Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed with the State of Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of Facilities Management, Bureau of Maintenance (DMS), in 1979 or 1980. Her date of retirement was February 19, 1993. Petitioner graduated from Florida A&M high school and attended Florida A&M University for approximately one and one-half years. Between 1950 and 1979 or 1980, Petitioner was primarily a homemaker but also worked in various clerical positions until starting work with the Department of Management Services as a custodial worker. Petitioner began working as a custodial worker at the Twin Towers Building in Tallahassee, Florida. In that capacity, Ms. Lewis was responsible for dusting, vacuuming, trash removal, and spot cleaning furniture, walls and doors. During her tenure at the Twin Towers Building Ms. Lewis received the following discipline: Oral reprimand for excessive absenteeism, on September 20, 1982. Written reprimand for excessive absenteeism; on September 15, 1983; and Suspension for three workdays for the third offense of excessive absenteeism on September 5, 1984. Additionally, around April 30, 1985, the building superintendent at Twin Towers gave Ms. Lewis a memorandum of concern about her absenteeism. Around April 23, 1987, she was given a memorandum of concern about tardiness in reporting to work because she had been late to work twelve times in the three month period prior to the memo. Ms. Lewis seemed to improve her daily attendance at work but, the problem of tardiness to work continued. Petitioner began working as a night shift custodial worker at the Capitol in May of 1988, when she was transferred from the Twin Towers Building. The transfer was necessary because all of the full-time custodial positions at the Twin Towers Building were changed to halftime positions. DMS custodial workers at the Capitol on the night shift were responsible for cleaning of the public areas and offices of the capitol complex, including dusting, vacuuming, trash removal, and spot cleaning furniture, walls and doors. Generally, four employees work as a team to quick clean certain areas and do more thorough cleaning in other areas each night as assigned by that shift's custodial supervisors. All members of the general cleaning teams were expected to arrive at work at 5:00 p.m. and work until 1:00 a.m. The lunch break was considered work time for the employees and was therefore paid. Upon joining the custodial workers at the Capitol, Ms. Lewis was assigned the task of dusting the historic capitol building. Her performance appraised by Tommy Denis, Custodial Supervisor III, indicated that she was a good worker with attendance and tardiness problems. Eventually, Petitioner, at her request, was moved to work with a team on the plaza level at the Capitol. Her duties consisted of dusting with occasional vacuuming and emptying of small office trash cans which weighed less than 10 pounds into large trash containers on wheels. She continued to receive good appraisal ratings with the problems of attendance and tardiness noted. Another change in duty assignment placed Ms. Lewis with a team working on multiple, upper floors of the Capitol. Her principal duty continued to be dusting with occasional vacuuming and emptying of small office trash cans which weighed less than 10 pounds into large trash containers on wheels. Ms. Lewis reported to her doctor that she was assigned the duty of dusting. Petitioner testified she could empty the small office trash cans. Ms. Lewis was not assigned to lift recycle paper and not assigned to pull bags of trash out of the large trash barrels on wheels. Additionally, Ms. Lewis, along with other custodial workers were instructed not to lift anything that was too heavy and to call for help when such a situation was encountered. At some point in her employment, Ms. Lewis injured her back while lifting trash. Because of the injury she experienced recurrent pain in her right leg and lower back. In August of 1989, Ms. Lewis had surgery for her back problem. Soon after the surgery in September of 1989, Ms. Lewis fell out of bed onto her hip. The fall delayed her in recovering from the surgery mainly due to new pain in her hip. The pain for which she had the surgery was absent. However, Ms. Lewis did not communicate with DMS regarding her status and her ability to return to work. Since her medical condition was unclear to Building Superintendent Boynton, he requested the assistance of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services. Bureau Chief Dave Fulcher wrote Ms. Lewis to ascertain her status. She solicited her surgeon, Dr. Geissinger, to respond to Mr. Fulcher. Dr. Geissinger evaluated the duties of the position held by Ms. Lewis from her position description. On November 30, 1989, Dr. Geissinger wrote Mr. Fulcher that Ms. Lewis could be expected to perform the duties of her position. Dr. Geissinger also attached a copy of his office notes dated 11/30/89, which indicated Ms. Lewis still experienced some pain but that she was not in acute distress. In November 1989, Dr. Geissinger did not specify "light duty" for Petitioner but at other times, Dr. Geissinger and other doctors specified a weight limit for Petitioner's lifting. The suggested limits did not exceed the lifting requirements of Petitioner's position. Dr. E. E. Lowder sent the last "light duty" restriction for Ms. Lewis. He limited her lifting to 10 - 15 pounds and indicated that her release from doctor's care was pending. Importantly, there was no evidence which indicated that Petitioner's back problem amounted to a condition which impaired any major life function of Petitioner. Moreover, there was no evidence that DMS perceived Petitioner's back problem as a handicap. In fact, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated Petitioner's condition was not a handicap and was not perceived as such by her employer. During the six month period from 5/8/92 to 11/5/92, Ms. Lewis was tardy 46 times by eight minutes or more. During the eight month period from 6/20/90 to 2/28/91 Petitioner was tardy 46 times. Following 2/28/91, Ms. Lewis was tardy at least 5 more times. On April 11, 1991 Ms. Lewis received an oral reprimand for her tardiness. Ms. Lewis was again tardy two more times and received a written reprimand for excessive tardiness on May 7, 1991. Later, Petitioner received a three workday suspension for tardiness which was served on January 12, 13, and 14, 1993. Ms. Lewis did not deny that she had been tardy. Other employees, males and females, were disciplined for excessive absenteeism and tardiness. After the suspension was served in January, 1993, Ms. Lewis was tardy 15 times in the next 18 days, nine days of which were 8 minutes or more. The fact that some of the days Petitioner was late were for less than seven minutes does not eliminate the tardiness. DMS rules on the subject only address when an employee's wages can be docked for such lateness. Since Ms. Lewis continued to be tardy, Allen Dallis, Maintenance Supervisor, initiated the first step of a recommendation to dismiss Ms. Lewis for continuing tardiness. Ms. Lewis gave reasons for being tardy which included, being stuck in traffic, doctors' appointments, her ride to work being late, caring for her grandchildren, and sickness of her daughter. Often she was late simply because, for unknown reasons, she waited outside her place of employment before coming into work. At no time in the disciplinary process leading up to the suspension or after the suspension did Ms. Lewis assert that she was being singled out due to her sex or handicap. In fact, Ms. Lewis would not talk with her supervisors about her tardiness or her assignments. In general Ms. Lewis did not communicate well with her supervisors and had formed the habit that if they said something to her, she would walk off and not respond. Generally, Ms. Lewis did not notify her supervisors ahead of time that she would be tardy even though she knew in advance when her tardiness might occur. She occasionally called Mr. Rivers, a custodial supervisor, on the same day that she would be tardy to tell him she would be late. Mr. Rivers was not available for calls until 5:00 p.m. each day after the shift had begun. Occasionally, Ms. Lewis would advise her supervisors the evening before that she would be late the next day. After July 12, 1990, Ms. Lewis received leave without pay (LWOP) when she was more than seven minutes tardy and she had not brought in medical certification. Tardiness of custodial workers presented problems in scheduling the work because the workers were organized in teams whose members moved together doing their tasks. If one of the usual team members was absent or late at the beginning of the shift, the supervisors would organize the employees who were present into different teams in order to try to cover all areas with the available workers and have no one working alone. Frequently it was not evident whether Ms. Lewis was tardy or absent for the evening. Ms. Lewis asked that if she were tardy in reporting to work, she be allowed to make up the amount of time she had been tardy on the same night. She did not request a change in her schedule. Her choice of make up time was during the lunch break when her time was already counted as work-time, or after 1:00 a.m., when all workers and supervisors were gone from the building. The request was denied because a daily schedule which changes as the employee chooses would not fit the staffing organization of the custodial work force in the Capitol. Additionally, a worker could not stay in the Capitol past the end of the shift at 1:00 a.m. with no supervisors present. No employee was permitted to adjust their daily schedule in such an unpredictable manner. A few years ago, Dunk Chambers, at the time a custodial worker on a floor team, and Johnny Pease, at the time a Custodial Supervisor I, had flexible schedules in which they reported to work at 5:30 p.m. each day except Wednesday. On Wednesdays they reported to work early enough to make up time missed during the week. These schedules were predictable and set well in advance. Currently, Mr. Chambers, Custodial Supervisor II, and Mr. Pease, Custodial Supervisor III, currently follow the regular night shift schedule. Presently, two female custodial workers at the building where Tommy Denis is supervisor, follow a schedule in which their arrival and departure from work is different from that of other employees. Again these schedules are predictable and are set well in advance. The denial of Ms. Lewis' request to make up time when she was tardy was not due to a medical condition, handicap or sex. At least one other female employee who had no medical problem was disciplined for excessive tardiness to work. Allen Dallis asked Ms. Lewis if she wanted to work part-time as a suggestion of a possible change that would enable her to report to work on time, but she walked off with no answer. The option of retirement was offhandedly mentioned to her also. During these conversations, there was no coercion, duress, misinformation or deception by the supervisors and there was no indication that Ms. Lewis was in any way harassed by her supervisors. During her tenure with DMS, Ms. Lewis did not present any medical justification for nor request any specific accommodation for her back problems other than temporary light duty for a condition from which she would soon be released. The evidence was very clear that Petitioner was only doing light duty work which work could not be lightened further. Finally, there was no evidence that Petitioner was subjected to any discrimination based on sex or handicap. Finally, the evidence did show that Petitioner's discipline was justified, that she was not constructively discharged, and that Petitioner chose to retire in February 1993. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was discriminated against because of her sex or handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO DOAH CASE NO. 94-3996 The facts contained in paragraphs of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 34, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 68 Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3,,, 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 43, and 44 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 9, 11, 18, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 46 and 47 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Joan Van Arsdall Department of Management Services Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Marie Mattox 3045 Tower Court Tallahassee, FL 32303 Helen Burgess AFSCME Florida Council 79 345 South Magnolia Drive Suite A-13 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ms. Sharon Moultry Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149
The Issue Did the Respondent engage in a discriminatory employment practice by suspending the Petitioner from work?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joeann F. Nelson, is a Black female. In 1997, she was employed as an aide working with developmentally disabled persons at Sunrise Community, Inc. The Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. (hereafter “Sunrise”) is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. On or about April 24, 1997, the Petitioner was suspended from her employment for a number of days by Sunrise. The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereafter “the Commission”) on May 8, 1997, alleging that her suspension was racially motivated, and a violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The staff of the Commission investigated the complaint, and issued its Determination of No Cause on May 16, 2000. At the same time, the Commission gave the Petitioner notice of her right to an administrative hearing on the Commission’s findings. The Petitioner, while employed by the Respondent, was asked by her immediate supervisor to participate in taking residents of the facility to their group home. The Petitioner refused to take the residents complaining that another co-worker was scheduled to take the residents on the day in question. The supervisor told the Petitioner that the person who was scheduled to take the residents was too old to handle that job, and the Petitioner got into an argument about this matter. As a result of this refusal to take the residents and the argument, the Petitioner was suspended for a number of days. The refusal to follow the directions of her supervisor regarding her work and the confrontational argument with the supervisor over being asked to do a specific task that was within her job duties generally were sufficient cause for discipline. The Petitioner did not show that she was singled out or treated differently because of her race, either in being asked to perform the task or in being suspended for refusing to do the task. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second complaint with the Commission on June 30, 1997, and raised additional issues regarding her discharge when she asked for her formal hearing on the Commission’s determination of no cause on the original complaint. However, the only matter properly before the undersigned in these proceedings is her suspension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint upon a finding that there was no cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: JoeAnne Nelson Post Office Box 76 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent should be deemed to have abandoned her employment with Petitioner and resigned from Career Service on March 10, 1989.
Findings Of Fact From March 31, 1987 through March 6, 1989, Nguyet Mackay, Respondent herein, was an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner herein). Petitioner's workday commences at 7:30 a.m. At approximately 9:30 a.m., on March 6, 1989, Respondent called Larry Blackburn, a supervisory employee and advised that she was in Ohio and requested leave without pay (LWOP). Blackburn was without authority to approve LWOP and so advised Respondent, but agreed to submit Respondent's request to personnel for consideration. Blackburn expressed skepticism about granting LWOP to Respondent since Respondent, at the time, was on special probation for failing to achieve the required standards in her department. During the conversation with Blackburn on March 6, Respondent advised Blackburn that she was enroute to California to pick up her sister and other relatives and that she would again call the following day, i.e., March 7, to find out if her request for LWOP was granted. Blackburn, in an effort to make sure that in the event Respondent called prior to his arrival at work the following morning, left specific instructions with Marilyn Ford, a unit supervisor, on whether to grant or deny Respondent's request for LWOP. At approximately 8:30 a.m., on March 7, 1989, Respondent phoned to inquire whether her request for LWOP was approved. Ford inquired of Respondent the basis for her request for LWOP and determined that since it was not an emergency, Respondent was advised and placed on unauthorized LWOP and that disciplinary action was being contemplated. Ford further advised Respondent that she was to report to work the following day, March 8, 1989, at her regular reporting time. Respondent was cautioned that in the event that she failed to report to work by the close of business on Friday, March 10, 1989, her employment relationship with Petitioner would be severed for abandonment of position. Respondent advised supervisor Ford that she had flown to California from Ohio to meet with seven members of her family who were flying to California from Malaysia, a sister and brother-in-law and their five children, who had a language barrier and were unable to communicate in English. Respondent understood the directives issued by Ford respecting her unauthorized LWOP and her duty to report to work on March 8. Respondent did not report to work by the close of business on March 10, and her only communication with Petitioner following the March 7, 1989 conversation with Marilyn Ford, was a phone call during the week of March 13 to give her new address and directions for mailing her final paycheck. By letter dated March 13, 1989, Respondent was advised that she was deemed to have resigned from Career Service on March 10, 1989, based on her continuous absence from work without authorization during the period 7:30 a.m., Monday, March 6, 1989 through 4:00 p.m., Friday, March 10, 1989, since such absence without authorized leave for three consecutive work days constituted an abandonment of position. At the time of Respondent's employment on March 31, 1987, she received a copy of Petitioner's employee handbook and loyalty oath and acknowledged her responsibility to review the handbook in detail and request any clarification needed from either her supervisor or the personnel office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Respondent's petition for review of the facts herein based on the determination that Respondent abandoned her position of employment with Petitioner on March 10, 1989. DONE and ENTERED this 25th of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Shari N. Cortese, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 701 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Nguyet Mackay 6202 South Harold Avenue Tampa, Florida 33601 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 A. J. McMullian, III Interim Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Pacifica Senior Living Woodmont, on account of Petitioner’s age or race, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 41-year-old African-American female who was at all times relevant hereto an employee of Pacifica Senior Living Woodmont. Petitioner was 40 years old at the time the alleged discriminatory act occurred. Respondent, Pacifica Senior Living Woodmont (Respondent or Woodmont), is a 98-bed assisted living facility located in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner was employed by Woodmont from June 22, 1996, until February 28, 2014, when her position as Interim Weekday Receptionist was eliminated. By all accounts, Petitioner was a dedicated, reliable, loyal, and hard-working employee. Petitioner was recognized as Employee of the Month in August 2004, and January 2006. Petitioner began her employment with Woodmont as a Dietary Server in the Dining Services Department. At various times during her employment, Petitioner also worked PRN (i.e., “as needed”) as the front-desk receptionist. The “as needed” basis brought Petitioner in to work reception occasionally in the evenings and on weekends. Other employees who worked reception PRN included Pamela Strange, a 48-year-old African-American female, and Barbara Youngblood, a 58-year-old white female. In June or July 2013, Woodmont initiated a significant renovation of the facility, adding a memory-care wing, two additional dining rooms, and a new security system. The renovations were completed approximately one year later. In October 2013, Woodmont’s full-time weekday receptionist, Allison Clark, suffered a severe physical injury and was on medical leave through late December 2013. During Ms. Clark’s absence, Petitioner, Ms. Strange, and Ms. Youngblood alternately performed the weekday, as well as weekend and evening, receptionist duties. Ms. Clark briefly returned to Woodmont in December 2013. Ms. Clark was terminated effective January 30, 2014. Emily Bearden was the Business Office Coordinator for Woodmont from January 2013 through May 2015. Ms. Bearden’s duties included accounts payable and receivable, payroll, and onsite Human Resources, as well as managing the front-desk team. On January 30, 2014, the date Ms. Clark was terminated, Ms. Bearden offered Petitioner the position of Interim Weekday Receptionist. Petitioner accepted the position. On January 30, 2014, Petitioner was removed from the Dietary schedule with Dining Services and began as Interim Weekday Receptionist. Her regular work hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. During her term as Interim Weekday Receptionist, Petitioner occasionally worked shifts for Dining Services. Those shifts were taken prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 4:30 p.m. Ms. Bearden reclassified the weekday receptionist position to that of Receptionist/HR marketing assistant. Ms. Bearden explained to Petitioner the duties of the new position, which would include assisting the marketer on development of brochures and handouts, making time-clock adjustments for employees who missed clocking in or out, and other duties with various departments. The position would require basic knowledge of the Excel spreadsheet program and use of Outlook for email with other departments. Petitioner did not immediately dismiss the idea of moving into the proposed position, but expressed concerns with the computer skills which would be required. Ms. Bearden offered to personally provide some training to Petitioner, and indicated that Woodmont could provide additional training through a third party. When Woodmont advertised the position of Receptionist/HR marketing assistant, Petitioner did not apply. In March 2014, Woodmont hired Laurie Love, a 45-year-old white female, as Receptionist/HR marketing assistant. Upon completion of the facility renovations, Woodmont made budget adjustments in order to staff the new memory care wing. Woodmont eliminated a full-time dishwasher position in Dining Services, reduced the full-time Activities Director position to part time, and eliminated the part-time evening receptionist position. The facility renovations included a new security feature for the front door, allowing after-hours’ visitors (i.e., between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.) to be “buzzed in.” This feature eliminated the need for the part-time evening receptionist at Woodmont. On February 6, 2014, Ms. Bearden met with Petitioner regarding options for continued employment with Woodmont following conclusion of her stint as Interim Weekday Receptionist, and elimination of the part-time evening receptionist position. Ms. Bearden offered Petitioner a position in housekeeping, as well as a position transporting residents to and from medical appointments in the facility vehicle. Ms. Bearden also informed Petitioner that Dining Services was hiring to fill positions for the two new dining rooms. Petitioner responded that she was only interested in evening reception. Joyce Latimer is an employee of Senior Management Advisors, the company which manages Woodmont. Ms. Latimer became Assistant Director of Operations at Woodmont in October 2013. On February 14, 2014, Ms. Latimer called Petitioner into her office to notify her that her position had been eliminated, and deliver a termination letter with detailed information. Ms. Bearden was also present at the meeting. Ms. Latimer testified, credibly, that Petitioner did not seem to understand the ramifications of the facility reorganization. Ms. Latimer explained, more than once, the elimination of the part-time receptionist position, and opportunities for continued employment at Woodmont. The meeting lasted 40 to 45 minutes, much longer than similar meetings with other affected employees. During the meeting, Petitioner insisted that she wanted to stay in her current position. Ms. Strange and Ms. Youngblood were likewise affected by Woodmont’s restructuring and elimination of the part-time receptionist position. Ms. Strange accepted the position of full- time weekend receptionist. Ms. Youngblood declined any alternate position and was separated from employment at Woodmont. Ms. Latimer’s concern for Petitioner was genuine. She wanted to ensure that Petitioner understood she was not being terminated for poor job performance. Ms. Latimer offered to allow Petitioner to take time off to look for other employment, to write letters of recommendation on Petitioner’s behalf, and to otherwise support Petitioner, should Petitioner decide not to remain at Woodmont. Further, during the meeting, Ms. Latimer offered Petitioner the opportunity to return to a position in Dietary Services. On February 28, 2014, Woodmont hosted a going-away party for Petitioner at the facility. Petitioner made some comments to the assembled employees which led Ms. Latimer to believe Petitioner was upset. Ms. Latimer spoke privately with Petitioner during the party to address Petitioner’s concerns. Ms. Latimer again explained the restructuring and elimination of positions. Ms. Latimer reiterated opportunities for continued employment with Woodmont. Petitioner maintained throughout the proceeding that she was never offered continued employment at Woodmont, and that she repeatedly requested to return to her position as a Dietary Server, but was not allowed to do so. In arriving at the findings herein, the undersigned has carefully considered the demeanor and the testimony of the witnesses. Ms. Latimer’s and Ms. Bearden’s testimony is accepted as both credible and persuasive on this point. Following her last day of employment, February 28, 2014, Petitioner did not apply for any other position with Woodmont, nor did Petitioner request a letter of recommendation from Ms. Latimer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Pacifica Senior Living Woodmont, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Jacqueline Ash, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-00515. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2015.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that petitioner's complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 24 day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1984.
Findings Of Fact On December 6, 7 and 8, 1988, petitioner Harold E. Solano was absent from his job at the Department of Transportation without leave.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order deeming petitioner to have abandoned his career service position with respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 18th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold E. Solano Route 1, Box 5 Elkton, Florida 32033 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Andrew J. McMullian, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 760.027, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked full-time as a floor technician (floor tech) at Respondent's nursing home facility. As a floor tech, Petitioner was responsible for dusting, mopping and buffing the floors. At all relevant times, Cheryl Johnson was Respondent's facility administrator. Ms. Johnson has held that position since December 2002. In May 2003, Petitioner asked Ms. Johnson if she could receive her paycheck early. Petitioner was aware that Ms. Johnson had given an early paycheck to a nurse. The record does not reveal the nurse's race. Ms. Johnson refused to give Petitioner the early paycheck. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had made a mistake in giving the nurse an early paycheck. Ms. Johnson stated that she would not violate Respondent's policy against early paychecks again. Petitioner filed a grievance, claiming that Ms. Johnson was not being fair. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Johnson gave an early paycheck to a dietary employee. The dietary employee was an African- American. With regard to early paychecks, there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson ever gave preferential treatment to employees who were not members of a protected group. In October 2003, Sue Goldfarb was Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Goldfarb criticized Petitioner because Petitioner was spending too much time in the Activities Room. Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed two grievances, claiming that she was being treated unfairly. According to Petitioner, Ms. Goldfarb and a medical records clerk, Pam Brock, did not get into trouble for spending time in the Activities Room. Ms. Johnson explained that Petitioner could assist in the Activities Room, but only after she completed her floor tech duties. There is no evidence that Respondent ever allowed employees to assist in the Activities Room before they completed their regularly assigned duties. Petitioner did not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of Ms. Goldfarb's criticism. At some point in time, Respondent informed all housekeepers, including Petitioner, that their hours were being cut from seven-and-a-half hours per day to six-and-a-half hours per day. Respondent also informed the housekeepers that they would not be eligible for overtime hours. Respondent took these actions because the facility's "census" (number of residents) was low. In February 2004, Ms. Johnson decided to redecorate the Activity Room as a special weekend project. Ms. Johnson requested Gary Brock, Pam Brock's husband and a maintenance man for the facility, to work over the weekend to complete project. Ms. Johnson also requested Ms. Brock to assist with the project because Ms. Brock recently had been short on hours. Thereafter, Petitioner impermissibly reviewed a document on a supervisor's desk. The document indicated that Ms. Brock, the medical records clerk, received three hours of overtime on the weekend of the special project. Petitioner copied the document and returned the original to the supervisor's desk. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not supposed to be looking at documents on the supervisor's desk. In February 2004, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining that Ms. Brock had received overtime. Petitioner thought it was unfair for Ms. Brock, a medical records clerk, to receive overtime hours, while the housekeepers had their hours reduced. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed a grievance that Ms. Goldfarb was not doing her job. After receiving Petitioner's complaint, Ms. Johnson decided to obtain a statement from each housekeeper as to whether they had any concerns regarding Ms. Goldfarb. In March 2004, Ms. Johnson temporarily held all of the housekeepers' paychecks. She requested the housekeepers to visit her office, render their opinions about the housekeeping supervisor, and collect their checks. Petitioner, like all of the housekeepers had to visit Ms. Johnson's office to pick up her paycheck. While she was there, Petitioner signed a statement, indicating that Ms. Goldfarb did not treat her fairly. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining, in part, because Ms. Johnson held the paychecks for the entire housekeeping department. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At the end of March 2004, Petitioner had a confrontation with a co-worker, Robert Goldfarb. Mr. Goldfarb was Sue Goldfarb's husband. The altercation occurred after Mr. Goldfarb walked across a wet floor that Petitioner had just mopped. Mr. Goldfarb had to walk across the wet floor to get to the restroom. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb cursed at each other and engaged in a shouting match. Petitioner filed a grievance about the incident. Respondent did not discipline Petitioner or Mr. Goldfarb for getting into the argument. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb have not had a similar exchange since the March 2004 incident. In September 2004, Petitioner and her supervisor, Ms. Goldfarb, engaged in an argument outside Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Johnson suspended both employees for three days. After an investigation, Ms. Johnson reinstated Petitioner and Ms. Goldfarb and gave them back pay to make them whole. Since September 2004, Petitioner has received pay raises. She has not received any write-ups, reprimands, or any other type of discipline. She has not filed any grievances since September 2004. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Goldfarb was still Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner was serving as Respondent's Chairperson of the Safety Committee, a position of special trust and responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorina Smith 1160 East Mays Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Alvin J. Taylor Delta Health Group 2 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old Black male. Prior to December 1986, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in an OPS position in "Central Files". His work performance in Central Files was both superior and exemplary, and he was offered a State Career Service position as a Senior Clerk within Respondent's "Complaint Section". Upon accepting the Career Service position, Petitioner entered into a mandatory six months' probationary period. In the Senior Clerk position, Petitioner's primary duties were to answer the phone a specific 4-hour daily shift; to assist or act as backup for phone answering during Senior Clerk Terri Jones' (Black female) 4-hour daily phone shift; to prepare and distribute Class II complaint cases to Respondent's "Legal Section"; and to distribute mail and other materials as assigned by his immediate supervisor, Louise Bull (white female). On January 5, 1987, Petitioner took 4 hours unauthorized leave without pay for which he received a written reprimand on January 6, 1987. He had previously been orally reprimanded for the same practice. It was established by competent substantial evidence that Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Louise Bull, had had a number of absences without leave, some of which occurred before Petitioner's termination and some of which occurred after his termination, and that she also received at least one written reprimand for these absences. For some of her absences, Ms. Bull was required to reimburse money to the State, however it was not clear whether the reimbursement was because she was absent when she falsely claimed to be present or was standard reimbursement procedure when the leave actually taken is not covered by accrued leave time. Either way, Ms. Bull was not in a probationary status at any material time and, clearly, as Petitioner's supervisor, hers was not a substantially similar position to that of Petitioner. Petitioner and Cindy Dexter testified that many permanent employees in addition to Ms. Bull were playing fast and loose with tardiness and absenteeism, but their evidence is very indefinite and the race and gender of the employees accused was not established. Ms. Dexter's testimony was vague and not credible on this point. Their testimony on this subject was not confirmed by other credible witnesses nor was it ever established that any of the permanent employees accused by Petitioner held positions substantially similar to his. From almost the beginning of his probationary period, Petitioner had difficulty adjusting to his new position. He evidenced difficulty accepting supervision from Ms. Bull. This disrupted standard office practice. Over the probationary term, Ms. Bull orally counselled Petitioner approximately seven times concerning his lack of acceptance of her supervision as well as excessive tardiness and excessive personal phone usage. Diane Orcutt, the regular Complaint Office Supervisor and Ms. Bull's superior, described Petitioner as avoiding Louise Bull and coming directly to her about problems he perceived in the office operation. Petitioner and Terri Jones, his female job counterpart who is also Black, had an early but undefined job- related dispute, after which he sent her flowers to "make-up". On one occasion, after a loud and disruptive argument arose between Petitioner and Ms. Bull in the general office area, Evelyn McNeely, who was acting supervisor to them both during Ms. Orcutt's vacation, required Ms. Bull to prepare a memorandum clarifying Petitioner's job duties because, in Ms. McNeely's view, the Petitioner did not seem to understand his duties. This was done on June 17, 1987. This memorandum, headed "Performance Evaluation" from Ms. Bull to Petitioner also warned Petitioner that Ms. Bull would recommend extension of his probationary period because he was falling short on acceptable performance in several areas. Louise Bull prepared, delivered, and discussed with Petitioner her performance evaluation, indicating, based upon her personal observations, his failure to satisfactorily perform in the following areas: repeatedly tardy over the last several weeks; failure to properly handle routine telephone duties; failure to comply with their section's procedures for routing of case files; and continued failure to accept supervision under their section's chain of command. Ms. Bull admitted that she suffered emotional problems while Petitioner worked for her and apparently thereafter. She had crying jags and consulted a psychologist. She also received a prescription from some source for the tranquilizer valium. Ms. Bull denied that she and the psychologist ever identified a reason for her emotional state. Melinda Wagoner testified that Ms. Bull related to her that her emotional problems stemmed from living in a Black neighborhood and fighting with Black children when she was a child. The foregoing hearsay is admissible as an admission of a party (DPR) through its supervising agent (Louise Bull), but even if fully credible, this evidence would be insufficient to establish a nexus between Bull's behavior and the reason for Petitioner's eventual termination, in light of the record as a whole. Terri Jones, the permanent employee most substantially similar to Petitioner, was also a Senior Clerk. She is also Black. Her job duties were identical to those of Petitioner, except that they had primary responsibility for phone calls during different parts of each day. Ms. Jones had no supervisory problems of her own with Louise Bull. Ms. Jones asserted that Petitioner had excellent telephone manners but confirmed that Petitioner's regularity in answering the phone either on his shift or as her backup was often insufficient. The Complaint Section's phone was often placed on "hold" with no one waiting on the other end. Although anyone in the office could place a call on "hold" and any caller could hang up before an employee returned to the phone, the inference from all witnesses' testimony as a whole was that this "hold" procedure was being done excessively by Petitioner. Diane Orcutt, regular Complaint Office Supervisor, reviewed Petitioner's phone logs prior to evaluating him at the six months' point. The representative phone logs of the two substantially similar employees, Petitioner and Terri Jones, show that Petitioner logged only 34 calls in the same period that Ms. Jones logged 359. This vast discrepancy can be interpreted in a number of ways: either Petitioner was not answering the phone as directed, or he was not logging all calls as directed, or he was not maintaining the logs as directed. By any interpretation of this empirical data, Petitioner was not fulfilling a prime requirement of his job. At the time of his six months' evaluation, on June 22, 1987, Diane Orcutt made a joint decision with Louise Bull to extend Petitioner's six months probationary period by four months. Ms. Orcutt did this for a number of reasons: his early absences without leave, oral complaints from lower echelon employees that Petitioner would frequently neglect his telephone duties in one way or another, and the disruptive nature of his failure to accept Ms. Bull's supervision. In requiring the additional probation, Ms. Orcutt gave greater weight to the administrative/managerial friction and less weight to Petitioner's reprimanded early absences; however, with regard to the complaints of other employees, she testified that she felt sure Petitioner could do the work because of his past excellent performance on OPS and because of her personal observation but that he needed more time to actually do the job instead of engaging in uncooperative disputes with Ms. Bull. Additionally, Ms. Orcutt was giving Petitioner the benefit of any doubt by taking additional time to sort out whether the disruption problem arose from Ms. Bull or from Petitioner, because at that point, Ms. Bull had no problems supervising other Black or white employees; no oral complaints had been made by other employees against Ms. Bull; and oral complaints against Petitioner confirming Ms. Bull's unrecorded observations of Petitioner had been received personally by Ms. Orcutt. When presented with Orcutt's Mid-Cycle Appraisal and the 4 months' additional probation plan on June 22, 1987, Petitioner was hostile, refused to sign the appraisal, and another disruptive scene arose among Petitioner, Ms. Bull and Ms. Orcutt. Petitioner spent all of the workday of June 23, 1987 in "Personnel" complaining that his evaluation and the 4 months' additional probation was unjust. On two of the remaining successive days of that work week, Petitioner accomplished some work. On one of the remaining successive days in that week, he took his "Personal Leave Day". A weekend intervened, and on Monday, June 28, 1987, Diane Orcutt reassessed the situation, determined that Petitioner was not intending to cooperate, and terminated him, as had always been her option during his probationary period.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing the complaint and petition for relief filed by Robert Baucham. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0712 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact None filed Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's proposals have been accepted in substance and modified to conform to the record. Where they have not been accepted, they are rejected as misleading as stated or not supported by the record as stated. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Baucham Hearings 1021 Idlewild Drive, P-161 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Leatharine Leon. She has been employed by Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, for more than 13 years. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner was employed in the position of Criminal Justice Administrator. Petitioner supervised a section within the Crime Information Bureau. In October, 1988, Martha Wright, a white female, became the Bureau Chief of the Crime Information Bureau. After evaluating the needs and personnel of the Bureau, Wright consulted with other Respondent management personnel and began the implementation of organizational changes within the Bureau. On or about November 22, 1988, Wright notified Petitioner that she was to be reassigned to duties as an Administrative Assistant II. The position was specifically created to provide administrative support to the Bureau. Wright wanted Petitioner to accept the transfer voluntarily. After thinking overnight about the matter, Petitioner refused and the reassignment was made on an involuntary basis. Upon the expiration of a required 14 day notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner in the early part of December, 1988, to the administrative assistant position. Petitioner continued to enjoy her same salary and pay grade. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-238, Respondent's transfer to the Administrative Assistant II position was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. At the time of Wright's action transferring Petitioner, Wright had already determined to make other organizational changes to the Bureau. Subsequently, implementation of those changes resulted in the merger of two sections of the Bureau; the criminal history input section formerly headed by Petitioner, a black female, and the criminal history bureau section headed by a white female. The white female head of the criminal history bureau section, Judi Croney, became a unit supervisor within the new section and was given additional special projects. Iris Morgan, a senior management analyst employed in a position with a higher pay grade than that held by Petitioner, assumed Petitioner's previous supervisory duties. Further, Morgan assumed additional duties and responsibilities associated with determining the viability of the merger of the two bureau sections and then supervising the merger. Respondent's management wanted to continue a higher level manager position over the enlarged section resulting from the merger action. Wright envisioned that the new section supervisor position would require an individual adept at conceptual work, as opposed to operational management. Since she met all minimum qualifications for the position, Morgan was selected to continue as the new section head. Petitioner did not adapt well to her position as the Administrative Assistant II. She was unable to perform duties of the position in an independent fashion. Consequently, she received below satisfactory performance evaluations on March 28, 1989, May 2, 1989, June 1, 1989, and July 28, 1989. After the last unsatisfactory performance evaluation, Petitioner was demoted from the Administrative Assistant II position, a pay grade 18 position, to a technician position with a pay grade of 14. However, Petitioner's salary was not reduced and has not been reduced to date. After Petitioner was removed from the Administrative Assistant II position in July or August of 1989, the position was filled by Jerrie Bell, a black female, who is still employed in that position. Bell has performed satisfactorily in the position and has the ability to work independently without constant instruction and supervision. As a result of reorganization, supervisory positions were reduced from ten to seven positions within the Bureau. All other affected supervisors, a total of five individuals, were white. All but one of them voiced objection to Respondent's actions; however, none of the objections varied or prevented implementation of Respondent's proposed changes. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's race. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4270 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-45. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 46.-48. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 49. Adopted by reference. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq.. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Leatharine Leon 1751 Centerville Road Tallahassee, FL 32317 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
