit corporation that sponsors educational, social, and recreational programs. The YWCA's purpose states that it is a "movement rooted in the Christian faith"; however, expressed belief in Christianity is not required for membership in the YWCA or for employment by the YWCA. Its membership is comprised of adult women seventeen years of age and older. The personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action will be applied in recruitment, hiring, compensation, fringe benefits, staff development, and training, promotion, and any other condition of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, national origin, or any other nonperformance factors." (Emphasis added.) Regarding termination, the personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Reasons for staff termination must be carefully documented. They should be based upon objective performance appraisals, which in turn are based upon job descriptions, work plans, and performance standards. Except in cases of reorganization/retrenchment or termination for cause, a probationary period for work improvement must be provided, followed by another performance appraisal." The YWCA of West Palm Beach operates three facilities: Central and Residence, the Mamie Adair Branch, and the Recreation Center. The Mamie Adair Branch primarily serves the black community in West Palm Beach and includes a day-care facility. The Petitioner, Davis, was hired as the Branch Executive of the Mamie Adair Branch of the YWCA, effective July 21, 1980, at a starting salary of $12,000.00. The Petitioner was given copies of the YWCA's personnel policy, affirmative action plan, and job description. She was not given notice of particular standards of behavior to which she was required to conform away from the job. As branch Executive she was supervised by the Executive Director, Jo Prout. The Petitioner successfully completed her initial 90-day probationary period, and her annual salary was increased by five percent to $12,600.00. In October 1981, however, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation and was again placed on three months probations due primarily to an unsatisfactory working relationship with the Branch Committee. The Petitioner had a bad attitude and was antagonistic. The Petitioner became pregnant but did not immediately disclose the fact of her pregnancy. In approximately December, 1981, the Petitioner confided to a coworker that she was pregnant and the coworker, in turn, told the YWCA's Executive Director, Jo Prout, that the Petitioner was pregnant. The YWCA's Executive Director was concerned that the Petitioner's relationship with the Branch Committee would be severely adversely affected if the Committee found out the Petitioner was pregnant and unmarried. Because of this concern, the Executive Director removed the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, effective December 31, 1981. The Petitioner would not have been removed from her position on December 31, 1981, but for the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Prior to removing the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, the Executive Director did not attempt less drastic alternatives such as asking the Petitioner not to discuss or disclose her marital status or asking the Petitioner to take a leave of absence. Prior to her removal, the Petitioner had not discussed the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried with members of the Branch Committee or with the YWCA membership in general. At no time had the Petitioner advocated unwed motherhood as an alternative life- style or otherwise advocated or espoused principles contrary to her understanding of Christianity. In the past, certain employees of the YWCA whose on-the-job behavior was contrary to Christian principles received job discipline but were not removed from their positions. A desk clerk at the YWCA's residence, for example, who was found to have stolen property from residence guests was not discharged. The removal of the Petitioner from her position by the YWCA because she was pregnant and unmarried was not justified by the business necessity rule because: A requirement to conduct one's life, including one's off-the-job activities, according to Christian principles, was not disclosed to the Petitioner or to other employees; The YWCA did not discipline or discharge other employees for conduct which conflicted with the YWCA's alleged requirement to conduct one's life by Christian principles; and The YWCA did not show that a requirement of all employees to conduct their lives by Christian principles has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Then the Petitioner was removed from the Branch Executive position, she was transferred to the position of center consultant for gymnastics. The position of the center consultant for gymnastics to which the Petitioner was transferred was a demotion in that the Petitioner went from an administrative to a non-administrative position. The transfer also changed the Petitioner's employment status from full-time employee to part-time employee with a 25 percent decrease in earned income and a lunch "hour" reduced to 30 minutes. The petitioner's new position as center consultant was a temporary one designated to last no longer than five months. Petitioner was removed from probationary status as a result of the transfer. The position of center consultant to which the Petitioner was transferred was not a legitimate position. The position did not exist prior to December 31, 1981, the date the Petitioner was transferred. No job description was ever written for this position, despite the fact that the YWCA personnel policy required job descriptions. The Petitioner was verbally assigned job tasks inconsistent with her title of center consultant, including cleaning toilets at the gymnastics center. The position was eliminated on February 16, 1982, approximately six weeks after it was created, allegedly due to financial streamlining. The YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, discriminating against her on the basis of sex and marital status by removing her from her position as Branch Executive because she was pregnant and unmarried. Moreover, this transfer was not justified by business necessity. Because the YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, the Petitioner could be entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to a comparable position and could also be entitled to recover lost wages and fringe benefits, plus interest thereon, from the date of the wrongful act, December 31, 1981, to November 31, 1982, the date she was hired by the Lutheran Ministries, set off by any interim earnings and reduced by the Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits plus her reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Regarding reinstatement, the Petitioner has been and is now willing and able to be reinstated to her former position as Branch Executive or to a comparable administrative position. The employer's argument that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement because she was an unsatisfactory employee is rejected for the following reasons: The employer's allegations that the Petitioner will not satisfactorily perform her job if reinstated are too speculative and any doubts about the Petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement should be resolved in favor of the victim of discrimination; and In the event that the Petitioner's job performance upon reinstatement is not satisfactory, the employer may avail itself of the procedures set forth in its personnel policy to improve the Petitioner's performance or discharge her for unsatisfactory job performance. However, reinstatement may not be feasible in this case due to the fact that another employee has been placed in the Petitioner's former position. If the Petitioner is not reinstated to a comparable administrative position, then she should be compensated by the award of six months front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner is entitled to damages in the amount of $13,551, which represents a back pay award of $11,000 plus 10 percent interest, six months front pay in the amount of $6,000, minus $1,575 for salary paid from January 1, 1982 - February 16, 1982, including two weeks severance pay and $2,974 in unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner is also entitled to costs of $232.65 and attorneys fees totaling $5,000.
Findings Of Fact On October 23, 1978, Petitioner was hired as secretary to W. J. Crist, president of Hygroponics, Inc. On February 26, 1979, W. J. Crist evaluated Petitioner's overall job performance as "good." With respect to cooperation, the Petitioner was rated in the category of "cooperates very well," the highest rating possible for that category of performance. With respect to job knowledge, she was rated as showing "unusual capacity," also the highest rating possible for that category of performance. On March 5, 1979, Petitioner received an increase in salary from $4.18 per hour to $4.51 per hour, based in part upon her increased responsibilities and in part upon demonstrated merit. Following is Hygroponics, Inc.'s office staff organization chart dated May 2, 1979: HYGROPONICS, INC. OFFICE STAFF ORGANIZATION CHART | President | /| W. J. Crist |\ / | | \ / | \ \ \ | Purch. Agent | | Controller | \ | Technical Service | | Dick Destival | | James Jobe |" \ | Dick Jeffery | | | | | "" \ | | " / | | " "\ | " / | | " \" | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | "\ "| | Marsha | | Liz | | Nell | | Arlene | | Carolyn | | Betsy | | | | | | | | | | | | | /|\ Direct lines of authority. Answerable to this person at all times " Indirect lines of authority. Answerable for secondary duties and when direct lines are not available. The above organizational chart does not include the company's chief executive officer. On occasion, members of the company's secretarial staff went directly to the chief executive officer with employment-related problems. In September, 1979, after James Jobe, the controller referenced in the above chart, left the company's employ, W. J. Crist, the company president, advised Petitioner that she was to become office manager. After that time, Petitioner assumed many of the duties of office manager. Petitioner inquired when she would receive a raise commensurate with her increased responsibilities, and was advised that this would be accomplished after the company hired a new controller. Emmett Singleton was hired to fill the position of controller on October 29, 1979. On December 11, 1979, Petitioner formally became acting office manager. On that date Petitioner was evaluated by Emmett Singleton, who rated Petitioner highest in the areas of decision-making and ability to organize, and lowest in the areas of acceptability and responsibility. Specifically, Singleton made the following comments concerning Petitioner's job performance: "Has difficulty in establishing satisfactory relationships with people"; "Average leader, conventional in manner and enthusiasm, conveys ideas but does not motivate group"; "Has problem with admitting an error or fault"; "Reluctant to accept job responsibilities. Supervision and follow-up often required"; "Considers job an eight to five task with scheduled breaks reguardless [sic] of status of workload"; "Employee is preoccupied with the position rather than a concern for getting the job done"; and, "Employee resents being monitored or controlled. Sometimes uncooperative and slow to respond to direction." In addition, members of the company management group, other than Emmett Singleton, commented on this evaluation that Petitioner "alienates co-workers," "Has experienced confusion in the scheduling of grower school," and expressed concern with Petitioner's "attitude." The controller noted on the evaluation form that he planned ". . .to work closely with [Petitioner] for the next 60 days and make an assessment during this time as to whether on [sic] not suited for office manager." Finally, Mr. Singleton noted on Petitioner's performance review form that Petitioner ". . .is classified as Acting Office Manager and is on probation with reguard[sic] to classification. No change in rate of pay is being made at this time. Employee will be reevaluated in 60 days on or about 2/10/80." In order to improve her skills in the area of acceptability and responsibility, Petitioner requested that Mr. Singleton issue a memorandum clarifying the lines of her authority especially since her subordinates had not been advised that she had been given supervisory responsibility over them. Her request was denied at that time because Singleton wanted to first determine whether she could handle the position. On January 12, 1980, Singleton reevaluated Petitioner's job performance. According to Singleton's rating, Petitioner had improved in the areas of acceptability and responsibility, which had been her weak points in the evaluation performed one month earlier. On this same day, Petitioner was reclassified from acting office manager to office manager, and received an increase in pay to $821.60 per month, retroactive to November 1, 1979. Petitioner also assumed the duties of payroll clerk and accounts payable in addition to the duties of office manager. Shortly after receiving this promotion, Petitioner advised employees of Hygroponics, Inc., that she was pregnant. W. J. Crist and Emmett Singleton acknowledged her pregnancy, and the latter inquired concerning her intentions regarding her employment. Petitioner responded that she intended to continue working for the company, and to return to work after the birth of her child. Hygroponics, Inc., had no maternity leave policy. No other female employee had ever given notice of pregnancy and stated her intention to return to work following childbirth. However, at least two other employees had become pregnant during the term of their employment with Hygroponics, Inc. One of these employees, in fact, suffered two miscarriages during her term of employment, and continued working with the company. Another female worker became pregnant, gave birth to a child, and returned to work without ever advising the company or the company ever being aware that she had been pregnant until after she had returned to work. On January 30, 1980, Petitioner submitted a memorandum to Eugene Crist, the company's chief executive officer. The memorandum suggested changes regarding the responsibilities of certain of the office personnel under her supervision. Petitioner had previously discussed these suggested changes with Emmett Singleton, her immediate supervisor, who advised her that he thought her suggestions were a good idea. At the time the memorandum was submitted to the company's chief executive officer, W. J. Crist, the president of the company, was out of the state. On January 30, 1980, Eugene Crist showed the memorandum to Emmett Singleton. The memorandum was then returned to Petitioner by the company's chief executive officer with a notation that the matters contained in the memorandum should be handled through Singleton. Two days later, on February 1, 1980, Singleton asked Petitioner for the memorandum. When Petitioner could not locate the memorandum, and offered to discuss the details of it with Singleton, Singleton advised her that there was no basis for conversation if she could not produce the memorandum. As noted above, Singleton had seen and read the memorandum two days previously when it was shown to him by Eugene Crist. Upon W. J. Crist's return to Florida, Singleton advised him that Petitioner had submitted a memorandum directly to the company's chief executive officer, and that when Singleton asked Petitioner to see the memorandum, she advised him that she had misplaced it. On February 8, 1980, W. J. Crist circulated a memorandum to the Hygroponics, Inc., executive staff concerning Petitioner's ". . .insubordination, poor attitude [and] defiance of executive orders. This memorandum provided, in part, as follows: It is my understanding that Carolyn recently drafted a memorandum on her proposed changes in office duties for many people, changes in accounting procedures, etc. I have been informed that she: "by-passed you, her immediate superior and by-passed me, her next-in-line superior." and delivered this memo directly to Gene, our CEO. Then when Gene informed her to "discuss the memo directly with you," she advised you "she did not even have the memo anymore." I find these actions, on Carolyn's part very distressing and feel we must take disciplinary actions with her. So - what are the problems. Her "uncooperative" and "attitude" problems outlined in your personnel evaluation of her on December 11, 1979 (which she acknowledged) when you put her "on probation," the first time, still persist. She demonstrated anything but teamwork in by-passing her two immediate superiors and going directly to our CEO. This is very bad for an employee to do but even worse for her since she is suppose [sic] to be a leader of our people in her slot as Office Manager. Her disregarding Gene's directive to discuss the memo with you was corrected only by your insistance[sic] that the two of you discuss it. Her statement to you that "she no longer had the memo" is also distressing. Has she destroyed it? This additional negative certainly weakens her argument that "she went directly to Gene because he was going out.[sic] (Original emphasis.) The above-referenced memorandum solicited the views of the company's executive staff as to whether to terminate Petitioner, discipline her in some fashion, or give her an opportunity to resign. The decision was unanimous among all five members of the executive staff to terminate Petitioner. No member of the executive staff questioned Petitioner before concurring in the decision to discharge her. Such a memorandum of concurrence was not the company's standard practice in discharging employees, which generally was for the discharge decision to be made by the employee's supervisor alone. Hygroponics, Inc., was, at all times material to this proceeding, a rather small organization, numbering at the most approximately fifty employees. As a result, many of the internal functions of the company were informal in nature. For example, there were no strict lines of authority for secretarial staff to air grievances or make suggestions. There was, however, a generalized procedure for employees to approach their immediate supervisor with any employment-related problems. There is no direct substantive evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that Petitioner was terminated from her employment because she was either female or pregnant. Further, whatever circumstantial evidence there is in this record to support such a contention is overcome by Respondent's demonstration that Petitioner was at best an employee of average ability who management viewed at times to be a problem employee. It appears, therefore, that the reason for Petitioner's discharge was an accumulation of events, culminating in her memorandum of January 30, 1980, being submitted to the company chief executive officer, and not for any reason relating to her sex.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the Petition for Relief, and denying the relief requested therein, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 2nd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. White, Jr., Esquire 229 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 John F. Daniel, Esquire Post Office Box 2522 Panama City, Florida 32401 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard E. Williams Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Margie Ann Sims, was unlawfully terminated (by Respondent), Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner is forty eight (48) years old. She commenced work for Respondent, Niagara Wires, a subsidiary of Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., located in Quincy, Florida during 1965 as an Accounts Payable Clerk. Petitioner was terminated on August 5, 1983, as a result of a reduction in staff and unsatisfactory work performance.1 During Petitioner's job tenure, she held various accounting and secretarial positions. Petitioner's initial duties were that of an accounting clerk and she later progressed to Assistant Chief Accountant. She later served as Corporate Bookkeeper and Secretary. Throughout her employment, her job duties were very broad and encompassed many areas of responsibility including overseeing accounts receivable, billings, payroll, bank statements, journal entries, wire transfers and financial statements. During 1975, Respondent's corporate office was moved to Quincy, Florida and Petitioner handled accounting and secretarial duties for the corporate office, dealt with banks making fund transfers, loan balancing and note arrangements; managed financial consolidation of Respondent's eight companies on a quarterly basis; maintained all pension plan records for Respondent's fourteen pension plans which included calculations of pension benefits, submission of wages and credited service to actuaries in preparation of various pension reports. Petitioner's other duties involved maintenance of company minute books, typing, submission and maintenance of files for all letters of credit issued; keeping patent and trademark files and assisted with telecopy, switchboard and TWX. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1976, Petitioner worked directly for Respondent's corporate secretary/treasurer, Robert Worrall. The assignment occurred as a result of a recommendation by Respondent's manufacturing manager, Don Anderson. Petitioner was considered the best of the three employees available to work for Worrall. Thereafter, several changes were made in Respondent's corporate makeup including the addition of the Lockport Felt Division in 1977. As a result, additional employees were placed in the accounting department and Petitioner's duties became more secretarial and clerical in nature than accounting. This situation remained unchanged until Petitioner's termination in 1983. Although Petitioner worked directly for Worrall, she was also expected to perform secretarial and clerical work for others in the accounting department, specifically including Harry Kurtz, Vice-President of Finance, Bruce Kennedy, Controller and Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager. While Petitioner's primary responsibility was to complete Worrall's work, she was also expected to perform work for other accountants and fiscal employees in the accounting department as she was the only trained employee in the accounting department available for typing duties. (TR 35, 106, 133-134, 117-119, 138, 142 and 153). Respondent has not maintained a formal policy concerning employee discipline or warnings for salaried employees, as Petitioner. (Testimony of Cairns and Worrall, TR 19, 46-47, 60 and 77). Commencing in 1980, Worrall became unhappy with Petitioner's work performance. This unhappiness took the form of counseling with Petitioner during year-end annual reviews and included the following deficiencies: "away from her work station when needed; too much time spent socializing with others; unwilling to work; pushing work back on Worrall; untimeliness and failing to timely complete work as assigned." (TR 85, 110, 116- 117). Like Worrall, other employees in the accounting department for whom Petitioner worked were dissatisfied with her performance during the years 1980-1983. Harry Kurtz, Vice- President of Finance, experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality including errors in typing and formatting, misspelled words and inaccurate numbers to the point where he did not want her (Petitioner) to perform his (Kurtz) work. He was thus forced to seek assistance from persons outside the accounting department, including Pat Simmons who replaced Petitioner, to perform his work. Kurtz related these problems to Worrall. (TR 128, 129-133, 131 and 136). Bruce Kennedy, Controller, experienced similar problems with Petitioner's work quality. He noted Petitioner frequently misspelled words and transposed numbers. Kennedy experienced problems concerning timeliness and the invalid excuses by Petitioner for failing to complete assigned work as scheduled. (TR 137-139). Based on Petitioner's poor work quality, Kennedy went outside the accounting department to get assistance in performing his clerical and secretarial duties. Kennedy informed Worrall of his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's work. Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager, also experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality in regards to accuracy and neatness. Burnett related an incident where Petitioner used so much "white-out" to make corrections that numbers on ledger sheets were not legible. Burnett also experienced problems with Petitioner in getting work returned timely. He also found it necessary to go outside the accounting_ department to solicit the assistance of Pat Simmons to perform his work. Burnett related to Worrall his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance. (TR 128, 150). Linda Jaudzimas is presently employed with Niagara Wire Weaving Employees Credit Union. She has held that position since approximately May of 1980. During the years 1978 through May of 1980, Jaudzimas was employed as an accounting clerk in the corporate accounting office for Niagara Lockport Industries. During that time period, she worked directly with Petitioner and Worrall. Jaudzimas described Petitioner and Worrall as having a very good work relationship and that Worrall depended upon Petitioner a lot. However, since May of 1980, Jaudzimas had only limited contact with Petitioner The typical degree of contact would be only to "pick up reports; I would get information from pensions for time reporting periods." (TR 54 and 58). Don Anderson is presently employed as the Manufacturing Manager for Respondent. Anderson has been in Respondent's employ since 1971. From 1971 through January 1, 1974, Anderson was Respondent's Chief Accountant. Anderson had no direct knowledge concerning Petitioner's work performance since January of 1974. Anderson corroborated Cairns and Worrall's testimony that Respondent had no formal policy concerning disciplinary action taken against salaried employees, as Petitioner. (TR 60). Respondent conducted informal evaluations of salaried employees, including Petitioner, at the end of each year in conjunction with salary increases. During Petitioner's 1981 work performance evaluation, Worrall discussed his concerns with Petitioner including the fact that she spent too much time talking to other people; that he always had to look for her and she pushed work back on him. Petitioner's time away from her work station and her negative attitude toward the company's insurance program were items of discussion. (TR 17; 84-88). An entire list of Worrall's concerns respecting Petitioner's job performance were placed in her personnel file during the 1981 annual performance review. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Petitioner recalls Worrall using that list during their meetings. (TR 36). Petitioner's performance did not improve during the following year and Worrall expressed the same concerns to her during her annual work performance review during 1982. (TR 115-116). Petitioner received "good" salary increases during the late 70's however, due to her poor performance from 1980-1982, Worrall recommended that she receive only the minimum cost of living increases for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. In mid 1983, Respondent made a decision to reorganize its corporate offices by moving the sales office of Niagara Lockport from Quincy to Starkeville, Mississippi and by making a change in the research and development department. Pat Simmons, age 41, was secretary for the vice-present of research and development. Worrall was familiar with Ms. Simmons and her work having seen it first hand. Additionally, she was highly recommended by her then supervisors. Finally, she had performed work considered to be "high quality" by other employees in the accounting department including Kurtz, Kennedy and Burnett. When Simmons became available due to the reorganization, Worrall decided to replace Petitioner with Simmons. Petitioner's job had become primarily secretarial and clerical in nature and Worrall desired a competent executive secretary to replace her. (TR 88 90, 92, 94, 121-122, 127). Petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 3). Petitioner's duties were assumed by Simmons (95 percent) and Elaine Hall (5 percent) who was retained since she- possessed requisite accounting skills. Hall was able to complete the cash report in two hours, a job that had taken Petitioner the better part of a day to perform. (TR 86). As a result of the reorganization, two other employees, Loretta Hood (mid 30's) and Virginia Jeffcoat (mid 50's) were terminated. Petitioner was terminated in August, 1983 for the reasons that her performance was not satisfactory and a qualified person (Simmons) had become available due to Respondent's corporate reorganization and staff reduction. This was told to Petitioner at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 2; TR 68, 93). Subsequent to her termination, Petitioner requested that Worrall write her a letter of recommendation. Worrall complied, however, Petitioner was not pleased and asked him to write a second one giving him an example to follow (Respondent's Exhibit 7). Petitioner wanted a "good" letter of recommendation so that she could easily obtain another job. In writing the recommendation, Worrall followed his policy of not commenting on negatives but merely set out the type of work Petitioner performed. Petitioner was still unsatisfied with Worrall's second letter and she therefore asked the Respondent's President, Malcolm Cairns, to write a letter of recommendation for her. As with Worrall, Petitioner participated in the drafting of the letter for Cairns by providing him with an example. (TR 22, 23 and 70). Cairns did not include anything negative in the letter so that it would be easier for Petitioner to obtain another job.
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 finding that Petitioner was not terminated due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 10th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Seliger, Esquire 229 E. Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Swift, Currie, NcGhee and Hiers, P.A., by Victor A. Cavanough 771 Spring Street, N.W. Post Office Box 54247 Atlanta, Georgia 30379-2401 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240/ Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Duval News Management Company, d/b/a Newsouth Distributors, has its main office in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent has been in the wholesale magazine, book and news distribution business in Jacksonville for the past 80 years. The Ocala, Florida branch where Petitioner was employed has been in operation since approximately 1974. Respondent employed 15 or more employees at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Christine Rios is the Petitioner. She was hired on September 20, 1974 in the book return department of Respondent's Ocala operation. In 1977, Petitioner was promoted from that position to an office job as accounts receivable clerk in the Ocala office. As the result of an automobile accident on October 14, 1992, Petitioner suffered a dislocated shoulder, cracked ribs and a cervical sprain. She returned to work part-time on December 17, 1992. Petitioner resumed full-time work duties on February 18, 1993, subject to the restriction that she not lift over 20 pounds. Her duties as accounts receivable clerk did not require lifting weights greater than 20 pounds. On April 14, 1993, Gil Brechtel, President of Newsouth Distributors, met with all employees of the Ocala branch that worked inside the facility. Excluded from the meeting were route salesmen. At the meeting, Brechtel announced that non-supervisory employee jobs within the facility were to be eliminated. Each employee, inclusive of Petitioner, was given the opportunity to transfer to the Jacksonville office or, in lieu of transfer, accept severance pay and other benefits. Each employee was given a letter confirming this announced reduction in the work force. Subsequently, all employees who worked inside the facility, except the office manager, were laid off at various times between May 1, 1993 and May of 1994. Petitioner was laid off on September 27, 1993, at which time she was given a termination letter with an attached summary of benefits and a severance pay check. Petitioner's check was in the total gross sum of $5,722.34 minus deductions for a net sum of $3,980.93. At the time of her layoff, Petitioner was performing essential functions of her job without any accommodations by Respondent. After the announced reduction in work force, Respondent employed one part-time employee to handle warehouse duties requiring lifting up to 60 pounds plus some clerical duties that were formerly performed by Petitioner. Although she had stated to others that she needed to work full-time, Petitioner asked Ron Nichols, the Ocala branch manager, if she could be considered for the position. Nichols told her that she could be considered if the lifting restrictions imposed by her physician were removed. No further inquiry was made of Nichols by Petitioner and she never attempted to explain at any time to Nichols how she might be able to perform the job with reasonable accommodation. Several different employees at different times filled the part-time receiver/stocker job until the consolidation and reduction in work force had been fully carried out. At that time, the office manager assumed the duties of receiver/stocker and some of the clerical functions formerly performed by the accounts receivable clerks, although the bulk of account receivable clerk tasks were transferred to the Jacksonville office. No one was hired to replace Petitioner following her termination on September 27, 1993. No new accounts receivable clerks were employed in the Ocala branch following Petitioner's termination. As a result of the reduction in work force, 18 employees were laid off. The only person currently performing any warehouse duties or office clerical work at the Ocala branch is the office manager, MaeDean Crabtree. At the time of Petitioner's employment, Respondent had in effect an employee handbook containing a policy prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap. The same handbook also provides a complaint resolution procedure. If an employee has a complaint, the employee is directed to contact the supervisor or manager to discuss the matter. At no time prior to her termination or filing of her charge of discrimination did Petitioner contact her supervisor, Crabtree, or the manager, Nichols, with any allegations of job discrimination or failure to provide reasonable accommodation. At the final hearing, Respondent's stated non-discriminatory reason for the elimination of Petitioner's position, consolidation of operations with a resultant reduction in work force, was not disputed or negated by Petitioner. Petitioner's contention was that she should have been allowed to work part-time in the receiver/stocker position and was not given reasonable accommodation by Respondent in that regard. Petitioner provided no evidence demonstrating that she requested the position subject to reasonable accommodation. Petitioner failed to demonstrate at the hearing that she could perform the duties of the part-time position which required the ability to lift up to 60 pounds. Currently, Petitioner is employed with a temporary job agency performing office/clerical work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of April, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, 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 19th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-4. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 5.-6. Subordinate to HO findings. 7. Adopted by reference. 8.-9. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 10. Rejected, relevance. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael B. Staley James P. Tarquin Attorneys At Law 2045 Northeast Second St Ocala, FL 33470 Allan P. Clark Attorney At Law 3306 Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32202 Sharon Moultry Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd, Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a claim by petitioner, Robert Jones (Jones or petitioner), that he was denied employment by respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES), on account of his handicap. It is undisputed that Jones has diabetes, he is insulin-dependent, and he has had at least one toe amputated because of the disability. As such, he does not enjoy, in some measure, the full and normal use of his physical facilities, and he is accordingly deemed to be a handicapped person within the meaning of the law. The parties also agree that DLES is an employer subject to the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, which governs this dispute. DLES denies it acted in a discriminatory manner and contends generally that (a) the handicap played no role in its employment decision since it was unaware that Jones was a disabled person when the employment decision was made, and (b) a more qualified person was hired for both positions sought by Jones. A preliminary investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Since October 3, 1982, petitioner has been employed as an investigator specialist II at the Commission. He also worked for DLES from May 1980 until October 1981, and at the Florida State Employment Service from October 1981 until April 1982. Prior to working with the state, Jones served in the U. S. Marine Corps from which he was honorably discharged with a medical disability in 1977. He is a graduate of Florida State University having received a degree in political science in December 1985. Between 1982 and 1991, respondent made application for employment at DLES on at least four or five occasions but was never hired. On July 16, 1991, he wrote a letter to the agency head, then Frank Scruggs, complaining about his inability to get a job, advising that he was a disabled veteran, and asking for a "fair shake" on his applications. Later that year, he applied for the positions of management review specialist and senior management analyst II. Although he was interviewed for one of the two positions, he was not selected for either job. In his application filed with DLES, Jones described his health as "excellent." Attached to his application papers was a certification from the Veterans Administration indicating he had a service-related disability rated at 30 percent or more. Also, he included a handwritten statement that he was a "veteran with a compensable service-connected disability." There was no indication, however, as to the nature of the disability. After receiving two rejection letters from DLES on February 10, 1992, regarding his job application, Jones filed a complaint of discrimination with the Commission on July 23, 1992, alleging he had "been discriminated against because of (his) Handicap, Diabetes." He later filed a petition for relief in which he charged that DLES' employment decision was based not only on his handicap, but also on account of his "gender, race, veteran status or any other unlawful reason." As to the grounds raised after the Commission had concluded its initial investigation, they have been disregarded as being untimely. Senior Management Analyst II Position On January 9, 1992, respondent published a job opportunity announcement for the position of senior management analyst II in the office of civil rights and minority affairs. The position had been created to assist the director of that office, Deidre Kyle, in her day-to-day responsibilities. Kyle was also the individual responsible for the hiring decision. The advertised position required as minimum qualifications that the applicant have "a bachelor's degree and four years of professional experience in systems administrative work, employment and training, employment security, grants management, education, vocational counseling, vocational placement, occupational analysis, employment selection and referral activities, program planning, program evaluation or program monitoring." Petitioner met the minimum qualifications. Besides Jones, approximately fifty persons applied for the position of senior management analyst II, including Carolyn W. Franklin, a non-handicapped African-American female then working under Kyle's supervision and filling an Other Personal Services (OPS) slot as a civil rights specialist III in Kyle's office since September 1991. Franklin had previously worked for over twelve years in the Governor's Office, principally as a governmental analyst in the Citizens Assistance Office, and mostly under the direct supervision of Shirley Gooding, who later served as inspector general, and then assistant secretary, and finally as secretary of DLES in July 1992. She had also served as the affirmative action officer for the Governor's Office for four years. Except for these latter duties, Franklin had no experience in equal employment or civil rights. Out of the fifty applicants, only four were selected for an interview with Kyle, and none was handicapped. Jones was not selected for an interview. In choosing the top candidates for an interview, Kyle relied upon the duties and responsibilities contained in the career service system position description as well as certain review criteria which she had prepared. The review criteria were: (a) extensive knowledge of equal employment and affirmative action rules and regulations, (b) thorough knowledge of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, (c) knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (d) experience in conducting federal program compliance reviews, (e) familiarity with American Standards Institute standards, (f) effective oral and written communication skills, and (g) personal computer experience (Word Perfect and/or Lotus Preferred). The qualifications of the three individuals other than Franklin selected for the final interview are not of record. Also, the record does not show how Jones' qualifications compared with those of the final candidates (other than Franklin). Thus, there is no way to determine if Jones was more or less qualified than the others on the final list, or whether he ranked fifth or even fiftieth out of all of the candidates filing applications. Kyle made no effort to determine whether any of the applicants, including petitioner, had a handicap. Therefore, when she made the decision to reject Jones and the other forty-five candidates through the initial screening process, she was unaware of the fact that he had diabetes. Indeed, she did not learn of this fact until Jones filed his complaint. The position sought by Jones was ultimately filled by Franklin. In selecting Franklin, Kyle noted that Franklin had served in an OPS position with "similar" job responsibilities, she had worked under Kyle's direct supervision for the preceding four months, and she had working knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of the position "that would allow her to begin work immediately." Contrary to petitioner's assertion, Kyle was not told by her superiors to hire Franklin. She concedes, however, that there were "suggestions" by then inspector general Gooding to hire Franklin, a former colleague of Gooding at the Governor's Office. In considering DLES' assertion that the reason for hiring Franklin was that she was the most qualified person, it is noted that earlier that year Franklin had applied for a lower-graded career service position in Kyle's office but was rejected because Kyle was unimpressed with Franklin's "communicative skills." After her rejection, Gooding "suggested" that Kyle hire Franklin for the OPS slot, a suggestion which Kyle followed. Based on these facts, it may be reasonably inferred that Kyle's true motive in hiring Franklin was to satisfy, albeit reluctantly, the wishes of her superior, Gooding, who wanted to place her friend in the agency, rather than hiring the best qualified person for the job. While friendship or even cronyism was the decisive factor in Franklin getting the job, there is insufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would support an inference that petitioner's handicap was the reason why he was not selected. Indeed, there is no evidence to support a finding that Jones would even have made the short list had Franklin not applied for the job, or would have been considered if Kyle had rejected the suggestions of her superior. Therefore, while the final employment decision may not have been fair, it is found that there was no discriminatory animus in DLES' employment decision to reject Jones. Management Review Specialist Positions On October 17, 1991, respondent published a job opportunity announcement for two management review specialists (position numbers 1158 and 5420) in its office of inspector general, then run by inspector general Gooding. At that time, the office had two sections: management review and investigations. When the announcement was published, the office was unsure whether both positions would be used for management reviews or whether one would be management review and the other for investigations. The minimum qualifications for the positions were a bachelor's degree and 4 years of professional experience in systems analysis, management analysis, program planning, program research, program evaluation, engineering or administrative work. Petitioner met the minimum qualification requirements. The management review slot required the successful applicant to be experienced in management reviews, which are very comprehensive and involve an evaluation of the following management functions: planning, organization, staffing, directing and controlling. The specialist is also required to prepare rather comprehensive reports. On the other hand, the specialist in the investigative section performs more traditional investigative duties with a much more narrow focus than management review. The record shows that Jones was not fully qualified to fill a slot in the management section since his main experience had been investigating discrimination complaints for the Commission for the preceding ten years. Jones and some ninety other persons filed applications for these positions. A preliminary screening process of all applications was conducted by Kitty J. Convertino, who headed the management review section, and Gary Sanford, who headed the investigation section. Because of his investigative experience with the Commission, Jones was placed on the list of some fifteen to seventeen persons to be initially interviewed. It was contemplated that after these initial interviews were conducted, a short list of five candidates would be picked from those interviewed, and they would be invited back for a second interview. Although Convertino ostensibly had authority to make a hiring decision, the final say-so rested with her superior, inspector general Gooding. During the initial interview, each candidate was asked "interview questions" from a list prepared by Convertino. Among other subjects, the applicants were asked about their computer skills since specialists were required to prepare much of their own work. Although Jones says he uses a microcomputer in his present work, his computer skills did not meet Convertino's expectations. At the conclusion of the interview, Jones was asked to provide a writing sample, and he later funished a copy of an investigative report he had written for the Commission in 1986. This writing sample reinforced Convertino's opinion that Jones was more qualified for the investigation section than the management review section. During the selection process, a member of Convertino's management review team was transferred from her team to Sanford's investigation team. When this occurred, the management review specialist vacancy on Sanford's investigation team was eliminated leaving both vacancies in the management review section. The decision to transfer the position was made by inspector general Gooding. Because no position was open in the investigation section, and the qualifications of the chosen candidates for the management section exceeded those of petitioner, Jones was not invited back for a second interview. There is no evidence to support a finding that the transfer was made to prevent petitioner from being considered for the vacant position in the investigative section. Among the candidates for the two management review positions was Jane Steele, a former collegue of Gooding at the Governor's Office, who had performed administrative work for the City of Altamonte Springs for some eighteen months prior to seeking employment with DLES, and who had prior stints with the Department of Insurance, Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting. When Steele's qualifications did not initially comply with the job description for position 5920, the job description was rewritten midway through the evaluation process so that Steele could satisfy the qualifications. Whether this change was made at the behest of Gooding is not of record. In any event, there is no evidence to show that this manipulation in the qualification process was for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. Steele was ultimately selected to fill one of the two management review specialist positions. According to Convertino, Steele was selected because of her prior experience in performing compliance audits for a state agency and writing audit reports. In addition, she was computer literate, was a "good" writer, having published several articles, and had a masters degree in public administration. Although Steele once worked with Gooding at the Governor's Office, there is no evidence that Convertino consulted with Gooding prior to making her employment decision. Indeed, Convertino flatly denied that any conversations took place. Ronald J. Rigby, an African-American who also has diabetes and is hearing impaired, was selected for position 1158. He had previously performed compliance reviews for DLES in the Job Training Partnership Act program, which experience Convertino believed would be compatible with the work required of position 1158. Although Rigby was placed under investigation by the State Controller in mid-January 1992 for "wage claim discrepancies," and this prevented him from assuming the job for several months, the matter was resolved sometime after April 10, 1992, and he was then allowed to report to work. When the decision to hire Rigby was made, Convertino did not know that Rigby had diabetes, although she knew that he was hearing impaired. Jones says his medical condition was discussed during the interview process, and he advised the interviewers that the disability was controlled by medication. Neither Convertino nor Sanford recalled any such discussion, and Convertino says she was unware of Jones' condition until the complaint was filed. In any event, there is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would support a finding that Jones' handicap played any part in the employment decision. While the investigative slot may have been filled through a transfer on account of friendship or cronyism, that decision was not predicated on a desire to keep a handicapped person from being considered for the job. Moreover, the evidence shows that both Steele and Rigby had more experience in performing compliance audits than did Jones, and thus they were the more qualified individuals to fill those positions. Miscellaneous Employment records received in evidence show that petitioner's annual pay was $22,000 at the time his application was filed in October 1991. His salary since that time is not of record. The position of management review specialist paid in the range of $2,407.49 to $4,056.63 per month while the position of senior management analyst II paid in the range of $2,740.51 to $4,653.39 per month. Respondent apparently did not document, nor could it produce, the written basis for its hiring decisions, as required by its own personnel manual. Even so, this lack of documentation is insufficient to raise an inference that an unlawful discriminatory animus motivated DLES in its employment decisions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2754 Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 11. Rejected as being cumulative. 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 17-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 25. Rejected as being unnecessary. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 30-34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 35-39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 40. Rejected as being unnecessary. 41-44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 46. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. 48-55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 57-59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 60-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 62-63. Rejected as being unnecessary. 64-67. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 68. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 69. Rejected as being unnecessary. 70. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 71. Rejected as being unnecessary. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 78. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 79-81. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 82. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 83-84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 85-87. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 88. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 89-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 91-92. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 97-98. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 3-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5-7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the unused part has been rejected as being unnecessary to reach a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, cumulative, subordinate, not supported by the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire Pamela H. Page, Esquire Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3127 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, University of West Florida (Respondent or the University), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Jacqueline R. Pinkard (Petitioner), based upon Petitioner’s race or in retaliation for her participation in protected activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public university within the Florida State University System. Petitioner was hired by the University in 1998 in the Office of University Budgets (Budget Office) as a Coordinator. In 2004, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the Budget Office. She received a pay increase simultaneous with the promotion and another pay increase shortly thereafter. She has received several pay increases throughout her employment with the University. From 1998 through June 30, 2014, the Budget Office was a stand-alone department, headed by Valerie Moneyham. In January 2014, Ms. Moneyham was promoted to Assistant Vice President in the Business, Finance, and Facilities Division. Her duties included continued oversight of the Budget Office until June 30, 2014. On July 1, 2014 the Budget Office moved under and became a part of the University’s Financial Services department. There were three employees in the Budget Office: Petitioner, Assistant Director, who is African American/Black; Pam Cadem, Senior Budget Data Analyst, who is Caucasian; and Josie Warren, Coordinator, who is Caucasian (collectively, Budget Office employees). All three Budget Office employees retained their position titles and pay rates upon moving into the Financial Services department. There was another employee in the Budget Office prior to the move named Lourdes Stevens. Ms. Stevens was a Coordinator who began at the University in 2012. Ms. Stevens left the University before the Budget Office became a part of the Financial Services department. The Financial Services department was and is headed by Colleen Asmus, Associate Vice President and University Controller. In her Complaint, Petitioner alleges several bases for alleged race discrimination and retaliation. First, Petitioner alleges that the University discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her when Petitioner’s former supervisor, Ms. Valerie Moneyham, issued a “poor” performance evaluation of Petitioner for 2014. Next, Petitioner alleges that her current supervisor, Ms. Colleen Asmus, “accepted Ms. Moneyham’s false and retaliatory evaluation as a means to justifiably deny [Petitioner] an equitable pay increase, position reclassification or promotional opportunity.” And, finally, the Complaint alleges that the University discriminated against Petitioner based on her race when, on December 12, 2014, Ms. Asmus created a position with “very specific ‘preferred’ qualifications . . . as a way to essentially tailor the job to fit a preselected employee or applicant,” who she believed to be “a white male from Financial Services.” The findings of fact pertinent to these allegations are set forth under three separate headings, A. through C., below. Petitioner’s 2014 Performance Evaluation The subject of Petitioner’s first allegation is her performance evaluation covering the period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014 (2014 evaluation). The evaluation cycle for University staff is from July 1 to June 30 each year. Prior to the University’s 2013 evaluations, a different cycle and scoring system was used for performance evaluations. Due to the change in cycling, there were no evaluations for University staff in 2012. The University’s performance evaluation system is electronic-based. The evaluation contains three main parts. The first part is a self-evaluation by the employee. The second part is the supervisor’s evaluation, and the third part is a goal-setting section for the following year. In the second part of the evaluation, supervisors provide numeric ratings on a five-point scale on a series of eight work-related categories, and they also provide narrative feedback on an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement. Since 2013, the numeric scores have been averaged and the resulting number is the employee’s overall evaluation rating. Since 2013, the overall numeric ratings have equated to the following Performance Standards: 1.0 to 1.4 –- “Below” - Not Acceptable 1.5 to 2.4 –- “Below” – Needs Improvement 2.5 to 3.4 –- “Satisfactory” 3.5 to 4.4 -- “Above” 4.5 to 5.0 -- “Superior” It is the University’s standard practice for the supervisor of University staff positions to be the individual who completes those staff position evaluations if he or she was the supervisor for the whole period covered by the evaluation. Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office for the entire period covered by the July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, evaluation. Labratta Epting, Human Resources Specialist in the University’s Human Resources department, advised Ms. Moneyham by email dated October 24, 2014, to complete the 2014 performance evaluations for each one of the three Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham completed the supervisor’s evaluation portion of the 2014 performance evaluations for all three Budget Office employees because she was their supervisor during the period of time covered by the evaluation. In the electronic performance evaluation system, the evaluations are housed under the name of the current supervisor. In this case, that was Ms. Colleen Asmus, for all three Budget Office employees. For the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham provided the evaluation information for each of the three Budget Office employees to Ms. Asmus, who cut and pasted the information into the electronic evaluation system. Ms. Asmus completed the future goals section of the evaluation for each of the three Budget Office employees because she was the supervisor beginning on July 1, 2014, and on into the future. In the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated the Budget Office employees as follows: Petitioner received a numeric score of 3.3 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard; Ms. Cadem received a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard; and Ms. Warren received a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2013 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 3.2 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard, and Ms. Warren with a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2011 evaluation, under the old scoring system, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 42 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, and Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 46 and an “Above” Performance Rating. As previously noted, the numeric rating system was changed for all staff evaluations after the 2011 evaluation. Ms. Moneyham increased the numeric score of only one employee from the 2013 to the 2014 evaluation, and that employee was Petitioner. She increased Petitioner’s numeric rating from 3.2 in 2013 to 3.3 in 2014. Petitioner’s Performance Rating was at the “satisfactory” Performance Standard level in 2011, 2013, and 2014. Petitioner testified that Ms. Moneyham’s comments on page 7 of Petitioner’s 2014 performance evaluation under the heading of “Supervisor’s Comments” were not discriminatory and were not retaliatory. Ms. Asmus’ Acceptance of Petitioner’s 2014 Evaluation Ms. Asmus received a copy of the October 24, 2014, email sent by Ms. Epting to Ms. Moneyham directing Ms. Moneyham to complete the 2014 evaluations for Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren. When Ms. Asmus met with Petitioner to discuss Petitioner’s 2014 evaluation, Ms. Asmus stated that she believed that they (Petitioner and Ms. Asmus) had started with a clean slate, which began when Ms. Asmus became Petitioner’s supervisor on July 1, 2014. Petitioner’s letter dated December 15, 2014, to the EEOC acknowledges this, quoting Ms. Asmus as saying, “I hope we can move forward with a great working relationship.” No evidence was provided by Petitioner showing that Ms. Asmus used the evaluation scores provided by Ms. Moneyham in the 2014 evaluation to deny Petitioner any benefit of any kind. Denial of Position Reclassification and Promotional Opportunities Interim Promotion In the Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Asmus used the “poor evaluation” as a means to deny her a position reclassification or a promotional opportunity. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she should have been made Interim Associate Budget Director, or a similar title, starting when Ms. Moneyham was no longer physically in the same building as the Budget Office employees, which she said was during “Spring 2014.” She also testified that the interim position should have lasted either until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees (July 1, 2014) or, alternatively, until February 2, 2015, when Mr. Djerlek became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham became Assistant Vice President in January 2014. No evidence was offered stating a more specific date of when Ms. Moneyham moved to a different building than the Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any employee was made Interim Associate Budget Director (or similar title) in this situation. Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor for the Budget Office employees. Ms. Rentz, the former University Associate Director for Human Resources, testified that there was no Interim Associate Budget Director or other position into which Petitioner could have been placed because Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record over the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of record. That testimony is credited. 2. Reclassification In support of her allegation that she was denied a position reclassification, Petitioner submitted into evidence an email that she sent to her supervisor, Ms. Asmus, on December 11, 2014. In the email, Petitioner asked Ms. Asmus to reclassify all three Budget Office employees (Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren) and provide each of them with salary increases. On December 11, 2014, the three Budget Office employees had been under the supervision of Ms. Asmus for approximately five and one-half months. Petitioner’s email further stated that all three employees were well trained. Petitioner, however, provided no evidence either in the email or at the hearing that would reasonably provide a basis for reclassification or promotion of any of the three Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. No evidence was provided showing that there has been a position reclassification or promotion for any of the three Budget Office employees since being moved into the Financial Services department on July 1, 2014. The University provided credible testimony that seniority, or length of time in a position, is not, on its own, a basis for a promotion at the University of West Florida. Denial of Equitable Pay Increase Petitioner also alleged in the Complaint that Ms. Asmus used Ms. Moneyham’s “poor evaluation” as a means to deny Petitioner an equitable pay increase. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that she was denied an equitable pay increase when distributions were made to some staff under a 2013 Employee Pay Equity and Compression Program conducted by the University (Salary Study). Petitioner and the two other employees in the Budget Office did not receive a distribution under the 2013 Salary Study. The University provided credible evidence showing that approximately 25 percent of the staff received increases through the Salary Study, and that Petitioner’s salary was the only salary in the Budget Office that was above the benchmark for receiving an increase. On April 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC claiming that she was denied a distribution from the 2013 Salary Study based on race and retaliation. The EEOC found that the University did not violate discrimination statutes and issued Petitioner a “Right to Sue” letter on September 30, 2014. Petitioner did not file suit in connection with that EEOC discrimination charge. The University has not conducted any equity studies since 2013 and Petitioner has not been excluded from any staff pay increases since 2013. In May 2015, Ms. Asmus asked the Human Resources department to determine whether there was a pay inequity as to Ms. Warren’s salary. Ms. Warren’s position in the Budget Office was “Coordinator” and it remained “Coordinator” when she moved into the Financial Services office. Human Resources reviewed Ms. Warren’s salary against the other Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The Human Resources department determined that Ms. Warren was performing services similar to the Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The starting salary for an Accounting Coordinator in Financial Services is $45,000. Ms. Warren was earning $32,000 at the time. As a result, in May 2015, Ms. Warren’s salary was increased to $45,000, which is the level of the starting salary for Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. No evidence was offered of a similar increase for Ms. Cadem. Petitioner’s current position is Assistant Director. Before she was promoted to Assistant Director, Petitioner’s position title was Coordinator. The position of Assistant Director is higher in rank than the Coordinator/Accounting Coordinator position occupied by Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is approximately $15,000 higher than Ms. Warren’s salary at the increased level. There is no similar pay inequity in Petitioner’s position as there was with Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is right at the midpoint of the five employees in the Financial Services department at the Assistant Controller/Assistant Director level. Petitioner is earning more than two of the Assistant Controllers and less than two of the Assistant Controllers. Petitioner did not allege or provide any evidence showing that her job duties were more complex than the two Assistant Controllers who have a higher salary than she does. Preferred Qualifications for Associate Controller Position During the fall 2014 semester, Ms. Asmus envisioned an improvement in the efficiency and consistency of the reporting functions carried out by the Financial Services department. She had noticed that there were overlaps and redundancies between the financial reporting area and the budget reporting area. She believed greater consistency in reporting could be achieved if these areas were merged. In November-December 2014, the Financial Services department began the recruitment process for an Associate Controller. The Associate Controller was to be over the reporting areas, which would include financial reporting (production of financial statements), budget reporting, and tax reporting. Florida’s State University System’s (SUS) minimum qualifications for an Associate Controller were posted as the minimum qualifications for the position. They are: Master’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and four years of appropriate experience; or a Bachelor’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and six years of appropriate experience. Although the SUS system allows additional requirements be added to the minimum qualifications, none were added in the posting of the Associate Controller position. The preferred qualifications for the position as advertised were: Master’s or Bachelor’s degree must be in an accounting related field. CPA License preferred. Experience with production of financial statements in a higher education setting preferred. Experience with tax accounting in a higher educational setting preferred. Familiarity with budget operations in a higher educational setting preferred. The preferred qualifications were all approved by Human Resources as being job-related before the position announcement was posted. After receiving an applicant pool from the first posting for the Associate Controller position, Human Resources for the University did not “certify” the applicant pool because the percentage of minority applicants was low. The position was posted again and was also advertised again in a publication geared to attract minority applicants. Although additional applicants applied, the percentage of minority applicants decreased. Nevertheless, because it determined that a good faith effort was made to recruit qualified female and minority applicants, Human Resources certified the pool after the second posting. Petitioner pointed out at the hearing that the January 2015 advertisement in the publication geared to attract minority applicants contained an application deadline of December 19, 2014, which was prior to the date of the advertisement. The University’s Associate Director of Human Resources provided credible testimony that the published application deadline was a mistake, and that she was unaware of the error when she certified the pool after the second posting. Ms. Asmus provided credible testimony explaining why each of the preferred qualifications for the Associate Controller position was job related. No contrary evidence as to any of the preferred qualifications was offered by Petitioner. Ms. Asmus advised the three Budget Office employees of the job posting and invited them to apply for the position. Petitioner met the minimum criteria for the position but did not apply for the position. All candidates who met the minimum qualifications for a position would have been considered for the position. Petitioner testified that she did not apply for the position because she did not meet the preferred qualifications. Petitioner explained that in 2012 she had applied for a position as an Executive Assistant in the University’s President’s Office, and she was not selected for the position because she did not have all the preferred qualifications. She said that she did not have event-planning experience. She said that based on that experience in 2012, she did not apply for the Associate Controller position posted in December 2014. Petitioner acknowledged on cross-examination that the Executive Assistant position that she applied for in 2012 was in the President’s Office and that the Financial Services department is in a different division of the University than the President’s Office. There were no limitations in the advertisement that would discourage an individual of any particular race from applying for the position. The advertisement stated on the bottom, “The University of West Florida (UWF) is an Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action Employer.” Mr. Djerlek was ultimately selected for the Associate Controller position. He is Caucasian and is outside of Petitioner’s protected class. Mr. Djerlek’s qualifications for the position were stronger than Petitioner’s. Mr. Djerlek had experience in all three of the areas that would be under the supervision of the Associate Controller: financial statements/reporting, budget reporting and tax reporting. Mr. Djerlek's background included a great deal of experience with financial statements, tax reporting, and budgeting, along with some budget reporting experience. He is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that she did not have experience in two of three areas that the Associate Controller would be supervising: financial statements/reporting and tax reporting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to service credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from June 1, 1995, through August 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a school psychologist, certified by the Florida Department of Education. From June 1995 through August 2001, Petitioner performed duties as a psychologist under "purchase of services agreements" with SBAC to perform special needs assessments for gifted children. These formal contracts were executed between Petitioner and SBAC in and for each successive school year during that period. Although there was the expectation that a new contract would be negotiated/signed each year, there was no guarantee to that effect. The annual contracts for June 1995 through August 2001, between SBAC and Petitioner provided that Petitioner was to assume all risks, and that he was a "consultant." They further provided that he was to be paid at a rate of $150.00 for each assessment he completed. Either party to the contract could terminate it on 30 days' notice. In pertinent part, the annual contracts described Petitioner as an independent consultant and not an employee in the following terms: * * * The CONSULTANT is an Independent Consultant and will perform all services at the Consultant's risk, assuming full responsibility for completion of the services stipulated below: Psychoeducational evaluations of students referred for determination of eligibility to the Gifted Program as shall be requested by the Board through its Director of Exceptional Student Education or Lead School Psychologist. All psychoeducational evaluations shall be completed within 30 days of having been received by the CONSULTANT. All reports and billing for services rendered by the CONSULTANT shall be submitted in a timely manner. All reports are to be submitted in triplicate. * * * CONSULTANT also acknowledges that in rendering the services provided herein, the CONSULTANT will be acting as an Independent Consultant, and not as an employee of the School Board of Alachua County. (Emphasis added.) The contracts contained no specific provision for reimbursement of Petitioner's expenses. However, a calculated amount for travel expenses was built into the fee of $150.00 per child. SBAC did not consider Petitioner an "employee" during the period of his annual contracts, because he was not filling a regularly established position. Accordingly, SBAC did not report to FRS any retirement information/contributions on the amounts it paid Petitioner during this period. Likewise, during the specified period, Petitioner received no paid leave or other employee benefits from SBAC. Also, SBAC did not provide unemployment compensation coverage or workers' compensation coverage for Petitioner during the specified period. While under contract as an independent consultant, Petitioner did not report his time to SBAC via a timesheet or otherwise. Rather, he was paid for each completed assessment under the terms of his respective contracts. He was only required to file his test results within five business days of the date he assessed a student. Between 1995 and 2001, SBAC reported Petitioner's pay for federal income tax purposes by Form 1099, rather than by Form W-2. A 1099 form is traditionally used for occasional employees and for independent contractors. W-2 forms are used for regular employees. Petitioner reported his income from SBAC as "other income," i.e. self-employment income. In a similar vein, SBAC withheld no taxes, Social Security, or Medicare deductions for Petitioner during this period. SBAC made no matching contributions for Social Security or Medicare. During the specified period, Petitioner was hired solely for special needs assessments. The time frame for testing by SBAC was established by law. Other than special needs assessments, Petitioner had no duties for SBAC, but he was assigned cases by SBAC as necessary to meet its caseload and time frame. Petitioner was only called upon when SBAC's school psychologists, who filled regularly established positions, were not available or could not timely meet the demand for assessments in a school year of 10 months' duration. Petitioner was required to hold a professional license as a psychologist to perform his SBAC contracts, and he was expected to perform his services for SBAC within the standards of his profession. His contracts provided for him to render personal services, and he could not hire an assistant or subcontract out his duties to another psychologist. SBAC could not instruct Petitioner how to do his job as a professional psychologist or what decision or recommendation to reach on any child. However, SBAC told him which text to use, and he was initially trained by another school psychologist on the testing instrument required by SBAC. Petitioner also received initial training from SBAC on how to report his assessments, and SBAC provided him with test kits and word processing assistance for each child assessment. SBAC set the format for his reports and provided him with a template therefor. Petitioner was not regularly provided office space by SBAC. However, he was allotted a room on each school's premises for each test, as he traveled from school to school within the county, and he had to do his testing on a day the specified child was in school and that school was open. Each test had to be completed within 30 days of its assignment, per his contracts. Petitioner was free to schedule one or more of his assessments on the dates most efficient for him, provided he met his deadlines. Petitioner's efforts for SBAC during this period might be described as "frequently recurring, but not regular." Petitioner never worked for SBAC more than four consecutive months during the entire time period at issue. During that period, he was on his own for defending his test results. Petitioner was required to carry his own professional liability insurance during the time in question, whereas then and now, SBAC "covered" their employees' liability insurance. Between 1995 and 2001, Petitioner was free to offer his professional services to other clients besides SBAC, but he chose not to do so. There was no profit or loss involved for SBAC or Petitioner in Petitioner's 1995-2001 service. Petitioner had to invest none of his personal funds to do his assessments. In September 2001, Petitioner was hired by SBAC in a half-time, regularly established position with all benefits, including sick leave, personal leave, and FRS membership. Upon that event, his duties were altered to include rendering any psychological assistance required by any SBAC school in which he was working. He is now reimbursed for travel by submitting request forms. He has continued to meet that job description and has filled that regularly established position to date. SBAC requested, and in 2002, received a letter-opinion from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpreting various federal statutes and regulations. That IRS letter-opinion concluded that during the period in question, the Petitioner was an "employee" of SBAC; that various federal forms might require filing or amending by SBAC; and that SBAC and Petitioner might need to pay yet-to-be determined amounts. That IRS opinion is based on facts submitted by SBAC and not necessarily in evidence; is based on federal laws which are not determinative of the Florida retirement issue before this forum, and was not necessarily final. Accordingly, it is not binding in the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for membership and service credit in the FRS from June 1, 1995, through August 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard D. Jackson 2731-B Northwest 104th Court Gainesville, Florida 32606-7174 Alberto Dominguez, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed with the Florida Department of Transportation since 1971. He is a graduate of the University of West Florida, with a degree in business management. Petitioner is 38 years old, with a physical disability which limits his use of his left hand and arm, and his left leg is shorter than his right. In 1979, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in its right-of-way section, as a Right-of-Way Agent III. In that position, he was responsible for the coordination of the Acquisition, Relocation and Property Management sections of Respondent's District III. One of Petitioner's subordinates was H. E. Walls, who was in charge of the Acquisition section. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was J. F. Culpepper, Assistant Right-of-Way Administrator. In April, 1980, a new Right-of-Way Administrator, J. A. Alfes, was assigned to District III. In 1980, and again in 1981, Petitioner filed charges of discrimination against Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations premised upon Petitioner's aforementioned disability. The 1980 charge was resolved through the entry of a settlement agreement. The charge filed in 1981 was premised upon the same disability, but that charge was ultimately dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In January, 1981, a hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on one of the charges of discrimination filed by Petitioner. On the day following that hearing, Petitioner was called into Mr. Alfes' office in Chipley, Florida, and was told that the hearing held in Tallahassee had been several hours of "horse shit." On May 18, 1981, Mr. Alfes advised Petitioner of an impending reorganization of the section in which Petitioner was employed. Subsequently, on June 17, 1981, Mr. Alfes told Petitioner that there would be "consequences" as a result of Petitioner's having filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In 1981 a reorganization of functions occurred in all six districts statewide of DOT. This reorganization eliminated one classification of position, Right-of-Way Agent III, which Petitioner had held in District III, and elevated the positions at the head of Acquisition and Relocation sections to the administrator level. At the time this reorganization occurred, Petitioner, as previously mentioned, was a Right-of-Way Agent III, and Herbert Walls headed the Acquisition section. Mr. Alfes, Petitioner's immediate superior, recommended that Petitioner be placed in charge of Relocation, and that Mr. Walls, who had been working in Acquisition, be placed in charge of the Acquisition section in light of his experience in that area since 1978. J. F. Culpepper, who occupied the position on DOT's organization chart to whom the Acquisition section, Relocation section, and Property Management section would report, recommended that the Petitioner be placed in charge of the Acquisition section, based upon his belief that Petitioner was better qualified by reason of his real estate training and college degree. Mr. Walls had only a high school diploma. During the period of his employment with DOT, Petitioner had not handled any complete right-of-way acquisition matters, and had never negotiated for DOT in the acquisition of any right-of-way parcels. Petitioner had, however, attended two relocation seminars while employed by DOT. Mr. Walls had been continually engaged in acquisition work for DOT since at least 1978. DOT's District Engineer, Alan Potter, was the DOT employee ultimately responsible for selecting the heads of the Acquisition and Relocation sections. Mr. Potter concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be placed in charge of the Relocation section, based upon his belief that it was the most important job involved in right-of-way acquisition, and that it required a very thorough and cautious person. Based upon Mr. Potter's evaluation of Petitioner as possessed of high ability, and being very mature and compassionate, Petitioner was placed in charge of the Relocation section. At the time Petitioner was named as head of Relocation and Mr. Walls was placed as head of Acquisition, the two positions were both classified as Right-of-Way Specialist II's, pay grade 22. Later both were reclassified as Right-of-Way Administrator I's, at pay grade 23. The record in this cause establishes that neither position was more prestigious" than the other, or that either position placed the individual holding it in a more favorable posture for promotion or advancement. Subsequently, in the summer of 1981, the reorganization of DOT was completed, with Mr. Walls having been appointed head of Acquisition, with approximately six subordinates. Petitioner became responsible for Relocation, and shared the supervision of a clerical employee with the head of Property Management. After reorganization, Mr. Alfes relocated Petitioner's office in another building 100 feet away from the main office. Petitioner's office was initially located in a passageway and, as a result, Petitioner was required several times a day to make trips to the main building to obtain files necessary to complete his work. In August of 1983, prior to final hearing in this cause, Mr. Alfes retired, and Petitioner's office was relocated in a more spacious office close to the Acquisition section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the petition for relief, and denying the relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of May, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: BEN R. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 4289 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32315 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 JEAN OWEN, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS WOODCREST OFFICE CENTER 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD SUITE 240, BUILDING F TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 DONALD A. GRIFFIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
Findings Of Fact The following quoted provisions of the joint stipulations of fact entered into by the parties, as attached to this recommended order, constitutes the underlying evidential facts to be considered by the undersigned in deliberating the charges in this case. The exhibits mentioned in the quoted provision may be found as a part of the attached joint stipulations of fact and exhibits, which have been made a part of the record herein. The quotation is as follows: JOINT STIPULATIONS OF FACT The charge herein attached as cumulative exhibit #1 was filed by the Charging party on October 21, 1976 and a copy was simultaneously served on Respondent. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Rule 8H-4.03 a copy of the charge is hereby attached. The trial and presentment of the above-captioned cause was assigned to Rodney W. Smith, attorney for the Charging Party on or about February 25, 1977. Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of F.S. 447.203(2) and has its principal place of business in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida where it is engaged in the business of operating a consolidated municipal government. Respondent is created directly by the legislature of the State of Florida so as to constitute a consolidated government administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or the general electorate. Charging Party is now and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of 447.203(l0) of the Act. On March 4, 1976 Respondent filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the opinion that said petition would stay the "proposed CERTIFICATION ORDER by the Public Employees Relations Commission until final determination of the case was resolved. On or about May 18, 1976 the Public Employees Relations Commission issued a CERTIFICATION ORDER certifying the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative for the Public Employees in the following unit: INCLUDED: Firefighters Lieutenants Captains Employed by the City of Jacksonville Fire Department EXCLUDED: All officers above the rank of captain employed by the City of Jacksonville Fire Department and all other employees of the City of Jacksonville On or about June, 1976 the Respondent filed an APPEAL of the above- stated certification order by PETITION FOR REVIEW in the First District Court of Appeal in and for the State of Florida. At no time was a stay of the certification order sought or obtained by the Respondent. Although the CERTIFICATION ORDER was challenged by PETITION FOR REVIEW, the Charging Party has been the certified representative for purposes of collective-bargaining of all public employees in the unit described in the above paragraph since May 18, 1976. It has been the continuous policy, and most recently by special ordinance, for the City of Jacksonville to extend dues- deductions to firefighters, lieutenants and captains authorizing such deductions since on or about 1969. This policy of extending dues-deductions to captains, lieutenants and firefighters has continued at all times until October 15, 1976. On October 15, 1976 the biweekly paychecks of the captains (sic) and lieutenants employed by the, Respondent did not reflect the usual dues- deduction. The Charging Party was notified of the City's intention to discontinue dues-deductions for the employees "in the ranks of lieutenants and captains during contract negotiations in late September, 1976. On or about October 18, 1976 agents for the City, including Dave Thompson, Administrative Aide for the Public Safety Department and John Waters, Director of Department of Public Safety informed Robert Carver, President of the Charging Party, that the Respondent would not extend dues-deductions to the captains or lieutenants since the Respondent did not feel these positions were properly included in the certified bargaining unit. The action of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues-deductions on October 15, 1976 was resultant from the attached cumulative exhibit B, Memorandum of September 24, 1976 from John M. Waters to Jack Parker, City Accountant for the City of Jacksonville, which directs that positions above the rank of firefighter are to no longer receive dues-deductions. The Director of Employee Relations and chief negotiator for the Respondent, William Davis, was officially notified of the proposed discontinuation on September 29, 1976 by action of the attached cumulative exhibit c." The act complained of by the Charging Party, is the act of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues-deductions for the ranks of lieutenant and captain effective October 15, 1976. (The facts that led up to that action are established in the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties.) In the mind of the Charging Party the discontinuation of the dues-deductions on October 15, 1976, constituted: (1) an interference with the rights of employees as described in 447.501(1)(a), F.S.; (2) a unilateral change during the bargaining process in violation of 447.50l(1)(c), F.S.; and (3) a specific refusal to comply with the provisions of 447.303, F.S. The Respondent disputes and joins issue with that claim. To resolve the conflict, the case is best discussed by dividing the consideration into two broad categories. The first category is concerned with the question of whether the Respondent's initial petition for writ of certiorari filed with the First District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, on March 4, 1976, and/or the Respondent's appeal of the Public Employees Relations Commission's certification order, which was filed with the First District Court of Appeal, State of Florida; imposed an automatic stay of the effect of the proposed certification order by the Public Employees Relations Commission, and/or a stay of the certification order of May 18, 1976, entered by the Public Employees Relations Commission. Any stay of the proposed certification order and subsequent certification order by the Public Employees Relations Commission must have been effectuated by the filing of the initial petition for writ of certiorari on March 4, 1976, and the appeal of June, 1976, because the facts establish that no specific request was ever made of the First District Court of Appeal or the Public Employees Relations Commission to grant a stay. To that end, the Respondent contends that it could justifiably rely on the Florida Appellate Rule to grant an automatic stay in both the initial petition for writ of certiorari of March 4, 1976, and the appeal of June, 1976 Pertinent provisions of Rule 5.12 state: "Rule 5.12 Supersedeas Bond not Required of the State and its Political Subdivisions and their Boards, Commissions, etc.; Security when Required When Security Not Required. When the state or any of its political subdivisions, or any officer, board, commission or other public body of the state or any of its political subdivisions, in a purely official capacity, takes an appeal or petitions for certiorari, the filing of the notice of appeal or the petition for certiorari as the case may be shall perfect the same and stay the execu tion or performance of the judgment, decree or order being reviewed and no supersedeas bond need be given unless expressly required by the court. Court May Require Bond. The court may, on motion for good cause shown, require a super sedeas bond or other security, in such amount, form and manner as it may prescribe as a condition for the further prosecution of the appeal or certiorari." On the face of the language of Florida Appellate Rule 5.12, it would appear that the Respondent is correct in its assumption of having an automatic stay; however, there is a subsequent appellate decision which defeats the Respondent's right to rely on the theory it offers as standing for the proposition that an automatic stay is granted. That case is Panama City v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 333 So.2d 470, (1st DCA 1976, Fla.). The decision in this case was initially rendered on May 5, 1976, and a rehearing denied on June 29, 1976. The effective date of the decision is July 14, 1976. The Panama City case, supra, concerns the determination by the Public Employees Relations Commission of an appropriate bargaining unit and direction of an election. Those actions by PERC were not found to be final orders and in discussing the position of that Petitioner requesting a writ of certiorari, the Court stated that a stay of the effect of the enforcement of the agency action does not transpire merely by filing the petition for writ of certiorari. Under the ruling, in the decision, the stay may be granted by the agency or by the Court upon appropriate terms and in keeping with the authority of 120.68(3), F.S. That section of Chapter 120 indicated the following: "(3) The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the agency decision, but if the agency decision has the effect of suspending or revoking a license, supersedeas shall be granted as a matter of right upon such conditions as are reasonable, unless the court, upon petition of the agency, determines that a supersedeas would constitute a probable danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the state. The agency may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon appropriate terms, but, in any event, the order shall specify the conditions upon which the stay or supersedeas is granted." Moreover, in the opinion of the Court in the Panama City case, under Florida Appellate Rule 5.5, the Petitioner for writ of certiorari shall apply to the agency for supersedeas to forestall the terms of the agency action. Through its memorandum the Respondent in this cause has concluded that there is a distinction in the facts of the Panama City case and the facts sub judice, in that the Panama City case dealt with determination of an appropriate bargaining unit and direction of an election which were interlocutory matters, whereas the question here deals with a certification order which is final agency action on the part of the Public Employes Relations Commission. As an adjunct to this argument, Respondent indicated that it is the June, 1976, appeal taken by the Respondent, challenging the Public Employees Relations Commission order of certification, that becomes the focal point of the inquiry upon the subject of an automatic stay. This latter phase of the argument is accepted and it is the June, 1976, appeal that should be addressed. With that fact in mind, the language of the Court's opinion in the Panama City case on a petition for rehearing clarifies any distinction which might be drawn between the right to stay in an interlocutory situation, and the right to a stay of final action by an agency. The Court, in its discussion on rehearing, stated that the PERC order certifying an employee organization's exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees is a final order, which is subject to judicial review, together with all prior interlocutory orders. The Court goes on to say that if PERC refuses to stay any bargaining pending the Court review, the Court would have authority to grant that relief, in A order to make the Court's jurisdiction effective. For this proposition it cites to Article V, Section (4)(b) 3, Florida Constitution. A close analysis of the Court's statement on the rehearing in the Panama City case, supra, points out that the party who takes an appeal of the final order of certification by the Public Employees Relations Commission should look to the Public Employees Relations Commission to grant a stay prior to turning to the Court for such relief. This is in keeping with the requirements of 120.68(3), F.S. It can be seen by an examination of the facts stipulated to in this cause that the Respondent has failed at any point to request of the Public Employees Relations Commission that the effect of the order of certification be stayed pending the outcome of the consideration of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, in keeping with the decision of the Panama-City case, supra, the effect of the certification order is not stayed and any action which the Respondent took in derrogation of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Panama City, supra, subsequent to July 14, 1976, the date the decision became binding, may constitute an unfair labor practice. See also, Duval Cty School Bd v. Fla. Pub. Emp. etc., 346 So.2d 1086 (1st DCA 1977, Fla.) Having determined that the effect of the certification order of the Public Employees Relations Commission has not been stayed, consideration of the effect of the Respondent's action which discontinued the dues-deduction after October 15, 1976 for those ranks of lieutenant and captain can be made. It is clear from the facts In the record that it had been the practice of the employer to authorize the dues-deduction for lieutenants and captains since 1969 and there is no showing that the employees in those ranks who requested the dues- deduction ever asked that the deductions be discontinued. The conclusion on the part of the Respondent that the dues-deduction should be discontinued was a unilateral action, premised upon Respondent's individual evaluation of the propriety of including lieutenants and captains in a unit with firefighters. In view of the history of the dues-deduction process for lieutenants and captains in the City of Jacksonville, and the outstanding unit certification by PERC which includes such employees, it is concluded that deductions should have been continued beyond October 15, 1976. This is authorized under the opinion of United Faculty of Palm Beach Jr. College, Case No. 8H-CA- 754-1158. The failure to continue this deduction program beyond October 15, 1976 constituted an action by the Respondent in regard to conditions of employment and was per se a violation of the duty to collectively bargain. See 447.309(1), F.S., and NLRB v. Katz, 396 U.S.736 (1962). This responsibility on the part of Respondent to continue the dues-deduction has now been specifically established in 447.303, F.S., as amended at 77-343, Laws of Florida which reads: "Any employee organization which has been certified as a bargaining agent shall have the right to, upon request, have its dues and uniform assessments deducted and collected by the employer from the salary of those employees who authorized the deductions, set dues and uniform assessments In a related argument, the Respondent attempts to suggest that the Public Employees Relations Commission has unilaterally expanded and redefined the bargaining unit that had been previously agreed to between the City of Jacksonville and Local 1884 IAFF. Specifically, the Respondent claims that the City of Jacksonville and Local 1884 IAFF had agreed that only fire privates be included in the unit in 1973-1974 and 1974-1975, and that thereafter the Commission expanded and redefined the bargaining unit to include firemen and fire officers. Although this may be a fact, this fact is not in evidence through the stipulation of facts and in view of the limitations imposed by the agreement of the parties through their stipulation, the above-referenced information may not be utilized in reaching conclusions in this case. However, assuming arguendo the propriety of those facts, they would not seem to promote a different result in this cause. This conclusion is drawn from an examination of Clearwater Firefighters Association; Local 1158, IAFF and City of Clearwater, Case No. 8H- RC-766-1O68, 77E-377, reported at 3 FPER 177 (1977) and City of Titusville v. PERC, 3,30 So.2d 733 (1st DCA 1976, Fla.) Even though the Commission and the Court seemed to be stating that the Public Employees Relations Commission may not extend the unit which has voluntarily been recognized by the parties, or offered for recognition by the Petitioner for unit determination, these cases demonstrate that each case that occurs should be examined on an individual basis. Applying that process, it would be necessary to request the Public Employees Relations Commission to reconsider their position in the instant case on the question of the appropriateness of the inclusion of lieutenants and captains in the certified bargaining unit, and that decision could be subject to appeal to the appropriate appellate court. Because a determination has not been rendered on the merits of excluding lieutenants and captains from the certified bargaining unit, either by the Public Employees Relations Commission or an appellate court, the certification order remains in effect and all rights and entitlements for ,the unit employees remain in force and effect until amended by a Perc order. Consequently, the act of discontinuing the dues-deduction for lieutenants and captains in the bargaining unit after October 15, 1976, constituted a specific refusal to comply with the provision of 447.303, F.S.; an interference with the rights of employees in violation of 447.501(1)(a), and an unilateral change during the bargaining process, in violation of 447.501(1)(c) , F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, City of Jacksonville, be required to reinstate the dues-deduction authorizations of those lieutenants and captains in the certified bargaining unit. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 508 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Robert G. Brown, Esquire Assistant Counsel Office of General Counsel City Of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Leonard A. Carson, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FLORIDA Exhibit A STATE OF FLORIDA
