The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is David L. Lucas. He was employed by Respondent, Marc Downs, Inc., a clothing store chain, from August of 1989 until January 28, 1990. Approximately two months before the conclusion of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner and other employees employed in the Marc Downs Store located in the Wal-Mart Shopping Center on East Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida, began working under the supervision of a new store manager. The new store manager was Desiree DeVelder, a white female. In addition to DeVelder, there was one other white female employee on the store's sales staff. The remainder of the ten person sales force in the clothing store was black. Petitioner was the only black male member of that sales force. Petitioner and other employees became increasing aware of DeVelder's discomfort at working with a predominantly black sales force. She kept to herself when at all possible. She confided to Petitioner that she did not like the way that the black people acted and on one occasion she stated that there were too many blacks working in the store. On January 28, 1991, DeVelder called a meeting of the store employees after the store had closed for the day. She presented each of the black employees, but not the solitary white employee, with a form entitled "Employee Disciplinary Notice". The form had been filled out for each black employee recipient and documented that the employee was the subject of disciplinary action for "poor attitude and not following Marc Down's Employee Policy Manual". The form further documented that the corrective action was to be a 30 day probationary period for the employee and that unemployment compensation would not be paid if the employee quit or was dismissed from employment during the probationary period. Each form for each employee was signed by DeVelder. DeVelder asked each of the black employees to sign their individual forms. Petitioner asked for an explanation of the form. DeVelder refused to provide an answer and Petitioner said he would think about it and provide DeVelder with a decision the next day. As he turned to leave, DeVelder struck him in the back and began screaming at him that he was fired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petition for Relief and directing the payment to Petitioner by Respondent of back pay at the rate of $400 per month from January 28, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's furlough should be revoked based on his failure to comply with the terms of the furlough agreement which he executed on April 6, 1981. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Samuel Grant, is a seventeen (17) year-old male who was furloughed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Youth Services Division, on April 14, 1981. At that time he agreed to abide by a furlough agreement which required, inter alia, that he (1) obey all laws; (2) not change or leave his residence, employment, or school, or leave the county without the consent of his counselor or other authorized HRS representatives; (3) that he keep in contact with his counselor and (4) that all instructions of his counselor be carried out. Additionally, he agreed to abide by a 9:00 P.M. curfew on week days and an 11:30 P.M. curfew on weekends; attend community mental health for counseling; attend school or find gainful employment and make weekly contact with his counselor on Wednesdays of each week. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) On September 8, 1981, the Youth Services Division revoked Petitioner's furlough agreement based on the following facts: (1) Petitioner failed to obey laws and he gambled for his income; (2) failed to follow instructions of his parents and counselor; (3) continuously violated his curfew and (4) failed to attend school or maintain employment. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3, and Testimony of Jesse Morris, Petitioner's counselor while furloughed at the Belle Glade Youth Center.) The evidence herein also reveals that Petitioner was expelled from school because he possessed marijuana and his mother testified herein that he violated his curfew on numerous occasions. Petitioner's mother indicated that he spent nights away from home on a number of occasions and that he was afforded an opportunity to work with his father, a contractor, who extended a job offer to Petitioner. Petitioner has repeatedly run afoul of criminal laws from December, 1978, through October, 1980, including, but not limited to: (1) unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; (2) malicious mischief; (3) resisting arrest with violence; (4) possession of burglary tools, night prowling, and (5) burglary and grand larceny. Petitioner does not dispute the above findings; offered that he felt that he was not breaking the law and that he did not consider that it was "right" for him to attend school. He offered no explanation as to his failure to accept the offer of employment extended by his father.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Order of September 8, 1981, revoking Petitioner's furlough, and ordering him to be reassigned to another program or facility as soon as practical, be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel L. Grant c/o Florida School for Boys Route 7, Box 250 Okeechobee, Florida 33472 K. C. Collette, Esquire Department of HRS 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Did Petitioner suffer an adverse employment action as a result of an unlawful discrimination by the Department of Corrections (Department) in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a female, African-American. Petitioner was first employed by the Department from June 8, 1990 through October 10, 1990. Petitioner notified the Department by letter dated October 5, 1990, that she was resigning her position with the Department effective October 11, 1990. Subsequently, Petitioner applied for a position as correctional officer with the Department on April 3, 1998, and again on October 23, 1998, but was not hired on either of these occasions. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on February 3, 1999, alleging that the Department had discriminated against her by denying her employment while hiring less experienced white correctional officers and that the Department had denied her employment in retaliation for her participation in the USA Case against the Department. There is sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner was a member of the class action suit referred to as the USA Case. On September 8, 1999, Petitioner again applied for a position as a correctional officer with the Department and was hired as a correctional officer with the Department on November 15, 1999. However, Petitioner abruptly resigned that position on January 12, 2000, giving unfair treatment as the basis for her resignation. Petitioner's testimony, which is credible, was that sometime in 2000 she applied for a position as a correctional officer with the Department by sending an application to the Tampa Service Center (an administrative branch of the Department) and that the Tampa Service Center requested that she take a pre-employment drug test and physical. Petitioner testified that since the Department requested that she take the pre-employment drug test and physical it was incumbent upon the Department to offer her the position. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the Department's policies required that she be offered a position once she was asked to submit to a pre-employment physical and drug test. Offers of employment by the Department are conditional only and are contingent upon a satisfactory background check. However, before any job offer was extended to Petitioner, the Tampa Service Center closed down and its records were forwarded to the Orlando Service Center (another administrative branch of the Department). Subsequently, Petitioner contacted the Orlando Service Center concerning her application. The Orlando Service Center was unable to locate any application from Petitioner or any data that could have been electronically stored. Nevertheless, sometime during the latter part of 2000, Petitioner was allowed to resubmit her application to the Orlando Service Center and was considered for a position. The Orlando Service Center determined that Petitioner failed the required background check based on Petitioner's short tenures on two previous employment occasions followed by abrupt resignations. Petitioner's application for employment was rejected on this basis. Petitioner presented evidence that an employee of the Department, Scott MacMeeken had resigned on at least two occasions and had been rehired. However, Petitioner failed to present any evidence as to MacMeeken's race or whether MacMeeken was equally or less qualified than Petitioner. Likewise, Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that white applicants for the positions which Petitioner had applied for but was not hired, were equally or less qualified than Petitioner. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that, during the period of time in question, the Department hired less experienced white correctional officers over equally qualified or more qualified non-white correctional officers, or that the Department, in its hiring process, during this period of time, gave preference to white applicants for correctional officer positions over non-white applicants for correctional officer positions. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that either her race, African-American, or her participation in any prior law suits, specifically the USA Case, or the filing of the Complaint with the Commission formed the basis for the Department's rejection of her applications in 1998 or 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gloria J. Browdy 12042 Villa Road Spring Hill, Florida 34609 WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 11th day of March, 2002. Violet D. Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The applicant is currently employed by Central Security Patrol in Jacksonville, Florida. His supervisor testified in his behalf. Mersing is a good worker, dependable and trustworthy. His supervisor has known Mersing since his employment with Central Security six months ago. Mersing has never been cautioned or disciplined on the job and is employed at Container Corporation of American in Jacksonville, Florida. The applicant testified in his own behalf. The applicant stated that he had thought that the two arrests reported on Exhibit 1 had occurred while he was a juvenile. However, the applicant stated that he was sentenced to one to ten years for this offense to the prison system of the state of West Virginia. The applicant served six months in a maximum security prison and six months in a minimum security prison prior to his parole. He was discharged from parole supervision on March 25, 1968.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant's application for a Class F, unarmed guard license be denied; however, that favorable consideration be given his reapplication submitted with proof that his civil rights have been restored by the state of West Virginia in the absence of any other disqualifying grounds. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kermit W. Mersing 301 Broome Street Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 26, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresa Urbana, began employment with Sanmar Corporation (Sanmar) in August 2008 as a seasonal employee and worked there until November 2008. She was rehired in July 2009 in a Re-stocker position. She was promoted to Order Processor and was made a full-time regular employee later that year. Sanmar is a distributor of promotional apparel and accessories to companies that sell promotional apparel. The Jacksonville location is one of seven distribution centers (DC) throughout the country. The Jacksonville DC fulfills customer orders by receiving, picking, checking, packing and shipping them. Respondent is an employer as contemplated by chapter 760, Florida Statutes. An Order Processor is responsible for picking and checking the order, and then packing the order for distribution to Sanmar's customers. The position description for Order Processor includes the following: PHYSICAL DEMANDS: While performing the duties of this job, the employee is constantly required to walk and stand. The employee is frequently required to reach with hands and arms, handle or feel product, to pull/push cart with product, grasp and perform repetitive hand, wrist and arm motions. The employee is frequently required to climb, kneel/squat, bend and carry. The employee occasionally lifts and/or moves up to 40 pounds, and seldom lifts and/or moves up to 50 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception and ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: Work environment is moderately noisy. The employee is occasionally required to work near conveyor systems. There is exposure to dust and changes in weather conditions. Employee must be able to handle stress that is involved in meeting strenuous customer deadlines, working in high volume areas, and be flexible and able to interact with employees at all times. Paul Rhodes is the Distribution Manager and Alice Torres is Human Resources Manager for Sanmar's Jacksonville DC. Ms. Torres reports to Olivia Thurmond, Senior Manager of Human Resources. Ms. Thurmond is in the corporate headquarters for Sanmar, which is located in Issaquah, Washington. Sanmar's Employee Handbook includes an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, an Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy, and a Reasonable Accommodation Policy. Petitioner received a copy of the Employee Handbook. Allegations Related to Disability On April 21, 2011, Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to inform her of pain Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands. Petitioner informed Ms. Torres that she believed that this condition was work-related. With the help of Ms. Torres' assistant, Yadira Batlle, Petitioner completed an Accident/Incident Report. Ms. Batlle actually completed the form based on information provided by Petitioner, because Petitioner is not fluent in English, as her primary language is Spanish. The Accident/Incident Report was signed by Petitioner and references carpel-tunnel in both hands as the description of the injury. On that same day, Sanmar provided Petitioner with contact information for Solantic Baptist Occupational Health (Solantic) so she could receive evaluation and treatment for her injury which Petitioner claimed was work related. While there was some dispute as to whether Petitioner's condition was work related and covered by workers' compensation, it is undisputed that Sanmar reported the injury to its workers' compensation carrier and Petitioner did receive benefits and medical treatment through workers' compensation. On April 22, 2011, Petitioner was evaluated at Solantic. As a result of her evaluation, Petitioner was released to return to work with a work restriction of wearing wrist braces. Petitioner continued to perform her Order Processor job duties wearing wrist braces. Petitioner also was evaluated by her personal physician, Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, who provided a note dated June 1, 2011, which stated as follows: This patient has bilateral moderate carpal tunnell [sic] syndrome worse at right wrist, which is interfering with her regular duties and regular activities for which she will need surgical decompression in the future. When Ms. Torres received this doctor's note, she explained to Petitioner that the note did not include any specifics as to any work restrictions. As a result, Ms. Torres advised Petitioner she could not allow her to return to work until the company received work restrictions from her doctor. Therefore, Sanmar placed Petitioner on a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On June 2, 2012, Ms. Torres sent a fax to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz with a request that he complete an attached certification of Petitioner's health condition. He completed the form, but the information he provided essentially repeated what he wrote on the June 2, 2011, note, and did not provide specific working restrictions which Sanmar requested and needed to be able to provide appropriate and safe working restrictions for Petitioner. Ms. Torres forwarded these documents to Christy Hammond, Sanmar's Leave Supervisor, who is located in the Washington office. On June 3, 2012, Lori Shutter, Sanmar's Benefits Manager, faxed a request to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, requesting that he complete an enclosed "release to return to work" form identifying work restrictions. She also attached a position description for the Order Processor position. Sanmar did not receive a completed form or further specific work restrictions from Dr. Esquivia-Munoz despite this request. Petitioner went back to Concentra, the workers' compensation medical provider, for further evaluation. Concentra identified her activity status as "modified activity" and identified her work restrictions as no pushing, pulling or lifting over zero pounds, and referred her to a hand surgeon. The facsimile shows that this information was faxed to Sanmar on June 13, 2011. Ms. Torres forwarded this information to Ms. Hammond in the corporate office, and discussed it with Mr. Rhodes. The Order Processor position involved frequent reaching, pushing, grasping, and performing repetitive hand motions. Pushing, pulling, and lifting are essential functions of the Order Processor job. Accordingly, the work restrictions received from Concentra prevented Petitioner from performing essential functions of the job of Order Processor, with or without reasonable accommodations. Sanmar found light-duty work that Petitioner could do within the work restrictions as set forth by Concentra. She was assigned to do "go-backs," which is part of the order processing job, but not the entire job. Go-backs are items, such as hats or t-shirts, found in the wrong bins. The go-back work required Petitioner to use a computer to find the product's correct location, write down that location, and carry the product to the correct location. There is no regular go-back position at Sanmar. This was a temporary assignment created to accommodate Petitioner by eliminating many of the regular functions of the Order Processor position, including pushing, pulling, picking, and packing items to fill customer orders. On June 13, 2011, Ms. Torres called Petitioner to advise her that Sanmar had light-duty work within Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner returned to work on June 15, 2011, performing go-backs at her regular rate of pay, i.e., as when she could perform all functions of the Order Processor position. On June 17, 2011, Petitioner submitted a Leave of Absence Request Form, requesting to commence leave on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres then provided a Notice of Eligibility and Rights and Responsibilities for leave under FMLA to her. This document notified Petitioner that she was eligible to receive FMLA leave, and further notified her that she needed to provide sufficient certification to support her request for FMLA leave by July 1, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Petitioner clocked in at work at approximately 12:24 p.m., after an appointment with Petitioner's hand specialist, Dr. Greider. Petitioner immediately went to the Human Resources office and provided a note from Dr. Greider which confirmed that she had an appointment with him that morning, and left his office at 11:30. Petitioner also provided a doctor's note from Dr. Greider detailing Petitioner's work restrictions. She gave the note to Ms. Batlle, because Ms. Torres was out of the office at that time. The note reads as follows: LIGHT DUTY WORK RESTRICTIONS No repetitive gripping and pinching. No repetitive pulling and pushing. No lifting greater than 5 pounds. No production keying (until further notice) Frequent rest breaks- 5 minutes per hour. Effective until pending surgery. Ms. Batlle left copies of these doctor's notes for Ms. Torres, along with a handwritten note stating that Petitioner was going home for the day. Ms. Thurmond happened to be visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes, along with Ms. Hammond by telephone, discussed Petitioner's new work restrictions and concluded that, because processing go- backs required keyboarding, gripping and pinching, Petitioner could no longer perform that light-duty work.2/ Accordingly, Sanmar approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. Beginning June 21, 2011, Petitioner began taking the FMLA leave she had requested. During this leave, Petitioner had surgery on her right hand on July 21, 2011. Petitioner remained on FMLA leave until September 13, 2011, at which point she had exhausted her FMLA leave entitlement and had still not been released to work. Rather than terminating Petitioner's employment at that time, Sanmar provided additional leave until the company was able to determine whether Petitioner would be able to return to work. Sanmar provided Petitioner an FMLA Designation Notice which informed her that her absence from September 14 through September 25 would be provided to her "as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)." On September 16, 2011, Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Dr. Greider outlining the modified work description in doing go-backs, and asking him to advise whether or not she would be able to perform those duties. Dr. Greider faxed a reply to Ms. Hammond on September 20, 2011, advising that the activities described in Ms. Hammond's letter would be acceptable. Ms. Torres and Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Petitioner dated September 22, 2011, advising her that Sanmar had received a written confirmation from Dr. Greider that she had been approved to return to work with the modified duties (performing go-backs). The letter further notified Petitioner that she was expected to return to work on September 26, 2011, which she did. Ms. Torres did not receive any complaints from Petitioner during the September to November timeframe regarding her ability to perform the go-backs duty. On November 2, 2011, Petitioner provided Ms. Torres with a note from Dr. Grieder confirming Petitioner would be out of work for surgery on her left hand from November 7 through 10, 2011. The note states the following: Patient is scheduled for hand surgery on 11/7/11 and may remain out of work from date of surgery until 11/10/11 at which point patient may return to work with no use of the left hand until follow up appointment on 11/21/11. Ms. Torres and Petitioner had a discussion regarding Dr. Greider's note during which Petitioner expressed doubt that she would be able to return to work November 10 as she still had restrictions on the use of her right hand and did not know what kind of work she would be able to perform after surgery on her left hand. Ms. Torres than contacted Ms. Hammond via e-mail requesting her assistance in confirming the work restrictions, if any, on Petitioner's use of her right hand. On November 8, 2011, Ms. Hammond, through the company's workers' compensation carrier, received confirmation from Dr. Greider's office that she was released from work restrictions with regard to her right hand as of October 17, 2011.3/ On November 9 and 10, Petitioner left voice mail messages for Ms. Torres and her assistant regarding her inability to work. On November 11, 2011, Petitioner did not report to work. Because this was the date that had been indicated by Dr. Greider as the date she was released to return to work (regarding her right hand), and after receiving guidance from Ms. Hammond and input from the workers' compensation carrier, Ms. Torres called Petitioner and informed her that Sanmar had not received any additional information from Dr. Grieder and advised Petitioner that it was Petitioner's responsibility to obtain a new note from her doctor if she could not work. Ms. Torres reminded Petitioner that she needed to come in to discuss her restrictions and possible light-duty work. Ms. Torres received another call from Petitioner on November 14, 2011. Ms. Torres reiterated to Petitioner that she needed to report to work with her restrictions so Sanmar could attempt to accommodate her appropriately. Petitioner reported to work later that same day. She met with Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres to discuss her ability to work and what accommodations would be necessary. Mr. Rhodes first advised Petitioner that she would be doing go-backs which could be performed without the use of her left hand. When Petitioner expressed concern about her ability to perform that task, Mr. Rhodes agreed to assign her a temporary light-duty position auditing the restock until they could review the matter further. Petitioner agreed to perform the restock work. Also on November 14, 2011, Ms. Torres received a fax from Dr. Grieder's office which attached the same November 2, 2011, note regarding Petitioner's restrictions. Nothing in the November 14, 2011, fax from Dr. Grieder's office changed Petitioner's work restrictions. Auditing the restock is not a regular position at Sanmar, but is one part of the many duties of the inventory department. In offering this temporary work to Petitioner, Sanmar eliminated many of the essential functions of the Order Processor job. Petitioner left the November 14 meeting with Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes and worked for about two hours. After about two hours, Petitioner apparently fainted and left work in an ambulance which transported her to the hospital. That was the last day Petitioner worked for Sanmar. Petitioner received notes from Dr. Greider dated November 21, 2011, and December 9, 2011, listing the same light duty restrictions (i.e., no repetitive gripping and pinching, no repetitive pulling and pushing, no lifting greater than five pounds, no production keying, and frequent rest breaks), valid for the left hand only. Petitioner also received a note from Dr. Greider dated January 23, 2012, indicating that she may continue previous restrictions until February 6, 2012, at which time the patient may return to work full duty. However, Ms. Hammond, Ms. Thurmond, and Ms. Torres, all testified that they did not receive this note. Petitioner was seen by an orthopedic doctor in August 2012. The doctor's note indicates that she has a permanent work restriction which precludes her from lifting more than 10 to 15 pounds. Facts regarding disciplinary action Through an employee loan program, Sanmar approves loans to employees under certain circumstances. In late December 2010, an incident arose involving Petitioner and her request for an employee loan. On December 28, 2010, Ms. Torres heard Petitioner speaking in a loud voice outside of Ms. Torres' office. She heard Petitioner accusing her assistant at that time, Sandra Colindres, of refusing to help her with papers required for such a loan. Petitioner spoke in a tone of voice that Ms. Torres felt was not appropriate for the office. She then asked Petitioner to meet with her in her office. While in Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner complained that Ms. Colindres was unwilling to help her with the loan paperwork. Petitioner had not been scheduled to work that day. Ms. Torres informed Petitioner that the loan process had very recently been changed, and that the loan would need to be approved by Human Resources if it were determined that there was a critical need. Ms. Torres considered Petitioner's tone of voice during this conversation in her office to be disrespectful, demanding and rude. At the end of this meeting, Ms. Torres told Ms. Colindres to give Petitioner the employee loan form. When Petitioner left Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner approached a co- worker who was also in the office and began talking in a loud voice about what had just happened. Ms. Torres overheard Petitioner talking about their meeting to another employee and asked Petitioner to discuss the issue in her office. Ms. Torres told Petitioner that her conduct was disruptive, unprofessional, and unacceptable. She told Petitioner that she had caused a disturbance in the workplace, that Ms. Torres would be informing the DC manager about this incident, and that Petitioner would likely be receiving corrective action.4/ Shortly thereafter, Ms. Torres accompanied a pest control representative to the break room. When they arrived in the break room, Ms. Torres observed Petitioner telling a group of employees her version of the events in her office. The employees dispersed when they saw Ms. Torres enter the break room. When Ms. Torres turned to leave the break room, she saw Petitioner complaining to yet another group of employees about the incident. Ms. Torres considered this behavior to be extremely disruptive. Ms. Torres then asked a supervisor, Tasha Porter, to instruct Petitioner to leave the premises. Ms. Torres was relatively new to the company, and she consulted with Paul Rhodes and Olivia Thurmond to determine appropriate disciplinary action that would be consistent with the company's response to similar instances of conduct. Mr. Rhodes was out of the office from December 27, 2010, through January 2, 2011. On January 3, 2011, Mr. Rhodes and Petitioner met to discuss the December 28, 2010, incident. Tasha Porter also attended the meeting and supervisor Daniel Serrano attended the meeting as an interpreter. Mr. Rhodes also spoke to and received written statements from Alice Torres, Sandra Colindres and Tasha Porter regarding the incident. After reviewing the matter, a decision was made to give Petitioner a final Written Warning for unprofessional conduct and disruptive behavior which had taken place on December 28, 2010. Petitioner refused to sign the final Written Warning, did not acknowledge that she committed the actions described, but acknowledged that the conduct described would be unacceptable and that a person engaging in such conduct could be terminated. The final Written Warning was given to Petitioner on January 10, 2011, by Mr. Serrano, who also speaks Spanish. Prior to receiving this final Written Warning, Petitioner had not reported a disability to anyone at Sanmar. There is nothing in the record to establish or suggest that any one at Sanmar knew, perceived or regarded Petitioner as having a disability at that time. On the evening of April 18, 2011, Group Lead Terri Andrews was supervising the employees on the lo-bay floor. Employees were working overtime to get all customer orders shipped by the end of the day. Ms. Andrews was at the print station, as Petitioner approached her. Ms. Andrews directed Petitioner to report to the pack line. Petitioner told Ms. Andrews that she wanted to go home. Ms. Andrews told Petitioner again to report to the pack line and Petitioner left the floor. Ms. Andrews described Petitioner as appearing agitated. Petitioner arrived at the pack line where Becquer Rosado, another Group Lead, was directing employees where they were needed the most. Mr. Becquer saw Petitioner approaching and before he could direct her to a position, she put her hand up in the air, walked past him, and told him that she would only take instructions from Patricia Alonso and not from him. This was done in front of other employees. Patricia Alonso was a Department Lead for the pack line. A Group Lead is superior to a Department Lead because Group Leads oversee several functions, while Department Leads only supervise a single function. Employees are expected to follow the directions of both Group and Department Leads. Mr. Rosado reported this incident to his supervisor, Lori Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form the following day. Ms. Andrews also reported Petitioner's behavior to Ms. Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form on April 21, 2011. It was that day that Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to talk about pain that Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands as more fully discussed in paragraph 6 above. Petitioner was not at work from April 21 until April 26, 2011. After reviewing the Employee Concern forms, Ms. Torres met with Petitioner regarding the April 18, 2011, incident. During this meeting, Petitioner denied being disrespectful to Ms. Andrews and Mr. Rosado. After speaking to Petitioner on April 26, 2011, Ms. Torres recommended that Petitioner be terminated for her actions of April 18, 2011, because Petitioner had just received a final Written Warning for her behavior on January 10, 2011. However, Mr. Rhodes decided to give Petitioner another chance and, instead of terminating Petitioner, decided that Sanmar would issue a Final Warning Follow Up Discussion Memo to Petitioner, which was done on May 5, 2011. This Discussion Memo reiterated that any future violation of company policy by Petitioner would result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment. During May and June 2011, and pursuant to Sanmar's Voluntary Time Out (VTO) procedure, Petitioner volunteered on several occasions to go home when production was slow and Sanmar asked for volunteers. Employees interested in VTO simply had to write their names on the "Go Home Early Sheet." Sanmar then selected employees for VTO in the order in which the employees volunteered to go home early. Petitioner's name appears on the VTO sheets in evidence, and her name is near the top of the list on most days. She was not sent home early on days that she had not signed up for VTO on the Go Home Early sheet. On June 20, 2011, after leaving the doctor's notes referenced in paragraph 18 through 20 with Ms. Battle, Petitioner proceeded to the break room where Tasha Porter, a supervisor, found her engaged in a conversation with co-workers while on the clock and not on a break. When Ms. Porter asked Petitioner why she was in the break room while clocked in, Petitioner replied that she taking her break. Ms. Porter reported this to Ms. Torres. Afterwards, Petitioner returned to work processing go-backs, although another employee was doing the keyboarding, as further explained above. As discussed in paragraph 21 above, Ms. Thurmond was visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes discussed the incident in the break room and decided to issue a final Written Warning to Petitioner for falsification of time records for this incident of being "on the clock" while in the break room. This was the same meeting in which they discussed Petitioner's June 20, 2011, work restrictions. Ms. Torres and Ms. Thurmond issued a final Written Warning to Petitioner at the same meeting in which they notified her that Sanmar had approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. The weight of the evidence shows that this took place on June 21, 2011. On or around November 3, 2011, prior to Petitioner going on leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres learned of an incident involving Petitioner and her son, Manuel Sanchez, who also worked for Sanmar. Specifically, Ms. Torres learned that Mr. Sanchez may have forged Petitioner's signature on a time-off request which asked for permission to be off work on October 28, 2011. After discussing this with Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Torres concluded that he had forged his mother's name on the time-off request at her request. Sanmar considered this to be falsification of company records. This is an offense for which Sanmar has disciplined employees in the past.5/ On Friday November 4, 2011, which was Petitioner's last day at work before taking leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres discussed the forged time off request with Petitioner. Petitioner admitted that she had asked her son to fill out the request and sign her name. At the end of their conversation, Ms. Torres told Petitioner not to discuss their meeting or the situation with anyone, not even Petitioner's son, because the company was continuing to investigate the matter. Despite this instruction, Lori Pritchard, a supervisor, reported to Ms. Torres that Petitioner went directly to her son and had a heated discussion with him at the print station. Although Ms. Pritchard was unable to fully understand their conversation because it was in Spanish, Ms. Pritchard advised Ms. Torres that she believed they were discussing Ms. Torres' meeting with Petitioner. Following this incident, Ms. Torres met again with Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Sanchez admitted he and Petitioner were discussing the forged time off request at the print station on November 4. Ms. Torres, however, was unable to speak to Petitioner about this incident until November 14, 2011, when Petitioner returned to work after her November 7 (second) surgery. During the meeting with Petitioner upon her return to work on November 14, 2011, (see paragraph 30), Mr. Torres and Mr. Rhodes told Petitioner the company was still reviewing the incident regarding the forged time-off request. They advised Petitioner that they had confirmation she and Mr. Sanchez discussed the forged time off request at the print station. While Petitioner denied this, she admitted she talked about the incident with her son at home, where Mr. Sanchez also resided. Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes believed Petitioner should be terminated for the November 4 incident, because it involved an incident of insubordination, following the previous warnings of unprofessional conduct issued In January and May 2011. However, they wanted to discuss their recommendation with Ms. Thurmond and Marty Rask, Operations Manager, in keeping with the company's normal practice. Although they planned to talk to Ms. Thurmond and Mr. Rask and, with their concurrence, terminate Petitioner later during the day on November 14, they were not able to do so because of Petitioner unexpectedly became ill on that day. This began a lengthy leave of absence from which she never returned. Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres recommended that Sanmar terminate Petitioner for her insubordination on November 4, when she discussed the document falsification issue with her son in violation of Ms. Torres' instructions, as well as her dishonest and evasive response on November 14, when Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres spoke to her about the incident. The final decision to terminate Petitioner was made on November 30, 2011. However, Sanmar did not communicate the termination decision to Petitioner until January 24, 2012. This delay resulted from circumstances related to Petitioner's medical leave and on-going workers' compensation proceedings.6/ Sanmar decided to move forward with its November 30, 2011, termination decision. Sanmar's usual practice of communicating employee termination is to inform the employee in person. However, Christy Hammond had been communicating with Petitioner and respected Petitioner's request that she not be required to come to the workplace only to be fired. Therefore, Sanmar decided to issue the termination letter via mail. Accordingly, on January 24, 2012, Sanmar sent Petitioner a termination letter signed by Olivia Thurmond. Enclosed with the letter was a documentation form explaining the reasons for Petitioner's termination, i.e., Petitioner's insubordination on November 4 and her dishonest and evasive behavior on November 14, combined with her prior discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Teresa Urbina. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2012.
The Issue What relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations provide Petitioner to remedy the unlawful employment practice that Respondent admits that it committed by refusing to further consider Petitioner's application for employment as a correctional officer once it learned that Petitioner is an insulin-dependent diabetic?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner's Employment at the South Florida Reception Center Petitioner previously worked full-time as a Correctional Officer I at the State of Florida Department of Corrections' (DOC's) South Florida Reception Center, a maximum security facility that houses convicted felons. Petitioner and his coworkers at times were asked to work double shifts. On several occasions, Petitioner was threatened with disciplinary action when he refused to work a second shift immediately following the completion of his regularly assigned shift. Prior to the expiration of his probationary period, Petitioner was advised that he was going to be fired. Petitioner requested, and was granted permission by the Superintendent of the facility, the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination. Petitioner resigned his position effective June 27, 1989. Petitioner's Application for Employment with Respondent In October of 1988, while still employed by DOC, Petitioner applied for a Correctional Officer I position with Respondent. Respondent's official job description for the position describes the nature of the work performed by Correctional Officer I's as follows: This is routine security work in maintaining order and discipline among prisoners held in County correctional facilities. Employees in this class are responsible for receiving and controlling prisoners, preventing escapes and enforcing departmental rules and regulations on an assigned shift at a County correctional facility. Duties include maintaining various records on prisoners, supervising work details, transporting prisoners to a variety of medical or correctional institutions, and ensuring the proper discharge of prisoners. Work occasionally involves an element of personal danger during emergencies and in controlling potentially violent prisoners. Duties are performed in accordance with established departmental regulations and security procedures. Supervision is received from a superior officer who reviews work for compliance with established rules and regulations. These duties are similar to those performed by correctional officers who work at the South Florida Reception Center. There was a delay in the processing of Petitioner's application for employment. On April 12, 1990, Iliana O. Garcia, a Personnel Specialist 2 with Respondent, sent Petitioner a letter, the body of which read as follows: We wish to take this opportunity to thank you for placing your application for the position of Correctional Officer 1 with our Department. The time and effort you devoted to your pursuit of this position is sincerely appreciated, however, at the present time, we regret that we are unable to consider your application further. Many exceptional candidates are seeking limited number of positions and this creates a very competitive situation. Please be assured that our decision in your case was based on very careful consideration of your application and qualifications in direct comparison with all others seeking the position and was not a judgment arrived at lightly. Thank you again for your demonstrated interest in our Department, and we wish you success in your endeavors. On May 9, 1990, Louvenia Lee, the Commander of Respondent's Human Resources Bureau, sent Respondent a follow-up letter explaining in greater detail why Respondent was no longer being considered for the position for which he had applied: On February 26, 1990 you were scheduled for a physical examination at Mt. Sinai Medical Center. This exam was another step in the hiring process for a Correctional Officer. However, on the basis of the physical exam, the results were disqualifying. Therefore, your application with the Corrections and Rehabilitation Department was discontinued. The disqualifying results are in accordance with the physical standards set forth in the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Chapter IX-1. These standards are utilized by other law enforcement agencies in Metropolitan Dade County. Thank you again for your demonstrated interest in our Department and we wish you success in your endeavors. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 547-7052. The results of the physical examination that Petitioner had taken were "disqualifying" because they had revealed that Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. Lost Earnings Had Petitioner been selected to fill the position for which he had applied, he would have had to have first undergone four months of academy training, starting in late July or early August of 1990, before assuming the duties of a Correctional Officer I. He would have received a stipend of $400 for each month that he was in training. Had Petitioner successfully completed his academy training, he would have been placed on the payroll as a Correctional Officer I on December 3, 1990. Had Petitioner remained on the payroll as a Correctional Officer I from December 3, 1990, to January 3, 1993, 3/ he would have earned a total of $54,142.22 ($47,367.16 for the pay periods reflected on Petitioner's Exhibit 7; $804.83 for the two bonus payments reflected on Petitioner's Exhibit 7; $932.86 for the January 21, 1991, through February 3, 1993, pay period; $972.45 for the March 30, 1992, through April 12, 1992, pay period; and $4,064.92 for the four pay periods immediately following the October 26, 1992, through November 8, 1992, pay period). Mitigation At the time he learned that he was no longer being considered by Respondent as a candidate to fill the Correctional Officer I position for which he had applied, Petitioner had applications for employment pending with two other prospective employers, the City of Hollywood and the Metro Dade Police Department. Both applications were for law enforcement officer positions. In August or September of 1990, Petitioner was informed that neither the City of Hollywood nor the Metro Dade Police Department would be offering him a position. The City of Hollywood advised him that the position for hich he had applied had been filled by another of the over 100 applicants for the position. The Metro Dade Police Department told Petitioner that it could not hire him because he was an insulin-dependent diabetic. Some time shortly after receiving his rejection notice from Respondent, Petitioner applied for a correctional officer position with the Broward Sheriff's Office. He did not get the position. The explanation that he was given was that he had failed the polygraph test he had taken. At the outset of the 1990-1991 school year Petitioner began working as a substitute teacher for the Dade County School Board. He continued working as a substitute teacher during the remainder of the 1990-1991 school year, as well as the following school year. The work was sporadic. Frequently, he would not know until the morning of his teaching assignment that he had the opportunity to substitute teach that day. 25. In 1990, 1991 and 1992, Petitioner earned $694.00, $2,212.50 and $2,360.00, respectively, working as a substitute teacher for the Dade County School Board. In 1992, Petitioner also worked for Publix Super Markets, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Publix). His last day of work for Publix was August 14, 1992. Petitioner earned $2,063.78 working for Publix in 1992. From the date he was informed that Respondent had rejected him for employment until January 3, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "back pay period"), Petitioner was not otherwise gainfully employed, nor did he, with the exception noted above, seek other gainful employment. During the back pay period, there were various advertised openings for correctional officers at the South Florida Reception Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"). These positions offered considerably less pay than Petitioner would have received had be been hired by Respondent. Furthermore, the working conditions at the Center were far inferior to those he would have experienced working for Respondent as Correctional Officer I. Petitioner did not apply for any of these advertised positions because he reasonably believed that to do so would be an exercise in futility given that he had been constructively discharged in June of 1989, from a similar position at the Center. Attorney's Fees and Costs On March 25, 1992, after the Executive Director of the Commission had issued a Notice of Determination: Cause and conciliation efforts had failed, Petitioner executed the following written agreement to retain the law firm of Simon, Schindler and Sandberg, P.A., to represent him in the instant matter: I, the undersigned, do hereby retain and employ the law firm of: SIMON, SCHINDLER & SANDBERG, P.A. 1492 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 as my attorneys to represent me, DONALD C. FERRARO, in the petition now pending before the Florida Commission on Human Relations. I fully understand that the fee is based upon an hourly rate of $250.00, which I am obligating myself to pay. I also agree to pay my said attorneys the sum of $100.00 for out-of-pocket expenses. You are authorized to pay or incur liability for all expenses . . . If bills are not paid when due, or a mutually agreeable payment schedule is not made and adhered to, I agree that my attorneys may withdraw as my counsel in any proceeding in which they represent me. Also I agree to bear the cost of collection, including a reasonable attorney's fees, and all other costs. I understand that I will be billed periodically both as to expenses and attorney's fees, and fully agree to pay said bill promptly upon receipt of same. In addition to any other lien contemplated hereunder, we are given a lien on the claim or cause of action, on the sum recovered by way of settlement, and on any judgment that may be recovered, for fees as well as any fund we may have advanced on your behalf for costs in connection with the cause of action. You agree that we have all general, possessory, or retaining liens, and all special or charging liens, known to the common law. If we use the services of an attorney to enforce the terms of this agreement, you agree to pay, in addition to all other sums due us, a reasonable attorney's fee for said enforcement. I further agree that you shall have the right to withdraw from my case: (a) If I do not make the required payments pursuant to this agreement; (b) if I have misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts to you; or (c) if I fail to follow your advice. In any of the foregoing events, I agree to execute any such documents permitting you to withdraw. The Attorney is an officer of the court and is bound by the rules regulating the Florida Bar. The client acknowledges and understands that while an attorney accepts this employment and promises to render professional legal services to the best of his ability during the continuation of this employment, that the attorney makes no warranties, representations or guarantees regarding the favorable outcome, result or successful termination of the representation and that this Retainer Agreement is not "contingent" thereon. The client agrees to fully cooperate with the attorney; to do nothing which would compromise the attorney's professional ethics; and not to request or require the attorney to do anything in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If the client has misrepresented or failed to disclose any material facts, refuses to follow the attorney's advice, or fails to be available as necessary for preparation, conferences, depositions, hearings or other court proceedings, the attorney may withdraw from representation with leave of court. I acknowledge that you have made no representations or guarantees concerning the outcome of this case. I agree to the above terms and conditions of this Retainer Agreement and further acknowledge that I have received a copy thereof. Pursuant to this retainer agreement, the law firm of Simon, Schindler and Sandberg, P.A., (hereinafter referred to as the "Firm") provided Petitioner with legal representation in this matter. Roger J. Schindler, Esquire, a name partner in the Firm, was the most senior of the Firm's attorneys who worked on Petitioner's case. Schindler is a Florida-licensed attorney who has been practicing law in this state since the spring of 1970. He has litigated numerous civil rights actions. Schindler's hourly fee is $250.00. Through November 11, 1992, Schindler had reasonably spent 49.00 hours performing various tasks in connection with the instant case for which Petitioner has been billed $12,200.00 based upon a reasonable hourly fee of $250.00. Through November 11, 1992, Joe Constant, a Florida-licensed attorney and one of the Firm's associates, had reasonably spent 16.20 hours performing various tasks in connection with the instant case for which Petitioner has been billed $2,673.00 based upon a reasonable hourly fee of $165.00. Through November 11, 1992, another of the Firm's associate attorneys had reasonably spent one hour working on legal research done in connection with the instant case for which Petitioner has been billed $165.00 based upon a reasonable hourly fee of $165.00. Through November 11, 1992, a law clerk working for the Firm had reasonably spent 11.80 hours performing research-related tasks in connection with the instant case for which Petitioner has been billed $885.00 based upon a reasonable hourly fee of $75.00. The Firm has also billed Petitioner a total of $368.22 for costs reasonably incurred through November 11, 1992, in connection with the instant case. Through November 11, 1992, the Firm had billed Petitioner a total of $16,391.22 ($15,923.00 for attorney's fees and $368.22 for costs), but had not received any payments from Petitioner, notwithstanding that, under the retainer agreement, he was responsible to pay the Firm this entire amount regardless of the outcome of the instant case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in Petitioner's Petition for Relief, (2) prohibiting the practice, (3) awarding Petitioner back pay in the amount of $55,742.22, together with prejudgment interest thereon at the statutory rate of 12% per annum, (4) awarding Petitioner reasonable prehearing attorney's fees and litigation costs in the amount of $16,391.22 ($15,923.00 for fees and $368.22 for costs), and (5) awarding Petitioner reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs for work performed, and costs incurred, by the Firm in connection with this case after November 11, 1992, in an amount to be determined by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such agreement, by subsequent Commission order. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1993.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a corrections officer 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 allegations herein, Respondent was certified as a corrections officer under Certificate No. 502-5580. The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is the agency in this state responsible for the certification and regulation of the conduct corrections and law enforcement officers in Florida. On June 24, 1992, at approximately 11:45 PM, Officer Bryant K. Doyle, a four and a half year veteran of the Orlando Police Department, came across Respondent sitting in his car in a warehouse district near the 400 block of West Grant Street in Orlando. He called for backup by another unit, but before that unit arrived, the Respondent's vehicle, in which Respondent was accompanied a female, came toward him. Doyle stopped and approached the vehicle and at that time recognized Respondent from a prior contact which had occurred several months earlier. At that time, Doyle had come across Respondent in a car late at night in the same general area, again accompanied by a female. At that time, Respondent claimed he was a janitor but also showed Doyle a corrections officer certification card. On the second occasion, because Respondent had no identification with him, Doyle ran a routine identification check and found no prior arrest record. Though he did not know the person with Respondent, he claims Respondent implied she was a prostitute. She has an arrest record in Orange County, Florida but no evidence was produced as to what the arrests were for. Doyle asked the woman to step out of the car and, taking her behind the car, questioned her. Doyle claims she indicated Respondent had picked her up and had paid her $10.00 to fondle herself. She identified herself as Ms. McKie, who resided on Michael Avenue in Orlando. Doyle contends the interview of Ms. McKie lasted for four or five minutes. Officer Doyle then called in the information he had received from Ms. McKie and placed Respondent under arrest for solicitation of prostitution. On each occasion, at the scene, according to Doyle, Respondent cried and said he was sorry, but at no time did he deny her version of the story. There is no evidence, however, that he was made aware of it. Petitioner was unable to present the testimony of Ms. McKie. A subpoena issued to procure her presence at the hearing could not be served on her because the address given for her turned out to be a vacant lot. Ms. McKie had not been deposed previously, and, therefore, her testimony was not available. Respondent, testifying in his own behalf, indicated on the first incident described by Doyle, he had been visiting his brother, who resides in a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sponsored group home for the mentally disabled, the Golden Age Retirement Home, in the general area near where he was stopped by Doyle. Respondent is his brother's guardian, and on the night of that first alleged incident, had been visiting him somewhat late in the evening. During that visit, his brother introduced him to his girlfriend, whom he identified as Ms. McKay, and asked Respondent to take her to the store to pick up some items for him. After leaving the local convenience store where she purchased some snack items, on the way back she got sick and Respondent pulled over to the side of the road to allow her to relieve herself. While he was sitting there, with the auto engine running, Doyle arrived and directed him to get out of the car. When he complied, Doyle questioned him and in response, Respondent indicated he was a janitor and a corrections officer. At this time, he claims, Doyle accused him of prostitution, though Respondent denied it. Though he did not arrest Respondent, Doyle allegedly told him at that time to stay out of the area in the future even though Respondent claimed to have a lot of relatives living there. Throughout this interview, Respondent claims, Doyle was hostile and threatening. On June 24, 1992, Respondent, who was working the 6:30 AM to 2:30 PM shift, again visited his brother late in the evening. His visit was late because, after getting off work, he had to have some car repair work done and then took his wife to dinner. By the time they got back and he was ready to go, it was after 10:00 PM. However, because, he had to get his brother to sign some papers for the Social Security Administration, he decided to go even though it was late, and since his wife did not care to accompany him, he went by himself. On the way there, he saw a female walking on the street whom he recognized as a woman named Sally (McKie). He had known her for several years as a friend of his sister, but no idea she had an arrest record as a prostitute. Ms. McKie apparently walked out in front of his car and he stopped. He told her he was going to visit his brother, but if her destination was anywhere near his, he would give her a ride. She accepted. On the way, Ms. McKie indicated she was having some problems and began to get upset. She directed him into the warehouse area as a shortcut, but, for some reason, he claimed instinct, Respondent decided not to take it, turned around, and went back the way he had come. As he did so, however, he met Officer Doyle who stopped him and asked him for his driver's license which he did not have with him. According to Respondent, Doyle had Ms. McKie get out of the car and go with him to the rear where, for a period which Respondent estimates as approximately thirty minutes he allegedly threatened her with arrest if she did not admit she was engaged in prostitution at Respondent's solicitation. Respondent admits he did not hear the entire conversation and did not observe Doyle in his relationship with Ms. McKie, but he recalls the nature of the conversation. After speaking with McKie, Doyle came back to Respondent, had him get out of the car, and arrested him. Respondent was not prosecuted on the charge for which he was arrested. A Nol Prosequi Order dated October 13, 1992 so indicates. Even though Respondent notified his agency of his arrest, no action was taken against him by his supervisors. His appraisal report, dated June, 1993, for the preceding year which included the time of the incident in question reflects he exceeded standards, receiving 38 out of a possible 44 rating points. In that report he is described as an individual who can be depended upon to get the job done; who takes the initiative to insure those working for him have the requisite tools to do their job; accepts additional duties and puts every effort into accomplishing a task; works well with others; and can be depended upon to be there when needed. His three prior performance appraisal records, covering the period from January, 1989 through January, 1992, also reflect ratings of either "exceeds standards" or "outstanding." Respondent's supervisor, Sergeant Lacienski, and a fellow corrections officer and sometime subordinate, Officer Charette, both indicate Respondent has a good record and reputation within the corrections community for truth and veracity. According to Lacienski, even though Respondent's arrest was known within the correctional community, no one indicated any reluctance to work with him for that reason. This opinion is shared by Officer Charette, who asserts that Respondent's arrest for this incident had no effect on his work, and his effectiveness has not been diminished. Respondent has worked with the Orange County Department of Corrections for more than eleven years, achieving the rank of corporal. While serving as a corrections officer over that period, he has, at various times, held various part time jobs such as security officer, psychic technician, nurse's aide, and, for a period, janitor with Duncan Janitorial Service. He has never received any type of disciplinary action during his corrections career.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, John H. Girtman. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 13th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3299 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as hearsay evidence not properly corroborated by other admissible evidence of record. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 6. Accepted. 7. - 12. Accepted. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. & 17. Accepted. 18. & 19. Accepted. Accepted. & 22. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven O. Brady, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement 400 West Robinson Street, N-209 Orlando, Florida 32801 Joan Stewart, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Question numbered 13 of Respondent's application for licensure form reads as follows: "Have you ever been arrested[?] If yes, list any and all arrests and dispositions. This may or may not be grounds for denial. Attach separate sheets if additional space is required." In response to that question, Petitioner answered in the affirmative and, in the limited space provided, advised that he had been arrested in 1976 for possession of burglary tools and had been placed on three years' probation. On separate yellow sheets of paper, which he submitted with his application form, he advised Respondent of other arrests, the circumstances surrounding those arrests, and the disposition of those charges. The current location of those yellow sheets of paper is unknown. On June 20, 1976, Petitioner was arrested and charged with attempt to commit burglary and possession of burglary tools. At the time of his arrest, he was seated in a truck owned by his brother-in-law who had had prior altercations with the criminal justice system. On the advice of his counsel, Petitioner pled guilty to possession of burglary tools, and, as was anticipated, adjudication was withheld, and Petitioner was placed on three years' probation commencing August 2, 1976. On November 30, 1976, Petitioner was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct--night prowling. Petitioner had been in the habit of retrieving radios and other items from the dump, repairing them, and selling them at a flea market. This was the conduct which led to his arrest. He was convicted and fined twenty dollars, but the fine was suspended. On May 27, 1977, Petitioner was charged with probation violation when it was discovered that he was driving with a suspended driver's license. Although convicted of that charge, Petitioner remained on the same probation with special conditions added. On October 31, 1977, Petitioner was arrested and charged with incest with a minor. This charge was dismissed after a determination that his daughter suffered from an emotional problem.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered approving Petitioner's application for licensure as an unarmed security guard. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Morris William Brown 3990 Lakewood Drive Lake Worth, Florida 33460 W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.005(2), (7) and (11), 33-3.0051, and 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner and the Intervenor; Standing. The Petitioner, W. Gerry Hargrove, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner was subject to the rules of the Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner's marital status was single. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Intervenor, Ann Hintenlang, was a married woman. The Intervenor is not related to the Petitioner. The Petitioner and the Intervenor have attempted to get approval for the Intervenor to visit the Petitioner. The Respondent has refused to approve the Intervenor as a visitor of the Petitioner because she is a married woman unrelated to the Petitioner. The Respondent's rejection of the Intervenor as a visitor is based upon the Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida and the operation of the Respondent. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted governing mail, visiting hours and privileges and all other aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. Section 944.23, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: The following persons shall be authorized to visit at their pleasure all state correctional institutions: The Governor, all Cabinet members, members of the Legislature, judges of state courts, state attorneys, public defenders, and authorized representatives of the commission. No other person not otherwise authorized by law shall be permitted to enter a state correctional institution except under such regulations as the department may prescribe. [Emphasis added]. Pursuant to the authority of Sections 944.09 and 944.23, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted Chapter 33-5, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Visitors." Rule 33-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: Upon being committed to the custody of the Department, each inmate shall be given the opportunity to submit a list of persons from whom he wishes to receive visits. The initial list . . . shall be limited to members of the inmate's immediate family. Once the inmate has been assigned to a permanent institution, additional relatives and friends, business associates and others may be considered, but only after a criminal history background inquiry has been made. . . . Rule 33-5.006(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (7) Inmate visits with approved family members or friends should be encouraged for the positive purpose of maintaining home and community ties, which after release should provide a deterrent to recidivism. To the extent that it is safe and practicable to do so, such visiting should be allowed to take place in a relaxed atmosphere. Rule 33-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, also provides certain circumstances when a person may be excluded from an inmate's visitors list. For example, persons convicted of a felony may be excluded. Rule 33-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, is titled "Visitation Denial." Pursuant to this rule, it is provided that visitation may be denied under certain circumstances, i.e., if a visit would present a clear and present danger to the security and order of an institution. Rule 33-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, also provides: (3) No visit should be denied: . . . . (c) for any reason unrelated to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the institution. Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (8) Inmates not married may be allowed to have one single non-immediate family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval. A married inmate may be allowed to have one single, non-family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval, if a pending divorce or separation of long duration can be verified and the spouse is removed from the list. [Emphasis added]. The Respondent interprets the portion of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, challenged in this proceeding and emphasized in finding of fact 15, to allow a single male inmate to have a single female visitor and, therefore, prohibits a single male inmate from receiving visitation from a married female visitor not related to the inmate. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, as argued in its proposed final order, is intended "in part to deter potential problems involving visitors to the institution and to promote security of the institution and the inmates because of fights and conflicts which have occurred in the visiting park." See proposed finding of fact 7 of the Respondent's Proposed Final Order. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, set out in finding of fact 17 is uniformly applied by the Respondent. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, set out in finding of fact 17 has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner presented no evidence during the formal hearing concerning Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, other than the rule itself. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-3.005(2), (7) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (2) Legal mail shall be defined as: Mail to and from municipal, county, state and federal courts. Mail to and from state attorneys. Mail to and from private attorneys. Mail to and from public defenders. Rule 33-3.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (7) The institution shall furnish postage for mail to courts and attorneys and for pleadings to be served upon each of the parties to a lawsuit for those inmates who have no funds at the time the mail is submitted to the mailroom, but not to exceed payment for the original and two copies except when additional copies are legally required. The inmate shall be responsible for proving that copies in addition to the routine maximum are legally necessary. Rule 33-3.005(11), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (11) "Privileged mail" is a category that includes, mail to and from public officials, governmental agencies and the news media. Privileged mail may be opened only for inspection for contraband and only in the presence of the inmate. Such mail may not be read except for signature and letterhead. If necessary, it may be held for a reasonable time pending verification that it was sent by or is properly addressed to any attorney, a court, a public official, a governmental agency or a member of the news media. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Rule 33-3.005(2), (7) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, is contrary to statutory law or that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Rule 33-3.005(2), (7) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, is vague, fails to establish standards or vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent. Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner presented no evidence during the formal hearing concerning Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, other than the rule itself. Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, governs the manner in which institutions of the Respondent are required to provide photographic copying services to inmates. Although the Petitioner has not designated which specific language in Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, he believes is invalid, the Petitioner has evidently challenged the requirement of Rule 33-3.0051(3), Florida Administrative Code, that "[i]nmates will be charged $0.15 per page for standard legal or letter size copies . . . " and the following portion of Rule 33-3.0051(4), Florida Administrative Code: (4) Copying services shall not be denied inmates unable to pay for copies. An inmate shall be considered unable to pay for copies when there are no funds in his inmate account at the time the copies are completed and the assessment of cost is determined. If an inmate requesting copies has any funds in his account, he shall be required to pay for copies furnished him at the rate of $0.15 per page until the costs reduce his account to zero. . . . The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, is contrary to statutory law or that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, is vague, fails to establish standards or vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From 1972-1985, Petitioner was employed by the City of Jacksonville at the Jacksonville Correctional Institution. The Jacksonville Correctional Institution was and is the City's facility for confinement of offenders sentenced to nonstate prison incarceration usually lasting less than a year. The facility housed approximately three hundred (300) male and one hundred (100) female inmates. Most inmates were assigned to work crews, either in or outside the institution. The Institution also provided training and educational programs. The City is an "employer" within the meaning of Sections 760.02 and 760.10, Florida Statutes. During the entire time, Petitioner was employed at the Institution, Petitioner functioned as a male and was known as William H. Smith. Petitioner is an "individual" within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. 1/ The majority of people in this world are of the opinion that humankind is divided into males and females. That viewpoint is incorrect. Put simply, there is a certain percentage of humankind that are a mixture of male and female characteristics. Sometimes the mixture consists of physical characteristics and sometimes the mixture consists of opposing physical, i.e. sexual, characteristics and mental, i.e. gender, characteristics. Transsexuality is the term of common parlance for the condition known to mental health professionals as gender dysphoria. Transsexuals essentially believe themselves to be opposite in gender to their anatomic characteristics and to have been born in the wrong body. Gender dysphoria is a persistent sense of discomfort and inappropriateness about one's anatomic sex accompanied by a persistent wish to be rid of one's genitals and to live as a member of the other sex. Transsexualism is often misunderstood by lay people. It is not homosexuality and it is not transvestism. Both homosexuals and transvestites are comfortable with the gender dictated by their physical bodies. A transsexual differs markedly from persons with homosexual or transvestite traits. Transsexualism is quite literally having the physical form of one sex and the mental form of the opposite sex. Little is understood of how such halflings result. This lack of insight into the phenomena is in part due to psychology's very poor understanding of how personality and self concepts are developed in human beings and how those traits interact with sexual orientation or sexual preference. However, it can be deduced that transsexualism is a result of a very fundamental or combination of fundamental physical and mental attributes. The desire of the transsexual to live and be recognized as the opposite sex begins at a young age. The desire is nonvolitional. The person so afflicted will progressively take steps to live in the opposite sex role on a full-time basis, often resulting in hormonal treatment and surgery to make the anatomy fit the mental form. The unaltered transsexual is a tormented person, beset with fundamental conflict and persistent rejection of self. Depending on the symptoms, transsexualism can result in a handicap. Petitioner, Belinda Joelle Smith, is a transsexual. In Petitioner's case, Petitioner physically had the male form but mentally was a female. Petitioner grew up in a career Navy family. Her father was a chief petty officer. The family moved frequently because her father was often transferred from place to place. Ms. Smith first began to realize that she was a transsexual when she was around four years old. Her earliest specific memory is of a fight with her sister over who would be the mommy in playing house. Smith thereafter continued to have feelings of femininity. In growing up, she felt uncomfortable with boys and was more comfortable with girls. She cross-dressed in female clothes when home alone. All during her youth she experienced considerable personal confusion. Around age eleven, she read a magazine article about transsexuality and discovered that there was a scientific basis for the feelings she was experiencing as a male child. The article discussed surgical gender reassignment. At that time, Petitioner realized that gender reassignment was what she needed and wanted. She dressed in her sister's clothes and went to her mother to explain her new awareness. When she approached her parents about what she had discovered about herself, the reaction was one of moral indignation and she was told never to talk about it again. There was some discussion about sending her to a psychiatrist. But nothing was done. Thereafter, she kept her transsexualism hidden to the best of her ability. However, the struggle to unify the physical and mental aspects of her character was tremendous. Additionally, the struggle to maintain the outward appearance of a normal male was tremendous. Upon discharge of Smith's father from the Navy, the family settled in Liberal, Missouri, a rural farm community. Petitioner attended high school in Liberal, graduating in 1966. While in high school, she felt guilty about her transsexual feelings and attempted to deny them by excelling at traditionally male endeavors. She competed actively in sports, lettering in basketball, baseball, and track. She felt constantly conflicted. Petitioner began to date a girl while in high school. Petitioner told the girl of Petitioner's transsexuality, and she permitted Petitioner to cross- dress with her. Upon graduation, they married. However, the marriage lasted less than a year. Smith could function sexually only as long as she imagined herself as female and her partner as male. Petitioner's transsexuality was the reason for the breakup of the marriage. Petitioner commenced college, but had to withdraw because her father died. She then enlisted in the Navy to support herself and to contribute to the support of her family. She remained in the Navy for three and a half (3 1/2) years, serving as a machinist mate on a destroyer. While in the Navy, Smith consulted a Navy psychiatrist about her transsexuality. The psychiatrist diagnosed her as transsexual and explained that she might eventually have to get sexual reassignment to achieve any real sense of adjustment. Smith was retained by the Navy despite the psychiatrist's diagnosis because she was not homosexual. Smith accordingly served out her full enlistment in the Navy and in 1970 or 1971 was honorably discharged. Around the time she was leaving the Navy, Smith reconciled with her wife. Upon Petitioner's discharge from the Navy, the couple settled in Jacksonville. During the marriage, Smith lived entirely as a male with episodes of cross-dressing. A son was born to the marriage. In 1972, Petitioner began working for the correctional authority in Jacksonville. During the time she was employed by the City, the Institution was overcrowded and understaffed. She began with the City as an entry level corrections officer. She was attracted to corrections work because, "It seemed like something that might help other people. You could serve the public and maybe help rehabilitate somebody, redirect their lives." Correctional officers are considered law enforcement personnel. Such law enforcement personnel work as part of a pari-military organization in which discipline, respect and cooperation are extremely important. Correctional officers are correctional officers twenty-four hours a day. They are accountable for their behavior during duty hours because poor behavior reflects on the individual officer and the officer's employment. However, there are some very real distinctions between law enforcement police officers and law enforcement correctional officers in their respective codes of ethics and the standards to which they are held when engaged in private conduct. See General Orders Manual, G.O. III-1. One such distinction is that police officers have a higher standard of conduct in their private lives than correctional officers. During the time relevant to Petitioner's complaint as well as currently, correctional officers wore unisex uniforms. Male and female officers had common restroom facilities. Both male and female officers patrolled all parts of the institution, including inmate bathing areas. Both male and female officers had direct contact with male and female prisoners. Petitioner advanced rapidly. She was a floor officer at a time floor officers had broad responsibilities. She then became the youngest officer ever to be put in charge of road crews. Smith was made a provisional sergeant by administrative appointment six (6) months prior to being able to take the sergeants exam. This involved being advanced over officers of much greater seniority. Upon passing the sergeants exam, Smith was made a permanent sergeant. While a sergeant, she was promoted to relief watch commander (substitute watch commander) at the City Jail. Smith was the only sergeant permitted to function as a relief watch commander. As watch commander, Petitioner's job was largely administrative, and she was basically in charge of internal operations for the institution during her watch. She worked out of an office designated for the watch commanders. She spent most of her time doing evaluations, preparing reports, making assignments, working up leave schedules, holding musters, and inspecting calls. Most of her work was paperwork. She occasionally sat on disciplinary boards and participated in disciplinary hearings. Little inmate contact was required, but did occur. She supervised approximately thirty-five (35) employees. The employees included both males and females. Eventually, Petitioner was made a provisional lieutenant by administrative appointment. Again, the appointment was prior to taking the requisite examination. Once again, she was jumped over officers of much more seniority. When she took the examination, she had the highest score of those tested and was promoted to permanent lieutenant. She continued her watch commander duties, but as a watch supervisor instead of relief watch commander. Smith regularly received excellent performance evaluations. These evaluations included outstanding ratings for interactions with other people due to her knack for relating well with both coemployees and inmates. She was good at her job and was promoted more rapidly than other correctional officers. The evidence demonstrated that inmates are unpredictable as a group and that the ability of any person to gain respect and cooperation from them is a subtle quality often found in unlikely people. However, Petitioner through fourteen years of exemplary service demonstrated that she had such an ability. Ms. Smith felt her rapport with inmates resulted from "the fact that I treated them with respect as an equal and left them room to express their feelings, and just generally my conduct towards them was reflected in their conduct towards me." After nine years of unhappy marriage, Smith and her wife separated around 1980 or 1981 and eventually divorced. Petitioner's wife retained custody of their son. After separation and divorce, Smith lived as a male in public and as a female at home. However, sometime after the divorce, the boy's mother was unable to control him, and it became necessary for Petitioner to take custody of their son. Smith therefore reverted to living full-time as a male. Petitioner retained custody of her son and lived as a male until the son was approximately sixteen (16) years old. At that time, in 1984 or 1985, the son's behavioral problems had been straightened out, and he went back into residence with his mother. With the passage of years and the enforced male living, Smith found it increasingly difficult to deny her femaleness. She felt intense stress and internal conflict. She began to drink heavily. She developed a severe bleeding ulcer. Both of these problems progressively worsened. She was began to undergo a major depression and began to consider suicide. Clearly, by 1984 or 1985, Petitioner was experiencing impairment of at least two significant life functions, i.e. health and life. The impairment was directly due to her handicap of transsexualism. The impairment of those life functions causes Petitioner's handicap to fall within the definition of handicap developed under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. By July, 1985, Smith was feeling greater and greater stress. On July 8, while on vacation, she went out in the middle of the night to a very private, unpopulated, nearby beach wearing a woman's wig, makeup, a woman's burgundy French-cut bikini bathing suit with false breasts, a pink ladies' beach coat, and pink ladies' sandals. She was dressed this way as a manifestation of her transsexuality. While out, Smith had a flat tire. A passing patrolman stopped to help with the tire. Initially, Petitioner identified herself as Barbara Joe Smith. The officer who stopped to assist Smith ran Smith's tag and discovered that Smith's true name was William, not Barbara Joe. The officer filed a general offense report of the encounter with the City. Once the report was filed, copies of this report were immediately circulated throughout the jail in sufficient quantity to "paper the walls." Smith became aware of the publication of the events of July 8, 1985. Smith did not participate or promote the circulation of the offense report and it was only the City's actions which caused the incident to become public. The next time Smith was to report to work after her encounter with the police officer, Smith was experiencing problems with her bleeding ulcer and called in sick. By that time Smith's encounter with the patrol officer had reached her superiors and Smith was summoned for a conference with the Director of Corrections and the Director of Police Services. On July 12, 1985, while still on sick leave, Petitioner at then-Director and now Sheriff, James McMillan's request visited McMillan's office to discuss the July 8 incident. The Directors wanted Smith's explanation of the incident. Smith explained that she was transsexual and that the event had been a manifestation of her transsexuality. The Directors asked Smith if she would be willing to accept counseling, but Smith explained to them that counseling would not "cure" her and that the only effective treatment would be sexual reassignment. Smith told McMillan that she was going to go ahead and pursue a sex change operation and would live as a female , including dressing as a female, for one year prior to the operation. The Directors thereupon decided that Smith could not be retained and the City's course of action would be to terminate her. They tried to persuade Smith to resign. The City's testimony is that Smith in fact agreed to resign because of concerns about the way other people would react to her. Smith denies agreeing to resign. She was, however, sympathetic to the reaction of her coworkers and in that vain indicated she would be agreeable to resigning if certain conditions could be met. These conditions were not met. Whatever may have been the perceptions of the parties, it is clear that Petitioner ultimately refused to resign, and she resisted termination. Smith's eventual termination can only be considered involuntary since she sought to remain employed and was denied the right to do so. Smith acknowledges that there would have been problems from continuing in her employment. She expected some finger pointing, name calling, and giggling from a few people. But she felt she could deal with that. The evidence did not demonstrate that any problem would have arisen from Petitioner's continued employment which would have been either dangerous or insurmountable. The City operates its civil service under a system of progressive discipline. See General Order Manual, G.O. II-4. In essence, an officer generally will not be terminated for any single incident. Termination would generally occur only after a series of reprimands and/or suspensions. Misconduct was classified as follows: Serious misconduct involves criminal violations of the law or actions on the part of the employee which warrant a detailed investigation by the Internal Affairs Unit and which could lead to suspension, demotion or termination of the employee. Examples are: commission of a crime, immoral conduct, corruption, malfeasance in office, official misconduct, D.U.I., violation of the civil rights of another, and excessive use of force. Minor misconduct is that which does not require detailed, formal investigation by the Internal Affairs Unit but may warrant informal counseling by one's supervisor, remedial training or minor disciplinary action. It is usually handled by the employee's supervisor and resolved at or below the division level. The events of July 8 did not result in an internal affairs investigation or a violation of law. On July 19, 1985, the Sheriff served Smith with a "Notice of Proposed Immediate Suspension Without Pay With a Dismissal to Follow." The Notice outlined the charges against Petitioner as follows: CHARGE I Violation of Civil Service Rule 10.06(1), which reads as follows: 10.06(1): Cause shall include, but is not limited to. . . . inefficiency or inability to perform assigned duties . . . conduct unbecoming a public employee which would affect the employee's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the employee's job . . . . CHARGE II Violation of Civil Service Rule 561.01(1)(a), which reads as follows: 10.06(1)(a): The employee has violated any lawful official regulation or order or failed to obey any proper direction made and given by a superior officer. and 10.06(4)(a)(5): The retention of the employee would be detrimental to the interests of the City Government." This was the first time Petitioner had been charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and was the first offense on Smith's record which could be used against her in determining any punishment. The City's disciplinary guidelines recommended that an officer receive a written reprimand for the first offense of conduct unbecoming an officer. However, the Sheriff and City did not follow the guidelines since they considered transsexuality and its treatment prohibitive of Petitioner's continued employment. Following her receipt of this Notice, Smith requested a hearing before the Jacksonville Civil Service Board (Board). The hearing was held on October 8, 1985. Petitioner was present and was represented by counsel. Several coemployees testified on behalf of Smith at the civil service hearing. No employees testified in support of the City's position that they could no longer work with Smith and had lost respect for Smith. In fact, at the administrative hearing in this case, Sheriff McMillan acknowledged that he did not expect all of Smith's coemployees to be adverse to her. He said that he had not himself lost respect for Smith and that he could have continued to maintain a satisfactory working relationship with her. The Sheriff also testified that Sheriff's office employees are carefully screened for adaptability and flexibility. The Sheriff had no reason to suppose that his compassion and humanity were greater than that of other department employees. The fact that coemployees came forward to testify for Smith before the Civil Service Board tends to confirm the Sheriff's statements about Smith's coemployees. The Board determined by a vote of four to one that the evidence at the hearing conclusively showed Smith had engaged in conduct unbecoming a public employee. Based on its findings of fact, the Board upheld the Sheriff's decision to dismiss Smith. The evidence did not support any dismissal based on Smith taking sick leave after the incident occurred. Her illness at that time was genuine. The City's entire basis for terminating Smith was supposition that as a known transsexual she would not be able to command the respect of coemployees and inmates and would generally discredit the City. Sheriff James E. McMillan (who had been the Director of Police Services at the time of Smith's termination and had subsequently become Sheriff) testified: "Q: But you didn't think that by virtue of transsexuality there had been any diminution or impairment of Lieutenant Smith's faculties, did you? A: No. "Q: So, as I understand it. Lieutenant Smith wasn't terminated because he was illegal or bad or immoral in and of itself? A: That's correct. "Q: It was entirely because of your concerns about the reactions of other people? A: That's correct, and his ability . . . not to his own doing . . . to be able to carry out his duties because of those." The City concedes that Smith's transsexuality involved no illegality or immorality. There is no contention that she ever conducted herself inappropriately in connection with her employment or on City time. There is no suggestion that she ever sought to exploit or publicize her employment with the Sheriff while cross-dressing. The City does not contend that she ever engaged in homosexual conduct or entertained any homosexual ideas. Importantly, at the time of Smith's termination in 1985, nothing had changed in Petitioner's abilities to perform her job. This was the same transsexual person who had rendered exemplary service for the past 14 years. No reasonable accommodation of Petitioner's handicap was explored or attempted by the City. Given, the Sheriff's testimony regarding his ability to accept Petitioner, the screening undergone by correctional officers, the fact that coemployees stepped forward on behalf of Smith and Smith's experience in other jobs after her termination demonstrate that the City's apprehensions were unjustified and were not concerns which could not be reasonably accommodated as was done with female correctional officers and black correctional officers when those groups entered the correctional work force. The evidence showed that inmate reaction to a transsexual is a "big unknown" and that a known male correctional officer holding himself out as a woman within the confines of a correctional facility may theoretically be disruptive and may theoretically be adverse to the best interest of the agency. However, there was no evidence which indicated that any inmates were aware of the July 8 incident or were cognizant of Petitioner's transsexuality. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated that an inmate's ability to discern a transsexual who is cross-dressing while at work may be difficult since correctional officers wear the same uniform and have strict rules regarding their appearance. See General Orders Manual, G.O. III-9. No evidence was submitted as to what changes would have occurred in Petitioner's appearance had she been allowed to be female at work. 2/ Moreover, all of the theoretical problems which may or may not occur could have been reasonably accommodated by restricting any overt appearance of Petitioner while at work. Finally, the City had extensive general orders and personnel rules and regulations requiring that employees be respectful and courteous toward one another and forbidding disrespectful, mutinous, insolent, or abusive language towards a supervisory employee or any other employee. It also had prohibitions against speaking disparagingly about any coemployees or defaming or demeaning the nationality, creed, race, or sex of any person. Various punishments or administrative actions were prescribed for violations of these orders. Such respective behavior was demanded toward black and female correctional officers. The evidence did not demonstrate any legitimate reason for not demanding such behavior toward Petitioner. After termination, Smith worked at a series of jobs. In almost each instance, her employers knew of her transsexuality and the fact that she was cross-dressing at work. Her experience at those jobs was basically what she had predicted she would have encountered if she had continued with the Sheriff's Office -- that is, initial snickering and then general acceptance. For example, she worked as part of a clean up crew at a construction site at which there were approximately (300) construction workers. Smith testified that at first she was subjected to some taunts and name calling, but that this shortly subsided. By the end of the construction site job, she had achieved general acceptance and had received apologies from various of the taunters. In most of her post- termination jobs, Smith successfully oversaw and supervised other workers. The only exception to Petitioner's successful employment occurred when she was employed by Walmart as a sales manager. Apparently, the Walmart had segregated male and female restroom facilities and there was great concern over which restroom Petitioner would use. Lost income calculated from July, 1985, until April 13, 1989, when Smith requested a continuance in this cause, was $99,070. Lost income from July, 1985, through February, 1991 was $136,435.00. (These calculations include a 20% wage differential and set-off for Petitioner's earnings). Since all the parties at one time or another requested continuances in this case, Respondent is not entitled to a set-off for the period of time after Smith's continuance of April 13, 1989. Both parties delayed the action at a time when the other party was ready to proceed. Moreover, Respondent is entitled to a set-off for any earnings of Petitioner after the April 13 continuance. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to $136,435.00. in back pay through the end of February, 1991, plus any additions through reinstatement, less deductions for any earnings of Petitioner during this time. Smith ultimately was accepted into a gender reassignment program. As part of that program, she was required to live as a female for a two (2) year adjustment and demonstration period. She successfully accomplished the adjustment. In 1990, she underwent her gender reassignment surgery. Since then, she has been living entirely as a female and has been judicially determined to be a female. Since the gender reassignment surgery, Petitioner is now doing well. She feels much more at peace with herself and much happier than when she was a male. She has quit drinking altogether and no longer suffers from stomach ulcers. She no longer thinks about suicide. She has received acceptance by her brothers and sisters, and also by her son. She is working successfully as a salesperson for a retail tile company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Human Relations Commission enter a Final Order reinstating Petitioner, awarding back pay and attorneys' fees and costs and reserving jurisdiction should the parties fail to agree on appropriate reinstatement, back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1991.
