The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to race and gender discrimination, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, and retaliation, as alleged in her Petition for Relief.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, a 36-year-old Caucasian female, was employed by Respondent as a sales associate. She first worked for Respondent at its Sebastian, Florida, store where she started in June 2006. She voluntarily resigned from the Sebastian store in October 2006 and was hired by Respondent's Merritt Island, Florida, store one week later. Respondent owns and operates an appliance retail store in Central Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 people. At some time during Petitioner's employment, John Barnaba, an operations manager who rotated among several stores, said things to her that she found "unacceptable." For example, "You would look good on my Harley," "You look like a biker chick," and "You must be anorexic." He also clapped his hands behind her and said, "hurry, hurry, hurry." She reported Mr. Barnaba's conduct to Phil Roundy, her manager and manager of the Merritt Island store, who said "That's just the way he is," or words to that effect. She was unaware of any other action undertaken by Mr. Roundy regarding her complaint. In January 2007, Petitioner began a voluntary sexual relationship with Mr. Roundy, which involved at some point, Petitioner and Mr. Roundy living together. This relationship lasted until April 29, 2007, when the parties separated. She and Mr. Roundy "got back together in May, about a week after her termination." Mr. Roundy did not sexually harass Petitioner based on the voluntary nature of their relationship, nor did he sexually harass Petitioner between April 29 and May 18, 2007. After Petitioner and Mr. Roundy separated, he started treating her "differently." She reports that he became critical of her and would not assist her. Respondent has published an "information resource for common questions and concerns" titled, "Associate Handbook" that addresses sexual harassment and presents a grievance procedure for employees who believe they have been subjected to unfair treatment. It contemplates reporting the unfair treatment to (1) "your immediate manager"; (2) the store manager; or (3) "[s]hould the problem, however, be of a nature which you do not feel free to discuss with your manager, you are encouraged to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources." Petitioner requested a transfer to another store on May 1, 2007. She requested the transfer before Mr. Roundy started treating her "differently." She called Human Resources on May 9 and 15, 2007; it is unclear as to whether she called to check on the requested transfer or to report the alleged sexual harassment. She did not timely pursue any recourse suggested in the Associate Handbook. On May 9, 2007, Mr. Barnaba, the operations manager mentioned above, authored an email that characterized several of Petitioner's activities of that work day as "completely unprofessional and insubordinate." The following day, Mr. Roundy emailed his supervisor that Petitioner had gone through his private, business-related emails and discovered Mr. Barnaba's May 9, 2007, email. He also related several incidents that he thought unprofessional and that reflected bad customer service. He advised that Petitioner accused Barnaba and himself of conspiring to try to terminate her. Petitioner was scheduled to work on May 16 and 17, 2007, but did not report to work. She was scheduled to work on May 18, 2007; as a result, Kevin Draco, a risk manager for Respondent, went to the Merritt Island store to interview her. When Petitioner did not appear, management made the decision to terminate Petitioner for "absenteeism."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Maurice Arcadier, Esquire 2815 West New Haven Avenue, Suite 303 Melbourne, Florida 32904 Christopher J. Coleman, Esquire Schillinger & Coleman, P.A. 1311 Bedford Drive, Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida 32940
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent’s license as a psychologist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Board of Psychology was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing and professional discipline of psychologists in Florida. Respondent is and has been licensed as a psychologist in Florida and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Psychology. During the period April 11, 1995, through August 7, 1995, Respondent was employed as a psychologist at the University of South Florida Counseling Center for Human Development. In that capacity, Respondent saw the Complainant, K.R., on several occasions and established a psychologist-client relationship with her. At the initial visit of K.R. to his office, Respondent conducted an initial intake evaluation of her and, in his client notes, defined the goal of his continued treatment of her as being to assist Ms. K.R. in stabilizing her depression; and to clarify her needs and patterns with regard to her career and relationships. Upon completing the intake evaluation of K.R., Respondent referred her to himself as treating therapist, and between the initial meeting and the end of August 1995, met with her approximately thirteen times. Review of Respondent’s notes regarding his sessions with K.R. reveals that they discussed her relationship with her parents; her relationships with men; her ability to deal with her emotions, her anxiety, and depression. K.R. relates that during many of their sessions, Respondent told her she had nice legs and was very sexy. He also told her of his personal life, including his dissatisfaction with his marriage, and it appears that he met with her outside his professional office on a purely social basis. K.R. claims Respondent told her not to tell anyone about their friendship outside the clinic. The relationship between Respondent and K.R. culminated in their engaging in sexual intercourse which resulted in her becoming pregnant. The pregnancy was subsequently aborted. As a result of their relationship, K.R. filed a complaint against Respondent with the Board of Psychology relating the sexual nature of their relationship. Subsequent to the filing of K.R.’s complaint against Respondent, and the Agency For Health Care Administration’s (Agency) filing of an Administrative Complaint against him, the Agency deposed Dr. George J. Rockwell, Jr., a retired psychologist with a specialty in school psychology. Dr. Rockwell did not meet with Respondent or speak with him in any capacity. He examined the file collected in this case regarding the allegations against Respondent, and from his review of all the material, concluded that Respondent had established a psychologist/patient relationship with K.R. This relationship involves trust and the generation in the patient of a basic belief that the psychologist has the skills and knowledge that would assist the patient in dealing with whatever problems he or she has. The patient develops the ability to talk to a non- critical, non-judgmental person in an effort to help him or her deal with their problems or concerns. The psychologist has the responsibility to create an emotionally safe environment for the patient. In this process the patient is often made vulnerable. The patient must be open with the psychologist and feel comfortable in sharing emotions and incidents which he or she would most likely not be able to share with others. It is without question a special relationship, and in Dr. Rockwell’s opinion, it is unlikely that a patient will work with a psychologist and not form that special relationship. This special relationship places upon the psychologist special responsibilities toward the patient. These include abiding by the laws and rules relating to the practice of psychology; having respect for the patient; and keeping all matters confided by the patient confidential. In addition, the psychologist has the responsibility to comport himself or herself in a manner so as to maintain a professional relationship and distance with the patient. Specifically, sexual relationships between a psychologist and his or her patient are normally prohibited as being beyond boundaries that should not be crossed. It is the psychologist’s responsibility to set the limits on behavior so as to prevent an inappropriate relationship from developing. This applies even if the patient initiates sexual advances. These advances would not excuse the psychologist from professional responsibility toward the patient. In the event the psychologist detects what appear to be inappropriate sexual advances from the patient, the psychologist had a duty to discuss this with the patient; talk about the nature of the psychologist/patient relationship; and explain that such a relationship would not be appropriate. The constrictors on the professional are even more specific in the event the psychologist finds himself or herself sexually attracted to the patient. Under no circumstances should the professional act on those feelings, but should evaluate the situation to ensure that those feelings are in no way interfering with the therapeutic relationship. There is absolutely no situation which Dr. Rockwell can think of in which it would be appropriate for a therapist to engage in sexual relations with a patient, either during or after termination of a therapy session. Inappropriate sexual contact between a therapist and a patient can have severe and deleterious effects on a patient. These might include feelings of guilt and depression, based on the patient’s belief that the inappropriate behavior was his or her fault. The patient might also feel embarrassment and be reluctant to undergo further treatment. Further, the patient would most likely lose trust in the involved therapist and potential other therapists. Dr. Rockwell concluded that notwithstanding Respondent’s contention that he saw K.R. solely for the purpose of career counseling, and at no time entered a psychologist/patient relationship with her, Respondent’s clinical notes regarding K.R. clearly indicate a professional psychologist/patient relationship was formed. An independent review of the records supports that conclusion, and it is so found. Even were the counseling limited solely to career counseling, it would still constitute counseling, the conduct of which is covered by the standards of the profession. Here, however, Dr. Rockwell is convinced that Respondent’s conduct toward K.R., as alleged, constituted sexual misconduct in the practice of psychological counseling which fell below the minimum standards of performance and professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Psychology enter a final order in this matter finding Respondent guilty of all Counts in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking his license to practice psychology in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 3rd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 O. C. Allen, Qualified Representative 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Amy M. Jones, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Wise abused his position as a treating psychiatrist for five young women by using his influence over them to engage in sexual relationships with them in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1979), [now codified as Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987)] and whether he is therefore guilty of unprofessional or immoral conduct in violation of Section 458.1201(1), Florida Statutes, (1969) [now codified as Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, (1987)]. If Dr. Wise is guilty of any of these activities, he would also be guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1987), which proscribes the violation of any portion of Chapter 458. Sexual misconduct with patients would also constitute gross or repeated malpractice, which is forbidden by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Wise has been a licensed medical doctor, holding license ME0008520. He has been licensed in Florida since 1957 and practices in the area of Adult and Child Psychiatry in Miami. He has been a board certified psychiatrist in since 1965. Patient L. H. From July 1969 through April 1971, Dr. Wise treated L.H, who was 21 years of age. When she began treatment, she was experiencing panic attacks and had other problems resulting from sexual molestation as a child, rape, alcoholism, and family problems. At first she had visited Dr. Wise weekly, but toward the end of her 1 1/2 years of therapy, she saw him every other week. L.H. alleges that shortly before she terminated her treatment with Dr. Wise she had a severe panic attack which caused her to telephone Dr. Wise, who then offered to provide therapy at Dr. Wise's apartment. When she arrived, she says Dr. Wise was in his bathrobe, took her to the bedroom, told her to place her hand on his penis and had sexual relations with her. She also maintains that Dr. Wise saw her on one other occasion in his office, when no sex occurred. L. H. said nothing about Dr. Wise's conduct at the time the incident was to have taken place. Fourteen years later, L.H. was seeing a psychologist in St. Louis, Missouri, Dr. Gertrude Williams. In the course of therapy with Dr. Williams, L.H. stated that she had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wise while she was his patient. This disclosure to Dr. Williams is consistent with the testimony L. H. gave at the final hearing. In October of 1985, L.H. filed a complaint against Dr. Wise with the South Florida Psychiatric Society alleging sexual misconduct, but after a two-day hearing a panel of twelve doctors found against L.H. and in favor of Dr. Wise. The testimony of L. H. was no more persuasive in this case than it was before the Psychiatric Society. In October, 1985, L.H. also filed a complaint which the Department investigated, but found the charges unsubstantiated. No disciplinary action was initiated against Dr. Wise at that time. The evidence in the instant case with respect to the allegations of misconduct by Dr. Wise with L.H. was not clearly convincing or persuasive. Patient S.P. Dr. Wise treated S.P. from July, 1980 through July, 1981 at his office in Miami. She was then approximately 19 years old and had complaints of nervousness, insomnia and hyperventilation. She saw Dr. Wise approximately two times per week (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) for therapy. Although originally seen in the morning, her appointments were changed to late in the afternoon. S.P. alleges that within two months after beginning treatment, while she was sitting on the couch during a therapy session, Dr. Wise got up from another couch, sat down next to her and began to kiss her. She also alleges that during subsequent visits Dr. Wise had sexual intercourse with her. S.P. filed a civil lawsuit for malpractice against Dr. Wise alleging the same sexual misconduct alleged here as the basis for her damage claim. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Wise. S.P.'s marriage failed while she was seeing Dr. Wise. She had often stayed out late, and told her husband that she was at therapy sessions with Dr. Wise. It is not clear whether these late night absences from home were actually the result of appointments with Dr. Wise or were the result of other appointments which she justified to her husband by claiming they were appointments with Dr. Wise. After terminating treatment with Dr. Wise, S.P. began seeing a Roman catholic priest who was also trained as a counselor. She told him that she had been seeing a local psychiatrist who, after a few sessions, had engaged in sexual intimacy with her. After moving back to her mother's home due to her breakup with her husband, S.P. also told her mother that she and Dr. Wise had been sexually intimate. These statements by S. P. were consistent with her testimony at final hearing; that the testimony is consistent, however, does not make it persuasive. Taken as a whole, the evidence that Dr. Wise may have engaged in a sexual relationship with S. P. is not clearly convincing. Patient L. M. Dr. Wise treated L.M. during the period from late 1972 through February of 1973. She was sixteen years old and was seeking to improve her relationship with her parents. She alleges that during one of her early visits Dr. Wise questioned her about the pimple on her forehead, and asked whether she had pimples on any other area of her body. She says she responded that she had a pimple on her back, and alleges that Dr. Wise then asked to see her back. When she lifted her pullover, she says Dr. Wise fondled her breasts briefly. Viewing the testimony of L.M. as a whole, the evidence is not clearly convincing that Dr. Wise ever fondled her breasts. Patient K. M. Dr. Wise treated K.M. from 1982, when she was 18 years old, until 1984. K. M. came to see Dr. Wise because of problems including an abortion she had when she was 15 years old, as well as a prior incestuous relationship with her brother. K.M. testified that she would go to Dr. Wise's office for treatment late in the evening, when they also would engage in sexual intercourse. She also testified that in 1985, after she terminated her therapeutic relation with Dr. Wise, she told her general practice physician, Dr. Peter Shea, during an office visit, that she had an affair with Dr. Wise. As with the foregoing witnesses, the statement made to Dr. Shea is consistent with K. M.'s testimony at final hearing, but that consistency does not enhance K. M.'s testimony. The testimony of K.M. concerning liaisons with Dr. Wise is not clearly convincing. Patient L. G. L.G. saw Dr. Wise beginning in April, 1974 when she was 21 years old. When she first came to Dr. Wise she complained of depression, unhappiness, and confusion. She told Dr. Wise that she was lonely and did not have a good relationship with men. Dr. Wise also treated L.G.'s sister, Joan. After about two months of seeing her on a weekly basis, L.G. alleges that Dr. Wise came over to the couch where she was sitting, embraced her, and during the course of the treatment, their physical relationship became more intimate. The intimacies were to have included oral sex which L.G. performed on Dr. Wise, which she thought was therapy for her psychological problems with sexual intimacy. L.G. terminated her relationship with Dr. Wise and began seeing a psychologist at the University of Miami, Edward Rappaport. During the course of treatment L.G. reported to Dr. Rappaport that she had been sexually involved with Dr. Wise. The testimony of L.G. at final hearing is consistent with the statement she made to Dr. Rappaport during therapy that Dr. Wise engaged in sex with her while she was seeing Dr. Wise for professional help. The consistency of the testimony does not make it persuasive. Considering the testimony of L.G. and Dr. Rappaport, the evidence offered to show that Dr. Wise had engaged in sexual intimacies with L.G. while she was seen as a patient is not clearly convincing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the second amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 22rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed by the Department of Professional Regulation Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2, 6, 10, 11 and 12. Covered in finding of fact 11. 6-7. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. 13 Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 7, of the facts stated that are rejected. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. The proposals concerning the telephone calls are rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 24. The proposal concerning the telephone calls is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 26.-29. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 13, although the proposals are rejected because L.G.'s testimony was not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. is not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 13. 39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Covered in finding of fact 13. 41.-42. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. was not clearly convincing. 43. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because of the testimony of the complaining witnesses has not been clearly convincing. 50.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed By Dr. Wise Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2 Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12, to the extent necessary. Covered in finding of fact 14. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Sewell, Esquire Law offices of Mark P. Lang 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 707 Post Office Box 2127 Orlando, FL 32802-2127 Jonathan King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750A =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, Fort Walton Beach Medical Center (FWBMC), engaged in employment discrimination and, thus, violated the Florida Civil Rights Act(FCRA), section 760.10, et seq., Florida Statutes, by: (a) failing to accommodate Petitioner, Jennifer L. Landress, because of her alleged disability; (b) subjecting Ms. Landress to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex; (c) constructively discharging Ms. Landress from employment; and (d) retaliating against Ms. Landress, and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact FWBMC hired Ms. Landress on October 31, 2005, and employed her for approximately 14 years as a Cardiovascular Services Specialist. Ms. Landress resigned her employment with FWBMC on October 4, 2019. During her employment with FWBMC, Ms. Landress reported to either Ms. Ristom, Vice President of Quality and Risk Management, or Rob Grant, the former Director of Cardiovascular Services. Between August 30, 2018, and October 4, 2019, FWBMC also employed Ms. Sanders, Human Resources Business Partner, and Ms. Clark, Cardiovascular Tech. FWBMC never employed Dr. Al-Dehneh (or the other physicians who testified at the final hearing—Dr. Sandwith and Dr. Chen). Dr. Al-Dehneh has privileges to use FWBMC to provide services to the patients who come to FWBMC to receive care. Neither Dr. Al-Dehneh nor any of the physicians who testified at the final hearing were supervisors of Ms. Landress. Further, Dr. Al-Dehneh: never had a role in Ms. Landress’s discipline or schedule; never evaluated her performance; and did not exercise any control over Ms. Landress or affect the terms or conditions of her employment with FWBMC. FWBMC’s Policies Concerning Discrimination and Sexual Harassment FWBMC has a policy entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment,” which is included in the employee handbook, as well as on its “HR Answers” online portal and intranet. The “Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment” policy states, in part: Equal employment opportunities are provided to all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, or protected veteran status with applicable federal, state and local laws. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including, but not limited to, hiring, placement, promotion, termination, layoff, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation and training. * * * Any form of unlawful employee harassment based on race, color, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, protected veteran status or any other status in any group protected by federal, state or local law is strictly prohibited. Improper interference with the ability of employees to perform their expected job duties is not tolerated. Each member of management is responsible for creating an atmosphere free of discrimination and harassment, sexual or otherwise. Further, employees are responsible for respecting the rights of their co- workers. The following is prohibited: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and all other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual or otherwise offensive nature …. Behaviors that engender a hostile or offensive work environment will not be tolerated. These behaviors may include, but are not limited to, offensive comments, jokes, innuendos and other sexually oriented or culturally insensitive/inappropriate statements, printed material, material distributed through electronic media or items posted on walls or bulletin boards. FWBMC also has a policy entitled “Complaint Procedures,” which is contained in the employee handbook, as well as on its “HR Answers” online portal and intranet. The “Complaint Procedures” policy states, in part: If you experience any job-related harassment based on race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, color, disability, age or other factor prohibited by federal, state or local statute, or you believe you have been treated in an unlawful, discriminatory manner, promptly report the incident to your manager or Human Resources, who will investigate the matter and take appropriate action. If you believe it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter with your manager or Human Resources, you may bypass your manager or Human Resources and report it directly for investigation at The Ethics Line at [phone number]. Ms. Landress testified that she received a copy of the employee handbook, read the policies contained in it—including the policy concerning “Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment” and “Complaint Procedures”—and knew of and utilized them. Ms. Sanders testified that if FWBMC, after investigation by its human resources department, substantiates a claim of harassment or discrimination by a physician, it would provide its investigative findings to the medical staff office, who would then refer the physician to a peer review process that could culminate in an appropriate action with respect to that physician’s hospital privileges. The undisputed evidence at the final hearing revealed that Ms. Landress reported to FWBMC’s human resources department that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment in August 2018, and again in March 2019. Allegations of Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Ms. Landress testified that Dr. Al-Dehneh began sexually harassing her starting in 2013. On August 30, 2018, she met with Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom and discussed this allegation. Ms. Sanders testified of the allegations made by Ms. Landress at the August 30, 2018, meeting: That Dr. Al-Dehneh had asked Rob to find women for him and to get Ms. Landress to sleep with him. She also indicated that Dr. Al-Dehneh was listening to her conversations via some sort of recording or monitoring device in her computer. She felt that Dr. Al-Dehneh had bugged her home through Siri and had accessed her medical records here at the facility. She was afraid for her life and had a gun. She also felt that Dr. Al-Dehneh was watching her home and that she told us a story about a lady on a bike who said that she was dead to her. She was afraid to go to the police about Dr. Al-Dehneh because she had been told that he was a mobster. And then she did admit to us at one point that she had started developing feelings for Dr. Al-Dehneh. Ms. Ristom also testified concerning the allegations made by Ms. Landress at the August 30, 2018, meeting: She said that Dr. Al-Dehneh had said to her to let him know when she was ready to get married. She said that Rob was tasked with getting women and obtaining sex for Dr. Al-Dehneh. And, you know, during that time Jennifer told me that – told Julie Sanders and I that she had started developing feelings for him, for Dr. Al-Dehneh. And in addition, she felt like her neighbor was watching her and providing information back to Dr. Al-Dehneh about her activities at home. Also, she said that she was afraid to report him because she felt like she – she understood him to be a mobster. She said he was listening to her through a listening device when she was at home through, like, a Siri, a radio kind of device because he would say things that he would only know if he was able to hear her at home. She told us about a heavyset lady on a bicycle who told her that she was a dead lady, that Jennifer was a dead lady, but that that woman was not going to be the one to kill her because Jennifer had been nice to her. She said that she was afraid to go to the police because she believed Dr. Al-Dehneh to be a mobster and that he owned the police and the hospital as well. She said that she was defending herself – felt like she needed to defend herself and had been carrying a gun and keeping it on her nightstand as well. She told us that she hadn’t slept in months, that she was taking medication to help her but that she was having difficulty concentrating. The testimony of Ms. Landress more or less confirmed that she made those allegations that Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom testified were made at the August 30, 2018, meeting, and that those allegations formed the basis for her Petition for Relief. She added that Dr. Al-Dehneh “constantly” harassed her, that she believed he started a rumor at the hospital that she had herpes, and that he had her “followed” to a local mall. Ms. Landress denied that she had romantic feelings for Dr. Al-Dehneh, but stated that she “had a great working relationship with him for a long time.” Dr. Al-Dehneh testified and denied all of Ms. Landress’s allegations, including: asking Ms. Landress to let him know when she was ready to get married; offering to “buy” Ms. Landress from her husband; threatening to have Ms. Landress fired; having Ms. Landress followed; putting a “hit” out on Ms. Landress; making comments about Ms. Landress to other physicians; spreading a rumor that Ms. Landress had herpes; calling Ms. Landress’s treating physician, Dr. Chen, for information about her; and accessing Ms. Landress’s medical records. According to Ms. Landress, Dr. Sandwith and Ms. Park were witnesses who could corroborate many of her allegations concerning Dr. Al-Dehneh. Both denied each and every allegation. Dr. Sandwith testified that he never saw Ms. Landress and Dr. Al-Dehneh together; denied talking to Dr. Al-Dehneh about Ms. Landress; denied ever seeing or hearing Dr. Al-Dehneh harass or act inappropriately with Ms. Landress or any other hospital staff; and denied hearing rumors concerning Ms. Landress, Dr. Al-Dehneh, their alleged relationship, or that Ms. Landress had herpes. Ms. Park, who worked with Ms. Landress: testified that she never heard any rumors that Dr. Al-Dehneh was having sexual relationships with other women; denied witnessing Dr. Al-Dehneh tell Ms. Landress that he was going to call Ms. Landress’s husband and offer $5,000 for her; denied talking with Ms. Landress about being sexually harassed; denied hearing rumors about Ms. Landress and Dr. Al-Dehneh; denied hearing rumors that Ms. Landress had herpes; and denied telling Ms. Landress to stay away from Dr. Al-Dehneh. According to Ms. Landress, she also discussed her allegations of sexual harassment with her orthopedic physician, Dr. Chen, on numerous occasions. Dr. Chen testified that during one of Ms. Landress’s appointments, I recall you telling me just occurrences at home, of what happened in the workplace between yourself and a certain physician on staff at the – at the Walton Beach Medical Center. Yeah, and there was situations or there were occurrences that were – upsetting to you and they were providing some sorts of distress. He further testified that Ms. Landress “spoke … about the herpes.” Dr. Chen testified that he may have heard FWBMC staff discussing the alleged herpes rumor, but could not recall from whom he heard those rumors, and admitted that the rumors could have come from Ms. Landress herself. Dr. Chen testified that he never witnessed Dr. Al-Dehneh acting inappropriately towards Ms. Landress, and that he never heard any other physician at FWBMC discuss any rumors concerning Ms. Landress or Dr. Al-Dehneh. FWBMC Investigation of Complaint of Harassment and Hostile Work Environment At the conclusion of the August 30, 2018, meeting, Ms. Sanders immediately investigated Ms. Landress’s claims by interviewing Dr. Al-Dehneh that same day, and by interviewing other employees who could potentially substantiate Ms. Landress’s claims. However, Ms. Sanders was unable to find any witness who corroborated any of Ms. Landress’s allegations. Ms. Sanders testified, as part of her investigation, that she determined that Dr. Al-Dehneh did not have any remote access or log-in capabilities to access Ms. Landress’s computer. Ms. Sanders further testified, as part of the investigation, that she confirmed that Dr. Al-Dehneh never had access, nor tried to access, Ms. Landress’s medical records. During the investigation, Ms. Ristom testified that she offered to move Ms. Landress’s office to distance her from the individuals allegedly involved, including Dr. Al-Dehneh. Ms. Landress declined this offer. Ms. Sanders completed her investigation of Ms. Landress’s claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment on September 18, 2018, and informed Ms. Landress that FWBMC could not substantiate her claims. Subsequent Events On September 20, 2018, Ms. Landress suffered an anxiety attack and went home from work early. When Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom learned of the anxiety attack, they attempted to speak with Ms. Landress in her office and told her to take the weekend off to deal with her anxiety. Both Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom testified that Landress did not attribute her anxiety attack to the alleged past sexual harassment incidents with Dr. Al-Dehneh, nor any new incidents of harassment. Ms. Landress’s testimony concerning the anxiety attack and subsequent leave was as follows: Predominately because I really wanted to come home and take medication because I couldn’t stand – I – I just couldn’t get past people in the hospital constantly talking about me having herpes. I mean, it’s kind of like if you were walking in the building and that’s all you heard, you want to get out of there. As previously noted, the FWBMC investigation did not substantiate Ms. Landress’s allegation concerning hospital rumors that she had herpes. Further, there was no testimony or evidence presented at the final hearing, outside of Ms. Landress’s testimony, that confirmed this allegation. Ms. Landress soon returned to work and did not report another incident of harassment until March 2019. On March 1, 2019, Ms. Landress reported that a nurse practitioner, who she claimed worked for Dr. Al-Dehneh, took a photo of Ms. Landress on her cellphone when she walked by Ms. Landress’s office. Ms. Landress testified that she “assumed” the nurse practitioner took the photo for Dr. Al-Dehneh. Ms. Landress further testified that she never saw the photo. Ms. Ristom and Ms. Sanders met with Ms. Landress concerning this allegation, and Ms. Sanders investigated it. Ultimately, FWBMC was unable to substantiate this claim or that she was being harassed by Dr. Al-Dehneh or his nurse practitioner. Ms. Landress did not report any other incidents of harassment after March 1, 2019. Leave(s) of Absence FWBMC approved Ms. Landress for a paid leave of absence from June 10, 2019, until she resigned on October 4, 2019. FWBMC granted this leave for two separate reasons: for an orthopedic condition, and for a mental health condition. Initially, Ms. Landress was placed on leave for her claims of stress, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder related to the alleged harassment. Then, on September 9, 2019, Ms. Landress submitted a separate claim because of pain in her right elbow. Dr. Chen, Ms. Landress’s treating orthopedic physician, informed FWBMC that her anticipated return work date was October 7, 2019, with restrictions, such as “no repetitive use of right arm to include typing, mouse use, [and] writing.” After Dr. Chen cleared Ms. Landress to return to work, with restrictions, Ms. Sanders reminded Ms. Landress that she could not return until her mental health counselor also cleared her. Ms. Landress’s mental health counselor never cleared her to return to work. In July 2019—during her leave of absence for a mental health condition—Ms. Landress requested, to Ms. Ristom, the opportunity to work from home. FWBMC denied Ms. Landress’s accommodation request; Ms. Sanders testified: At that time we weren’t able to accommodate the work from home request. There was concerns around protecting patient medical records and her ability to work with the staff and the physicians when she needed to ask questions. On September 20, 2019, while Ms. Landress remained on leave, Ms. Ristom received an email from Q-Centrix, a third-party data management provider that collaborates with healthcare providers, such as FWBMC. The September 30, 2019, email requested that FWBMC terminate Ms. Landress as an employee so that Q-Centrix could employ Ms. Landress in a full-time position. Ms. Ristom forwarded this email to Ms. Sanders to investigate and did not reply to the September 20, 2019, email from Q-Centrix until FWBMC could confirm from Ms. Landress that it was her intention to resign her position with FWBMC. On September 27, 2019, Q-Centrix emailed another request to FWBMC to terminate Ms. Landress. Ms. Sanders testified that she spoke with Ms. Landress about this request. On October 4, 2019, Ms. Landress—who still had not received clearance to return to work at FWBMC from her mental health counselor— submitted a letter of resignation to Ms. Sanders. Her letter of resignation stated that she and her mental health counselor agreed that her “PTSD is too great to return.” Her letter further stated that because FWBMC denied her request to work from home, she had accepted a position with “another company.” The October 4, 2019, letter of resignation attached four additional pages of what Ms. Landress contends were the events that led her to resign. The first page listed the allegations of sexual harassment by Dr. Al-Dehneh that Ms. Landress discussed with Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom during the August 30, 2018, meeting. The remaining three pages listed various allegations that Ms. Landress did not report to FWBMC and did not include in her charge of discrimination with FCHR. Findings of Ultimate Fact Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC’s decisions concerning, or actions affecting, her, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by sex-based or disability-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful sex-based or disability-based discrimination. Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC’s actions subjected her to harassment based on sex. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful sexual harassment. Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC discriminated against her because she opposed an unlawful employment practice, or because she made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the FCRA. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful retaliation. Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC’s actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment to create a hostile work environment. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of hostile work environment. Finally, Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that her working conditions at FWBMC were so intolerable that a reasonable person in her condition would have been compelled to resign. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of constructive discharge.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Jennifer L. Landress 7758 Ramona Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 For Respondents: Cymoril M. White, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP Suite 900 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Jennifer L. Landress’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Tracey K. Jaensch, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP Suite 900 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jennifer Lynn Landress 7758 Ramona Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 Cymoril M. White, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her sex or age, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment based on her sex or age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Frito-Lay, Inc. ("Frito-Lay"), makes and sells snack foods, including many familiar brands of chips. Petitioner Frances G. Danelli ("Danelli") is a former employee of Frito-Lay. Frito-Lay initially hired Danelli in or around 1998 as a packer for its West Valley, Utah, plant. When Danelli's husband was transferred to Florida, she took a job for Frito-Lay in Pompano Beach, Florida, and later moved to the company's West Palm Beach Distribution Center as a route sales representative ("RSR"). Danelli worked in Florida as a Frito-Lay RSR for more than 15 years, and her routes eventually included such large stores as Publix, Walmart, Winn-Dixie, and Target.1/ RSRs sell and deliver Frito-Lay products to retail stores, and these stores, in turn, sell the products to consumers. RSRs are responsible, as well, for presenting the company's products to shoppers in the best way possible to increase sales. So, RSRs not only sell and deliver products to stores, but they also unload the products, stock the shelves, set up displays, and remove unsold items whose sell-by dates have expired. RSRs are paid an hourly wage plus commissions. RSRs are required to compete for sales against other companies' vendors, who (like Frito-Lay's personnel) are trying to place as many of their products as possible onto the shelves of the snack food aisle. Shelf space is essential for growing sales, and competition for product placement can be fierce. There is no dispute that Danelli's performance as an RSR was fine, perhaps even exemplary. Frito-Lay considered her to be a good employee. Danelli went to work early each morning, usually arriving at the warehouse by 4:00 a.m. so that she could get to her first store by 5:00 a.m., which would give her a head start on other vendors. When Danelli got to the warehouse, she would clock in on her handheld computer, which she also used to track the goods she delivered to each store. Upon returning to the warehouse, she had paperwork to complete and print from the handheld computer. In 2013, Frito-Lay started requiring drivers of delivery trucks over a certain size, including RSRs such as Danelli, to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations. As relevant, these regulations require an RSR to take at least a ten-hour break before driving a commercial vehicle, and they prohibit an RSR from driving a commercial vehicle after 14 consecutive hours on duty. Frito-Lay programmed its employees' handheld computers so that an employee subject to the DOT regulations would receive a conspicuous warning if he or she attempted to clock in to work less than ten hours after last going off duty. As Danelli testified at hearing, if the computer told her to wait, she would go to the warehouse, pick up some product, fix her truck, and then sign in when the handheld said she could go. Evidently, however, to get the warning, an employee needed to log on as a "regulated" employee; if, by mistake, a "regulated" employee logged on as "non-regulated," she would not get the warning. Danelli found it difficult to comply with the DOT regulations, which led to Frito-Lay's imposing discipline against her in accordance with the company's Corrective Action Process set forth in its Sales National RSR Handbook, which governed Petitioner's employment. The handbook prescribes a process of progressive discipline that begins with "coaching," which is a form of pre- discipline. As the name suggests, a "coaching" is, essentially, a nondisciplinary intervention whose purpose is to correct an issue before the employee's conduct warrants stronger measures. If coaching is ineffective, the Corrective Action Process calls for increasingly severe steps of discipline. The steps of discipline consist of a Step 1 Written Reminder, a Step 2 Written Warning, a Step 3 Final Written Warning, and a Step 4 Termination. The particular discipline to be imposed depends upon the severity of the infraction and the step of discipline, if any, the employee happens to be on when the infraction is committed. Steps of discipline remain "active" for six to nine months, depending on the step. If the employee does not commit any further disciplinary infractions during the active period, the step "falls off." If the employee commits another disciplinary infraction within the "active" period, however, he or she moves to the next disciplinary step in the Corrective Action Process. On June 5, 2014, after having previously been coached to maintain compliance with the DOT regulations, Danelli received a Step 1 Written Reminder for four violations of the 10-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. On July 25, 2014, Danelli received a Step 2 Written Warning for a new violation of the 10-hour rule. Once again, Danelli did not appeal the discipline. On October 7, 2014, Danelli was given another coaching, during which she was informed that (i) an investigation into her DOT hours was in process, and (ii) the company was concerned that she might be getting assistance on her route from her husband in violation of the RSR Performance Standards. On January 27, 2015, Danelli received a Step 3 Final Written Warning for violating the 14-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. Under the Corrective Action Process, a Step 3 Final Written Warning remains "active" for nine months and is the final step prior to a Step 4 Termination. On May 2, 2015, Danelli committed another DOT violation. Because she was already on a Step 3 Final Written Warning, she was suspended pending further investigation. Danelli maintains that this violation, and others, resulted from her making a simple mistake with the handheld computer, namely failing to log on as a "regulated" employee, which cost her the electronic warning she otherwise would have received. She points out, too, that in this instance, the violation was minor, merely clocking in ten minutes early. These arguments are not wholly without merit, and if Frito-Lay had fired Danelli for a single, ten-minute violation of the DOT regulations, the undersigned would question the company's motivation. But that is not what happened. Danelli did not just violate the ten-hour rule once or twice, but many times, after multiple warnings, and in the face of increasingly serious disciplinary steps. Further, Frito-Lay did not terminate Danelli's employment over this latest violation of the ten-hour rule, even though it would have been justified in doing so within the parameters of the Corrective Action Process. Instead, the company placed Danelli on a Last Chance Agreement. Last Chance Agreements are not specifically provided for in the Corrective Action Process but are used, at the company's discretion, as a safety valve to avoid the occasional unfortunate termination that might result from strict adherence to rigid rules. In this regard, the agreement given to Danelli, dated May 15, 2015, stated as follows: We strongly considered [terminating your employment]. However, due to the unique facts and circumstances involved here, as well as your 15 years of service with the Company, the Company is willing to issue this Last Chance Warning. This step is over and above our normal progressive disciplinary process, and is being issued on a one-time, non-precedent setting basis. . . . [A]ny subsequent violations by you may result in discipline up to and including immediate termination. More specifically, any future violations [of the DOT regulations] will result in your immediate termination. As Danelli put it, the Last Change Agreement was a "sign of grace" from Frito-Lay. By its terms, it was intended to be "active and in effect for a period of 12 months." The undersigned pauses here to let the Last Chance Agreement sink in, because the fact that Frito-Lay did not fire Danelli in May 2015 when——for objective, easy-to-prove reasons, after a by-the-book application of progressive discipline——it clearly could have, is compelling evidence that the company was not harboring discriminatory animus against Danelli. After all, if Frito-Lay had wanted Danelli gone because of her age or her gender, why in the world would the company not have jumped at this golden opportunity, which Danelli had given it, to fire her with practically no exposure to liability for unlawful discrimination? The irony is that by showing mercy, Frito-Lay set in motion the chain of events that led to this proceeding. In or around November of 2015, Danelli underwent surgery, which required her to take some time off of work. For several years before this leave, Danelli's route had consisted of a Super Walmart and two Publix stores. When she returned, the Super Walmart had been assigned to another RSR, and to make up for its loss, Danelli's supervisor, Stanley Gamble, put a third Publix grocery on Danelli's route, i.e., Publix #1049 located in Tequesta, Florida. Danelli was acquainted with one of the managers at the Tequesta Publix, a Mr. Morgan. On her first day back, Danelli and Mr. Gamble went to that store, where Mr. Morgan told Mr. Gamble that he was "glad Frances is here." Mr. Morgan had complained to Mr. Gamble about the previous RSR, who left the store "all messed up," according to Mr. Gamble. Danelli also met Sarah Oblaczynski, the store's "backdoor receiver," which is the Publix employee who checks in merchandise. On her new route, Danelli usually went to the Tequesta store first, early in the morning. She soon ran into a vendor named Tony who worked for Snyder's of Hanover ("Snyder's"), a snack food company that competes with Frito-Lay. From the start, Tony was nasty to Danelli and aggressive, telling her that "there is no space" for two vendors. Tony was possessive about shelf space within the store, as well as the parking space close to the store's loading dock. Danelli thought, because of Tony's behavior, that he might be using drugs. On Tuesday, April 6, 2016, Petitioner had an argument with Tony over the shelf space that the store manager previously had awarded to her for the display of Frito-Lay products. Tony asserted that he had been promised the same space and said to Danelli, "You're going to take that stuff out of the shelf." Danelli told him, "No, Morgan said that's still my space." At this, Tony began cursing and pushed Danelli's cart into her, yelling, "That fucking Morgan!" Danelli later spoke to Mr. Morgan, who assured Danelli that the shelf space in question was hers and said he would leave a note to that effect for Ms. Oblaczynski. There is a dispute as to when Danelli reported the forgoing incident to Frito-Lay. She claims that, before the end of the day on April 6, she told Mr. Gamble, her supervisor, all about the matter, in detail, and requested that someone be assigned to accompany her on her route the next day because Tony planned on taking her shelf space. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble just laughed and said he did not have anybody to help her. Mr. Gamble testified, to the contrary, that Danelli had neither reported the April 6, 2016, incident to him nor asked for any assistance. (Danelli admits that she did not report the incident to Mr. Canizares, sales zone director, or to Human Resources ("HR")). Without written documentation regarding this alleged discussion, it is hard to say what, if anything, Danelli reported on April 6, 2016. It is likely that Danelli did complain to Mr. Gamble about Tony on some occasion(s), and might well have done so on April 6. What is unlikely, however, is that Danelli notified Mr. Gamble that she felt she was being sexually harassed by Tony. Tony's boorish and bullying behavior, to the extent directed at Danelli, seems to have been directed to her qua competitor, not as a woman. At the very least, the incident is ambiguous in this regard, and one could reasonably conclude, upon hearing about it, that Tony was simply a jerk who resorted to juvenile antics in attempting to gain the upper hand against a rival vendor. The undersigned finds that if Danelli did speak to Mr. Gamble about Tony on April 6, he—— not unreasonably——did not view the incident as one involving sexual harassment. As far as Mr. Gamble's declining to provide Danelli with an escort, assuming she requested one, his response is reasonable if (as found) Mr. Gamble was not clearly on notice that Danelli believed she was being sexually harassed. Danelli, after all, was by this time an experienced and successful RSR who undoubtedly had encountered other difficult vendors during her career. Indeed, as things stood on April 6, a person could reasonably conclude that Danelli in fact had the situation under control, inasmuch as Mr. Morgan had clearly taken Danelli's side and intervened on her behalf. What could a Frito-Lay "bodyguard" reasonably be expected to accomplish, which would justify the risk of escalating the tension between Tony and Danelli into a hostile confrontation? During the evening of April 6, 2016, Danelli talked to her husband about the problem at Publix #1049, and they decided that he would accompany her to the store the next morning before reporting to his own work, to assist if Tony caused a scene. On April 7, 2016, Danelli's husband drove to Publix #1049 in his own vehicle. Although no longer an employee of the company, Danelli's husband entered the store wearing a Frito-Lay hat, and he stayed in the snack aisle while Danelli went to the back to bring the order in. Ms. Oblaczynski, the receiver, presented Tony with a note from Mr. Morgan stating that Danelli's products and sales items were assigned to aisle one. In response, Tony started swearing about Mr. Morgan and the denial of shelf space, made a hand gesture indicative of a man pleasing himself, and told Ms. Oblaczynski that "they can take a fly[ing] F'n leap." Tony had made this particular hand gesture about Mr. Morgan on a number of previous occasions, in front of both men and women. Mr. Danelli left to go to work once Danelli's product was placed, and she left to go to the next store on her route. When Danelli returned to the warehouse, she went to Mr. Gamble's office and told him about the April 7, 2016, incident. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble laughed in response. Danelli asked Mr. Gamble if the company would conduct an investigation, and he said yes. She recalls that every day thereafter, she asked Mr. Gamble if he had heard anything because she thought "we [Frito-Lay] were investigating" and that HR was on top of it. Danelli admits, however, that she "intentionally" did not tell Mr. Gamble that her husband had accompanied her to Publix #1049 to assist her in the store that morning. She did not report this detail because she knew it was "bad." In conflict with Danelli's account, Mr. Gamble testified that Danelli did not report that Tony made a sexual gesture in front of her or used coarse or profane language in her presence on April 7, 2016. The undersigned finds that Mr. Gamble most likely did not laugh at Danelli or otherwise treat her dismissively upon hearing her report of the incident. If Mr. Gamble had believed the matter were so trivial or amusing, he would not likely have agreed to investigate. The undersigned finds, further, that however Danelli described the incident, she did not make it clear to Mr. Gamble that she perceived Tony's behavior as a form of sexual harassment. Danelli did not make a formal written complaint to that effect at the time, and the situation at Publix #1049 was, at the very least, ambiguous. More likely than not, Mr. Gamble viewed the troublesome vendor from Snyder's as an unwelcome business problem to be dealt with, not as a perpetrator of unlawful, gender-based discrimination. To elaborate, putting Tony's "sexual gesture" to one side momentarily, the rest of his conduct, even the cursing, while certainly objectionable, is not suggestive of sexual harassment; it is just bad behavior. Tony's temper tantrums and outbursts no doubt upset Danelli and others, but that does not turn them into gender discrimination. Further, Danelli seems to have handled the situation well until she resorted to self-help on April 7, 2016. The responsible Publix employees were already aware of the problem, and in due course, they complained to Snyder's, which unsurprisingly removed Tony from that store. Meantime, had Danelli felt physically threatened or afraid as a result of Tony's more aggressive antics, she (or Publix) could have called the police; this, indeed, would have been a safer and more reasonable alternative to bringing along her husband or another civilian for protection, which as mentioned above posed the risk of provoking a fight, given Tony's volatility. Ultimately, it is Tony's "sexual gesture" that provides a colorable basis for Danelli's sexual harassment complaint. But even this gives little grounds for a claim of discrimination, without more context than is present here. To be sure, the "jerk off gesture" or "air jerk" is obscene, and one would not expect to see it in polite company or in the workplace. Yet, although it clearly mimics a sexual practice, the air jerk is generally not understood as being a literal reference to masturbation. That is, the gesture is not typically used to convey a present intention to engage in masturbation or as an invitation to perform the act on the gesturer. Rather, the jerk off gesture usually signifies annoyance, disgust, disinterest, or disbelief. As with its cousin, the "finger" (or bird) gesture, the sexual connotations of the air jerk are (usually) subliminal. Here, there is no allegation or evidence that Tony's jerk off gesture was undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification or was intended or perceived as a sexual advance on Danelli (or someone else)——or even as being overtly sexual in nature. (Obviously, if the evidence showed that, under the circumstances, Tony was, e.g., inviting Danelli to participate in sexual activity, this would be a different case. The undersigned is not suggesting, just to be clear, that the air jerk gesture is inconsistent with or could never amount to sexual harassment, but only that it is not unequivocally a sign of such harassment, given its commonly understood meanings.) To the contrary, it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that Tony made the gesture to indicate that he regarded Mr. Morgan's note as pointless and annoying. It was roughly the equivalent of giving them the bird, albeit arguably less contemptuous than that. For these reasons, the undersigned finds it unlikely that, assuming Danelli described the gesture (which is in dispute), Mr. Gamble thought Danelli was complaining about sexual harassment, as opposed to a very difficult vendor. On April 13, 2016, Mr. Gamble visited Publix #1049 and spoke to Ms. Oblaczynski about the situation. During this conversation, Ms. Oblaczynski stated that the "Frito-Lay people" did nothing wrong. She further specified that "the person [Danelli] had with her did nothing wrong." After speaking with Ms. Oblaczynski, Mr. Gamble met with Danelli while she was servicing her second account. Right off the bat, Mr. Gamble asked Danelli who was with her at Publix #1049 on April 7, 2016. She eventually admitted that her husband was with her in the store that day. Aware of the seriousness of her offense and the active Last Chance Agreement, Danelli asked Mr. Gamble, several times, if she would be fired. That same day, Mr. Gamble called Carlos Canizares to tell him what he had learned. Mr. Canizares instructed Mr. Gamble to stay with Danelli while she finished servicing her accounts and then to obtain a written statement from her about the incident. Later on April 13, 2016, Danelli provided a written statement in which she confirmed that her husband had been working with her at Publix #1049 the previous week. Danelli has since described this statement as a "full written account of the harassment [and] rude sexual gestures." Danelli knew, of course, that HR would review her statement, and yet she said nothing therein about having complained to Mr. Gamble or any supervisor about harassment generally or Tony in particular; about Tony's use of course or improper language; or about having requested an escort to help keep Tony in line. On the instructions of the company's HR department, Mr. Gamble conducted an investigation into the "rude sexual gesture" about which Danelli had complained. Specifically, he called Mr. Morgan, the Publix manager, and asked him about the incident. Mr. Gamble also requested that he be allowed to review any videotapes and documents concerning the incident. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Gamble that Publix was investigating the matter. Mr. Gamble's request to allow Frito-Lay access to Publix videotapes and documents was, however, turned down. Tony's boorish behavior aside, the fact remained that Danelli, without prior approval, had allowed a non-employee to perform work or services for Frito-Lay at one of the stores on her route, which the RSR Performance Standards specifically prohibit without express authorization. RSRs who are found to have permitted non-employees to accompany them on their routes are either discharged or issued multiple steps of discipline, as Danelli knew. Because Danelli violated this rule while on an active Last Chance Agreement, Frito-Lay decided to terminate her employment. On April 26, 2016, Mr. Canizares met with Danelli to inform her that she was fired. Danelli timely appealed her termination pursuant to the company's Complaint and Appeal Procedure, electing to have her appeal decided by a neutral, third-party arbitrator. The arbitration hearing took place in January 2017. Three months later, the arbitrator ruled that Danelli's termination had been proper and carried out in accordance with Frito-Lay's employment policies. Danelli does not presently deny that she violated the DOT regulations and the company policy forbidding the use of non-employees as helpers while on duty, nor does she dispute that Frito-Lay had sufficient grounds for imposing the disciplinary steps leading to the Last Chance Agreement. Indeed, she does not contend that it would have been wrongful for Frito-Lay to have fired her in May 2015 instead of offering the Last Chance Agreement. Her position boils down to the argument that because Frito-Lay could have exercised leniency and not fired her for bringing her husband to work at Publix #1049 (which is probably true2/), its failure to do so can only be attributable to gender or age discrimination. Put another way, Danelli claims that but for her being a woman in her 50s, Frito-Lay would have given her another "last chance." This is a heavy lift. As circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Danelli points to the company's treatment of another RSR, a younger man named Ryan McCreath. Like Danelli, Mr. McCreath was caught with a non-employee assisting him on his route. Unlike Danelli, however, Mr. McCreath was not on any active steps of discipline at the time of the incident, much less a Last Chance Agreement. Although Mr. McCreath's disciplinary record was not unblemished, Frito-Lay did not terminate his employment for this violation of the RSR Performance Standards. Instead, he received three steps of discipline and was issued a Final Written Warning. Mr. McCreath's situation is distinguishable because he was not under a Last Chance Agreement at the time of the violation. Moreover, it is not as though Mr. McCreath got off scot-free. He received a serious punishment. Danelli could not have received a comparable punishment for the same offense because she was already beyond Step 3; her record, unlike his, did not have room for the imposition of three steps of discipline at once. The McCreath incident does not give rise to a reasonable inference that Frito-Lay unlawfully discriminated against Danelli when it terminated her employment for committing a "three-step violation" while on an active Last Chance Agreement. There is simply no reason to suppose that if Danelli, like Mr. McCreath, had not had any active steps of discipline when she violated the rule against having non- employees provide on-the-job assistance, Frito-Lay would have terminated her employment for the April 7, 2016, infraction; or that if Mr. McCreath, like Danelli, had been on a Last Chance Agreement when he violated the rule, Frito-Lay would have issued him a Final Written Warning in lieu of termination. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of Frito- Lay's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Danelli, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age- or gender-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age or gender discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay took any retaliatory action against Danelli for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay committed or permitted sexual harassment of Danelli or otherwise exposed her to a hostile work environment. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Frito-Lay did not discriminate unlawfully against Danelli on any basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Frito-Lay not liable for gender or age discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty therefor.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Investigation Leading to Issuance of the Amended Complaint The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Aunali Salim Khaku, M.D., is a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist licensed (ME 114611) in Florida. Respondent completed a neurology residency in 2013 and a sleep medicine fellowship in 2014. He practiced at the VA from 2014 until 2020, initially at the Lake Baldwin facility and then at the Lake Nona facility. From 2020 until early 2021, Respondent practiced at Orlando Health. Other than the allegations herein, the Department has never sought to discipline Respondent. The Department seeks to revoke Respondent’s license based on allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct during office visits with three female patients—S.R., M.H., and M.V.S. The parties stipulated that the factual allegations, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, constitute sexual misconduct under Florida law. On or around December 6, 2020, M.V.S. reported to both the LMPD and the Department that Respondent acted inappropriately during an office visit on November 30, 2020. The Department investigated further, interviewed M.V.S. and Respondent, and obtained medical records from Orlando Health. On February 17, 2021, the Department issued an Order of Emergency Restriction of License (“ERO”) that restricted Respondent from practicing on female patients based on findings of sexual misconduct with M.V.S. On February 22, 2021, Respondent requested an expedited hearing under sections 120.569 and 120.57. The Department properly did not transmit the case to DOAH at that time, as judicial review of the ERO is via petition in the appellate court. §§ 120.60(6)(c) and 120.68, Fla. Stat. Respondent filed such a petition, but the First District Court of Appeal ultimately denied it on the merits. On March 9, 2021, the Department presented its disciplinary case to a probable cause panel of the Board. After hearing argument from both parties, the panel unanimously found probable cause to issue a three-count Administrative Complaint (“Complaint”) seeking to discipline Respondent for engaging in sexual misconduct with M.V.S. On March 10, 2021, the Department issued the Complaint. On March 16, 2021, Respondent requested an expedited formal hearing under chapter 120. However, the Department did not immediately transmit the Complaint to DOAH because it had just received notification that the VA investigated complaints of sexual misconduct against Respondent by two veterans, S.R. and M.H., who each saw Respondent multiple times between 2014 and 2016. The Department obtained records from the VA. As to S.R., the VA closed the matter as unsubstantiated based on S.R.’s decision not to pursue criminal charges and the VA’s finding of insufficient evidence to support the allegations. As to M.H., the VA found no conclusive evidence of misconduct based on Respondent’s testimony, which was corroborated by the testimony of his nurse and a medical student. After receipt of the VA records, the Department interviewed S.R. and M.H. Based on this additional information, the Department presented its case to another probable cause panel to amend the Complaint to include allegations relating to S.R. and M.H. After hearing from both parties, the panel voted unanimously on April 23, 2021, to find probable cause of sexual misconduct with S.R. and M.H. On April 27, 2021, the Department issued the three-count Amended Complaint seeking to discipline Respondent’s license for sexual misconduct with S.R., M.H., and M.V.S. On April 29, 2021, Respondent filed a third request for a hearing, which sought transmission of the case to DOAH for an expedited evidentiary hearing to be held within 30 days. On April 30, 2021, 45 days after Respondent’s request for a hearing on the initial Complaint, the Department transmitted the Amended Complaint to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing under chapter 120.2 2 In filings prior to transmittal of the Amended Complaint to DOAH, in pleadings prior to the final hearing, and orally at the final hearing, Respondent argued that the Department improperly delayed transmitting the case to DOAH and violated his due process rights throughout the investigatory process. Even had Respondent preserved those arguments by including them in his PRO, the undersigned would have found that the Department’s investigation, the probable cause panel proceedings, and the timing of the transmittal of the case to DOAH did not render the proceedings unfair or impair the correctness of the Department’s action based on the weight of the credible evidence. For one, the Department presented its case to the probable cause panel 20 days after issuing the ERO and issued the initial Complaint the next day. It presented the new allegations to a probable cause panel 65 days after the ERO (and 44 days after filing the initial Complaint) and issued the Amended Complaint the next day. The Department then transmitted the Amended Complaint to DOAH on April 30, 2021, one day after Respondent requested a hearing on it and 45 days after requesting a hearing on the initial Complaint. Based on this timeline, the Department met its obligation to promptly institute chapter 120 proceedings. See § 120.60(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (“Summary suspension, restriction, or limitation may be ordered, but a suspension or revocation proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57 shall also be promptly instituted and acted upon.”); see also § 456.073(5), Fla. Stat. (“Notwithstanding s. 120.569(2), the department shall notify the division within 45 days after receipt of a petition or request for a formal hearing.”); Fla. Admin. Code. R. 28-106.501(3) (“In the case of the emergency suspension, limitation, or restriction of a license, unless otherwise provided by law, within 20 days after emergency action taken pursuant to subsection (1) of this rule, the agency shall initiate administrative proceedings in compliance with Sections 120.569, 120.57 and 120.60, F.S., and Rule 28- 106.2015, F.A.C.”). The weight of the credible evidence also failed to establish any resulting prejudice to Respondent. He presented no evidence as to how the Department’s decision to investigate the new allegations and issue the Amended Complaint before transmitting the case to DOAH prejudiced his ability to defend against the allegations. The Department notified Respondent of M.V.S.’s complaint and allowed him to provide statements during the investigation, make arguments before both probable cause panels, conduct discovery, and adequately prepare for and defend against the allegations at a final hearing. The fact that the VA did not comply with Respondent’s discovery requests or make witnesses available is neither attributable to the Department nor a reasonable basis to argue prejudice, particularly where Respondent failed to enforce subpoenas or challenge the VA’s discovery objections in state or federal court. The undersigned simply cannot find that the Department violated Respondent’s due process rights by waiting 45 days to transmit the case to DOAH while the Department investigated new allegations involving two other female patients. At best, Respondent’s alleged prejudice is that the Department was able to prosecute him for sexual misconduct with two additional patients, which it had authority to do independently by separate complaint or by moving to amend the Complaint once it transmitted the case to DOAH. The latter option could have resulted in even more delay, as DOAH may have had to relinquish jurisdiction to allow for the new allegations to be approved by a probable cause panel if the Department had not already completed that necessary step. S.R.’s Two Appointments with Respondent in 2014 and 2015 In 2014, S.R., a 58-year-old veteran who just moved to Orlando, requested a neurology referral because she suffers from multiple sclerosis (“MS”). The VA referred her to Respondent with whom she had two office visits. On December 29, 2014, S.R. had her first appointment with Respondent at the VA Lake Baldwin facility. Respondent’s assistant took S.R.’s vitals but did not remain in the room during the examination.3 S.R. never asked for a chaperone to be present and one was not offered to her. Respondent entered the room and made introductions with S.R. They discussed the new VA facility in Lake Nona, where Respondent lived, and restaurants in that area. According to S.R., Respondent said that he hoped to see her, though she did not understand what that meant. S.R. explained that she suffered her first MS attack over 30 years earlier but only recently was diagnosed with the disease after a neurologist ordered an MRI. She discussed her current symptoms, including back pain, muscle spasms, and fatigue. Respondent told her that back problems were common for women with large breasts, which she thought was odd. But, she expressed hope that Respondent could continue to help with her symptoms much like her prior neurologists in South Carolina and South Florida. Respondent examined S.R. and tested her reflexes, vision, coordination, and physical limitations. Respondent said he wanted to listen to S.R.’s heart. Without even trying to listen over her clothes, he asked S.R. to lift her t-shirt. He began rubbing his stethoscope across both her breasts and under her bra. He then cupped the bottom of her left breast with the palm of 3 The VA advocate’s report indicated that S.R. said that Respondent instructed his assistant to leave the room prior to his examination. However, S.R. testified credibly that she never made that allegation and her handwritten statement to the VA advocate also contained no such allegation. That the VA advocate’s hearsay report says otherwise neither calls S.R.’s credibility into doubt nor undermines the clear and consistent nature of her testimony. his hand while holding the stethoscope between his fingers and touching her nipple. This portion of the examination lasted about ten seconds. At the end of the initial visit, Respondent discussed treatment plans, medication, and physical therapy with S.R. They scheduled a follow-up appointment for several months later. Respondent documented S.R.’s records based on his examination. Although S.R. testified credibly that she had a heart murmur, Respondent noted a regular heart rate and rhythm with no murmurs. He also continued S.R.’s prescription for Diazepam, though several months later he placed an addendum for that initial visit record to indicate the prescription was improperly entered under his name and that he would defer to S.R.’s primary care physician for that medication. S.R. thought Respondent’s conduct was weird because no doctor had ever listened to her heart under her clothes or touched her breasts in that manner. She felt confused and uncomfortable, but she did not report the incident then because she trusted Respondent as her doctor and thought it could have been a mistake. She also thought Respondent might be the only neurologist at the VA. She discussed the incident with her husband and decided that she would be more aware at subsequent appointments. On March 30, 2015, S.R. had her second visit with Respondent at the Lake Nona facility. She arrived early, but the office staff delayed bringing her back and then had trouble taking her vitals. S.R. did not request a chaperone for this visit because everyone seemed very busy. Respondent entered the room and they were again alone. Respondent seemed irritated because he thought S.R. arrived late, which made her defensive. She complained of left hip pain and told Respondent that she had not gone for physical therapy. He examined her hip by lifting her leg, which hurt. She then sat up and he said he needed to listen to her heart. Again, without attempting to listen over her t-shirt and bra, he told her to lift her t-shirt. Because of what occurred during the last visit, S.R. kept her arms tightly by her sides to limit Respondent’s ability to touch her breasts. He kept using his elbow to try to relax her arms while moving the stethoscope higher over her breasts, eventually cupping her breast under her bra. He grabbed at her breasts but got frustrated by her refusal to relax her arms. At that point, Respondent threw the stethoscope into the sink and became angry, which startled S.R. and made her uncomfortable. She requested that he continue her Diazepam prescription to help her sleep at night, which she said her prior neurologist prescribed for muscle spasms. Respondent told her that the drug was for anxiety, not muscle spasms, though he documented in her record that she should continue to take the medication. Respondent also documented again that S.R. had a regular heart rate and rhythm. S.R. felt uncomfortable during the entire visit. She had never had a neurologist get angry or confrontational with her, but she decided not to report the incidents at that time because she was in pain and just wanted to go home. About a month later, she awoke in the middle of the night and realized the inappropriateness of Respondent’s conduct. In August 2015, S.R. returned to the Lake Nona facility to schedule an appointment with a different neurologist. When she saw Respondent’s name on the signage, she immediately went to the patient advocate to report his misconduct in the hope of preventing him from engaging in the same behavior with other patients. She met with the patient advocate and the VA police, and she completed a written statement. Although she was supposed to testify before the VA investigative board, she had trouble finding the room that day and left without speaking to anyone. Based on S.R.’s decision not to pursue criminal charges and the VA’s finding of insufficient evidence to support the allegations, the VA closed the matter as unsubstantiated. However, the matter was referred for clinical and/or administrative follow- up, which resulted in the VA updating its chaperone policy to require signs to be posted in the offices to put patients on notice of their right to ask for a chaperone. S.R. did not report the incidents to the Department at the time because she did not realize she could do so. But, when the Department contacted her in 2021 about this case, she agreed to participate and testify. The undersigned found S.R. to be a highly credible witness who unequivocally testified about Respondent’s inappropriate sexual behavior. S.R.’s testimony was compelling, specific, clear, and materially consistent with the statements she made when the incidents first occurred. Respondent testified about his treatment of S.R., but he conceded he had no independent recollection of the visits. Instead, he based his testimony on what he documented in her medical records and his standard practice. Respondent testified that he conducted a thorough examination in the same manner that he evaluates all of his new patients. He performed a cardiac examination over S.R.’s clothing by placing a stethoscope on her chest in several areas to listen to her heart. He confirmed that he never places the stethoscope on, or allows his hand to come into contact with, a patient’s breasts and that it was impossible that such contact happened with S.R. even inadvertently. He also said that he always has a chaperone present if he needs to listen to a female patient’s heart under her clothing and that is exactly what he would have done had he needed to do so with S.R. Respondent denied engaging in any inappropriate behavior with S.R. and suggested instead that she misperceived what happened. However, he offered no credible explanation for S.R. having such a misperception, except to accuse her of being upset for his refusal to prescribe her Diazepam. S.R.’s medical records fail to document any cognitive impairment and Respondent confirmed that she did not suffer from hallucinations or ailments that would cause her to imagine things that did not happen. Although S.R. admitted that it took her a few months to fully realize what Respondent had done and to report it to the VA, the undersigned has no hesitation in finding her testimony to be a fair and accurate account of Respondent’s actual conduct. The records themselves also call the veracity of Respondent’s testimony into question. Although S.R. credibly testified that she had a heart murmur, Respondent documented the lack of such a murmur even after conducting two cardiovascular examinations of her. Had Respondent conducted a proper cardiac examination, he should have identified and documented her murmur. Further, it cannot be ignored that the treatment plan for both visits continued her prescription for Diazepam, even though Respondent—after the first visit but before the second visit—placed an addendum in the record to indicate that S.R. needed to obtain the prescription from her primary care physician. Respondent’s notes for the March 2015 visit also document that Diazepam continued to be an active prescription for S.R., undermining the suggestion that she would fabricate an allegation of sexual misconduct against Respondent on that basis. Moreover, Respondent’s expert neurologist had never heard of a patient fabricating sexual misconduct allegations against a doctor for failing to prescribe medication. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the undersigned finds that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct with S.R. During the first visit, Respondent directed S.R. to lift her shirt and inappropriately rubbed his stethoscope across her breasts and under her bra, cupped her left breast with the palm of his hand while holding the stethoscope between his fingers, and touched her nipple. During the second appointment, Respondent directed S.R. to lift her shirt again. Although S.R. kept her arms tightly against her sides to try to limit Respondent’s ability to touch her inappropriately, he inappropriately rubbed the stethoscope across her breasts, cupped her breast under her bra, and grabbed at her breasts. Respondent did so on both occasions without first attempting to listen to S.R.’s heart over her clothing, which itself was contrary to the standard of care. M.H.’s Four Appointments with Respondent in 2015 and 2016 In late 2015, the VA referred M.H., a 39-year-old veteran, to Respondent for a neurological evaluation after she had an abnormal MRI showing white matter changes in her brain following an illegal drug overdose. M.H. had four office visits with Respondent at the Lake Nona facility on August 12, 2015, November 6, 2015, June 23, 2016, and August 1, 2016. During the first three visits, Respondent discussed M.H.’s medical history, prior drug use, and symptoms, including migraines, pain, possible nerve damage, and cognitive and motor issues; he also conducted physical and neurological examinations. During the fourth visit, Respondent performed a nerve block procedure to address M.H.’s migraines. M.H. testified about the visits and her uncomfortable interactions with Respondent. During several visits, he discussed the lack of sex with his wife and that she allowed him to step outside the marriage. He either asked M.H. out on a date or to meet at a hotel, which she interpreted as an offer of sex, and he also asked if he could call her. He asked her questions about her sex life several times, including how often she had sex with her boyfriend, what positions they liked, the size of her bra, and whether sex was painful. M.H. testified that Respondent also acted inappropriately. During one visit, he either lifted her shirt or asked her to lift her shirt to look at her breasts and listen to her heart. He once blocked the door to prevent her from leaving the room and attempted to put his arms around her to hug her. He once put his hands on the bottom of her buttocks, like a lover’s caress. During the fourth visit when the nurse left the room after the procedure, he had an erection and rubbed it through his pants against her leg while trying to give her a hug. She said that she told her mother in the waiting room after that visit that Respondent had rubbed his erection on her. She also said that he told her not to say anything about their interactions at each visit. In August 2016, M.H. reported Respondent’s conduct to the VA; she did not report the conduct to the Department because she did not know she could. The VA investigative board conducted sworn interviews of M.H., Respondent, his nurse, and a medical student, and it considered numerous letters of recommendation from Respondent’s patients and colleagues. It found no conclusive evidence of sexual misconduct based on Respondent’s testimony, as corroborated by testimony from a nurse and a medical student. M.H. testified passionately about Respondent’s conduct and how it made her feel. However, her recollection of the details—as to what occurred, when, and who was present—was fuzzy and inconsistent in material ways with the testimony she gave to the VA board in 2016, her deposition testimony in this case, and the testimony of her mother. M.H. stated that her recollection in 2016 was better than now, but the inconsistencies outlined below affect the weight to be given to M.H.’s testimony. M.H. testified initially that she and Respondent were alone in the examination room at some point during each visit. M.H. testified that she asked to have her daughter present during either the third or fourth visit, but Respondent refused. M.H. also testified on cross examination that she could not recall if her mother was in the room with her during the first two visits, only to later confirm that her mother must have been present during those two visits based on the testimony she gave before the VA board in 2016. M.H.’s mother testified that she accompanied M.H. to two of the visits, though she could not recall the dates. Contrary to M.H.’s testimony, her mother said she neither came back to the examination room nor met Respondent at any visit and based her testimony solely on what M.H. said. M.H.’s mother testified that M.H. said that Respondent asked her out after one visit and rubbed his erection against her back after another visit, which contravened M.H.’s testimony that Respondent rubbed his erection against her leg while hugging her from the front. Before the VA board in 2016, and contrary to her testimony at the final hearing, M.H. said that Respondent acted professionally during the first two visits and that her mother was present in the examination room both times. M.H. testified that Respondent became unprofessional while they were alone in the room during the final two visits, at which he asked inappropriate questions about her sex life. M.H. explained that she was offered a chaperone before the third visit, but she refused because nothing unprofessional had occurred before, and that Respondent refused to allow her daughter to be in the room during the procedure on the fourth visit. M.H. said Respondent grabbed her buttocks during the third visit and, during the fourth visit, he blocked the door after the procedure, grabbed her buttocks, lifted her shirt to comment on how much he liked her breasts, and rubbed his erection through his pants on her leg. When cross-examined about the inconsistencies, M.H. testified at the final hearing that she may have been protecting Respondent by saying in 2016 that he acted professionally during the first two visits, though she now recalls him acting unprofessionally during all four visits. During her pre-hearing deposition in this case, M.H. testified that Respondent asked questions about her sex life and bra size, discussed his open marriage, and asked her out during the first visit, but he did not touch her inappropriately. M.H. testified that Respondent refused to allow her daughter to stay in the room with her during the second visit and, after the examination, he blocked the door, grabbed her and tried to hug her, rubbed his erection on her stomach and leg, and again reiterated that he was allowed to have sex outside his marriage. She testified that Respondent discussed his open marriage and asked her to date him during the third visit; M.H. said that the office refused to allow her mother to accompany her in the room. M.H. testified that the only uncomfortable thing that Respondent did during the fourth visit was ask her out repeatedly. M.H. testified that Respondent never asked if she wanted a chaperone at any of the visits, though she later acknowledged that a chaperone was present at the fourth visit. Respondent testified about his treatment of M.H. based only on what he documented in her chart, as he had no independent recollection beyond his review of her medical records. Respondent denied any inappropriate behavior with M.H. He claimed that he never allowed himself to be alone in a room with her because she was engaging in manipulative, drug-seeking behavior. He basically accused M.H. of fabricating the allegations against him because he refused to prescribe her pain medication. However, Respondent’s accusations against M.H. are questionable for several reasons. Respondent never documented in her record his concern about M.H.’s alleged drug-seeking behavior, that a chaperone needed to be present at all visits, or that she had requested pain medication. Although he documented the presence of his nurse and a medical student at the fourth visit, he failed to do the same for the first three visits. One would expect a physician—surely one as concerned about a patient’s drug-seeking history and behavior as Respondent now claims to be—to document those concerns and the presence of chaperones in the medical record to prevent any future false accusation. This is particularly so given that Respondent, at the time, had recently been accused of misconduct by S.R., which he believed was both false and based on her drug-seeking behavior. The medical records also confirm that M.H. informed Respondent at the June 2016 visit that she had been prescribed Lyrica for pain while in jail and that it was working. Respondent noted, “Renewed lyrica,” in the plan/recs section of the record for that visit. Respondent also noted Pregabalin, the generic name for Lyrica,4 in both the active and pending medication lists for both the June and August 2016 visits. The weight of the credible evidence does not support Respondent’s claim that M.H. fabricated her allegations because he refused to prescribe her pain medication, particularly given her credible testimony that she did not 4 According to WebMD, the generic name for Lyrica is Pregabalin. Available at https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-93965/lyrica-oral/details. need pain medication because Respondent continued her Lyrica prescription. It also bears repeating that Respondent’s own expert had never heard of a patient falsely accusing a doctor of sexual misconduct for refusing to prescribe medication. After evaluating the evidence, the undersigned finds M.H. generally to be a more credible witness overall than Respondent. She testified passionately and credibly about Respondent’s requests to meet her outside the office because he had an open marriage and his wife allowed such conduct. She also credibly explained how Respondent commented on the size of her breasts, grabbed her buttocks, and rubbed his erection on her. Importantly, however, the undersigned cannot ignore that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies in this case. M.H.’s recollection was too fuzzy and inconsistent to definitively find without hesitation that Respondent engaged in the exact sexual misconduct alleged by M.H. and set forth in the Amended Complaint. If the Department’s burden in this case was a mere preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned would likely find that it proved Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct with M.H. But, the clear and convincing evidence standard applies herein. And, because M.H. could not provide the type of definitive and clear testimony required in this disciplinary action, the Department failed to prove that Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct with M.H. M.V.S.’s One Appointment with Respondent in 2020 On November 30, 2020, M.V.S., a 68-year-old woman, had an initial neurology consult with Respondent at Orlando Health. M.V.S. sought a neurologist based on an abnormal MRI showing a cyst near her pituitary gland and complaints of neck pain radiating to her shoulder and arm. After filling out paperwork in the reception area, a medical assistant or nurse brought M.V.S. to an examination room. The room had an examination table, which could be lowered, a counter, and a chair. M.V.S. sat in the chair while the assistant took her vitals. Although M.V.S. has a history of blood pressure spikes, for which she has called 911 and even gone to the hospital several times, her blood pressure was within normal limits that morning. The assistant waited for M.V.S. to complete the paperwork and then left the room. Respondent entered the room a few minutes later and closed the door behind him. He wore green scrubs and a white lab coat; she wore a skirt, blouse, bra, and underwear. He and M.V.S. were alone for the remainder of the appointment. They initially discussed M.V.S.’s medical history and complaints. M.V.S. talked about her aunt, who had symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and did not recognize her on a recent visit. She was concerned about the disease because she recently had forgotten some small details, like the name of an actor in a movie. M.V.S. did not believe she had significant memory issues, but she wanted research on the disease because it ran in her family. Respondent asked M.V.S. if she lived with anyone, which she interpreted as a question relating to her safety. She informed him that she lived alone within close proximity to a fire station. She also mentioned that her daughter lived in Orlando and her fiancé lived in Longwood. Respondent asked if she had sexual relations with her fiancé; she explained that they did not because her fiancé had prostate cancer. M.V.S. thought the question was odd given the reason for the appointment and because no other physician had ever asked that type of question before. Respondent moved on to M.V.S.’s complaints of neck pain. She explained that she experienced pain on the left side of her neck that radiated to her left shoulder and left arm. At that point, Respondent directed M.V.S. to sit on the table so he could examine her. While standing to M.V.S.’s left, Respondent rubbed and squeezed her neck and shoulders with his thumbs and fingers for a couple of minutes. No other doctor had examined her in that fashion before. He said she felt tense, but never asked if she experienced pain during the examination. She confirmed that it definitely felt like a neck and shoulder massage, which she had received many times. She noted that her cardiologist had recently palpated her neck for pain by using two fingers to poke and feel around, which was different than Respondent’s examination. Indeed, when a doctor palpates for pain, they typically use two fingertips to lightly press and prod in the trouble areas and obtain feedback from the patient about the level of pain. Respondent then examined M.V.S.’s spine while she stood in front of him. He thereafter examined her reflexes, eyes, and extremity strength while she sat on the table. He also conducted a memory test, which she passed. M.V.S. did not recall Respondent listening to her heart during the visit. At that point, Respondent directed M.V.S. to lie face-down on the table, which already was lowered. He asked if he could raise her skirt and she said, yes, because she believed it related to a muscular or skeletal examination. He raised her skirt and, over her underwear, rubbed her lower back and eventually moved down to her buttocks using both of his hands. He rubbed and squeezed both of her buttocks. She confirmed it felt like a deliberate, prolonged massage, which had never happened to her at a doctor’s office. Her mind raced, she felt frozen, and she could not believe what was happening. After one to two minutes, Respondent told her to sit up because he heard a voice. She sat on the end of the table and he began massaging and squeezing her right breast while standing on her right. He told her that he had never done this before and that she was beautiful. She thanked him in a low voice, but she was afraid and felt trapped because they were alone, there were no witnesses, and she was unsure of what he would do. Respondent asked if M.V.S. was comfortable with him massaging her breast and he stopped when she said no. He moved to her left side and explained that his wife would not have sex with him, so she permitted him to have sex outside the marriage. He asked if M.V.S. would meet him for sex and she declined. Respondent asked if that was because her fiancé would object, and she confirmed they had a commitment. At that point, Respondent pulled his lab coat back and said, “Look at this. Look what you did to me.” Respondent revealed his erect penis, which M.V.S. confirmed was clearly visible through his scrubs. Respondent told her to keep this between us, said his assistant would be in shortly with paperwork, and left the room. M.V.S. waited for about seven minutes and, when no one came, she left the room, tried to hold her composure, and checked out. She said nothing before leaving because she felt unsafe and was unsure if anyone would believe her anyway. M.V.S. turned on her car’s air conditioning and drank water to calm down. Her heart was pounding, and she feared having a blood pressure spike. As soon as she arrived home, M.V.S. called her daughter to tell her what happened. M.V.S.’s daughter, who is a nurse, told her to call the police. M.V.S. called the LMPD that afternoon. The officer with whom she spoke suggested that she file a complaint with the Department, which she did on December 6, 2020. Both the Department and the LMPD investigated the allegations, which included interviews of M.V.S. and Respondent.5 M.V.S. also reported the incident to Orlando Health risk management. The undersigned found M.V.S. to be a highly credible witness who testified passionately and definitively about Respondent’s inappropriate sexual behavior during the office visit. She immediately reported it to the LMPD and, within a week, filed complaints with both the Department and Respondent’s employer. M.V.S.’s testimony was clear, specific, detailed, compelling, and materially consistent with the interviews and statements she gave immediately following the visit. Respondent testified about his treatment of M.V.S., but—as he did with the S.R. and M.H.—he conceded he had little to no independent 5 Based on the information obtained from M.V.S. and Respondent, the LMPD placed the case into inactive status pending further evidence. recollection of her or the visit. Instead, he reviewed her medical records, which refreshed his recollection of what occurred during the visit. Respondent denied engaging in any inappropriate behavior with M.V.S. that could have been interpreted as sexual or outside the scope of a proper examination. He testified that he conducted a neurological examination, palpated her neck for pain, checked her reflexes, and conducted a memory test. He said he never massaged her neck and shoulders, touched or massaged her breasts or buttocks, discussed his marriage, solicited her to have sex, said she was beautiful, or revealed an erection through his scrubs. He also said she could not have laid face-down on the table because he never lowered the back or extended the footrest; he confirmed that he would have brought in a chaperone if he needed her to lie on the table. Respondent testified that M.V.S.’s accusations against him were the product of memory loss and cognitive impairment. Although M.V.S. reported a family history of Alzheimer’s and a fear of mild memory loss, Respondent documented that she performed well on her memory and cognitive examinations. M.V.S. and her daughter testified credibly that she did not experience significant memory loss beyond forgetting the name of an actor in a movie. Respondent himself confirmed that M.V.S. did not suffer from hallucinations or ailments that would cause her to perceive things that were not there—a point with which his expert neurologist agreed given the way Respondent documented the medical record. And, more importantly, M.V.S.’s ability to recall the specific details of the visit and do so consistently with the statements she made previously undermine Respondent’s belief that cognitive impairment caused her to fabricate her allegations. The weight of the credible evidence simply does not support the suggestion that M.V.S. misperceived, confabulated, or fabricated her allegations based on memory loss or cognitive impairment. Additionally, Respondent attempted to discredit M.V.S. by suggesting that she may have come onto him. Indeed, he testified that she was verbose and told him during their initial discussion about her history that her fiancé was older, that she was a 60s baby, and that she had not been touched in a while. Aside from M.V.S.’s credible testimony that she said no such things, it cannot be ignored that Respondent conceded that his memory of the visit was based on his review of the medical record, which contained no reference to these comments even though Respondent says they were odd. Respondent also presented evidence that M.V.S. had previously called 911 on multiple occasions relating to blood pressure spikes to undermine the veracity of her testimony. However, the recordings of the 911 calls reveal an individual who, despite being concerned about her blood pressure, is alert, aware of her surroundings, clear-headed, and in no way suffering from an illness that would raise doubts about the veracity of her testimony or her credibility overall. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the undersigned finds that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct with M.V.S. He inappropriately massaged her neck and shoulders, buttocks, and breast. He disclosed that he had an open marriage and solicited M.V.S. to meet him for sex outside the office. He also told her that she was beautiful and revealed his erection through his scrubs.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Kristen Summers, Esquire Elizabeth Tiernan, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 For Respondent: Kathryn Hood, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 12724 Gran Bay Parkway West, Suite 401 Jacksonville, Florida 32258
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, issue a final order finding Respondent committed sexual misconduct prohibited by sections 458.331(1)(j), 458.329, and 456.063(1), suspending Respondent’s license for two years, and thereafter permanently restricting his license to either prohibit him from seeing female patients or, at a minimum, doing so without a chaperone present.7 DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2021. 7 Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes, provides that the Board, in addition to any other discipline imposed through final order, “shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case.” Prior to the final hearing, the parties agreed to bifurcate the investigative costs issue (including Respondent’s argument that such costs should not be assessed because they are based on unpromulgated rules) pending resolution of the merits of the Amended Complaint. Upon further reflection, the undersigned concludes that resolving such an issue—even in a bifurcated proceeding—is premature because the Board has not yet issued a final order disciplining Respondent or followed the procedure in section 456.072(4), which requires it to consider an affidavit of itemized costs and any written objections thereto. It is in those written objections where Respondent may challenge the costs as being based on an unpromulgated rule. And, if Respondent’s written objections create a disputed issue of fact, the Department can transmit the investigative costs issue to DOAH to resolve that dispute, just as it did in Case No. 20-5385F. COPIES FURNISHED: Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Pennington, P.A. Suite 401 12724 Gran Bay Parkway West Jacksonville, Florida 32258 Kathryn Hood, Esquire Pennington, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna C. McNulty, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Paul A. Vazquez, JD, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-03 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3253 Kristen Summers, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Elizabeth Tiernan, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Edward A. Tellechea, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, specifically sex discrimination in the form of sexual harassment due to Petitioner's gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, a Caucasian female, from sometime in December of 2003 until termination of her employment on June 21, 2004. Petitioner worked in Respondent’s warehouse facility from December, 2003 until sometime in February, 2004, when she was transferred to one of Respondent’s retail stores, the Ocala store, where she worked until she was transferred back to the warehouse at the end of May or beginning of June, 2004. Petitioner conceded at hearing that she was terminated after she argued with her supervisor and called her a bitch. Petitioner does not believe that she was terminated on the basis of her sex. During the course of her employment, Petitioner alleges that Respondent’s president, Barry Lay, made inappropriate comments to her of a sexual nature and touched her in an inappropriate way twice. All alleged sexually inappropriate conduct occurred from December of 2003 through February of 2004, during the period of time Petitioner worked in Respondent's warehouse facility. Petitioner testified that Barry Lay engaged in the following inappropriate conduct: At the end of her initial employment interview when she was hired, and out of the presence of other witnesses, Barry Lay allegedly said to her, “If we were to fuck that’s nobody’s business but ours.” In her charge of discrimination, Petitioner alleged that this statement was “said in front of witnesses.” Due to Petitioner's inconsistencies in testifying, her demeanor while testifying and Barry Lay's candid testimony of denial with regard to making such statements to Petitioner at any time, Petitioner's allegation is not credited. Petitioner testified that, right before Christmas of 2003, Barry Lay told her, "if I would let him eat me out just one time I wouldn't think about any other man." (T. 23). Petitioner testified that other witnesses, including her mother, were sitting nearby at a processing table when this comment was made. No witnesses corroborated Petitioner's testimony on this allegation and, coupled with Barry Lay's denial testimony, Petitioner's allegation is not credited. Petitioner testified that Barry Lay grabbed her face and tried to kiss her about the same time as he allegedly made the comment discussed above. Again, Petitioner alleges that witnesses were present, but all witnesses testifying in the matter, including Barry Lay, denied that such an incident occurred. Petitioner's testimony on this point is not credited. Petitioner also testified that Barry Lay grabbed her hips and tried to pull her from behind when she was bent over at a refrigerator. The allegation was denied by Lay and no corroborating testimony was presented. Petitioner's allegation is not credited. On one occasion, Barry Lay overheard conversation between Petitioner and her mother regarding their breast size and that they could form the “little titty committee.” Lay commented to the duo that both of them could be president of the committee. Barry Lay never attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with Petitioner and never threatened her with job transfer or termination if she failed to provide sexual favors. On one occasion during the course of Petitioner's employment, when employees were discussing a rumor that Barry Lay was having an affair with several people at one time, he overheard the discussion, became irritated, and addressed the employees as a group saying, “It doesn’t matter if I’m fucking you, you, you, or you, it’s none of your business.” Petitioner was transferred to the Ocala Store during the course of her employment to assist her in getting her children to day care on time. Additionally, the store hours were more suitable to her schedule at the time. Petitioner made sexual remarks, participated in discussions of a sexual nature, or participated in sexual horseplay in the workplace during the course of her employment with Respondent. Petitioner was heard and observed to smack or slap Barry Lay’s bottom and say, “I want a piece of that.” Barry Lay did not do anything to provoke Petitioner’s conduct, but responded by saying, “if you did, you’d never go back to your boyfriend.” While at work Petitioner discussed having oral sex with her boyfriend and the length and frequency of those encounters. During Petitioner's assignment to the Ocala store, she developed problems with absenteeism from the job. She quit calling in when she unable to work and demonstrated a poor attitude when she was at work. As a consequence, Petitioner was transferred back to Respondent's warehouse, where any absenteeism by the Petitioner would result in less of a hardship to operations. The transfer occurred at the end of May or beginning of June, 2004. After Petitioner was transferred back to the warehouse, she continued to exhibit a poor attitude and unacceptable conduct while at work. In June of 2004, just before she was terminated, Petitioner screamed at her supervisor that she was not going to perform a requested task due to medical restrictions. The supervisor informed Petitioner that she was not being asked to perform the task by herself, but simply to assist. Petitioner began using abusive language to the supervisor, calling her a “bitch.” Petitioner was asked to leave, but replied that she would not unless and until the supervisor “fucking” fired her. Petitioner pushed the supervisor and call her a “fucking whore” and “bitch.” Eventually, after using further epithets, Petitioner left the premises. Barry Lay did not witness the argument between Petitioner and the supervisor, but when he was later informed he instructed the supervisor to tell Petitioner that her employment was being terminated. The decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment was communicated to her the next day. Petitioner's stated response to the supervisor, before walking away, was “get fucked.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Hesser, Esquire Seven East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 300 Ocala, Florida 34470 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope and Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 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 Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County Park and Recreation Department (Department) is a department of County government. At all times material to the instant case, Carolyn Gibson was a Region Manager with the Department, having ultimate supervisory authority over the operations at the County parks in her region (Region 2), including Arcola Park and West Little River Park. At all times material to the instant case, Rhonda Ham was a Recreational Specialist 2/Service Area Manager with the Department, who was based at Arcola Park and worked under the immediate supervision of Ms. Gibson. Ms. Ham has been married to her husband Earl for the last 13 or 14 years. Although Ms. Gibson considers Ms. Ham to be a friend,4 her friendship with Ms. Ham has not prevented her from taking disciplinary action against Ms. Ham when the "facts" have warranted. Petitioner is a single, custodial father of three children (two daughters and son) aged three, five, and seven. He is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, "the sole support of these children." Unlike Ms. Ham, Petitioner is college educated. He attended the University of Miami and Clarksdale Community College in Clarksdale, Mississippi, before receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Virginia State University (VSU) in 1993. After finishing his undergraduate studies, he spent a year in graduate school at VSU. Petitioner played football in college, and he went on to play the sport professionally after being selected in the National Football League (NFL) draft. One of Petitioner's teammates on the University of Miami football team was James Stewart.5 As teammates, Petitioner and Mr. Stewart "got along with one another and communicated from time to time," but they were not "close friends" and did not "hang out" together. Mr. Stewart also went on to play in the NFL. Following his playing career, he was convicted of a felony, and, in 2001, began serving a five-year prison sentence. He was released from prison in 2006 and is currently on probation. From March 20, 2006, until December 14, 2006, Petitioner was employed by the County as a Park and Recreation Manager 1 at West Little River Park. In that capacity, he had supervisory authority over the other Department employees assigned to work at the park. At all times during his employment with the County, he was a probationary employee with no entitlement to continuing employment.6 Ms. Ham was Petitioner's immediate supervisor for the duration of Petitioner's employment with the County except for a three-week period in April and/or May 2006.7 Her office (at Arcola Park) was located approximately two miles from Petitioner's office (at West Little River Park). Ms. Ham had the authority to monitor and evaluate Petitioner's job performance and to counsel and reprimand Petitioner, both verbally and in writing. The authority to terminate Petitioner's employment resided, not with Ms. Ham, but with Ms. Gibson. It was Ms. Gibson who hired Petitioner. She did so after reviewing Petitioner's application and interviewing him. Petitioner had applied for the position on or about March 2, 2006, by submitting a filled out and signed County employment application form. By signing the application, he "certified," among other things, the following: I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the statements contained herein, and any attachments, are correct, complete and made in good faith. I understand that a background check will be conducted and that should an investigation disclose any misrepresentation, I may be subject to dismissal. The application form had an "Employment History" section, which contained the following instructions: List previous employment history, starting with your current or most recent employment. If you have held more than one position within the same organization, list each position as a separate period of employment. Be sure to indicate where employment may be verified. Please include job-related volunteer, temporary, part-time work and military experience. On his application, Petitioner knowingly failed to disclose that he had been employed from May 30, 2005, to September 17, 2005 as a Recreation Aide V with the City of Miami Parks and Recreation Department, working under the supervision of Lewis Mahoney, who was the Park Manager at Gibson Park. As a City of Miami Parks and Recreation Department employee, Petitioner had had a poor work record and had not gotten along with Mr. Mahoney. He undoubtedly knew, at the time he filled out the County employment application form in March 2006, that Mr. Mahoney, if contacted by the County, would not have good things to say about him. Ms. Gibson did not find out about Petitioner's failure to disclose his employment with the City of Miami on the County employment application form until after she had terminated Petitioner. Had she known about this non-disclosure, she would have never hired Petitioner and allowed him to work for the County. As part of the application and hiring process, Petitioner signed various forms in addition to the County application form. One of these forms was an Oath on Outside Employment for Full-Time Employees form that Petitioner signed on March 2, 2006. It read as follows: I, Damacio Green, a full-time employee of Miami-Dade Park and Recreation Department, certify that I am not engaged in any type of outside employment. I certify that I am not paid by, nor do I receive any equivalent gratuities from, any employer for any of my services except as performed during the normal course of my employment with the Miami-Dade Park and Recreation Department. I certify that before accepting outside employment, I will submit a complete record of intended outside employment to my Department Director for approval. I will abide by the Department Director's decision on the matter. I further certify that I fully understand the County policy on outside employment outlined below. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY POLICY ON OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT (SEC. 2-11 OF THE CODE OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA) No full-time County employee shall accept outside employment, either incidental, occasional or otherwise, where County time, equipment or material is to be used or where such employment or any part thereof is to be performed on County time. A full-time County employee may accept incidental or occasional outside employment so long as such employment is not contrary, detrimental or adverse to the interest of the County or any of the department and the approval required in subsection (C) is obtained. Any outside employment by any full-time County employee must first be approved in writing by the employee's department head who shall maintain a complete record of such employment. Any employee convicted of violating any provision of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1-5, and, in addition thereto, shall be subjected to dismissal by his Department. (Ord. No. 58-5, Sec. 25.01, 2-18-58) When Petitioner "first started working" for the County, he asked Ms. Gibson if, under the County's Policy on Outside Employment, he would be able to operate his mobile food service business, Damacio's Mr. Tasty, LLC, while employed with the County. Ms. Gibson responded to Petitioner's inquiry by telling him, "You can't do it." On at least two occasions during his employment with the County, Petitioner operated his mobile food service business without Departmental approval, despite knowing that doing so was in violation of the County's Policy on Outside Employment. It was not until after Petitioner had been terminated that Ms. Gibson discovered that Petitioner had committed this violation of the County's Policy on Outside Employment. Ms. Gibson would have terminated Petitioner's employment had he still been employed with the County at the time she learned of the violation. Among the other forms that Petitioner signed during the application and hiring process was an Acknowledgment of Receipt of the County's Unlawful Harassment Policy (Administrative Order No. 7-37). He signed this form on March 2, 2006. By doing so, he acknowledged the following: I have received a copy of this Unlawful Harassment Policy and understand that it contains important information on filing a complaint of harassment with my department or the Office of Fair Employment Practices. I will familiarize myself with the Unlawful Harassment Policy and understand that I am governed by its contents. If I have questions about the policy I can contact my Department Affirmative Action Officers Yolanda Fuentes-Johns or William Lindley at (305)755-7866 or the Office of Fair Employment Practices at (305)375-2784. The County's Unlawful Harassment Policy (which was printed on the form) provided, in pertinent part, as follows: POLICY The policy of Miami-Dade County is to ensure that all employees are able to enjoy a work environment free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, retaliation, age, disability, ancestry, marital status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or the exercise of their constitutional or statutory rights. Administrative Order 7-28 was adopted in 1987 specifically to protect County employees from sexual harassment. Administrative Order 7-28 and Administrative Order 7-6, Personnel Policy on Equal Employment Opportunity, have since been interpreted to extend similar protection to employees who believe they have been harassed for unlawful reasons other than sex. This Administrative Order is intended to make clear that all County employees who believe they have been unlawfully harassed must notify the County's Office of Fair Employment Practices or their Departmental Affirmative Action Officer and may file a complaint for prompt and proper investigation. Employees who are found guilty of unlawfully harassing other employees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, depending on the circumstances. These may range from counseling up to and including termination. Miami-Dade County will not tolerate adverse treatment of employees because they report harassment or provide information related to such complaints. The County, in exercising reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment or retaliation for reporting harassment, will protect victims from further unlawful harassment and retaliation. * * * COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Employees who believe they have been the subject of harassment prohibited by this Administrative Order, must notify the County's Office of Fair Employment Practices or their Departmental Affirmative Action Officer and, if they choose, may file a formal complaint with the County's Office of Fair Employment Practices. Employees may, if they desire, also report such incidents of unlawful harassment to their supervisor but are under no obligation to do so. Employees are encouraged to report harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive. This will facilitate early mediation and effective resolution of potential unlawful harassment complaints. All complaints of harassment, subsequent investigations and corrective actions shall be handled on a confidential basis to the extent possible under the law. Protective measures will be instituted to protect the complainant. Miami-Dade County has established procedures for resolving, filing and processing complaints of unlawful harassment. If the investigation confirms the existence of unlawful harassment, the Fair Employment Practices Office will pursue prompt corrective action, including remedial relief for the victim, and appropriate disciplinary action against the offender. * * * At no time during his employment with the County did Petitioner complain, in accordance with the "complaint procedure" described in the County's Unlawful Harassment Policy, that he was being, or had been, sexually harassed by Ms. Ham. During much of the time that Petitioner worked under Ms. Ham's immediate supervision, the two had an amicable relationship--so amicable that on one occasion, without being asked by Ms. Ham, Petitioner gave her a check in the amount $125.00 to help her purchase a dance outfit for her daughter. What started out as a friendly, non-physical relationship evolved into a sexual one, in which both Petitioner and Ms. Ham freely and willingly participated. They engaged in sexual activity on three separate occasions--once in Petitioner's office at West Little River Park and twice in Ms. Ham's office at Arcola Park. The first of these consensual sexual encounters occurred in August 2006. The third and final encounter was in October 2006. On each occasion, Petitioner was the one who initiated the physical contact. "[A]shamed and embarrassed" by her conduct, Ms. Ham decided to put an end to her adulterous affair with Petitioner. There was no further sexual activity between Ms. Ham and Petitioner after October 2006. Ms. Ham oversaw a Children's Trust-funded after-school program at Arcola Park in which Petitioner's daughter, DK, was registered. It was Ms. Ham's responsibility to make sure that children in the program were picked up from their respective schools at the end of the school day and transported to Arcola Park. After the end of the school day on November 6, 2006, Petitioner received word from DK's school that DK had not been picked up and was still at school. Petitioner ultimately telephoned Ms. Gibson on her cell phone and, in a "very loud" tone of voice, said, "Ms. Ham left my daughter, she didn't pick my daughter up from school, what are you going to do about it?" Ms. Gibson later met with Petitioner and Ms. Ham to discuss the matter and try to sort things out. During the meeting, Petitioner was, in Ms. Gibson's eyes, "irate" and "out of control." He told Ms. Gibson that she "couldn't tell him anything" because she did not "have any kids" and she "kn[e]w nothing about parenting." Ms. Gibson sensed from Petitioner's and Ms. Ham's "body language" and the way that they were "glaring at each other" at the meeting that they might be involved in a non-work- related relationship. She therefore asked them, before they left, whether they had "crossed the line." They both denied that there was anything going on between them. A few days later, Petitioner came into Ms. Gibson's office and asked her, rhetorically, "Do you think I'm interested in Ms. Ham?" He then told her, "Well, Ms. Gibson, I'm not interested in Ms. Ham, I'm interested in you." Ms. Gibson's response to this come-on was to direct Petitioner to "get out of [her] office." Petitioner was due to be evaluated on or about September 24, 2006, but it was not until November 17, 2006, that he received his first Management Performance Evaluation. This November 17, 2006, evaluation was prepared by Ms. Ham (who signed the evaluation as the "rater") with input from Ms. Gibson (who signed the evaluation as the "reviewer"). The overall rating was unsatisfactory. The evaluation contained the following narrative: ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES: RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, you entered this department on March 28, 2006 as a Park & Recreation Manager 1 at West Little River Park. From your inception there has been an increase in participant enrollment in spring and summer camp, and [the] after school program. However, there has been a decrease in registration/attendance in your sports development program, which is the region's primary program. DECISION MAKING AND JUDGMENT: RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, over the past 6 months I have had the opportunity to observ[e] your decision- making skills and often times your decisions are hasty. At your level you should take the opportunity to first identify the problem, gather the facts and make decisions based on facts and not what you are feeling at the time, i.e. sending part-timers home and then call[ing] them back to work within the hour.[8] Also, it is important that you understand parents are our customers, they might not always be right in their actions. However, as professionals we must always maintain our composure by allowing them to vent and then by explaining the circumstances rather than trying to talk over them and suggesting they bring a spouse to deal with the situation instead, as you have done.[9] PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT RATING: Satisfactory Mr. Green, you have a solid educational foundation and you have taken the initiative to enroll in PAR training to aid you in better understanding the payroll attendance record. You are currently involved in the recreation modular training. However, being new to the department it is extremely important that you make a concentrated effort to enroll in trainings in the following areas[:] time management and dealing with conflict in the workplace, progressive discipline and a host of other trainings relative to your professional development. You need to encourage your subordinate staff to enroll in training to improve their knowledge and skills. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, during your first six months in the department you have not taken the initiative to plan, organize or implement any special events, activities or sporting events.[10] You have not shown any creativity or enthusiasm. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, your relationship with your subordinate staff has been less than cohesive. There have been instances of verbal conflict and derision between you and Mr. Morgan and Ms. Johnson,[11] a seasonal employee[,][12] and several parents of patrons that you were not able to resolve satisfactorily as the leader. Although we have discussed strategies on how you can improve in this area improvement is still needed to foster the teamwork ethic at West Little River Park. You have not made an effort to understand[] how the chain of command works. It is very important that you understand your first point of contact is your Service Area Manager. If we cannot resolve the situation at my level and if you're not satisfied with the resolution, you can then request a meeting with the next level in the chain of command. COMMUNICATIONS RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, your very limited knowledge of the computer has been a hindrance for you as a Park & Recreation Manager 1. It is very important for you to have a basic working knowledge of the computer. The computer is an essential tool that is used everyday. Our reliance on them is an ever increasing fact. Mr. Green, you are not taking the initiative to learn what you need to know in order to function in your capacity as a manager. During our regional staff meetings you are not attentive and you do not take notes, yet you come back to me with questions that were covered during the staff meetings.[13] I have been supportive by consistently aiding you with your assignments. However, in many instances you have not comprehended the information well and have looked to me for more than just support. You are now faced with spreading your part- time budget and coming up with goals and objectives. You have missed every deadline given. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, an improvement is needed in the area. You have been encouraged to avail yourself of all the resources available to educate yourself on the subject of the department's policies and procedures via the use of our various manuals and through counsel with your supervisors and peers. However, you have been challenged in your role as a leader in applying them in the daily operations of the park and rapport with your staff and patrons. ADDITIONAL FACTORS RATING: Not Applicable RATER'S OVERALL EVALUATION: Unsatisfactory Is employee eligible for merit increase? Deferred. Re-evaluate in 1 1/2 months/ Is employee eligible for permanent status? N/A IN WHAT WAYS CAN OR MUST THE EMPLOYEE IMPROVE PERFORMANCE? Mr. Green, to improve your overall performance, concentrate on the following: Increase participant registration/ attendance in the Sports Development Program which has declined under your supervision. Demonstrate more leadership before subordinate staff. Enroll in department management courses. They will help in your professional growth. Enroll for "Service Excellence" training to enhance you customer service skills with patrons. Plan, organize and market at least 2 annual special events at West Little River Park. Enroll [in] computer courses to be more proficient in the use of the personal computer. Follow the chain of command as mandated by our Regional Manager and your immediate supervisor. You will be re-evaluated in the next 1 1/2 months. If there has been no substantial improvement stronger measures will be made. Petitioner prepared a written rebuttal to his November 17, 2006, evaluation, which he provided to Ms. Ham and Ms. Gibson on or about November 27, 2006. It read as follows: SECTION 2: DECISION MAKING AND JUDGMENT: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT In the subject of decision-making and judgment, I received a rating of need[s] improvement. I totally feel that this rating is unfair because of one incident that happened in a six-month period. However, the situation with the parent being treated unprofessionally is completely wrong. The parent made the statement to me of having her husband deal with the issue rather than herself. I simply responded, "If you feel that this is necessary for your spouse to speak with me rather than you, then I have no problem with it. I will be here in my office whenever he ha[s] time to speak with me." The entire ordeal was handled totally in a professional manner. SECTION 4: PLANNING AND ORGANIZING: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT In the area of planning and organizing, I received a rating of need[s] improvement, which I feel is totally unfair and incorrect. During the entire six month[] period, I never once received a memo or any corresponden[ce] to the effect that my planning and organizing skills was not up to par.[14] When I received this position on March 21st, 2006, I was given a brief overview pre-training of my duties and responsibilities i.e., administrative paper work, sports development participation, seasonal camp programming, after school daily programming and maintenance responsibilities. Special events were never mentioned. My facility participated in spring break and summer camps in which we increase[d] the numbers a great deal from past history. We also participated in every sport development cycle. According to the directions I was given, I felt as if I was totally within my responsibilities. Now to receive an impromptu surprise that I am not on task is not only incorrect but also absolutely unprofessional. SECTION 5: INTERPERSONAL SKILLS: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT I feel that this rating, needs improvement, is unfair and incorrect. During my first six months, I've had two situations with parents that are sisters, which was a misunderstanding about the kids coming into the facility unsupervised. After explaining the danger of that to the parents, they both agreed with me. The second situation had already been explained in section 2 when a parent felt she would like for her husband to address the issue rather than herself. At that time the situation was resolved without further discussion. The issues that I had with Mr. Morgan, I feel personally w[ere] created by Mrs. Ham by allowing him to break the chain of command by calling you without discussing anything with me first was wrong. When I give Mr. Morgan an assignment that he does not like, he feels that he could call you to change it. Must I remind you that Ms. Gibson warned you about this behavior during summer camp. Ms. Gibson also stated to you, "Rhonda, this is wrong! You wouldn't want Mr. Green to do this to you with me." This is not the support I expected from my immediate supervisor. I feel sabotaged, betrayed and set up for failure. In my evaluation, you mentioned me breaking the chain of command and asked me to call my immediate supervisor about any issue before contacting the regional manager. If I remained unsatisfied, what did I violate if you were contacted twice, you were told that I was unhappy with your answer and I needed immediate attention? This would mean that I followed the chain of command to the letter. SECTION 6: COMMUNICATIONS: RATING: UNSATISFACTORY The rating that I received in section 6 communication: Unsatisfactory, I feel that it is unfair and incorrect. I have basic knowledge of the computer and can perform all of my duties as a Park and Recreation Manager 1. During our regional staff meetings, I did not always take written notes because at times I recorded the meetings. However, I feel my immediate supervisor should be someone I can go to for clarity which is not outside of her responsibilities. On top of this, I was faced with spreading a part-time budget in this department for the very first time and was left hanging out to dry by Mrs. Ham. I received very little directions and had to look toward other colleagues for help. Mrs. Ham set meeting dates when I asked for help and never met them. When she finally did show, she took the work that I had already done and said, "I'll handle it from this point." Mrs. Ham may have her method of assisting her staff but I feel the more hands on involvement I have with the new work and assignments will make me effective in learning the process and being more self- sufficient with the budget assignments as well as other paper work. However, I received no correspondence or memos of any type reflecting how off the mark I was in the area of communication during the entire six months. As a matter of fact, I felt the communication between Mrs. Ham and I was great. It was so great that I had no problem doing financial favors for her when she needed it. Now for everything to turn so bad so fast, I have no choice but to feel it is retaliation [for] the call made to Ms. Gibson on the day my daughter was an hour and a half late being picked up from her school which was supposed to be done by one of Mrs. Ham's staff workers which I had to do myself because of the number of calls I received from her school. This is pertaining to the issue of the broken chain of command. SECTION 7: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT I received a rating of need[s] improvement, which I feel it is only natural that a new employee to need improvement in this area if it is based on the knowledge of the manual instead of knowing where to go in the manual to retrieve the information. However, I will continue to read through my operation manual and my personal handbook in my sp[are] and down time. Overall, I feel this evaluation was a personal attack for some personal reason, i.e. contacting Ms. Gibson after trying to resolve the issue with Mrs. Ham to no satisfaction. This is when I first found out I was doing such a poor job as a manager and feel th[ere] will be more retaliation. While Petitioner's written rebuttal contained various accusations against Ms. Ham of supervisory wrongdoing, it was devoid of any allegation that Ms. Ham had subjected Petitioner to any type of sexual harassment.15 On November 30, 2006, after it had been brought to her attention that Petitioner was having his subordinates complete for him written assignments that Petitioner was supposed to be doing himself for a Department-sponsored management training class he was taking, Ms. Ham sent the following memorandum to Petitioner: I was informed by your PSA Jerome Jamison that you have been delegating your Recreation Module Training assignments to him and PSA Tremaine Morgan to complete. If this is correct, please stop this immediately. The training series that you have been recommended to participate [in] requires you to complete these assignments. These exercises [are] a part of your development and training as a manager. On December 5, 2006, Ms. Ham sent another memorandum to Petitioner. This memorandum was about an incident that had occurred the previous day. It read as follows: On Monday, December 4, at approximately 2:18 p.m. you called to let me know that the key for the West Little River Park's van was misplaced and that you could not find the key. I asked you why you were just now reporting this when your driver is scheduled to be at your first scheduled pickup point at 2:00 p.m. You began to yell in a loud voice at me, "You were the one that told me to schedule my driver to report at 2 p.m." I responded that you needed to lower your voice and that you were being insubordinate and that this is my last warning. Your statement was untrue as well. I directed you to schedule your staff to report at least one half hour prior to the first pick up anticipating travel time and to inspect the van. This is not the first instance of offensive conduct to me and I am aware that you acted similarly toward our Region Manager. I have discussed your conduct with you before. Mr. Green, there must be an immediate and sustained improvement in your performance or more serious disciplinary action will result. I need the Unusual Incident Report detailing the details on the missing van keys today. On December 5, 2006, in response to the November 30, 2006, and December 5, 2006, memoranda he had received from Ms. Ham, Petitioner sent a memorandum of his own to Ms. Ham. He provided a copy of this memorandum to Ms. Gibson. The memorandum read as follows: Ms. Ham, pertaining to the memo I received on Nov. 30, 2006, stating you were told by Mr. Jamison that I was delegating my module training to him and Mr. Morgan. That alleged statement you claimed Mr. Jamison made after speaking with Mr. Jamison, he stated that it was not true. Mr. Jamison stated that he was only inquiring more about the module. Now, let me tell you what really happened. What I simply did was shared the information that was in the module training with my staff because of their daily hands on with the participants. I felt as the Park Manager that I was well within my rights to discuss the information with my staff and ask for feedback w[hether] it was verbal or written. The reason I did this was because the questions in the training w[ere] not only rel[evant] to me but to them as well because of their dealings with the participants on a daily basis. When I told them why I was doing this, they both agreed. Mr. Jamison and Mr. Morgan also told me that the few questions they went over [were] not only intriguing but also very helpful in dealing with some of the issues they encounter with some of the participants. By the way Mrs. Ham, I was told in a discussion with Mr. Jamison that the question about the module was asked three weeks ago prior to [the] Nov 30, 2006 memo I received from you. My question to you is why give me a memo pertaining to this now. Pertaining to the memo I received today on my alleged conduct on December 4, 2006 is not only unfair but also untrue that I was yelling at you when I called about the missing key. I deplore that statement. What is true that I did do the right thing by notifying and informing you about the missing key. What is also true is that contrary to popular opinion, you were the one that became angry with me because I was asking you what else could I do in terms of getting my after school participants picked up. I also asked you should I go in my personal van to make sure that they were all picked up in a timely manner. You then started . . . yelling at me in sequence, "when did you first notice that the key was missing, Mr. Jamison must be just getting to work, what time do[es] he come in and why is he coming in at 2 p.m. when he has a 2 o'clock pick-up.["] I simply stated to you that "you were the one that made me change his scheduled time to come in from 1 o'clock to 1:30 p.m. to now 2:00 p.m." which was all I said in return with my regular tone of voice. Then you replied "you better watch [your] tone of voice with me. This is your last warning about that tone of voice." When in fact, you were the one that was doing all of the yelling and I have a witness to prove it. As I stated in my rebuttal to my regretful performance evaluation which came a week later after my call to our Regional Manager when I was doing so well before then. "I feel that th[ere] will be more retaliation to come" and it is now clear that I was right. You are doing just that because of my phone call to our Regional Manger about my daughter being an hour and a half late picked up by one of [your] subordinates which I had to do myself. In his memorandum, Petitioner alleged retaliation only for his having complained to Ms. Gibson about Ms. Ham's not having picked up his daughter on time. He made no allegations of sexual harassment. On December 5, 2006, Petitioner attended a Department- sponsored training class, the title of which was "How to Maintain a Harassment Free Work Environment." The class was lead by Beatriz Lee, the Department's Human Resources Manager and its Affirmative Action Officer. In her introductory remarks, Ms. Lee told the class "what [her] role [was with] the [D]epartment." The class lasted approximately three hours, during which Ms. Lee discussed, among other things, the County's Unlawful Harassment Policy, including how to file an unlawful harassment complaint. After the class ended Petitioner walked up to Ms. Lee and indicated that he wanted to talk to her. Ms. Lee took Petitioner into her office so that they could converse in private. Petitioner told Ms. Lee that he was "having problems with his supervisor," Ms. Ham, and then showed Ms. Lee the November 17, 2006, evaluation he had received. Ms. Lee asked Petitioner why he thought these "problems" existed. Petitioner replied that he and Ms. Ham were "tight" and were "good friends" and that he "didn't understand why [Ms. Ham] was being so demanding with him, because he had even helped her out financially." During their conversation, Petitioner told Ms. Lee about Ms. Gibson's having asked him and Ms. Ham if they had "crossed the line." Ms. Lee then inquired why Ms. Gibson would ask such a question. Petitioner responded, "I guess because we were so close. Because we-–you've got to understand me and Rhonda [Ham] are very tight . . . ." Petitioner crossed his middle finger over his index finger to show Ms. Lee how "tight" he and Ms. Ham were. At no time during his talk with Ms. Lee did Petitioner claim he had been sexually harassed by Ms. Ham. On Thursday, December 14, 2006, less than one and a half months after receiving his first Management Performance Evaluation, Petitioner received his second (and last) Management Performance Evaluation. This December 14, 2006, evaluation was prepared by Ms. Ham (who signed the evaluation as the "rater"). Ms. Gibson was on vacation, so Bobby Johnson signed the evaluation as the "reviewer" in her stead. Ms. Gibson, however, "concur[ed] with the statements contained in this performance evaluation" and had already decided that Petitioner's "probation [would] be failed." The evaluation contained the following narrative: ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES: RATING: Satisfactory Mr. Green, the sports development program registration increased by 4, however you need to continue this effort by better utilizing your present staff and by developing a recruitment strategy. DECISION MAKING AND JUDGMENT: RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, your continued effort is still needed for your improvement in this area. Please follow the recommendations given to you in your last performance evaluation. PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, you completed the recreation module training, although I had to advise you that you are not allowed to delegate any of the related assignments to your subordinate staff.[16] You have enrolled for department training as I recommended. Remember, you need to encourage your subordinate staff to enroll in training likewise to improve their knowledge and skills. Your effort to recruit satisfactory seasonal and year round part-time staff has been a challenge for you. I recommended that you visit the local colleges for satisfactory applicants, however, thus far you have resisted my suggestions.[17] PLANNING AND ORGANIZING RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, there have no special events, activities or sporting events implemented by you for West Little River Park or as a regional event. On December 6 during the trial budget reviews with the Region Manager it was noted that you had set a goal of forming a basketball league to operate from January-May 2007. However in your planning you failed to include adequate time for publicizing the event in the community. You should have routed all your budget related items through your Service Area Manager. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, improvement is still needed to foster teamwork at West Little River Park. During this rating period you were verbally reprimanded for your unprofessional conduct when speaking to me and our Region Manager, during presentation of your 6 month performance evaluation for a merit increase, during a phone conversation with me about a missing van key and during a phone conversation with Ms. Gibson. You have also reacted defensively when receiving constructive criticism from your supervisor. COMMUNICATIONS RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, use of the computer and related programs has been a challenge for you. Your registration paper work was not organized as I had directed and as a result the input of West Little [River Park] Program registrants into the CITRIX system has not been completed.[18] As I stated in your earlier evaluation, the computer is an essential tool and our reliance on them is an ever increasing fact. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE RATING: Satisfactory Mr. Green, I encourage you to avail yourself of all the resources available to educate yourself on the subject of the department's policies and procedures via the use of our various manuals and through counsel with your supervisors and peers. ADDITIONAL FACTORS RATING: Not Applicable RATER'S OVERALL EVALUATION: Unsatisfactory Is employee eligible for merit increase? Deferred. Not Granted. Is employee eligible for permanent status? Not Granted. Because she considered Petitioner to be a "substandard employee" who had performed poorly during his probationary period (and for this reason alone), Ms. Gibson decided to "fail [Petitioner's] probation" and terminate his employment with the County. Ms. Gibson's decision was based on: (1) Ms. Ham's evaluation of Petitioner's performance; (2) information provided to Ms. Gibson by other employees about Petitioner's performance19; and (3) Ms. Gibson's "independent observations of [Petitioner's] performance." On the evening of December 14, 2006, after having been presented with his second Management Performance Evaluation, Petitioner was advised that he was being terminated. Later that evening, Petitioner telephoned a friend of his, Jennifer Williams. (Ms. Williams taught reading to Petitioner's daughter DK and to the other children in the Children's Trust-funded after-school program at Arcola Park.) Petitioner began his conversation with Ms. Williams by telling her, "That bitch fired me," referring to Ms. Ham. He then asked if he could come by Ms. Williams' home. Ms. Williams told him that he could. Petitioner arrived at Ms. Williams' home shortly thereafter, and Ms. Williams invited him in. They went to the den, sat down, and talked. Petitioner again explained to Ms. Williams that "Ms. Ham had terminated him." He then told Ms. Williams that Ms. Ham had been "harassing him sexually." When Ms. Williams heard this she "just started laughing." Having seen Petitioner and Ms. Ham and "their interactions," she "could not believe" that Ms. Ham had sexually harassed Petitioner. Petitioner then asked Ms. Williams "to help him type up a letter" (on Ms. Williams' computer) describing "exactly what [had] happened between [Petitioner] and Ms. Ham." Ms. Williams agreed to provide such help. Following Petitioner's directions, Ms. Williams typed a letter addressed to Ms. Gibson, which read as follows: Subject: Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor This letter is in reference to the meeting that took place yesterday on December 7, 2006 around 3:00 p.m. at the region office.[20] You stated to me that you have a problem with me not being truthful about things that have happened between Mrs. Ham and I. As I indicated to you "yes, you are right! I have not told you everything that has happened." I feared that if I had told you Ms. Gibson about the constant request for money as well as the constant request for sexual favors that I would be terminated. Mrs. Ham has explained to me on several occasions that I can be terminated anytime she felt like it and it would be nothing I could do about it, each time before financial and sexual favors were requested. Mrs. Ham and I have been sexually involved over 10 times. These sexual acts have taken place at West Little River and Arcola Park. Also, at times when Mrs. Ham has told me to take her [to] lunch she has then pulled into a nearby motel and again requested sexual favors. Many times I wanted to tell you about these issues between Mrs. Ham and me, however, I feared for my job and I wanted to pass probation so that I could then start denying Mrs. Ham of these favors. Sincerely Damacio Green Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to "backdate the letter" to December 8, 2006, and Ms. Williams complied. The following day, Friday, December 15, 2006, Petitioner (or someone acting on his behalf) went to the Region 2 office to return his Department uniforms and, while there, surreptitiously placed in Ms. Gibson's desk an envelope containing the backdated "Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor" letter Jennifer Williams had typed the evening before. Ms. Gibson was not in the office that day, and her administrative secretary, Debbie Williams,21 was on break when the envelope was placed in Ms. Gibson's desk. Later that day, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Lee, complaining that Ms. Ham had sexually harassed him and had "fired" him because he had refused to "put up with it any more." Ms. Lee asked Petitioner why he had not said anything to her previously about Ms. Ham's sexually harassing him. Petitioner responded that he "had been afraid" and thought he might "lose [his] job." During his conversation with Ms. Lee, Petitioner falsely told her that, prior to his termination, he had "provided a letter to Ms. Gibson telling her that [Ms. Ham] had been forcing him to engage in sex." Ms. Lee asked Petitioner to send her a copy of that letter. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on December 15, 2006, Petitioner faxed to Ms. Lee a copy of the backdated "Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor" letter that Jennifer Williams had typed for Petitioner the evening of December 14, 2006. Ms. Lee showed the letter to her supervisor, Yolanda Johns, who subsequently telephoned Ms. Gibson to inquire about the matter. Ms. Gibson informed Ms. Johns that she did not know anything about a "Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor" letter addressed to her from Petitioner. Ms. Johns then faxed a copy of the letter to Ms. Gibson, who was at Martin Luther King Park attending a Christmas party. After reviewing the letter, Ms. Gibson confirmed that she had never seen it before. On Monday, December 18, 2006, Ms. Gibson (who was on leave) came by her office and discovered the letter inside an envelope in her desk drawer (where it had been placed on December 15, 2006, the day after Petitioner's termination). Ms. Lee conducted an investigation of Petitioner's allegations of sexual harassment. As part of her investigation, she interviewed Petitioner and numerous other individuals. Based on the information she obtained, Ms. Lee determined (correctly, as it turns out) "that Mr. Green and Mrs. Ham not only engaged in a consensual sexual relationship, but . . . Mr. Green was persistent in pursuing Mrs. Ham to engage in such activity." Consequently, Ms. Lee concluded that Petitioner's allegations of sexual harassment were unfounded. Ms. Lee issued her investigative report in February 2007. In her report, Ms. Lee recommended that Ms. Ham be suspended 30 days without pay for her "lack of judgment in succumbing to the pursuit of a subordinate." By letter dated March 15, 2007, Ms. Ham was given "formal notification" that she was being "suspended without pay for four (4) weeks to be served beginning Monday, April 9, 2007 through Sunday May 6, 2007," for having "engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate employee, Mr. Damacio Green, former Park and Recreation Manager 1, which affected [her] ability to properly supervise this employee."
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 the County not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of May, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Anna Cline (Ms. Cline), is a fifty-two year old female who was employed by USBI Company (USBI) from 1985 until November 15, 1994. USBI refurbishes the solid rocket boosters for the space shuttle program at the Kennedy Space Center, Brevard County, Florida. It employs substantially more than fifteen full-time employees. Ms. Cline was hired for the position of technical illustrator, which position is responsible for drawing mechanical components, doing illustration and charts, and preparing manuals and documents that apply to the day-to-day work of the company. She was a good employee and had excellent technical skills, as reflected in her performance evaluations and numerous commendations. At the time that she left the company, she was in a position titled "senior technical illustrator." In early 1992 the company had some internal reorganization, and Ms. Cline and a group of employees were transferred from Management Services to Documentation Support. The job duties remained substantially the same, but the new group also had responsibility for the Routing of Documents (RODS) program, which involved the tracing of detailed technical drawings, to be used on a computer mainframe by the "techs" (engineers). Documentation Support generated technical documentation for the rockets, all technical manuals, standard procedures, testing, fliers and presentations - generally all of the paperwork used by the company, including verbiage and graphics. The supervisor of Documentation Support, then and now, is a woman, Monica Teran. Approximately seventy-five percent of Ms. Cline's work group were women. In June 1992, Richard Bowen was hired by USBI as a technical illustrator and was assigned to Documentation Support. He became a coworker of Ms. Cline and their assigned work stations were side-by-side without a partition. Richard Bowen's two main hobbies are photography and computers. He was generally accepted as the computer expert in the work group; when there were problems with the computers, Richard Bowen could often work them out. Bowen's interest in photography is also more than a casual avocation. He attended photography school in Chicago when he was younger and worked with a modeling agency. He holds an occupational license to conduct a photography business and performs commercial photography services that do not conflict with his 9-5 job: weddings, portraits, some modeling photographs and some work with a theme park in Orlando. He is a member of the Audubon Society and takes wildlife photographs and does computer work for the organization. The Photograph Incident Staff in the work group were interested in Bowen's photographs. He brought samples of his pictures to work to show off. He usually left the pictures on his desk, face up, so that people could come to his work area and look at them. Some time in the latter months of 1992, Bowen purchased an expensive special soft-focus lens that gives the subject a soft, romantic, mystical look and deletes the wrinkles or blemishes. He discussed the lens with a fellow photographer at work and brought in a sample of photographs he had taken with the lens. Most of the pictures among the twelve to fifteen which he brought on this occasion were wildlife; there also were a few photographs of a model. She was bare-breasted, but was not exposed from the waist down. While there is no clear description of her pose in the record, she was described by some as nude and others as partially nude. None described the photographs as sexually suggestive or pornographic. In the early morning before work started, some female staff members were shuffling through the photographs. Ms. Cline was part of the group looking on. Bowen said something semi-jokingly like, "You might not want to look at these; there's a bare-breasted model." One of the women replied that it was nothing that she had not seen before, and continued shuffling through the photographs. Ms. Cline saw the model's photograph, remarked that the girl had pretty eyes, and returned to her own work station. Several months later, after a workshop that management had initiated to deal with problems in the workplace, Ms. Cline reported the photographs to Carol DuBray, Director of Human Resources and Darryl LeCanne, the immediate supervisor of Monica Teran. Ms. Cline was embarrassed by the photographs. Management's Response As soon as Ms. Cline left Darryl LaCanne's office, he called Monica Teran, and the two supervisors met with Richard Bowen. They informed him that USBI had a policy of not tolerating nude photography or pin-up calendars in the workplace and that his bringing the photographs to work was unacceptable behavior. Darryl LaCanne told Richard Bowen that the next time severe disciplinary action would be taken. Richard Bowen was also called in to speak with USBI's director of security, Barry Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki informed him that nude pictures were prohibited by USBI's regulations. Mr. Bowen received the message in clear terms that the matter was very serious. Bowen never again brought nude or semi-nude photographs to work and Ms. Cline never again saw such photographs at work. Offensive Shop Talk Work stations in the Documentation Support unit were divided into cubicles, some separated by dividers, some (Richard Bowen's and Ms. Cline's) were side by side, facing a partition with two other workers on the opposite side. Workers interacted within a small space and moved about to use different computer equipment, printers, files, and similar work tools. Among some of the workers there was occasional bawdy banter and comment about boyfriends, weekends and vacations, and the like. It was sexually oriented in a sophomoric, adolescent schoolyard manner. It included terms like "shit" and "fuck" and included conversation about "blow jobs" or "hard-ons," and other slang words involving male genitalia. With one exception, the language was not directed to Ms. Cline. That exception was one occasion when Richard Bowen responded to her criticism of some work with the expletive "fuck." Both male and female workers engaged in the banter, which was overheard by Ms. Cline and others. Ms. Cline was particularly offended by banter between Bowen and a female worker, Anna Silvestri, who occupied a workstation on the other side of the partition in front of Ms. Cline and Mr. Bowen. Ms. Silvestri sometimes initiated this banter. In May or June of 1993 Ms. Cline reported to her supervisor, Monica Teran, that Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri used the word "fuck" and engaged in sexually explicit conversations. Ms. Teran went to her supervisor to see what to do about the complaint and Carol DuBray requested that Barry Wysocki conduct an investigation. Barry Wysocki interviewed and took statements from employees in the Document Support Unit, including Ms. Cline. She complained that Richard Bowen created a hostile environment; that she heard him say "fuck" on one occasion in the past two months and that she heard Anna Silvestri say the word on two occasions. Ms. Cline said that Bowen and Silvestri discussed Ms. Silvestri's sex life and that on one occasion Ms. Silvestri tried to discuss her sex life with Ms. Cline, but she cut her off with a comment that it was improper. Ms. Cline reported hearing Monica Teran and Beth Seaman use the word "fuck" in the work area. Bowen and Silvestri did not deny mild profanity and mildly sexual conversations. Other employees reported hearing some profanity, primarily "shit," "damn" and "bullshit." Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri were seriously reprimanded by Barry Wysocki, by Barry Smoyer, by Darryl LaCanne and by Monica Teran. Each supervisor impressed on the two employees that the use of foul language was not tolerated and was against company policy. Barry Smoyer gave the two employees a letter "for the record," documenting the counselling session and reprimand. Monica Teran moved Ms. Cline to Anna Silvestri's workstation on the other side of the partition from Richard Bowen. She moved Anna Silvestri two cubicles away, with several partitions between her and Mr. Bowen. And George Roberts was placed next to Richard Bowen in Ms. Cline's former workstation. The intent by the supervisor was to accommodate Ms. Cline's concerns and to separate the two prime offenders. In the two years that he worked for USBI, including the time that he worked next to Richard Bowen, George Roberts heard nothing more than "hell" or "damn" from Bowen. Nevertheless, around August 1994, during her performance review, Ms. Cline informed Monica Teran that the sexual conversations were continuing. Ms. Teran informed her supervisors and another investigation commenced, this time by USBI's new security director, Al Eastlack. Mr. Eastlack conducted an interview with Ms. Cline, among others, and took her formal statement in September 1994. Barry Smoyer reviewed a draft report of Mr. Eastlack's investigation and although he understood the results were "inconclusive," Mr. Smoyer renewed his admonishments to Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri in separate memoranda to the two, reminding them of USBI's intolerance of sexual harassment in any form and warning them that inappropriate language would result in disciplinary action. Alleged Threats After the photograph incident, but before she complained, Richard Bowen and Mary Anna Cline had a conflict over the use of some computer graphics software. Bowen was advocating one type of software that Ms. Cline opposed. Monica Teran had to intervene and instructed Ms. Cline to install the program and learn how to use it. After she complained about the photographs, Ms. Cline became convinced that Richard Bowen was going to retaliate. She complained to Monica Teran that she was afraid of Bowen but her complaints were non-specific. She began to complain of stress and sleep problems. Ms. Teran recommended that she go to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counsellor or to see her own counsellor or doctor. This was around the same time that Ms. Cline complained about the offensive language and conversations, and Ms. Cline took the recommendation to mean that Ms. Teran did not believe her, or that Ms. Teran felt Ms. Cline was at fault. Ms. Teran also commented to Ms. Cline that she should simply tell Bowen to stop talking like that. Another employee, Dorothy Stokey, who was offended by Bowen's use of "fuck" had told him to stop. Ms. Cline was too intimidated by him to confront him directly. Some time in the latter months of 1993, Monica Teran found Ms. Cline in the ladies' room crying and upset to the point of incoherence. Ms. Cline had overheard a conversation between Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri involving a gun and made a connection between that and incidents of violence in the workplace and coworkers being shot. With the help of Barry Smoyer, Ms. Teran was able to get Ms. Cline out of the ladies' room and calmed down. Then, at Mr. Smoyer's direction, Ms. Teran called Ms. Silvestri and Mr. Bowen into her office to find out what had happened. Mr. Bowen did not have a gun at work and he had been discussing a gun show early that morning. Ms. Teran was satisfied that the discussion had been innocuous and reported her findings to Barry Smoyer. No other employee reported that Bowen had a gun or saw him with a gun. None, including Ms. Cline, ever complained that Bowen had threatened them with a gun. Alleged Retaliation Ms. Cline contends that USBI retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment. Specifically she claims that her job duties were shifted from work on RODS, which she liked, to word processing, which she disliked and with which she had difficulty, due to some dyslexia. It is undisputed that Ms. Cline was a very competent graphics illustrator. She and Mr. Bowen and a couple of other employees in the unit were considered the core of the illustration function, and other employees in the unit preferred and were more skilled in the word processing and language component of the unit's responsibilities. However, the work assignments were not so clearly divided between "illustration" and "word processing." The production and modification of company manuals required both types of work. Monica Teran was interested in cross-training her staff to do a variety of tasks. There was a time, after mid-1993, when Ms. Cline's assignments involved word processing. She also continued to do a substantial amount of RODS work, as evidenced by handwritten logs maintained by the employees. Monica Teran never instructed the staffperson responsible for making assignments to remove Ms. Cline from RODS or other graphics work. RODS was not considered high profile or creative work since it primarily involved tracing technical components repetitively. There was a period when RODS work was put on hold. There was another period when temporary employees, such as George Roberts, were taken in to work exclusively on RODS. At no time during her employment with USBI was Ms. Cline demoted in job title or pay. In 1993 and 1994 her employment evaluations reflected a need to improve communications and attendance, but she was still rated "excellent," "good" and "acceptable" in all categories, and overall "excellent" and "good." There is no evidence to indicate that anyone tampered with Ms. Cline's computer or sabotaged her computer, as she claimed. On occasion it was necessary for Monica Teran or other staff to work at Ms. Cline's and other stations, to see if programs were loaded or the machine was set up properly. Although certain equipment, such as a printer, was located at an individual workstation, other staff needed access to that equipment. Job-Related Stress Ms. Cline's attendance did suffer and she did experience job-related stress. She went to an EAP counsellor and to a psychiatrist. She was on medication and there were problems with adjusting the type and amount of medication. Ms. Cline experienced sleep disorders; she reported falling asleep at the wheel of her car and had a minor accident. She also experienced other physical phenomena such as pains in her chest and arms, or numbness. Her psychiatrist diagnosed her medical condition as "adjustment reaction of adult life with mixed emotions, basically depression and anxiety." (T-415) Accommodation and Resignation Monica Teran's staff was located in two buildings: the modular unit occupied by Ms. Cline, Mr. Bowen, Ms. Silvestri and others; and another separate building which also included other USBI employees. Ms. Teran's staff was moved around routinely, as new employees were added or other work space needs arose. In Fall 1993 USBI offered to move Ms. Cline to the other building, allowing her to retain her same position and duties; she declined, and the company did not insist that she move. Later, Ms. Cline was offered a lateral position at the same pay and position level. Carol DuBray met with Ms. Cline to discuss this attempt to accommodate her. Ms. Cline also rejected that offer. She explained at hearing that she was afraid she would have been in line for a layoff, if she transferred. However, there is no competent evidence to support that fear. Ms. DuBray explained to Ms. Cline in their meeting that she would retain all benefits, including seniority. In fact, USBI has no departmental seniority policy. Seniority is based on the date an individual is hired by the company, rather than time within a department in the company. On November 15, 1994, Ms. Cline voluntarily resigned, citing "continuing stress brought on by sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation and the flagrant disregard by USBI and its management in the handling of this problem. . . ." (Petitioner's exhibit no. 31) The Formal Complaints At the time she resigned Ms. Cline had already filed her complaint of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That charge is dated December 6, 1993. The charge of discrimination alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, by sexual harassment and retaliation. It does not cite the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to a worksharing agreement between EEOC and FCHR, the charge was sent to the Florida agency for initial investigation. That workshare agreement, which refers to the FCHR as the "FEPA," provides, in pertinent part: FILING OF CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION In order to facilitate the filing of charges of employment discrimination, the EEOC and the FEPA each designate the other as its agent for the purpose of receiving and drafting charges. The FEPA shall take all charges alleging a violation of Title VII, ADEA, EPA, or the ADA where the parties have mutual juris- diction and refer them to the EEOC for dual filing, so long as the allegations meet the minimum requirements of those Acts. Each Agency will inform individuals of their rights to file charges with the other Agency and to assist any person alleging employment discrimination to draft a charge in a manner which will satisfy the require- ments of both agencies to the extent of their common jurisdiction. As part of the intake duties, investigators are to verify with the charging parties if they have filed a charge of discrimination with other agencies prior to filing the charge. For charges that are to be dual-filed, each Agency will use EEOC Charge Form 5 (or alternatively, an employment discrim- ination charge form which within statutory limitations, is acceptable in form and content to EEOC and the FEPA) to draft charges. When a charge is taken based on disability, the nature of the disability shall not be disclosed on the face of the charge. * * * H. The delegation of authority to receive charges contained in Paragraph II. a. does not include the right of one Agency to determine the jurisdiction of the other Agency over a charge. * * * DIVISION OF INITIAL CHARGE-PROCESSING RESPONSIBILITIES * * * D. EEOC will not defer or refer any charge for the FEPA to process that is not jurisdictional on its face with both Agencies. If it is apparent that one Agency might have jurisdiction when another does not, then the Charging Party will be referred to the appropriate Agency. * * * (Petitioner's exhibit no. 41) (emphasis added) A notice dated December 20, 1993, on EEOC form 212, states that the FCHR has received the charge and will initially investigate the charge. The FCHR did investigate the charge and the FCHR investigator's report is dated July 13, 1994. A document styled "Determination: No Cause" is dated August 25, 1994 and has the apparent signature of FCHR's Executive Director. An accompanying document, with the same date, is styled "Notice of Determination: No Cause" and informs Ms. Cline as complainant of her right to file her petition for relief within 35 days. The petition for relief dated September 27, 1994, was filed with FCHR, and cites the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as well as Title VII. The petition alleges sexual harassment and retaliation. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 6, 1994. The amended petition for relief, filed on April 10, 1995, and referenced in the order and notice of hearing dated May 16, 1995 deletes any reference to Title VII and recites instead that the claims for relief are based on Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The amended petition does not claim constructive discharge nor does it mention that Ms. Cline left the company approximately five months earlier. Sexual Harassment Policy and Summary of Findings USBI has, and during the relevant period had a sexual harassment policy which provides: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's amended "Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex" include a section prohibiting sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is either an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment, or submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for an employment decision affecting the person rejecting or submitting the conduct, or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an affected person's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment is unacceptable behavior by any USBI employee or outside vendor. Any form of harassment, like any conduct contrary to common decency or morality, cannot and will not be tolerated. The company will take whatever corrective action necessary to prevent or deal with acts of sexual harassment in the work place. (Respondent's exhibit no. 61) The policy provides names and phone numbers for persons to report sexual harassment and states that reports at that point will be confidential. Employees are informed of the policy through annual letters from the company head, through posters on the facility walls and through mandatory workshops for managers and their staff. USBI responded appropriately to Ms. Cline's complaints. Its response as to the photographs was effective; the sexually-themed banter, however, continued. The banter did not constitute sexual harassment of Ms. Cline, nor did it create a sexually hostile work environment. No one at USBI ever made a sexual advance towards Ms. Cline; no one suggested or requested sex from her or asked her for a date. No one touched her inappropriately. The sexual banter was never directed to or about her. The banter overheard by Ms. Cline, and the use of the "f word," were occasional, not daily or even weekly. The banter was not directed solely to, or about women; it was engaged in, and was overheard, by men and women, alike. The work quarters were close; the unit which included Ms. Cline was in a small "modular" building with work stations divided by movable partitions. By necessity, workers moved around the office to use various equipment. Coworkers of Ms. Cline did not find the environment sexually hostile, offensive or intimidating. No one else of the primarily female group complained about a sexually hostile or intimidating work environment. According to both a friend and her psychiatrist, Ms. Cline was more sensitive than most to profanity and off-color language. Without question, Ms. Cline suffered from stress at work. The stress was manifest in the myriad physical symptoms which caused absenteeism and loss of performance. USBI appropriately offered to Ms. Cline accommodations which would have allowed her to continue working at the same job level and salary but outside of the environment she found intolerable. She rejected the offers and voluntarily resigned. The resignation was not urged, directly or indirectly, by the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Ms. Cline's complaint and petitions for relief in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, 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 25th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5634 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 33; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 60. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted by implication in paragraph 60. Adopted in substance in paragraph 48. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 50. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 53. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Subparagraphs are addressed as follows: Adopted in substance: a (but not the date), b, c, h, i, m, n. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial or misleading: d, e, f, g, j, k, l. Rejected, as to the "escalation," as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence; adopted generally in summary in paragraph 17; but some of the specifics alleged were not established (for example, the "sucking" statement). Rejected as a mischaracterization of the incident, although use of the word, "fuck," was proven. 19.-22. Rejected as not credible. 23.-24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 25.-28. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraphs 39-41, but it was not proven that the stress was the result of a "hostile work environment," within the scope of gender-based discrimination. Rejected as unnecessary. 31.-32. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Accepted that she complained, but the dates and frequency were not established with competent evidence 35. Conclusion that the steps were "inadequate" is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 36.-41. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial, or misleading. 42. Rejected (as to characterization of "retaliation") as contrary to the weight of evidence and the law. 43.-46. Rejected as unnecessary, given the recommended disposition. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 48 and 49. 5.-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 54. 7. Adopted in paragraph 1. 8. Adopted in paragraph 55. 9. Adopted in paragraph 3. 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. Adopted in paragraph 5. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 4. 14.-15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 6. 18.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 8. 22. Adopted in paragraph 9. 23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 59. 24. Adopted in paragraph 61. 25. Adopted in paragraph 10. 26. Adopted in paragraph 12. 27.-28. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 11 and 12. 29. Adopted in paragraph 13. 30. Adopted in paragraph 27. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-35. Adopted in paragraphs 14 and 15. 36.-38. Adopted in paragraph 19. 39.-43. Adopted in paragraphs 20 and 21. 44. Adopted in paragraph 22. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46. Adopted in paragraph 23. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary. 49. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 50. Adopted in paragraph 24. 51. Adopted in paragraph 26. 52. Adopted in paragraph 28. 53. Adopted in paragraph 29. 54. Adopted in paragraph 31. 55. Adopted in paragraph 30. 56. Rejected as unnecessary. 57.-62. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 43 through 46. 63.-64. Adopted in part in paragraph 47; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 65.-72. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 32 through 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia E. Lowrey, Esquire Mark B. Roberts, Esquire STEEL HECTOR and DAVIS 1900 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Wayne L. Allen, Esquire 700 North Wickham Road, Suite 107 Melbourne, Florida 32935 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the Respondent intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner on the basis on her national origin/Hispanic (Puerto Rican) or gender/female (sexual harassment). Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was removed from her position with the Respondent in retaliation for her filing of a sexual harassment complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 12, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings and the parties involved. All procedural prerequisites and requirements have been duly accomplished or satisfied. Respondent, Martin-Marietta Electronics Information and Missiles Group, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Florida which employs more than fifteen employees. Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Margarita Coll, is a female, hispanic, citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was an employee of Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., during all relevant periods, and was a de facto employee of Respondent for approximately four and one-half years. Petitioner was employed at Respondent company through a temporary agency called Associated Temporary Services and placed with the Respondent on January 5, 1987 as a receptionist/secretary in Martin-Marietta's Fleet Administration Department off Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. Her responsibilities included record keeping, filing and helping Respondent's employees with company vehicles. Petitioner reported to the Respondent's Fleet Manager, Linda Reilly. Her day to day work assignments and supervision were received exclusively from the Fleet Manager. Petitioner worked in her position at the pleasure of the Respondent. She was assigned a "buyer" at Martin- Marietta who worked with the requesting department to fashion a position to meet the department's needs. The work was bidded out and awarded to the temporary employment agency who best met Respondent's criteria, on an annual basis. Over time, Petitioner assumed additional job responsibilities and in June, 1988 received a commendation for exceptional performance from Respondent's supervisors. In an effort to reward her efforts, Reilly successfully upgraded her position, first to Administrative Assistant and then to Fleet Analyst. When she was reclassified as a Fleet Analyst, the contract for her position was awarded to Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., since Associated Temporary Services did not provide technical employees under their contract with Respondent. Petitioner always worked at Martin-Marietta as a temporary employee and was never employed as a regular employee of the company. As such, she had no company benefits; she was classified as a contract laborer and her services were purchased by purchase order. Petitioner completed no company employment application, was not subject to Martin-Marietta performance appraisals and had no Martin-Marietta employment records or personnel file, other than her contract labor time slips. Petitioner received her pay from Hi-Tec. In June, 1990, Marilyn Quinonez was placed in the Fleet Administration Department as a Fleet Administrative Assistant by a temporary employment agency. Friction quickly developed between Petitioner and Quinonez. Petitioner believed that Quinonez was hired to assist her and became upset when she would not follow Petitioner's supervision or directions. Quinonez understood that she was to report to the Fleet Manager, and objected to the way Petitioner treated her. On November 15, 1990, Reilly was laid off by Respondent as part of a reduction in force and was replaced by Joseph LaPak. LaPak observed the bickering between Petitioner and Quinonez and that it continued to escalate over time. In December, 1990, the temporary positions in the department were reevaluated and the contract requirements for both positions were rewritten. The titles of both Petitioner and Quinonez were changed to that of Fleet Administrative Assistant. Any language in the contract which called for Petitioner to direct the clerical duties of the department were eliminated. In the fall of 1991, Quinonez met with LaPak and Wally DuBose to clarify her reporting responsibilities. It was confirmed that Quinonez and Petitioner were to report to the Fleet Manager, and that Petitioner did not have supervisory authority over Quinonez. Nevertheless, disputes between Petitioner and Quinonez continued. Attempts by management to resolve the problems were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1992, during the normal lunch hour, an altercation occurred between Petitioner and Quinonez. When Quinonez returned from lunch, she found Petitioner at her computer terminal. Quinonez asked for it back. Petitioner refused and an argument ensued. The two women became so angry and loud that a neighboring supervisor had to come over and separate them. Wally DuBose sent both Petitioner and Quinonez home for the day. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, LaPak was not in the office at the time. DuBose then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Paul Smilgen, and it was decided that Petitioner would be removed from the contract for her failure to work with fellow employees and management, and for general insubordination. LaPak was not involved in the decision to remove Petitioner. The decision was communicated to Hi-Tec. They, in turn, notified Petitioner that same evening that she was being replaced on the contract and not return to the Fleet Administration Department. Hi-Tec offered to attempt to place Petitioner elsewhere at Martin-Marietta but Petitioner refused because the openings available at the time paid less that the Fleet Administrative Assistant position. When LaPak first became the Fleet Manager in November of 1990, Petitioner and Quinonez worked in a very small work space. While Petitioner was training LaPak and working on the computer, LaPak's body was frequently close to Petitioner's and she felt pinned in a corner by him. After the initial working relationship was established and LaPak came into Petitioner's work area, he would touch her on her arms or shoulder in order to get her attention. In December, 1990, Petitioner complained to DuBose about LaPak touching her and making her uncomfortable. Both Petitioner and DuBose talked to LaPak about the fact that Petitioner did not want LaPak to touch her. LaPak honored that request and did not touch her again. He made every reasonable effort to get her attention when he needed to talk to her without touching her. In October, 1991, Petitioner complained to the Martin-Marietta EEO office that LaPak was sexually harassing her by inappropriate touching. Respondent then conducted an immediate investigation into the allegations and attempted to resolve the matter through internal mediation. Petitioner's testimony and other witnesses' testimony concerning sexual comments, innuendoes or propositions and inappropriate touching allegedly made by LaPak that occurred between December, 1990 and October, 1991 were inconsistent and are not credible. Petitioner presented no relevant or material evidence to show that Petitioner was the victim of national origin discrimination. Respondent's articulated reason for its decision to remove Petitioner from her contract labor position was not based on gender discrimination or national origin discrimination, nor was it pretextual. Petitioner failed to prove that her termination of employment at the Respondent's company was in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued in which the Charge of Discrimination is DENIED and the Petition for Relief is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(in part), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 13, 14(except as to date of hire), 15(in part), 16(in part), 18(except as to the date of the counseling session), 19(except as to the date of the counseling session), 20, 21(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 5(in part: Petitioner was first a contract employee with Associated Temporary Services), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 15(in part), 16(in part), 17. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 11, 12, 21(in part). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4(in part), 5, 6(in part), 7, 11(in part), 12, 13, 14(in part). Rejected as argument or a conclusion of law: paragraphs: 9, 10, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 4(in part), 8, 11(in part), 14(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 6(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kay L. Wolf, Esquire John M. Finnigan, Esquire GARWOOD, MCKENNA & MCKENNA, P.A. 815 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32806 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
