The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to employment discrimination by the Department of Health (Respondent), due to Petitioner's age in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Julie A. Philippart (Petitioner) was born May 12, 1956. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida with a medical laboratory located in Pensacola, Florida. The director of the laboratory is Dr. John Parker, age When the position of Medical Laboratory Scientist II needed to be filled, Parker delegated responsibility for screening applicants and determining the best applicant to be hired to Dr. Leah Gillis, age 51. Gillis, proceeded with Parker’s approval, to enlist two other fellow employees, Beverly Butler, age 62, and Bill Nakashima, to assist in the interviewing and screening of applicants. Following advertisement of the vacancy and receipt of applications, six of the applicants were selected for an interview. While a step in the process, the subsequent interviews were not completely determinative of which applicant was the best. Petitioner was one of the six applicants interviewed. Gillis and Nakashima interviewed Petitioner. After the initial interviews, Petitioner was considered the primary candidate. Since Petitioner had previously worked in the laboratory during the period 1994-1998, Gillis checked with Parker and Butler about Petitioner’s prior work experience. Further, Butler checked past lab records for work that Petitioner may have performed. As a result of her consultations with Parker and Butler, Gillis developed concerns that Petitioner’s experience and background might not be as ideal as indicated by the interview. Particularly, Butler had expressed concern that Petitioner did not have a hematology license, which was needed in the lab following the resignation of another employee whose licensure in that area previously covered this need for the lab. While still considering Petitioner as an applicant, Gillis resolved to interview other candidates. Through Butler, contact was made with Virginia Winchester, age 50, regarding the position. Winchester had the appropriate hematology license and experience for the position. But, when Winchester was advised that she should get vaccinations for rabies and hepatitis to work in the position, she consulted with her physician and withdrew her application. Stephanie Bubien was another applicant considered for the position. She had the appropriate license and experience, but, because her current employer increased her salary, withdrew her application following offer of the position. Linda Boutwell, personnel liaison for the lab and Star Metcalfe, assistant human resource director, located in Jacksonville and Tallahassee, Florida, respectively, advised Gillis to re-advertise the position. Gillis re-advertised the position. Of six additional applicants for the position, two were granted interviews. Patricia Jones was called in for a second interview. Jones, like Petitioner, is over age 40 and is less than two years younger than Petitioner. Jones had the preferred hematology license and 16 years of “bench” or actual experience. Jones was offered and accepted the position. Age was not a criterion for the position and was not considered in the hiring decision.
Recommendation Based on 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 this 4th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. 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 4th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie A. Philippart 303 Washington Avenue Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Stephen W. Foxwell, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, Xencom Facility Management, LLC (Xencom), terminated the employment of Petitioners solely because the contract under which they were working ended.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group), operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order denying the petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 15th day of May, 2018.
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
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a license to practice medicine in Florida should be granted, or denied on the ground that he has not completed an approved internship of at least one (1) year.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1981, petitioner applied for a license, by endorsement, to practice medicine in Florida. (R-3.) Petitioner is a practicing physician. He graduated from the University of Hawaii School of Medicine in 1977, then successfully completed the examination of the National Board of Medical Examiners. He is licensed to practice medicine in California and Illinois but has not yet had five (5) years of licensed practice. The Board asserts that petitioner meets all requirements for licensure by endorsement except the requirement relating to completion of an approved internship program of at least one (1) year. (Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, P. 4.) Petitioner participated in two separate internship programs at two hospitals. From January, 1978, to June, 1978, he participated in an American Medical Association ("AMA") approved psychiatric residency program at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois. From July 1, 1978, to February 29, 1979, and from April 1-30, 1979, he participated in an AMA approved rotating internship at West Suburban Hospital, Oak Park, Illinois. (Testimony of Stewart; P-1, R-1.) Persons interested in applying for licensure by endorsement are provided an information sheet by the Board which contains this internship requirement: The applicant must have completed at least one year AMA approved training . . . . Petitioner, reasonably relying on this information sheet, believed he was qualified for licensing since he completed a total of sixteen (16) months of AMA approved training. (Testimony of Stewart; P-3.) It was not until the Board's February, 1982, meeting, when it reconsidered its earlier action denying petitioner's application, that it informed petitioner he did not meet the internship program requirement. Petitioner came to the February meeting to refute the Board's earlier allegation that he was not capable of safely practicing medicine. Instead, the inquiry into his qualifications shifted to the sufficiency of his internship. As a result, the Board reaffirmed its earlier denial, but added an additional ground: that he had not completed an approved internship of at least one (1) year. Later--at final hearing--the only reason offered to justify denying his application was his alleged failure to meet the internship requirement. (Testimony of Stewart; R-3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application be denied. That the Board revise its information sheet on licen- sure requirements so that prospective applicants are fairly informed of the requirement that an approved internship program be a single training program of at least one (1) year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent, University of Central Florida (“UCF”), engaged in a discriminatory employment practice and/or retaliated against Petitioner, Michael Flint.
Findings Of Fact UCF is a state university located in Orlando, Florida, with an enrollment of about 60,000 undergraduate students and 10,000 graduate students. Mr. Flint is a 71-year-old Vietnam combat veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), chronic fatigue, bipolar disorder, traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), and diabetes. He spent 30 years as a police officer. He graduated from Yale University with a degree in Psychology and, in 2002, obtained a master’s degree in Criminal Justice from UCF. Mr. Flint is currently a full-time instructor at UCF in the Criminal Justice Department and has held that position for over 15 years. In 2006, Mr. Flint learned that some faculty members were taking doctoral classes for free pursuant to a UCF policy. Like other state workers, UCF allowed its employees (and their spouses and children) to take up to six credit hours per semester for free so long as the course had an open seat and did not cost the school money. The privilege also applied to coursework towards a doctoral degree, though employees had to pay for their required dissertation credit hours. Mr. Flint believed that obtaining his doctorate degree would make him a better instructor and ensure he had cutting edge knowledge in his teaching field. But, he understood that pursuing this degree was both completely independent from and secondary to his full-time faculty position. Indeed, UCF neither encouraged nor required him to pursue a doctorate degree, as a condition of continued employment or for training, job security, or advancement purposes. His job as a full-time instructor would remain unaffected by the classes he took. The process for obtaining a doctorate degree is rigorous. First, students must complete their coursework, which often takes about two years, and pass a set of comprehensive exams. Then, they decide on their area of research and choose a dissertation committee, which is typically comprised of five faculty members: a chair, often with expertise in the student’s area of research, and four other faculty members, one or two within the student’s area of research and one or two outside of that area. Next, they draft a prospectus outlining the focus of the research, which has to be approved by and defended before the committee, after which they conduct intense research for about a year. Students then complete their dissertation, which must be approved by and defended before the committee. If successful, they are approved to graduate. Like most universities, UCF follows the seven-year rule, which required all doctoral students to complete their degrees within seven years of admission so as to ensure that the research and coursework does not become stale. Although exceptions could be granted, they are discretionary academic decisions based on the circumstances of the particular student. Exceptions beyond ten years are extremely rare and, of those granted such an exception, only about half ultimately graduated. Understanding that pursuing this degree would be secondary to his full-time job and that he had to complete the process in seven years, Mr. Flint applied for and was accepted into the PAF Program in the College of Health and Public Affairs (“COHPA”). He began his doctoral coursework in August 2006. From 2006 through 2009, Mr. Flint worked full-time teaching five to six courses in the Fall and Spring semesters and three to four courses in the Summer semesters. During this same period, he took about one to two substantive courses towards his degree for free each semester, although he backed off his coursework (with approval from Dr. Thomas Wan, the PAF Program director at the time) for a brief period when his wife was diagnosed with cancer. However, in late 2009, Mr. Flint developed Guillain- Barre Syndrome (“GBS”), which caused him to be hospitalized, placed on life support for almost two months, after which he spent an additional six months at home recovering. While in the hospital, he developed diabetes. He also developed chronic fatigue syndrome, from which he continues to suffer years after his recovery. UCF placed him on administrative medical leave from his teaching responsibilities for Spring and Summer 2010, but he resumed teaching a full course load in Fall 2010 and has continued to do so ever since. As for his doctorate degree, Mr. Flint requested a special leave of absence from CGS, which oversaw all of the graduate programs across the university. CGS granted the request and placed a hold on his enrollment for all of 2010. Mr. Flint returned to taking classes in Spring 2011 and completed his substantive coursework in Fall 2011. Still teaching full-time each semester, Mr. Flint moved on to the comprehensive exam phase of his studies. He studied for those exams in 2012 and passed them after one unsuccessful attempt in Fall 2013. Although the average student finished their coursework and exams in about two years, it took Mr. Flint seven years. While continuing to meet his full-time teaching obligations, Mr. Flint spent 2013 and 2014 trying to conduct dissertation research and prepare his prospectus, now having to pay for those credit hours. His dissertation committee initially consisted of Dr. Bob Langworthy, as chair, and Dr. Matt Matusiak, Dr. Jeff Rosky, and Dr. Sophia Dziegielewski. However, by Fall 2014, Mr. Flint had not yet submitted his prospectus to his committee. Ranetta Guinn, the director of Graduate Affairs for COHPA, met with him because it had been over seven years since he began the program. They created a timeline for finishing his prospectus by March 2015, defending it by May 2015, and defending his dissertation by April 2016. Ms. Guinn explained that he would need to apply for an exception from CGS to extend the deadline to ten years. Unfortunately, around the same time, Dr. Langworthy retired and Mr. Flint had to find a replacement chair for his committee. Dr. Dziegielewski ultimately agreed to serve as the chair, but that required Mr. Flint to find another faculty member in his area of expertise to serve on the committee. Dr. Cory Watkins ultimately agreed. In March 2015, Mr. Flint petitioned CGS to extend the graduation deadline to ten years based on his 2009 GBS diagnosis, chronic fatigue, diabetes, and his disability rating as a combat veteran. He did not inform CGS, or anyone else at UCF, about his PTSD, bipolar disorder, or TBI. Dr. Dziegielewski wrote a letter supporting his petition based on a Summer 2016 graduation. The director of the PAF Program also wrote a supporting letter based on his medical issues and recent setback in having to find a new committee chair. In April 2015, CGS approved the petition and extended the deadline for Mr. Flint to graduate through Summer 2016. The letter noted that no further petitions would be considered. At the time, Mr. Flint believed it was a reasonable accommodation and that he would be able to meet the timeline, but ultimately was unable to do so. He did not defend his prospectus until January 2016, though he was supposed to complete that task by May 2015. He began drafting his dissertation in the Spring 2016 (again, having to pay for those credit hours), but did not timely defend it by May 2016. Notwithstanding, he was permitted to continue working in the hopes he could defend and graduate by the end of 2016. When Mr. Flint had not yet submitted his dissertation in October 2016, he informed Dr. Dziegielewski that he was struggling with his normal workload, periodic illnesses, and chronic fatigue but would try to finish. But he did not petition CGS for another exception. He also failed to notify her or anyone else at UCF about his PTSD or bipolar disorder.2/ Because he ultimately failed to submit even a draft of his dissertation, he received an unsatisfactory dissertation grade for the Fall 2016 semester. In January 2017, CGS dismissed Mr. Flint from the PAF Program. He filed an appeal to be reinstated but the grievance committee, limited to the issue of whether CGS followed proper procedure in reaching its decision, denied relief in March 2017. While his appeal was pending, Mr. Flint submitted a draft of his dissertation. Upon review in March/April 2017, his committee members generally believed that it was almost ready and that he could complete his revisions and defend it in Fall 2017 or Spring 2018 at the latest. However, the PAF Program director confirmed nothing could be done because the draft was not then defensible, no more extensions could be given, and his appeal already had been denied. Notwithstanding his dissertation issues, Mr. Flint met his full-time teaching obligations throughout this period. He never asked for leave or a reduced schedule to have more time to devote to his studies. He taught consistently each summer to earn additional compensation, though doing so was not required, instead of focusing his attention on his studies. Even when his supervisor asked him to take a certification course on top of teaching in Fall 2016, he did not even think to ask if he could delay that course for a semester so he had more time to finish his dissertation. He also could have reduced his teaching load that semester by one course to account for the certification class, but chose not to do so. Mr. Flint was clearly a devoted employee who made his teaching position his main priority. Unfortunately, the combination of putting his studies second and the many medical conditions from which he suffered caused him to fail to meet the extended deadlines and to be dismissed from the PAF Program. Mr. Flint then filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that UCF wrongfully dismissed him from the PAF Program and retaliated against him based on his age and handicaps. To establish that UCF discriminated against him, Mr. Flint presented the testimony of two other UCF faculty members, Robert Wood, Esquire (62 years old), and Abby Milon, Esquire (59 years old), who believed UCF had taken adverse employment actions against them and other older faculty members relating specifically to their teaching positions, such as reducing their course loads. However, neither of them were in a doctorate program like Mr. Flint and, moreover, their complaints related solely to their jobs as faculty members. Conversely, Mr. Flint suffered no such adverse actions relating to his job as a faculty member. He could not complain about the way UCF treated him in that role, even after he challenged his dismissal from the PAF Program, as that academic decision did not adversely impact his faculty position. He also is still permitted to take up to two courses for free per semester at UCF, just as he was before. Both UCF and Mr. Flint also presented the testimony of several UCF faculty members involved in Mr. Flint’s studies, from his committee members to PAF Program directors to the associate dean of CGS. Every such witness who testified about Mr. Flint’s dismissal confirmed that the decision was based on his failure to meet the agreed-upon extended deadlines and that his age and handicaps, most of which were unknown to the decision makers, had nothing to do it. Though his committee members confirmed that they were supportive of him being given a chance to graduate, they acknowledged that CGS made the final decision, that he had not adhered to the deadlines after they were extended, and that it was quite rare for any student (young or older, healthy or sick) to graduate beyond the ten-year mark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Michael Flint, failed to establish that Respondent, University of Central Florida, committed an unlawful employment practice against him and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 17th day of June, 2019.
