Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner (Randolph) is an African-American female. 2. Petitioner was hired by Respondent on June 2, 1997, and was terminated by Respondent from her employment on September 30, 1997. 3. When initially hired, Petitioner’s official employment class title was Other Personnel Services (OPS) Paralegal Specialist. 4. On July 1, 1997, approximately one month after her date of employment, Petitioner’s official employment class title was changed to Administrative Secretary and Petitioner’s pay plan status was changed from OPS to Career Service. 5. On September 1, 1997, Petitioner's class title was reclassified to Paralegal Specialist. 6. From July 1, 1997, until the date of her termination, Petitioner was employed in a probationary status by DOAH with her primary job responsibilities being that of a proofreader. 7. Probationary employees are not entitled to progressive discipline and can be terminated at will pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-36.005. 8. Ann Cole, the clerk of DOAH, interviewed all candidates for the newly created proofreader position. 9. There were several applicants for the proofreader position and after a series of tests and interviews Ann Cole determined that Petitioner was the best applicant for the proofreader position and Petitioner was hired for the job. 10. Approximately one month after Petitioner was hired, a second proofreader (Dr. Rappendelli) was hired. Dr. Rappendeli is a white female. 11. Both Petitioner and Dr. Carol Ripandelli were supervised at DOAH by Ann Cole. ATTENDANCE HISTORY 312. During the first month of her employment Petitioner shared a work area in DOAH’s mailroom with current DOAH employee Elma Moore, an African-American female. 13. Elma Moore typically arrived at work between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m. even though the required start time for employees of the clerk’s office was 8:00 a.m. 14. Elma Moore was able to directly observe the times during which Petitioner arrived at work. Ms. Moore noted that Petitioner reported to work forty-five minutes late on her first day. Ms. Moore further noted that Petitioner would often be late. 15. Elma Moore was relocated to another part of the clerk’s office when Dr. Rappendelli was hired. 16. Elma Moore, even from her new workstation, continued to be situated such that she was able to observe the times at which Petitioner customarily arrived at work. 17. Elma Moore testified that during the four month period that Petitioner worked for DOAH, at least two to three times each week, Petitioner would arrive at work approximately ten to thirty minutes beyond the mandatory 8:00 a.m. start time for employees. 18. The testimony of Elma Moore is further corroborated by the affidavit of Deanna Hartford. 19. Ms. Hartford, who was the Deputy Clerk Supervisor for DOAH during Petitioner’s period of employment, stated that she observed Petitioner arrive to work late, without notice, on several occasions during her OPS employment and during her career service probationary employment. 20. Ms. Hartford stated in her affidavit that around the first week of September 1997 she was asked by Ann Cole to observe Petitioner’s attendance. Ms. Hartford noted that during this period of observation Petitioner arrived to work at’ the following times on the dates as indicated: September 8, 1997, 8:20 a.m.j; September 9, 1997, 8:25 a.m.; September 10, 1997, 8:10 a.m.; and September 17, 1997, 8:20 a.m. 21. Ms. Hartford reported to Ann Cole, Petitioner's supervisor, that Petitioner was frequently late for work. 22. This is consistent with Elma Moore’s testimony that Petitioner, at least two to three days per week, was customarily late for work in excess of ten minutes. 23. Petitioner attempted to contradict the testimony of Elma Moore and the affidavit of Deanna Hartford by testifying that she was told by her supervisor, Ann Cole, to make up her tardy time thereby excusing the fact that she was habitually late for work. 24. Ms. Cole stated the importance of proofreaders being punctual to work, and testified that she and Petitioner had at least two meetings where they discussed Petitioner’s tardiness issue prior to her termination. 25. Ms. Cole stated that she spoke with Petitioner about her timesheet and attendance, and the need for Petitioner to tell her when she is late and how she plans to make up her time. 26. Ms. Cole stated that Petitioner’s communication regarding her promptness and plans to make up time never improved. 27. Ms. Hartford stated that she never observed Petitioner disclose her late arrivals to her supervisor, Ms. Cole. On more than one occasion, Ms. Hartford stated, she reported Petitioner’s tardiness to Ms. Cole, who indicated she was unaware of the late arrival. PHONE USE 28. Unlike some of the other jobs in the clerk's office, the proofreader’s duties and responsibilities did not require the utilization of the telephone. 29. Elma Moore stated that during the time that she shared an office with Petitioner, her desk was in close proximity to Petitioner’s desk and that on several occasions she noticed that Petitioner was talking on the telephone. 30. Elma Moore stated that Petitioner was using the telephone for personal calls frequently. 31. Elma Moore further testified that she knew that the responsibilities and duties of the proofreader did not require Petitioner to use the telephone. 32. Deanna Hartford noted in her affidavit that she personally observed that Petitioner was always on the phone. 33. Ms. Hartford also noted in her affidavit that other employees at the Clerk’s office had complained to her about Petitioner’s excessive use of the telephone. 34. Ms. Hartford advised her supervisor Ann Cole about Petitioner’s excessive phone use. 35. In response to the complaint about Petitioner's excessive use of the telephone, Ms. Cole contacted DOAH’s information services department and requested that they audit all of the telephone extensions for the clerk’s office. 36. The audit results for the clerk’s office revealed that during the audit period, employees, excluding Petitioner, averaged 85.5 outgoing phone calls. 37. Petitioner, however, had 294 outgoing calls attributed to her extension during this period. Dr. Carol Ripandelli, the other proofreader, had 79 outgoing calls attributed to her extension during this same period. 38. The audit results for the clerk’s office revealed that during the audit period, employees, excluding Petitioner, averaged 1.6 outgoing calls that exceeded ten minutes in duration. 39. The number of outgoing calls exceeding ten minutes in duration that were attributed to Petitioner's extension during the audit period totaled thirteen. Dr. Carol Ripandelli had only two outgoing calls that exceeded ten minutes in duration attributed to her extension during the audit period. 40. Petitioner denied having made the number of phone calls attributed to her extension. Petitioner also charged that it was possible that other employees could have made outgoing calls from the phone on Petitioner’s desk. 41. Elma Moore testified that it was neither the practice nor the custom of employees of the clerk’s office to regularly use the telephone of other employees. INITIATIVE 42. Deanna Hartford, in her affidavit, noted that in July of 1997 she was asked by Ann Cole to provide additional training to the proofreaders. 43. Petitioner and the other proofreader were instructed to inform Ms. Hartford when they were caught up with their work so that the additional training could be provided. 44. Dr. Carol Rappendeli, the OPS proofreader, sought and received additional training in several areas including filing, assisting in the quarterly file purge and destruction, outgoing docketing procedures, and maintaining the Florida Administrative Code supplements. 45. Petitioner never sought additional training as requested. 46. Ann Cole observed Petitioner nodding off on at least three occasions while in an important proofreading standards meeting. 47. Ms. Cole observed Petitioner cutting coupons at her desk the morning of September 22, 1997, during business hours. 10 48. Elma Moore also testified to the fact that Petitioner, during business hours would frequently work on a personal book when she wasn’t proofreading. DISRUPTIVE AND RUDE BEHAVIOR 49. Ms. Cole testified that along with the attendance problems and telephone usage, Petitioner also had attitude problems. 50. On two occasions, Petitioner felt the need to apologize for rude comments made to her supervisor, Ms. Cole. 51. Ms. Cole observed rude behavior by Petitioner directed toward Dr. Ripandelli when they were discussing proofreading on a particular order. 52. Ms. Cole stated that when Petitioner gets in one of her moods, teamwork between Petitioner and Dr. Ripandelli is ineffective. 53. Ms. Cole testified that she had to speak with Petitioner about her radio and that it was so loud it caused a disturbance in the break room. 54. Dr. Ripandelli testified that Petitioner’s radio was so loud that she bought herself headphones in order to drown out Petitioner’s radio. i 55. In contrast, Ms. Cole testified that Dr. Ripandelli gets along with all the judges and that Dr. Ripandelli interacts fine with her. TERMINATION 56. Ms. Hartford stated that Petitioner never discussed with her any need to accommodate her for a disability or for her religion. 57. Ms. Hartford further stated that Petitioner never mentioned that she was being discriminated against for any reason. Ms. Hartford never observed Petitioner walk with a limp, or have sores or bandages on her legs. 58. Petitioner was terminated on September 30, 1997, due to her chronic tardiness, excessive use of the telephone, and her general failure to demonstrate initiative.
Conclusions Petitioner: Ms. Audrey Randolph, Pro Se 2644 Edgewood Avenue, West Jacksonville, FL 32209-2431 904-713-9913 For Respondent: Mr. Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 850-414-3300 ext. 4650
Recommendation 29 In the present case, Respondent showed a legitimate reason for discharging Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon her race, religion, disability or marital status. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against her in retaliation for Petitioner engaging in an activity that was protected by Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 4A day of Vabir ; 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, kative Law Judge sd Way, Bin A-0 32398-1703 Filed with the clerk of the Florida Commission of Human Relations this 2" day of December 2003. 30 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Audrey Randolph 2644 Edgewood Avenue, West Jacksonville, FL 32209 Mr. Linzie F. Bogan, Esq. Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Harry Hooper Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Secretary of Commission Mike Hanson Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Department of Community Affairs, an executive agency of state government, employed more than 15 persons. During fiscal year 1985-86, 398 black persons and 994 white persons applied for employment with the Department of Community Affairs. Of these, 26 black persons and 101 white persons were hired. Of the white applicants, 10.16% were hired while only 6.53% of the black applicants were hired. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The evidence does not reveal the qualifications of any of these applicants. Differential hiring rates for black and white applicant pools persisted in subsequent years, when looked at on a Department-wide basis, even though respondent has formally adopted affirmative action plans and has consistently met hiring goals for black candidates. Lay Off A black woman, petitioner Michelle Bryant worked for the Department of Community Affairs from January 5, 1983, until her lay off, effective at the close of business September 30, 1987. She and four others, including Leonard Case, a white man, lost their jobs in the course of a reorganization that transferred "the Section 8 Housing Programs" in which they worked to another department of state government. By letter dated September 10, 1987, Ms. Bryant was informed of the possibility that she had certain "bumping rights": As a permanent career service employee, you are afforded the right to request a demotion or reassignment in lieu of this lay off ... A demotion or reassignment request will be accomplished if there are other employees in appropriate classes who have a lesser amount of retention points than you. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Responding with a memorandum to Bud Parmer dated September 22, 1987, Ms. Bryant asked to be considered for another position within the Department of Community Affairs. Unlike Ms. Bryant, Mr. Case, who began work with respondent on August 11, 1987, had not attained permanent status in the career service as of September 30, 1987. New Jobs Sought When told of the lay off, affected employees were advised to seek other employment. Taking this advice to heart, Ms. Bryant visited the personnel office in the Department of Community Affairs twice weekly, during the fall of 1987. She also went to the Department of Administration, in an effort to be listed as eligible for any job in state government for which she was qualified. As early as 1984, she had succeeded in being listed by the Department of Administration as eligible for positions described as "planner II at HRS," "planner II in intergovernmental relations," and "planner II in environmental resources." On October 22, 1987, the Department of Administration found Mr. Case qualified to hold a "planner II" position, a position which has not been designated as entry level. The parties have stipulated that Ms. Bryant is also in fact so qualified "by reason of her education, experience, and training." When, on November 2, 1987, respondent announced two vacant "planner II" positions, one (No. 00136) in Apalachicola and one (No. 00250) in respondent's Bureau of Public Safety Management in Tallahassee, Ms. Bryant applied for both. Because her telephone had been disconnected, she was not interviewed for the job in Apalachicola. The Bureau in Tallahassee advised her nobody would be hired to fill the other position, because "the Bureau had decided it was not going to administer the program." Prehearing stipulation, page 3. When respondent's Bureau of Public Safety Management advertised two more vacant "planner II" positions (Nos. 00235 and 00244) on November 5, 1987, Ms. Bryant again applied. But, in accordance with applicable rules, these positions went to employees of the Bureau of Public Safety Management who had been subjects of another lay off there. Another Vacancy After a "planner II" vacancy (No. 00570) arose in the Bureau of Planning, within respondent's Division of Emergency Management, the Division requested from respondent's personnel office a certificate listing people eligible to fill a "planner II" position. In contrast to the procedure others within the Department of Community Affairs followed the preceding month, no job announcement nor any other public notice of vacancy No. 00570 was ever given. On December 3, 1987, at respondent's personnel office, a computer operator obtained a print-out of a "certificate of eligibles" listing names of more than three people who, according to the Department of Administration, were eligible to work in "planner II" positions. For reasons perhaps best known to the Department of Administration, Michelle Bryant, although having been listed as a "planner II" in three specific areas, was not listed under the general category "planner II." Mr. Case was the only employee respondent had laid off whose name appeared on the certificate. Case Chosen Before it was decided to obtain a "certificate of eligibles," employees responsible for choosing the new hire discussed Mr. Case with Gordon Guthrie (T.149,150) who, as director of respondent's Division of Emergency Management, ultimately authorized hiring Mr. Case for position No. 00570. After an interview, the only one conducted, Mr. Case was hired on December 4, 1987. He began work in his new job on December 7, 1987. All of respondent's employees involved in making the decision to hire Mr. Case are white. Brenda Brown, a black temporary employee, testified that the bureau chief knew of her interest in the job Mr. Case eventually got, at the time he or the division director decided against advertising and in favor of procuring a certificate of eligibles. But the evidence did not show that the decision makers were told either that Brenda Brown or that Michelle Bryant was not listed on the certificate of eligibles, before they asked the personnel office to obtain the list. On the other hand, those responsible for filling the position did not make any commitment to proceeding without advertising, until after they saw the list. At least no such commitment was irrevocable. Department officials testified that it was necessary to use a "certificate of eligibles," instead of advertising the vacancy, so they could fill the position quickly, in order to avoid forfeiture of federal funds, payable under a contract between the Department and a federal agency, that required a certain minimum number of workers to be on the project. The Department of Community Affairs used this method of hiring with some frequency. It was not clear how much notice the Department had that a vacancy in position No. 00570 would arise. Because she did not know of the vacancy, Ms. Bryant never made formal application specifically for the position Mr. Case filled. As far as the evidence shows neither she nor the Department of Community Affairs was responsible for the snafu at the Department of Administration that kept her name off of the "certificate of eligibles." But her desire to work at the Department of Community Affairs as a "planner II" was well known to the decision makers. When Ms. Bryant learned what had happened, she felt something was amiss, and filed a complaint with the FCHR. Only after an ensuing hearing did the then personnel director of the Department of Community Affairs look over the certificate of eligibles. He was surprised to find Ms. Bryant's name absent, because of her diligence in pursuing jobs at the Department and in state government generally. Other Work Found After her lay off by the Department of Community Affairs, Ms. Bryant found another job, working for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This job was not as well paid as the job that Mr. Case got at the Department of Community Affairs. Even with a recent raise, she does not make as much as she would have made, if she had gotten the job given Mr. Case and progressed as he did to a "community assistance specialist."
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny the petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 14, 16 through 24, 27, 33, and 34 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15 was not proven. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 25, 26, 28 through 32, 35 and 36 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1, petitioner was an applicant despite not being listed. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 through 10, 15, and 19 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, petitioner could have been hired if respondent had advertised the position. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, it was only Mr. Irwin who, as far as the proof showed, did not realize Ms. Bryant's name was not listed when Mr. Case was hired. He was not shown to have participated in the hiring decision. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 13, 17, and 18 are properly proposed conclusions of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 14, it was not clear how far ahead the agency knew the vacancy would occur. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, things did not necessarily occur in that order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 20 through 24 pertain to subordinate matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Patterson and Traynam 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32315 Andrea Bateman, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Dade County Police Benevolent Association (Respondent) was the collective bargaining agent for the bargaining unit of the City of Hialeah Police Department (CHPD). Warren D. Brown (Petitioner) is a black male. At all times material hereto Petitioner was a law enforcement officer with the CHPD, a member of the bargaining unit and a dues paying member of the Respondent. On or about May 11, 1992, Petitioner was attempting to exit a secured and locked double doorway located on the east side of the CHPD's building. Upon pushing a switch, a lock mechanism releases the lock, and a door can be opened. However, at this particular time, the lock was not immediately released. Petitioner applied greater force to the door, which caused it to swing open forcefully (when the lock did release) and strike another officer who was attempting to enter the building through the same door. Petitioner was heard to chuckle after exiting the door. Approximately two to three days later (May 13 or 14, 1992), the officer who was struck by the door filed an internal complaint against Petitioner. The officer had discussed the incident with a CHPD sergeant who had had problems with the Petitioner in the past and who had filed several internal complaints against Petitioner. The officer alleged in his complaint that Petitioner intentionally hit him with the door. The internal complaint was referred to CHPD's Internal Affairs for investigation. The investigation included taking statements from Petitioner, the officer and any witnesses. When the internal complaint was filed against Petitioner, he contacted Respondent for assistance, and Respondent's Senior Attorney, James Casey, represented Petitioner. Casey was present with and represented Petitioner at the initial questioning by Internal Affairs. On or about June 16, 1992, Internal Affairs issued its findings to CHPD's Chief of Police (Chief). The Internal Affairs investigator concluded that Petitioner had intentionally hit the officer with the door. On July 7, 1992, the Chief issued a disposition of the complaint. The Chief determined that the complaint against Petitioner was sustained and that the appropriate discipline was a 10-hour suspension without pay. Further, the Chief scheduled a pre-disciplinary hearing for July 21, 1992. On or about July 13, 1992, the Chief had prepared a recommendation to the Mayor of the City of Hialeah that Petitioner be suspended without pay for 10 working hours from the CHPD. The letter included a summary of the incident, the rules and regulations violated by Petitioner and the disciplinary action for such violations. However, the recommendation was never forwarded to the Mayor for his approval. 1/ The pre-disciplinary hearing was held and, as a result of that hearing, a CHPD Captain was requested to view the photographs of the door which were taken at the time the incident occurred and to examine the door itself. On August 3, 1992, in a memorandum to the Chief, the Captain indicated that it was possible that the door did stick and that Petitioner was not aware of the officer's presence. Furthermore, the Captain recommended that one of the doors be labeled for entering and the other for exiting and that a caution zone be established to alert individuals that they should use caution when opening the doors. Casey was also present with and represented Petitioner at the pre- disciplinary hearing. After the pre-disciplinary hearing, Petitioner contacted Respondent almost on a weekly basis inquiring about the status of his case. Each time Respondent had nothing to relate to Petitioner indicating that nothing had been done by the CHPD and the Mayor. In August 1992, Casey terminated his employment with Respondent. He was replaced by Michael Braverman. Petitioner continued his weekly inquiry to Braverman and received the same response as before. On or about October 20, 1992, the Chief changed the discipline to a written reprimand. However, again, this disciplinary recommendation was not forwarded to the Mayor for his approval. On or about November 19, 1992, Braverman recommended to Petitioner that he accept oral counseling, or an oral reprimand, and end the matter. Petitioner refused. Finally, on or about December 6, 1992, Petitioner forwarded an internal memorandum to the Chief inquiring about his case, reminding him that, according to the collective bargaining agreement, the complaint should have been resolved within 60 days and allowing him five working days to resolve the complaint before he appealed to the next level. On or about December 11, 1992, the Chief informed Petitioner that the complaint was sustained for violation of courtesy conduct but that the disciplinary action (a written reprimand) was rescinded due to "unreasonable delay in imposing the written reprimand." Even though the written reprimand was rescinded, the Chief recommended to the Mayor that Petitioner receive oral counseling which was in essence the same as an oral reprimand. The Mayor approved the oral counseling. Petitioner contacted the Mayor who confirmed that the sanction was oral counseling. Article 26, entitled "Disciplinary Review Procedures," Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the City of Hialeah (City) and Respondent 2/ provides in pertinent part: k. The employee who is the subject of a complaint or allegation shall be promptly notified of the disposition upon the conclusion of the investigation. In any investigation in which the charges against the officer cannot be substantiated, the officer shall be deemed to have been exonerated of any charges. * * * o. Any internal investigation, except where criminal charges are being investi gated, shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the date the officer is informed of the initial complaint. No officer may be subjected to any disciplinary action as a result of any investigation not completed within that time period. Oral counseling is not considered by Respondent or the City as discipline. As a consequence, there is no appeal of such an action against an employee of the City who is also a member of the bargaining unit represented by Respondent. However, oral counseling is considered "progressive discipline" which means, in essence, that CHPD can consider it if another complaint against Petitioner is sustained involving a violation of courtesy conduct and impose a sanction which is considered disciplinary. Because of this possibility of a disciplinary sanction being imposed in the future, Petitioner objected to the oral counseling. Petitioner contacted Respondent to appeal the oral counseling. Petitioner discussed the situation with Braverman, Respondent's attorney. Braverman informed Petitioner that there was nothing to appeal since oral counseling was not discipline but that, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, Petitioner could respond in writing to the oral counseling and have the response placed in his personnel file. Consequently, Braverman informed Petitioner that Respondent could provide no representation. Article 44 of the collective bargaining agreement, entitled "Personnel Records," provides: Section 1. Each bargaining unit employee shall have the right to respond, in writing, to any and all derogatory material placed in their personnel file and have that response placed in their personnel file. Section 2. Employees who complete two (2) years of discipline free service shall have all counseling and/or written reprimands removed from their personnel files pursuant to State of Florida Department of Archives guidelines. This complaint against Petitioner was not the first complaint against him but was one of many. The Chief and certain uniformed supervisors of the CHPD have a history of filing complaints for internal investigation against Petitioner. 3/ Respondent was well aware of that history and has, in fact, represented Petitioner in many of the complaints. Historically, Respondent has not been free of discriminatory practices toward black officers. In 1972 a federal court held that the Miami PBA 4/ had discriminated against black officers by not permitting them to become members of the PBA, but permitting white officers to become members. The federal court ordered the Miami PBA to allow black officers to become members and to offer them the same benefits as white officers. Adams v. Miami Police Benevolent Association, 454 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 843 (1972). However, since that federal case, there has been no legal showing of discrimination by Respondent. Contrastingly, through court action, Respondent eliminated a discriminatory practice by the City that benefited a black officer. Sometime in 1980, 5/ several white officers and one black officer 6/ were denied the opportunity to take the examination for police chief by the City. They contacted the Respondent for legal assistance,which represented the officers in a court action against the City. The court ordered the City to administer the exam to the officers. Notwithstanding, the City permitted the white officers, but not the black officer, to take the police chief exam. The black officer again approached Respondent for legal assistance. Respondent denied him such assistance. Respondent's position was that, even though the court had ordered the City to permit him to take the police chief examination, at that point in time the City had already appointed the police chief. Furthermore, Respondent indicated that to pursue the matter further would provide no meaningful redress. Respondent's Policy No. 84-2, entitled "Request For Legal Assistance" (Legal Assistance Policy), controls the Respondent's legal representation of its members. The Legal Assistance Policy defines legal assistance as "the representation of Association members at administrative and disciplinary hearings as well as taking judicial action on behalf of Association members, in accordance with the provisions of this policy." Under this Policy, a member of the Respondent is eligible for legal assistance "if the matter arises out of the scope of the member's employment" and the member was in "good standing" 7/ at the time of the incident and remained in good standing throughout the course of any legal action pertaining to the matter. Also, pursuant to the Legal Assistance Policy, a member who is approved for legal assistance must accept Respondent's attorney for representation. Other counsel may be used only when the Respondent's attorney has a conflict and when approved by the Legal Assistance Coordinator or the Board of Directors. Furthermore, benefits provided pursuant to the Legal Assistance Policy are applicable only to administrative and trial level actions and may be applicable to appellate level actions under certain specific situations. The Legal Assistance Policy also defines "Legal Defense Benefit" as Respondent's Policy No. 3-80 which provides "coverage for members, in good standing, for incidents within the scope of employment resulting in criminal or civil prosecution." Policy No. 3-80 (Legal Defense Benefit Policy) provides that Respondent will provide its members with this benefit "only in those cases where a lawsuit or criminal indictment results from professional acts or omissions which arise out of and in the scope of their duties as a law enforcement officer." Further, it provides that the benefit consists of Respondent paying "attorney's fees and directly related Court costs." Petitioner never requested the Respondent to file an action against the City or the CHPD on the grounds of racial discrimination in the CHPD's disciplinary action(s) against him. Petitioner believed that he was not required to make such a request because it was obvious what the City or CHPD was doing and that the Respondent should have taken the initiative and filed a discrimination action. Even though the Respondent's action of allowing the CHPD to continue the investigation of the complaint against Petitioner for several months beyond the 60-day limitation is suspect, there was insufficient evidence of any disparity presented at hearing to conclude that the Respondent had acted any differently when dealing with the same or similar complaints against white officers who were members of the Respondent. Moreover, there was no evidence presented that the Respondent acted any differently with white officers who had been given oral counseling as a result of a complaint against them. There was no evidence that the Respondent failed to appeal Petitioner's oral counseling because of race, and there was insufficient evidence of any conduct by Respondent from which it can be inferred that the actions of Respondent were based on race. The Respondent's failure to insist upon no disciplinary action against the Petitioner at the expiration of the 60-day investigation limitation was nondiscriminatory. Moreover, the Respondent's failure to appeal Petitioner's oral counseling was legitimate and nondiscriminatory and its denial to appeal was without discriminatory motivation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order DISMISSING the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 7th day of April 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, City of Ocala (“the City”), retaliated against Petitioner, Nyleah Jackson (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Jackson”), for exercising her right to file a claim of employment discrimination against the City pursuant to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Petitioner, an African American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II on May 2, 2016. She worked in that job position until her resignation on February 7, 2018. Petitioner initially worked in the City’s Electric Utility Department and then transferred to the Public Works Department. Her duties were primarily secretarial, clerical, and administrative. Petitioner testified that when she started in Public Works, her direct supervisor was Tom Casey, but that at some point Judy Wade appeared to take over at least some of those supervisory duties. In her telling, Petitioner never recognized Ms. Wade as her direct supervisor except as to specific tasks delegated by Mr. Casey. Ms. Wade was the Fiscal Administrator for Public Works. She testified that Tom Casey and Darren Park are her superiors in Public Works. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was Petitioner’s direct supervisor for the entire time that Petitioner worked in Public Works. Ms. Wade’s supervisory duties included monitoring Petitioner’s attendance at work and her leave requests. Petitioner’s testimony that she was unaware Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor for all purposes is not credited. On or about August 25, 2017, Petitioner presented a formal grievance to the City alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her race when she was not hired for a vacant Administrative Assistant III position. On or about August 31, 2017, Human Resources and Risk Management Director Jared Sorensen spoke with Petitioner and asked her to clarify whether she was pursuing a formal grievance under the City’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or under the City’s Employee Handbook. Petitioner responded that she wished to file her grievance under the CBA. On September 13, 2017, Petitioner sent an email to Mr. Sorensen, with copies to Mr. Casey and Mr. Park. The email stated as follows, in relevant part: Both the City of Ocala Employee Handbook and Collective Bargaining Agreement allows [sic] a response in writing within 10 business days of receipt of the grievance. I spoke with Tom Casey and Darren Park as well as sent my grievance, via interoffice to Human Resources, on August 25, 2017. From my meeting, I gathered that classification matters, discriminatory/biased hiring decisions and equal pay issues is [sic] in the Human Resource jurisdiction. I received a call last week from Jared stating that the target response date was September 8th, 2017 but I would have a definitive response by September 11th, 2017. I plan to hold my employer/HR accountable and liable to this deadline as promised. It is now September 13th with no response. The email concluded with a demand for a response regarding Petitioner’s remedies no later than September 14, 2017. The record evidence indicates that the City’s response was delayed for two reasons. First, Petitioner had indicated that she wished to pursue her grievance through the CBA, and Mr. Sorensen’s conversations with Petitioner’s union representative led him to believe that Petitioner’s grievance was going to be refiled to clearly establish a starting date for the CBA process. Second, Hurricane Irma had just passed through the state, causing significant damage in Marion County and delaying the City’s ability to respond to non-emergency matters such as Petitioner’s grievance. Of greater significance to this retaliation case, Petitioner’s direct supervisor, Ms. Wade, was not copied on any of the correspondence regarding Petitioner’s discrimination claim or her grievance. The only way Ms. Wade would have known of these matters was through word-of-mouth in the office. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was unaware of any of these matters at the time they were occurring. Petitioner believed that Ms. Wade knew of her complaints, but provided no direct evidence of Ms. Wade’s knowledge. One week after her email to Mr. Sorensen, on September 20, 2017, Petitioner interviewed for an open position in the City’s Fleet Department. The Fleet Department is separate from Public Works and is located in a different building. Ms. Wade testified that Petitioner did not inform her that she would be absent from the Public Works office or that she would be interviewing for a position in the Fleet Department. Ms. Wade stated that she checked Petitioner’s office and saw that she was not present. Ms. Wade asked a co- worker about Petitioner’s location and was informed that Petitioner was out at a job interview. Petitioner testified that she told Ms. Wade that she would be out of the office. She did not tell Ms. Wade why she was going out. Petitioner testified that she believed Ms. Wade was not her supervisor and had no reason to know that she was going out on a job interview. Petitioner stated that she told Mr. Casey why she would be out of the office. Petitioner did not call Mr. Casey as a witness to corroborate her version of events. As indicated above, the undersigned does not credit Petitioner’s assertion that she did not believe Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor. When Petitioner returned to the office, Ms. Wade informed her that she was required to use paid time off (“PTO”) for personal business such as job interviews. Ms. Wade sent a request through “Kronos,” the City’s payroll software system, to dock Petitioner for 30 minutes of PTO for the time she was not in the office. Within a few days of making the Kronos request, Ms. Wade discussed the matter with Mr. Sorensen, who told her that City policy provided that employees could interview for other open positions within the City without using any PTO. The time used for such internal interviews was to be treated as regular work time. Evidence produced at the hearing indicated that Petitioner had gone out on such internal interviews previously and not been charged with PTO. Ms. Wade, having learned that she was mistaken regarding City policy, took steps to restore Petitioner’s PTO. On September 26, 2017, Ms. Wade submitted a payroll correction to adjust Petitioner’s pay to her full regular hourly rate. On October 3, 2017, Ms. Wade informed Petitioner of her mistake and that she had reversed the docking of Petitioner’s PTO. Petitioner contended that Ms. Wade’s docking of her pay was in retaliation for her complaint of discrimination and filing of a grievance. Petitioner stated that Ms. Wade’s reversal of the PTO decision was due solely to the fact that Petitioner contacted her union representative about the matter. Petitioner conceded that the only evidence connecting her discrimination complaint to Ms. Wade’s action on September 20, 2017, was their proximity in time. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she did not know about Petitioner’s discrimination complaint on September 20, 2017, and that no one working for the City ever instructed her to take any adverse action against Petitioner. On October 2, 2017, the FCHR received Petitioner’s initial Employment Complaint of Discrimination. The FCHR sent a Notice of Filing of Complaint of Discrimination to the City. The Notice was dated October 3, 2017, but was not received by the City until October 6, 2017. Ms. Wade testified that she was unaware of any potential claim of discrimination by Petitioner prior to October 6, 2017. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Wade was aware of Petitioner’s intention to file the discrimination complaint when Ms. Wade originally docked Petitioner’s PTO in September 2017. To support this claim, Petitioner first testified that one of the emails she sent regarding her potential discrimination complaint was copied to Ms. Wade. When the actual emails were produced by the City and showed that Ms. Wade was not copied on any of them, Petitioner testified that she had told Ms. Wade of her discrimination complaint at a meeting that included Ms. Wade and Mr. Park. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she had no memory of discussing the discrimination complaint with Petitioner at a meeting. Petitioner did not produce Mr. Park as a witness to corroborate her testimony regarding a meeting. Ms. Wade’s testimony is credited on this point. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ms. Wade’s actions on September 20, 2017, were in retaliation for Petitioner’s discrimination complaint. On November 20, 2017, the City hired Erica Wilson as the new Administrative Specialist III to work in Public Works. She assumed the duties of the previous Administrative Specialist III, Melinda Day, who had retired. Petitioner and Ms. Day had worked cooperatively in preparing payroll reports for Public Works. Petitioner would summarize the payroll cards for the stormwater division, and Ms. Day would summarize the payroll cards for the streets and traffic divisions. Once the summaries were completed, either Petitioner or Ms. Day would transmit them by email to the Payroll Department. Petitioner and Ms. Day alternated the task of sending the email to Payroll, with each employee transmitting the information every other week. After Ms. Day retired, Public Works was shorthanded for a time. During this period, Petitioner began summarizing all of the payroll cards for the stormwater, streets, and traffic divisions, and transmitting all of that information to Payroll on a weekly basis. After Ms. Wilson was hired at Public Works, Petitioner continued to perform her new duties while Ms. Wilson came up to speed on her new job. In January 2018, Ms. Wade convened a meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Wilson to discuss the transition for Ms. Wilson to take over the payroll duties formerly performed by Ms. Day. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Wade announced that Ms. Wilson would be in charge of sending all the emails to Payroll and Petitioner would continue summarizing all of the pay cards for all three divisions of Public Works.2/ In other words, the work would be divided more or less as it was before Ms. Day retired. At the meeting with Ms. Wade and Ms. Wilson, Petitioner voiced no dispute or concerns with the division of duties ordered by Ms. Wade. Neither Ms. Wade nor Ms. Wilson recalled Petitioner’s being upset by or objecting to the plan outlined by Ms. Wade. Petitioner herself conceded that she said nothing to indicate her disagreement with the re-assignment. Petitioner contends that Ms. Wade’s decision to take some of Ms. Day’s former duties from her and assign them to Ms. Day’s successor was a retaliatory reduction of her job duties. Again, Petitioner’s only evidentiary support for her contention is that the alleged retaliatory action occurred after she made her discrimination complaint with the FCHR. Ms. Wilson testified that she considered the entire matter of payroll duties to be a minor part of her job. Ms. Wade testified that her only intention in redistributing duties was to restore the status quo ante from before Ms. Day retired. Also in January 2018, another event caused Petitioner to believe that Ms. Wade was retaliating against her. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade further reduced her job duties by forbidding her to contact vendors used by the City or to contact City employee John Long, who was the City’s Vendor Relations Manager. The specific issue concerned Petitioner’s contacts with UniFirst, the vendor who laundered uniforms for every department of the City. Petitioner’s routine job duties included taking delivery of uniforms for Public Works employees from UniFirst drivers. She discussed with those drivers any issues regarding the number of uniforms delivered, the condition of the uniforms, and the amount of the invoice. Petitioner had no responsibility for dealing with UniFirst’s management on behalf of the City as a whole. In April 2017, Petitioner inserted herself into a quality of service dispute with UniFirst. Uniform shirts were coming back from UniFirst in a soiled and threadbare condition. At first, Petitioner followed protocol and addressed her complaints to Mr. Long, who conveyed them to Jeff Peterson, UniFirst’s district service manager. However, after some back- and-forth between Mr. Long and Mr. Peterson, Petitioner elected to send an email of her own to Mr. Peterson. Ms. Wade considered this action unprofessional and counseled Petitioner about it. Ms. Wade did not believe further discipline was necessary because the situation was unlikely to recur. However, in January 2018, a similar quality control issue arose with UniFirst. Mr. Long and Petitioner exchanged emails that indicated Mr. Long believed Petitioner was the City’s point person regarding UniFirst, based on her handling of the previous issue in 2017. However, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst management directly because the City employed Mr. Long to handle citywide vendor relations. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade had instructed her to have no contact with anyone from UniFirst, and that this instruction amounted to a retaliatory reduction of her assigned duties. At the hearing, Ms. Wade made it clear that her order was meant only to stop Petitioner from contacting UniFirst’s management, an action that was never in Petitioner’s scope of duties. Petitioner was still expected to deal with the UniFirst driver who delivered uniforms to Public Works. Her job duties were unchanged. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade retaliated against her by denying her leave to which she was entitled. On February 5, 2018, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to use 2.5 hours of accrued “safety time”3/ that afternoon, and her “floating holiday”4/ on the following day, February 6, 2018. Ms. Wade denied the request. Petitioner nonetheless left work early on February 5, 2018, and did not come into work on the following day, missing 10.5 hours of work in total. The City applied Petitioner’s accrued PTO time, 6.2 hours, to the time she missed work. For the remaining 4.3 hours, Petitioner was charged for leave without pay. Ms. Wade testified that she denied the leave request because the Public Works Department has a written policy stating that if an employee is requesting fewer than five days off, the request should be made no less than 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence.5/ Ms. Wade stated that the policy’s purpose was to ensure that enough employees were present to perform needed work. Supervisors have discretion to deviate from the policy, but only where the employee shows good cause for the failure to provide sufficient notice. In this case, Petitioner provided Ms. Wade with no reason for her request. Petitioner testified that she was never made aware of the policy, and suggested that the City invented the policy after the fact as a response to her claim of discrimination. Petitioner presented documents showing that she had previously been allowed to take time off with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade reviewed Petitioner’s documents at the hearing. She did not recall the specific details of any particular leave request, but testified as to her general practice in granting leave with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade stated that in some cases, Petitioner had likely made an oral request more than 48 hours prior to the leave, but did not submit the written request into the Kronos system until later. In such cases, Petitioner’s leave request would have been granted. In other cases, Petitioner had likely presented Ms. Wade with extenuating circumstances justifying the short notice. Ms. Wade demonstrated her department’s even-handed application of the policy by producing contemporaneous records showing that other Public Works employees had been denied the use of safety hours and floating holidays when they failed to give 48 hours notice to their supervisors. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s denial of her leave request was retaliatory. Petitioner offered evidence on two issues that were beyond the scope of her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. First, she claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her the ability to use “flex time” to work an extra hour on February 1, 2018, so that she could leave an hour early on February 2, 2018. Petitioner claimed that this denial was in derogation of the City’s policy and prior practice. Second, Petitioner claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her request to attend a training class. The City objected to Petitioner’s presentation of this evidence because these matters were not covered in Petitioner’s second Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. Petitioner conceded that these matters were not mentioned in her retaliation complaint, but maintained that she had submitted materials on these issues to, and discussed them with, the FCHR. She also raised the issues in her subsequent Petition for Relief. The undersigned allowed Petitioner to present her evidence because of the ambiguity of the procedural situation. It appears that during its investigative phase, the FCHR accepted evidence from Petitioner as to issues outside the four corners of Petitioner’s retaliation complaint. However, the FCHR ultimately issued no finding as to probable cause. Thus, it is unclear which issues the FCHR formally considered. While finding persuasive the City’s argument that Petitioner should be held to the issues raised in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, the undersigned decided that if he were to err, it would be on the side of allowing Petitioner to present all of her evidence at the hearing. As to the first issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that, on February 1, 2018, she requested that she be allowed to work an extra hour and then use the “flex time” to take an hour off work the next day. Petitioner presented an email chain between Ms. Wade and her regarding this request. Ms. Wade ultimately denied the request on the ground that the City does not allow employees to “flex ahead,” i.e., work extra time now in anticipation of taking time off later. Ms. Wade told Petitioner that she would be allowed to flex an hour on February 1, 2018, and then work through her lunch hour on February 2, 2018. Petitioner testified that the City had always allowed her and other employees to flex ahead, and that the denial in this instance could only be explained as retaliation by Ms. Wade for her discrimination complaint. Petitioner did not offer evidence of the City’s written policy on flex time or evidence that the City even had such a policy. She offered exhibits purporting to demonstrate that she and other employees had been allowed to work extra time on one day to take time off on a later date. However, the coding on these documents was not clear and Petitioner did not adequately explain them. The City declined to offer evidence on this issue because of its contention that it was outside the scope of Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s stated view of the City’s flex time policy was incorrect or that Ms. Wade deviated from past policy and practice by declining to allow Petitioner to flex ahead on February 1, 2018. As to the second issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that on October 12, 2017, she submitted a request to Ms. Wade to take two training courses being offered by the City: “Attitude Means Everything” and “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact.” Ms. Wade gave Petitioner permission to take the first class but denied her permission to take the second. Ms. Wade testified that the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course was designated as a “leadership” course, meaning that only supervisors are generally approved to take it. Petitioner’s position with the City was not supervisory. Petitioner showed Ms. Wade a document that Petitioner stated was a list of employees who had attended the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. Petitioner asked Ms. Wade whether all of the listed people were supervisors. Ms. Wade testified that she could not answer the question because she did not know the people on the list, none of whom were employed by Public Works. Petitioner herself did not identify the employees on the list. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Wade did anything more than follow City policy on training course participation, it cannot be found that Ms. Wade retaliated against Petitioner by denying her request to take the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. On February 7, 2018, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her employment with the City. Petitioner alleged that her resignation was a “constructive discharge” due to the City’s denial of paid leave time for February 6, 2018, as well as the other allegedly adverse retaliatory actions taken by the City since the filing of her discrimination complaint. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the City retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. The only employee specifically cited by Petitioner as allegedly retaliating against her was her direct supervisor, Ms. Wade. The evidence established that Ms. Wade became aware of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint no earlier than October 6, 2017, after she allegedly retaliated against Petitioner by requiring her to use PTO for an internal job interview. Additionally, Ms. Wade rectified the situation as soon as Mr. Sorensen corrected her understanding of City policy. None of the later allegations of retaliation were credible. In January 2018, Ms. Wade gave Petitioner some minor Administrative Assistant III duties at a time when Public Works was shorthanded, then gave those duties back to the Administrative Assistant III position after the new person was hired and learned the job. There was no reason for Petitioner to take offense at this routine reshuffling of minor job duties. Also in January 2018, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst’s management regarding citywide vendor performance issues. Such contacts were not part of Petitioner’s job duties and Ms. Wade had already counseled Petitioner against taking it upon herself to send emails to UniFirst’s management. Petitioner’s actual job duties in relation to UniFirst’s delivery of uniforms to the Public Works Department never changed. Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s February 5, 2018, leave request was in keeping with the express policy of the Public Works Department that leave requests be made at least 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence from work. The evidence established that this was not a rigid policy, but Petitioner failed to show that she presented Ms. Wade with the kind of extenuating circumstances that historically have been the basis for granting leave requests less than 48 hours before the employee’s proposed absence. There was nothing retaliatory about Ms. Wade’s following the stated policy of Public Works. Petitioner was allowed to raise two issues that were not included in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. As to these issues, Petitioner failed to offer proof sufficient to establish that either Ms. Wade’s denial of her request for flex time or Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s request to attend a “leadership” training course was an incident of retaliation. Petitioner failed to prove any incidents of retaliation. Because she voluntarily resigned her position with the City, Petitioner did not establish that the City took an adverse employment action against her in any form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the City of Ocala did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American woman who lives sometimes in Orlando, Florida, and sometimes in Jacksonville, Florida or elsewhere. At the time in question she was in Orlando. Respondent operates a daily labor temporary help agency with an office in Orlando and a corporate service center, Interim Services, Inc., in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Petitioner received assignments for work by Respondent beginning in 1983. This was temporary, sporadic employment in unskilled labor jobs. Her recent employment file reflects that she received thirty-seven (37) assignments in 1987, ninety-three (93) assignments in 1990, and twenty-three (23) assignments between March of 1991, and July of 1991. Individuals seeking work with Respondent are dispatched on a daily basis to assignments from Respondent's office, or they can preschedule assignments by calling into the office in advance. The best way to guarantee work is to preschedule. Priority for assignments is given to persons who preschedule, have their own transportation, come in or call for work daily, or are requested back by a specific client. Transportation is provided by van for some assignments, and Respondent also assists persons in car-pooling, but those arrangements can only be provided for persons who come in the morning. For Disney, a large user of Respondent's services, the trip is approximately forty-five minutes from the Respondent's office. Persons coming in the afternoons need their own transportation to get to Disney. In 1987 and 1990, Petitioner had her own car. She claims she had a car in 1991, but Respondent's employees responsible for arranging assignments and dispatching work were not aware that she had a car in 1991. Petitioner concedes that she did not preschedule assignments. She claims that she came every day for work from the time the office opened until it closed, but that she was not given work every day. Respondent's employees recall that Petitioner appeared for work sporadically and was an "afternoon person". Petitioner was not the only person who did not get work every day. Without transportation to Disney and without advance scheduling, it was hard for anyone to get assignments. With advance scheduling, Respondent often can accommodate a person's preference for varied hours. Petitioner's own testimony was inconsistent. She first stated that she came to the Respondent's office every day and waited all day for work. She then conceded that between April and July 1991, she worked as a live-in employee and could only get outside work on her days off. In fact, Respondent did get work for her from time to time between March and July 1991. Petitioner's last assignment by Respondent was in July 1991. She states that after August 5, 1991, she stopped going to the office to look for work. Respondent's workforce is approximately evenly divided between African-Americans and whites. Assignments are made on a basis of the preferences described above, and not according to race. Respondent considered Petitioner a good worker and gave her an excellent recommendation for the live-in job. She is still eligible for work with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Ms. Green's petition and complaint. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Green 46 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1510 Lisse R. Groff, Esquire Personnel Pool of America, Inc. 2050 Spectrum Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1510
Findings Of Fact All three Petitioners have made claims for unemployment benefits. Petitioners Garcia and Ward have appeals pending in the District Court of Appeals and Smith has a pending appeal before the Unemployment Appeals Commission. If unsuccessful before the Commission, Smith's next appeal is to the District Court of Appeals. All Petitioners have standing to contest this proposed rule. Public notice of Respondent's intent to adopt proposed Rule 38E-3.009, Florida Administrative Code, was published in the June 27, 1986 Florida Administrative Weekly and Petitioners timely filed their challenge. In procedures followed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission, the fact finding hearing before the Appeals Referee is taped and upon appeal from that decision to the Commission, the tape itself, rather than a transcript thereof, is forwarded to the Commission which reviews the tape before rendering their decision. Thereafter, if the applicant for benefits loses and takes an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Commission, prior to the promulgation of proposed Rule 38E-3.009, Florida Administrative Code, provided the appellant a transcript of the proceedings before the Appeals Referee at no cost while preparing the record on appeal. Proposed Rule 38E-3.009, Florida Administrative Code, would require the appellant to pay the cost of obtaining a transcript of the proceedings in perfecting his appeal to the District Court of Appeals. In pertinent part, Rule 38E-3.009, Florida Administrative Code, provides: * * * (3) Within 10 days of filing of the notice, the appellant shall designate those portions of the proceedings for transcription and inclusion in the record. Within 20 days of filing of the notice, the appellee may designate additional portions of the proceed- ings. Copies of designations shall be served on the Clerk of the Commission along with a request that the Clerk provide a duplicate of the tape recorded record of the proceedings for transcription by a court reporter. Within 30 days of a designation, the designating party shall insure that the court report shall transcribe and deliver to the Clerk of the Commission the designated proceedings. In the alternative; the designated party may request that the Clerk of the commission arrange transcription of the designated pro- ceedings by the clerk's staff or other qualified person. The Clerk shall charge no more than actual costs for duplication of the tape recording of the proceedings. Costs shall be borne initially by the designating party, subject to taxation of costs as pre- scribed by Florida Rule of appellate Procedure 9.400.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination against Respondent on the basis of her age and gender (female).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female. Petitioner initiated her retirement from Respondent employer in February 2005 at age 65. No evidence was presented at the disputed-fact hearing to establish the number of persons employed by Respondent at any material period of time. However, because Respondent has acknowledged in its Proposed Findings of Fact that Petitioner is an "aggrieved person," as that term is defined in Section 760.02(10), Florida Statutes, and has further acknowledged that at all times material to this cause, Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes, and Respondent is hereby found to be a statutory employer under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner began part-time employment as an Order Entry/Mail Clerk with Respondent in July 1983. At the same time, and dating from May 30, 1983, Petitioner was also employed part-time with Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears). In 1984, Petitioner accepted full-time commission sales employment with Sears and continued to work part-time for Respondent Employer. She worked full-time for Sears and part- time for Respondent until July 1996. Between 1983 and 1996, Jack Barber, president and CEO of Respondent Employer, repeatedly asked Petitioner to come to work full-time for Respondent. In July of 1996, Petitioner accepted full-time employment as Chief Finance Officer/Human Relations Director of Respondent Employer. At the time of her transition to her new, full-time position with Respondent, Petitioner was doing accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, and general ledger bookkeeping. Petitioner was qualified for all positions she held while employed by Respondent. At all times material, Petitioner was an exemplary employee. Petitioner testified that, as an inducement to give up her full-time Sears employment with its vested pension and excellent pay and benefits, Mr. Barber "guaranteed [her] in writing a five percent yearly increase in salary with no end date." It was Petitioner's position that between July 1996 and February 2005, when she retired, Respondent had a written employment contract with her, which contract had been negotiated in July of 1996, and that this contract provided for Petitioner to receive a raise equivalent to five percent of her base pay; one week of vacation in 1996; three weeks of vacation in 1997 and 1998; three days compensatory time (personal holidays) in 1996; six days of compensatory time (personal holidays) in 1997 and 100 percent medical insurance. The document she represented as her contract of employment was admitted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit One. Petitioner's Exhibit One is not dated. It also states no ending date and does not contain the signature of either Petitioner or Mr. Barber. It resembles arithmetic computations without setting out in sentences either Petitioner's or Respondent's obligations one to the other. It only lists the years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with regard to salary; only 1996, 1997 and 1998, as to vacation; and only 1996 and 1997 as to "comp. time." It bears the expression: "$150,000.00 + - 5 yrs." Furthermore, Petitioner testified that the exhibit does not encompass the whole of the parties' oral understanding at that point-in-time, because she believes that Mr. Barber also orally assured her that the five percent annual salary increases would continue as long as she was employed by Respondent, that vacation time and personal holiday time would accrue annually based upon Petitioner's original date of hire in 1983; and that Respondent company would institute a retirement plan in the near future. Mr. Barber testified that he had intended his notes and computations in 1996 on Petitioner's Exhibit One to only show that he anticipated if Petitioner came to work for Respondent in 1996: that he would guarantee Petitioner a term of employment up to at least five years; that there would be at least three years (1997, 1998, and 1999) with a five percent increase for her each year; and that, based on the foregoing prognosis, Petitioner could expect to earn at least $150,000.00 over a five-year period. Mr. Barber never intended Petitioner's Exhibit One to be a contract of employment. Petitioner candidly admitted that Respondent granted her five percent pay increases in January 1997, 1998, and 1999. Petitioner calculated that, without bonuses, she was paid half of $27,300.00 in 1996 because she started in July; $28,665.00 in 1997; $30,097.60 in 1998; and $31,720.00 in 1999. Petitioner accepted Respondent's figures that her annual W-2 compensation 1999 (including bonuses) was as follows: $33,635 2000 $31,720 2001 $32,830 2002 $33,015 2003 $32,330 2004 $31,720 Therefore, Petitioner's income without bonuses from Respondent for her first five years of employment (1996-2000) may have been less than $150,000.00. It was Petitioner's further position that the Respondent Employer had "contracts" similar to Petitioner's Exhibit One with other employees, specifically Greg Barber and Rob Humphrey (both younger male employees), which were honored by Respondent and that Petitioner's "contract" was not honored by Respondent. Petitioner claimed that Jack Barber's honoring the younger men's contracts, and not hers, constituted the acts of age and gender discrimination she complains of here. No contract between Respondent Employer and Greg Barber was presented for comparison with Petitioner's Exhibit One. No contract between Respondent employer and Rob Humphrey was presented for comparison with Petitioner's Exhibit One. Petitioner maintained that she "performed many of the same duties as Barber and Humphrey who were younger than she was at all times material and that she received less compensation." Greg Barber is the son of President/CEO Jack Barber. Since March 1985, Greg Barber has been the company's general manager and sales manager. Greg Barber also acts as co-CEO with his father. At all times material, he received a base salary plus commission based on total company sales. Greg Barber's responsibilities also included overseeing order entry personnel, accounts receivable/payable personnel, purchasing/inventory control personnel, mailroom personnel, shipping/warehouse personnel, service department personnel, and the receptionist. He also answered customer service calls and took phone orders. Rob Humphrey is the salesman responsible for Respondent's United States and Canadian sales. At all times material, he was paid a base salary plus commission based on Respondent's sales in the United States and Canada. Mr. Humphrey's responsibilities included training and overseeing a staff of two or three phone order entry/customer service personnel while also taking phone orders himself. At all times material, Petitioner was a salaried, non- commission employee. Petitioner claims that she performed many duties outside her job description. Specifically, she contends that she assisted both Rob Humphrey and Greg Barber in doing their jobs. Specifically, she described sharing responsibility with Greg Barber for making decisions regarding copy writing, marketing, in-putting of advertising materials, and direct marketing mailings. No witness corroborated Petitioner's assessment of her assistance to Greg Barber or Rob Humphrey, but at most, Petitioner only irregularly assisted these commissioned salesmen with their clerical or office tasks. She did not sell product. Despite Petitioner's contention that she performed some of the same services that Greg Barber and Ron Humphrey performed, it appears that the majority of the services she performed for Respondent were very different from theirs. It further appears that Humphrey and Barber performed services that were different from each other. Greg Barber had far more authority and responsibility than either Mr. Humphrey or Petitioner, and because of his position, Greg Barber received a commission out of Rob Humphrey's commission. In other words, as Mr. Humphrey's sales manager, Greg Barber received a percentage commission of all sales by whomever the sale was made and this increased Greg Barber's overall income. Likewise, Mr. Humphrey's responsibilities, particularly the necessity for him to deal with Canadian sales and marketing problems, varied greatly from Petitioner's responsibilities, which were primarily clerical or financial and home office based, and differed from Greg Barber's responsibilities, which were concentrated on home office management and sales in the United States. Petitioner maintained that other employees received raises when she did not. However, Respondent demonstrated that the annual base wage for Petitioner from 1999 through and including 2004, was $31,720.00; for Mr. Humphrey was $13,000.00; and for Mr. Barber was $47,840.00. Respondent further demonstrated that the base wages for all three employees remained constant from 1999 through 2004, and that Messrs. Barber and Humphrey, the commissioned employees, had fluctuations in their total gross wages during the five years from 1999 through 2004, due to fluctuations in the company sales and their resultant commissions. Rob Humphrey's W-2 compensation was below Petitioner's W-2 compensation from 1999 to 2001 and slightly exceeded hers from 2002 through 2004. Greg Barber's W-2 compensation exceeded Petitioner's W-2 compensation consistently from 1999 through 2004. Respondent demonstrated that in the year 2003, Respondent company suffered substantial losses, which affected the salesmen's commissions, and thus their overall income, but Petitioner's and everyone else's base wages remained the same, regardless of business conditions. How bonuses were calculated is unclear from the evidence, but in 1999, Petitioner's bonus was higher than either Mr. Humphrey's or Greg Barber's bonus. In 2000, no one got a bonus. In 2001, Greg Barber's bonus was $2,360.00; Mr. Humphrey's bonus was $540.00; and Petitioner's bonus was $1,110.00. In 2002, Greg Barber's bonus was $2,500.00; Mr. Humphrey's bonus was $665.00; and Petitioner's bonus was $1,295.00. No one received a bonus from 2003-2004. One of Petitioner's responsibilities while employed by Respondent was to assist Greg and Jack Barber in writing an employee handbook. This handbook clearly states that all of Respondent's employees are "at will" employees. That means that no guarantee of continued employment existed for any employee. Petitioner acknowledged that she had read that part of the handbook. The handbook also provides a reasonable procedure for someone, who believes that he or she is being discriminated against, to report that allegedly discriminatory treatment. Petitioner acknowledged that she never complained of sex discrimination or age discrimination while employed by Respondent. Petitioner also was aware she could file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. She never did this either. Petitioner did complain to Jack Barber that her job was of greater importance than that of Greg Barber or Rob Humphrey, and she did repeatedly lodge her concerns with Jack Barber that her pay in comparison to theirs was inappropriate. Although denied by Mr. Barber, Petitioner is more credible that she asked for a five percent increase each year. In response to one of her complaints, Jack Barber "evened out" a bonus for her. In early 2005, Petitioner again approached Jack Barber regarding what she considered to be her "promised five percent annual increases." Petitioner and Jack Barber met several times during the months of April and May 2005. When their negotiations were not fruitful, Petitioner gave notice of retirement and left Respondent's employ on June 3, 2005, at age It had been her prior intent to continue working full-time for Respondent through the end of the year 2005. She hoped to continue working for Respondent part-time for several years beyond 2005. Petitioner testified that all employees received a retirement plan in 2001, but that she was not granted the promised yearly five percent increase in January 2000 and was not provided any reason or explanation for the decline in her base pay after that. She calculated that if the five percent per year increase had been given her, she would have received an additional $63,798.47, provided she had worked to the end of 2005, as she had intended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2006, 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 2nd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kay F. Kelley Post Office Box 559 Center Hill, Florida 33514 Timothy Shea, Esquire 800 North Ferncreek Avenue, Suite 9 Orlando, Florida 32803 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is the Petitioner handicapped? Was the Petitioner capable of performing her duties satisfactorily? Did Respondent take adverse personnel actions against the Respondent? Were the adverse personnel actions which were taken against the Petitioner based upon her disability? Did the Respondent have a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for taking the adverse actions against Petitioner? Were the reasons articulated by the Respondent pretextual? Did the Respondent provide reasonable accommodations for the Petitioner? To what relief is the Petitioner entitled if she prevails? Are the Petitioner's rights limited by her status as a non-tenured employee on annual contract status? Is the Petitioner entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys fees?
Findings Of Fact Dr. Tony Mason was employed by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, as the Coordinator for Diagnostic Services on January 2, 1986. As is done with all employees of the School Board, she was recommended for employment by the board by her immediate supervisor, Dr. Ruth Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell supervised from four to six coordinators of units similar to the Diagnostic Services during Petitioner's tenure with the Respondent. Each of these units was headed by an individual who was not handicapped and who had an educational background similar to that of the Petitioner. The position requirements for the position of Coordinator for Diagnosis Services were a background in physiology, social work, or a related field as well as educational and administrative background or experience. Dr. Mason holds the following degrees: Bachelor of Arts and Social Studies, English and Speech, Masters Degree in Counselling and Physiology, a doctorate in Administration and Supervision, and an Educational Specialist degree. She was employed by the U. S. Department of Education for several years in an administrative capacity. The Petitioner was well qualified for the position of Coordinator of Diagnostic Services Unit. At the time the Petitioner was hired she was handicapped. Her primary impairment is cerebral palsy. The Petitioner has suffered from this condition since the age of three. This condition is readily apparent from talking with and observing the Petitioner. The Petitioner also has had a partial gastrectomy. This latter condition is not observable. During her employment, she advised her supervisor, Dr. Mitchell, of the nature, symptoms, and problems associated with both conditions. Both impairments significantly limit Petitioner's major life activities. Cerebral palsy, a neuromuscular disease, impedes Petitioner's ability to walk, and causes her to speak slowly. In addition, her speech is distorted although very understandable. A partial gastrectomy is a surgical removal of a portion of one's stomach. Both of the Petitioner's disabilities are negatively impacted by extreme stress. Extreme stress causes the Petitioner's muscles to contract and lock causing intense pain. Inordinate stress causes the Petitioner to "dump" requiring her to go to the nearest restroom as quickly as she can. Both the Petitioner's disabilities are not affected by normal, everyday stress. There was no evidence presented that the Petitioner's disabilities in any way impaired her intellectual capacity or mental abilities. The Petitioner had never been terminated or asked to resign from any position prior to working for the Respondent. While working for the Federal Department of Education and completing her doctorate in 13 months, both of which are stressful activities, the Petitioner did not suffer stress induced impacts on her disabilities. The Petitioner performed the duties of Coordinator for Diagnostic Services for almost two years without difficulty. As Coordinator for Diagnostic Services, Dr. Mason was responsible for the administration of this unit which employed eight social workers and ten physiologists. They were responsible for testing students within the school district and preparing reports based upon their testing to determine the eligibility of the students for participation in various educational programs. The Diagnosis Services Unit (DSU) also employed two secretaries and, at various times during the Petitioner's employment, additional interns and part-time employees. The Petitioner was also responsible for preparing staff papers on matters related to Diagnosis Services for presentation to the School Board together with budget requests, schedules, preparations of grants, and other special reports which were from time to time requested by the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, or Petitioner's immediate supervisor. To assist her in the preparation of these reports, the Petitioner was initially assigned a secretary. This secretary also filed the unit's paperwork and generally assisted the Petitioner. The work load of the DSU was consistently high as the unit was responsible for evaluating approximately 2,000 students each year. There has been a steady increase in the work load of the DSU since 1976, and the work load continued to increase through the period of the Petitioner's tenure at the DSU and thereafter. The DSU had suffered from high work load and limited resources prior to and during the Petitioner's employment in the unit. A psychologist working in the unit testified that she suffered severe depression as a result of the stress created by the workload in the Unit. For assistance in preparing reports, the DSU could send draft reports to the word processing unit. However, the word processing unit was slow and not suited to the particular needs of the DSU because the word processing personnel were not familiar with the technical terminology used in the psychological and social work reports, and did not accurately transcribe the material which the DSU sent to them. This resulted in reports having to be returned to the word processing center for corrections. Because the Petitioner's unit was only third in order of priority for using the word processing center, the DSU's turn-around time was lengthy. One school psychologist had to wait an entire summer to receive materials she had sent to the word processing center, and then found it necessary to return them for corrections. The lack of adequate secretarial support adversely impacted the work of the DSU and the Petitioner's personal performance. Dr. Mitchell, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, forbade the Petitioner to use her secretary for typing Petitioner's written reports because of the backlog in the unit. The Petitioner was forced to print her own work by hand. This was slow and adversely affected by her disability. Because the Petitioner could not use the secretaries who were assigned to and physically located in her unit, the Petitioner had to walk to the word processing center, where obstructions and uneven steps in the area of the unit's office made Petitioner's walking more difficult. This caused further delay. The practice of assigning short suspense projects made the absence of adequate secretarial support worse. The Petitioner paid for secretarial services to prepare various reports for the Respondent paying in one year over $900.00 for secretarial support to meet the demands of her job. The Petitioner made verbal requests for a secretary to her supervisor, Dr. Mitchell, and these requests were denied. The Petitioner made requests to the Superintendent and other members of the School Board Staff, and caused a letter to be written by her physician to the Board explaining the need for secretarial assistance as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Although the Respondent denies that Petitioner made a request for a secretary as a reasonable accommodation for her disability, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, a memorandum to William Wolley from the Petitioner dated May 4, 1989, which specifically addressed other issues references the aforementioned physician's letter as follows: There is also a letter from a physician earlier relative to that issue in requesting some reasonable accommodation in terms of secretarial assistance that was an attempt to get my Secretary III reinstated . . . [.] The Respondent never assigned a secretary to assist the Petitioner in doing her work although the timeliness of the Petitioner's work was the primary complaint regarding the Petitioner. The school board's yearly payroll was in excess of $110 million. The salary for a secretary varied between $15,000 and $20,000 a year. At the time of Petitioner's employment, the Petitioner walked without the use of a walker although she walked slowly and with some difficulty. The Petitioner wanted to postpone using a walker to assist her in walking because use of a walker causes certain muscles to become dysfunctional and atrophied. Although the Petitioner had a walker in her office restroom and in her car, she avoided use of a walker wherever possible because, as stated above, they can cause the muscles to become dysfunctional, and because they can cause the individual to trip by catching on the uneven surfaces. In late spring or summer of 1988, Dr. Mitchell, the Petitioner's supervisor, told the Petitioner that she wanted the Petitioner to use a walker around the office complex. Dr. Mitchell made the Petitioner's use of a walker a condition of continued employment after Petitioner fell outside the Board's offices when she tripped over an uneven joint in the sidewalk and landed on a piece of broken curbing. A coworker, who is an R.N., was aware of how Petitioner felt about being asked to use a walker and explained to Dr. Mitchell that victims of cerebral palsy strive to maintain the maximum independence and postpone the use of such devices. Dr. Mitchell advised the coworker that if Petitioner wanted to work for the Respondent that she would have to use the walker. The Petitioner felt that Dr. Mitchell's demand was unwarranted, improper, not in her best interest, and refused to use a walker in the absence of a physician's recommendation. The Respondent never referred Petitioner to a physician for evaluation. Subsequent to Dr. Mitchell's demands that the Petitioner use a walker and Petitioner's refusal, Dr. Mitchell made derogatory comments to staff about how slow Petitioner walked. At this time, the professional relationship between Dr. Mitchell and the Petitioner became strained. Dr. Mitchell arranged to have a study done in early 1988 by Case Management Services Inc. Dr. Mitchell requested that Dr. Mason participate in this study which was presented to Dr. Mason as an assessment of the work environment of the board offices; however, the report prepared by the consultant appears to address not the work area, but Dr. Mason personally. The purpose of this report was to support Dr. Mitchell's demand that Dr. Mason use a walker. Notwithstanding the findings by the consultant that there were architectural and facilities maintenance problems which posed a danger to the handicapped, the consultant's first recommendation primarily addressed Dr. Mason's use of a quad-cane (walker). The second recommendation, "occupational therapy evaluation to determine means for enhanced functioning among campus architectural problems," appears to be limited to the Petitioner. In the spring of 1989, Dr. Mitchell gave Petitioner her first unsatisfactory annual performance evaluation. In addition, Dr. Mitchell only extended Dr. Mason's service contract for three months beyond the existing contract and denied Dr. Mason an increase in salary. Dr. Mason appealed Dr. Mitchell's evaluation and Dr. Mitchell reevaluated Dr. Mason's performance as satisfactory. Dr. Mitchell told Dr. Mason that this was the last time she would amend her evaluation of Petitioner pursuant to an appeal. Although not readily apparent from the file, Dr. Mason's employment contract was extended for an entire year and pursuant to that contract she was evaluated again in June of 1990. At that time, Dr. Mitchell evaluated Dr. Mason as unsatisfactory and extended her contract for only three months. During the year 1989-90, Dr. Mitchell documented every instance in which Dr. Mason appears to have departed from school board procedure or failed in any way to meet Dr. Mitchell's expectations. Dr. Mitchell contacted other supervisors of other activities within the school system and requested that they provide her with any information related to the failure of DSU to meet their expectations. See the memorandum of Dr. Mitchell to Beverly Blanton dated June 19, 1989. Dr. Mitchell required Dr. Mason to perform additional work unrelating to any specific program or project, and announced her intention to attend Dr. Mason's staff meetings, to hold weekly meetings to review Dr. Mason's logs and summaries of activities, and to work with Dr. Mason on staff development. (See memorandum Dr. Mitchell to Dr. Mason dated April 10, 1989, subject: Suggestions for improvement in evaluation.) These requirements, placed upon Dr. Mason under the guise of improving her performance, formed the basis for additional criticism of Dr. Mason while at the same time taking up more of her time and undercutting Dr. Mason's authority with her subordinates. Dr. Mitchell also requested access to Dr. Mason's medical records, a request she did not make of any other employee. Dr. Mitchell demonstrated an amazing lack of tact with Dr. Mason. Dr. Mitchell advised Dr. Mason on one occasion when Dr. Mason was hospitalized for burns suffered in an accident while on school business that Dr. Mason had picked an extremely bad time to be injured, and when Dr. Mason was recuperating at home from a severe fall, Dr. Mitchell threatened to bring a television crew to Dr. Mason's house for an interview if Dr. Mason could not come to work. One of the major complaints against Petitioner by Dr. Mitchell was the quality of the reports provided by Dr. Mason's unit to Ray King. A complete file of these reports was provided to Dr. Mitchell by Mr. King's staff as a result of a memorandum from Dr. Mitchell. (See Tab 6, Respondent's Exhibit 3.) The first of these 103 reports is dated May 18, 1988 and the last of these dated December 15, 1989. There were 97 reports returned from Mr. Ray's to Dr. Mason's section between 5-18-88 and 4-20-89. There were six reports returned from Mr. Ray's section after 4-20-89. Contrary to the assertions made by Respondent, the number of reports kicked back by Mr. King during the period following Dr. Mason's initial unsatisfactory evaluation were significantly reduced. The Respondent attempted to justify its denial of a secretary as a reasonable accommodation to Dr. Mason by stating that it was having fiscal problems, and by providing Dr. Mitchell with a computer. Because of Dr. Mason's handicap, she is unable to utilize a computer to prepare her own work. Further, notwithstanding Dr. Mason's inability to use a computer, Dr. Mitchell required her to be conversant in the operation of a computer so she could utilize the computerized data base. Contrary to the Respondent's assertion that Dr. Mason was only required to be knowledgeable about the computer's capabilities, Dr. Mitchell required Dr. Mason to demonstrate use of the computer to her secretary, and was harshly critical of Dr. Mason's inability to do so. Although additional memoranda purportedly documenting additional failings on the part of Dr. Mason and the DSU were introduced, Dr. Mason's explanations are adequate, and these secondary reasons for the adverse personnel action are not meritorious. Because of budgetary constraints in 1990, Dr. Mason's requests for authorization to fly to St. Petersburg to make a presentation at an educational conference was denied. Dr. Mason was told to drive to the conference or not to attend because attendance at the conference was not a part of her normal duties and responsibilities. Presentations at such conferences are considered professionally beneficial both to the individual and to the board. However, Dr. Mason admitted that she had not requested air travel as reasonable accommodation due to her handicap which makes long trips by car very painful and debilitating. On September 22, 1990, the Petitioner received a memorandum from Dr. Mitchell that her contract would not be renewed, and that Petitioner should leave all records in her office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: The Respondent reinstate the Petitioner to a position comparable to the position from which she was terminated (or in which the Respondent denied the Petitioner employment), The Respondent pay the Petitioner backpay, to include insurance and retirement benefits less $25,241, in accordance with this order, The Respondent pay the Petitioner's reasonable attorney fees and costs, and The Respondent be enjoined from further discrimination against the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6043 Proposed findings of both parties were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings: Para 1-9 Adopted. Para 10 Irrelevant. Para 11-14 (1st sentence) Adopted. Para 14 (2d sentence) Contrary to best evidence. Para 15,16 Adopted. Para 17 Irrelevant. Para 18-42 Adopted. Para 43 Subsumed in 44. Para 44-45 Irrelevant. Para 49-54 Adopted. Para 55 Irrelevant. Para 56-80,82 Adopted or Subsumed. Para 81 Irrelevant. Para 83-92 Irrelevant. Para 93-99 Adopted. Para 100-118 Adopted. Respondent's Findings: Para 1-3 Adopted. Para 4-5 Irrelevant. Para 6 Contrary to best evidence. Para 7-11 Irrelevant. Para 12-13 Contrary to best evidence. Para 14 Irrelevant. Para 15 Contrary to best evidence. Para 16-17 Irrelevant. Para 18,19 Contrary to best evidence. Para 20, 21 The letter was not considered. Para 22-24 Contrary to best evidence. Para 25-27 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn Hathaway, Esquire 924 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Leslie Holland, Esquire Suite 800 2800 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33167 Deborah J. Stephens, Esquire Graham C. Carothers, Esquire 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Merrick, Superintendent Leon County School Board 2757 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2907 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue Whether this cause is barred by a release of all claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Maurice G. Hargrove, Sr.’s, Petition for Relief from employment discrimination due to a lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 28th day of September, 2016
