The Issue The matter presented here for consideration concerns the termination of the Petitioner, George Nelson, from his employment with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, premised upon the purported authority set forth in Rule 22A-13.04, Florida Administrative Code, following the Petitioner's alleged decision to qualify as a candidate for office in the State of Florida, without first gaining permission of the appropriate authorities as set forth in Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22A-13, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, George Nelson, was a permanent status Career Service employee on July 14, 1980, working for the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. His specific employment was a firefighter. On the subject date, by correspondence directed to an official within the Division of Forestry, namely, Larry Wood, the petitioner notified the Respondent of his intention to run for a School Board seat, District IV, in Wakulla County, Florida. A copy of that notification may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. As stated in the correspondence, Nelson had made an attempt to determine the necessary steps to gain the approval of his agency before taking the oath of candidacy for the aforementioned position. (This request was made following a conversation with the same Larry Wood held on July 10, 1980, on the subject of Nelson's candidacy. On July 10, a letter was sent addressed only to "Larry" and at Mr. Wood's instigation the subsequent letter of July 14, 1980, was dispatched referring to Wood as "Mr. Larry Wood", for appearance sake.) As set forth in the Nelson correspondence, the last date for qualifying for the School Board position was July 22, 1980, at 12:00 Noon. Prior to that date, the Petitioner's request to run was forwarded through the decision-making channels within the Division of Forestry. At the time Nelson dispatched his letter of July 14, 1980, there was some concern expressed by Wood to the effect that there might be some scheduling conflict between Nelson's primary employment duties as a forest ranger and his duties as a School Board Member; however, Wood indicated that the scheduling matter could probably be accommodated. Wood offered no guarantee to the petitioner that the request to run for office would be approved by the appropriate agency officials. On July 18, 1980, and again on July 21, 1980, officials with the Division of Forestry orally indicated to the petitioner that he would not be allowed to run for the School Board. In view of the fact that the last day for qualifying was July 22, 1980, the petitioner determined to offer his candidacy without the permission of his agency head, and on that date he took the loyalty oath for public office for the School Board, District IV, Wakulla County, Florida, as may be seen by a Joint Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the Loyalty Oath and the Oath of Candidacy and Statement of Candidacy. On July 23, 1980, Larry Wood, District Forester and supervisor to the Petitioner, contacted the petitioner to inquire why the petitioner had offered his candidacy without permission of the agency. The petitioner responded that he did so because he did not feel that there was any conflict between school board duties and that of forest ranger. Wood informed him that he would hear from the Division of Forestry on the subject. Following the conversation with Wood, on July 24, 1980, the petitioner received two items in response to his request. One of those items was dated July 21, 1980, from John M. Bethea, Director, Division of Forestry, addressed to Larry Wood, in which the subject of the Petitioner's candidacy was discussed and the indication given that it would not be approved due to scheduling problems and conflict and controversies "that are generated by any local governmental political body". The memorandum went on to say, "These controversies might affect the Forestry Division's ability to carry out the responsibilities with the very segments of the public." A copy of this memorandum may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The second item received by the Petitioner on July 24, 1980, was dated on that date, and addressed to George Nelson from Larry Wood, indicating a denial of the petitioner's request to run for public office. This correspondence may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 3, a copy of which has been admitted into evidence. After the Petitioner had received the memoranda discussed herein, there ensued a series of meetings between the Petitioner and various officials within the agency in which the agency tried to persuade him to withdraw his candidacy in view of the fact that he had not gained their permission to run for the School Board. Throughout these discussions, the Petitioner continued to assert the conviction that unless some conflict of interest could be shown to him, he did not intend to withdraw as a candidate. In the discussions, the agency further stated that the choices open to the petitioner were ones of resignation from his position as Forest Ranger or withdrawal from the School Board race. They also stated that if he were caused to resign, there could be no rights to appeal beyond that point. In the course of the process, the Petitioner met with Director Bethea, who explained the Director's position on the Petitioner's right to run for office and reiterated his opposition, based upon his problems of scheduling to accommodate the needs of the Division of Forestry and the needs of the School Board of Wakulla County and also -he concern of possible conflicts and controversies arising out of the necessity for forest rangers to go on the property of the citizens of the several counties in the State of Florida and the fact that this might create a problem in view of the nature of the functions of a school board member. Although the Director generally held the philosophy that employees in positions such as the Petitioner's should not normally be allowed to run for local office, he did not absolutely foreclose the possibility that someone might persuade him to the contrary and thereby cause him to allow them to seek a local office. Each case would be reviewed on its own merits. The matter was also presented before representatives of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, who took the same position as had been taken by the other authorities within the Department, and again the Petitioner indicated that he would decline to withdraw as a candidate. Following the meeting with the Department officials, Wood made one other contact to ascertain if the petitioner had changed his mind about withdrawing his name as a candidate and the Petitioner indicated that he had not. Subsequent to that latter conversation with Wood, the petitioner was hand-delivered a letter dated August 12, 1980, which may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 5. This letter informed the petitioner that he was deemed to have resigned his position as Forest Ranger effective August 15, 1980, and offered as a statement of authority Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes. That correspondence from Carl T. Dierking, Chief of Personnel Management and Employee Relations for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, went on to say that in view of the Petitioner's decision to qualify as a candidate being made after the request to allow him to run had been initially denied by the Department and in keeping with Rule 22A-13.032, Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner could request an administrative hearing "toward obtaining an additional review of your situation." This request was to be forwarded through Robert Chastain, Esquire, General Counsel, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. After August 15, 1980, the petitioner was removed as a permanent party Career Service employee with the Respondent. On August 27, 1980, the Petitioner corresponded with Mr. Chastain through a letter which stated, "I would like to have an appeal of my dismissal of August 15, 1980, reason, not just cause." A copy of this petition letter may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In turn Mr. Chastain contacted the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that a Hearing Officer be assigned and a hearing be set. A copy of that correspondence addressed to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. Through that correspondence, Mr. Chastain expressed his opinion that Rule 22A-13.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an employee has the right to a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing. Subsequent to the case assignment herein, the Petitioner through his counsel has filed a rules challenge to the Rules 22A-13.04 and 22A-7.10(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which may be found in the Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-1925R. In addition, the Petitioner in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-2049R has attacked the Joint Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, by contending that those aforementioned exhibits constitute invalid rules for reason that they were not duly promulgated. In fact, the Petitioner's duty assignment as a forest ranger would conflict at times with his function so School Board Member, in that some of the meetings of the School Board would be held at times when the Petitioner was actively on duty. In addition, the Petitioner is also on call and required to be available in his off-duty time should an emergency arise requiring his assistance as a forest ranger. The petitioner continued to work beyond August 15, 1980, and was eventually reinstated as a probationary employee with the Division of Forestry and holds the position of probationary forest ranger at this time.
The Issue Two issues are presented for determination in this proceeding. The first is whether Respondent, Volusia County, was Petitioner Coleman’s employer. The second issue is whether Respondent otherwise violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 by unlawfully discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of his gender.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ocean Center Parking Garage is a parking facility owned and operated by Volusia County in Daytona Beach, Florida. Petitioner’s employer, AUE Staffing Solutions, and Respondent entered into a services contract for temporary employment and employment leasing services. Respondent has no ownership interest in, or control over, AUE Staffing Solutions. On or about July 19, 2012, AUE hired Petitioner. Upon his hiring, AUE provided Petitioner with a list of employment expectations entitled “Welcome to AUE Staffing Solutions – What is Expected of You as a AUE Staffing Solutions Employee.” Among the relevant employment expectations are numbers 4, 12, and 14 which provide: 4. Always arrive on time; contact AUE Staffing Solutions immediately if you cannot report to work or are arriving late. Always leave a message on our 24 [h]our answering servicing if you do not personally speak with a Staffing Coordinator. * * * 12. Misconduct includes: Failure to follow any of our company procedures, insubordination to supervisors or to office personnel, sleeping on the job, horse playing on the job, excessive tardiness and absenteeism, unauthorized use of internet activity, and the use of profanity and/or abusive language on any assignment or to any AUE Staffing Solutions personnel will be grounds for immediate termination. * * * 14. If you are a no call/no show, walk off, or do not complete an assignment, we will consider this a QUIT and you will be paid the minimum wage for all hours worked for that entire week – no exceptions will be made. (Emphasis in original.) On July 19, 2012, Petitioner acknowledged his acceptance of these employment expectations. Thereafter, on or about July 28, 2012, AUE assigned Petitioner to work as a temporary employee parking lot attendant at the Ocean Center Parking Garage to fulfill the terms of its contract with Respondent. Beginning in February 2013, Petitioner began experiencing absences and tardiness. Petitioner’s schedule and time cards for the period February 18, 2013, through June 28, 2013, reflect that Petitioner was late on the following dates: February 22 March 22 April 2, 7, 11, 14, 28 May 12, 21 June 4, 8, 15, 23 Petitioner’s schedule and time cards for the period February 18, 2013, through June 28, 2013, also reflect that Petitioner was a no show on the following dates: February 16 March 24 June 11 June 28 On February 16, 2013, and June 28, 2013, Petitioner was a no show and did not call in to report his absence (no show/no call). Petitioner testified that on June 28, 2013, his immediate supervisor, Rebecca Pearsall, called him at 11:48 a.m. and informed him that he was supposed to be at work. Petitioner disagreed with Ms. Pearsall that he was scheduled to work that day. The AUE work schedule for the week of June 24, 2013 clearly reflects that Petitioner, known as “Willie,” was scheduled to work on June 28, 2013 from 8:30am to 5pm. Ms. Pearsall testified that work schedules were always posted in a prominent place near the office the Thursday prior to the start of the following work week, and that copies were made available on a clipboard to employees who needed a copy. Petitioner acknowledged that copies were available and claims to have taken a copy but lost it when it “blew out the window” of his car. Petitioner asserted at hearing that the “lost” version of the schedule did not require him to work on June 28th. Petitioner worked the Saturday, (June 22nd), Sunday (June 23rd), and Tuesday (June 25th) preceding Friday, June 28, 2013, and so would have had notice, opportunity, and responsibility to review the work schedule to understand when he was to report to work that week. Ms. Pearsall’s testimony, as corroborated by the AUE work schedule and time card for June 28, 2013, is more credible than Petitioner’s assertion that he had a different schedule that “blew out the window” of his car. Ms. Pearsall testified that Petitioner had previously been counseled about the need to report timely and call in when he was not going to be able to report so that the garage could make other arrangements for coverage. During their telephone conversation of June 28, 2013, Ms. Pearsall explained to Petitioner that his services were no longer needed and that he was not to report to the Ocean Center Parking Garage due to his inability to show up to work on time and for not showing up for his shifts without calling. Pearsall terminated Petitioner’s employment with AUE Staffing Solutions immediately. Ms. Pearsall is also an AUE Staffing Solutions employee assigned to the Ocean Center Parking Garage. She has worked at Ocean Center Parking Garage for five years. During the course of Petitioner’s assignment to Ocean Center Parking Garage (February 2013 through June 28, 2013) the other AUE-assigned employee performing duties similar to Petitioner’s was also a male (Patrick). After Petitioner’s termination, Patrick continued working for AUE on assignment to the Ocean Center Parking Garage. As of the hearing, he was still employed by AUE in that capacity. Ms. Pearsall testified that Patrick has not had the same challenges with punctuality and attendance that Petitioner demonstrated. Ms. Pearsall testified that subsequent to Petitioner’s termination, AUE filled Petitioner’s position with other males. Ms. Pearsall testified that during her five years at the Ocean Center Parking Garage other AUE employees, both males and females, were terminated for similar attendance and tardiness issues as Petitioner. On September 26, 2013, Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination (Complaint) against Daytona Beach, Ocean Center Parking Garage, but did not otherwise identify either Volusia County or AUE Staffing Solutions as Petitioner’s employer. Petitioner’s Complaint alleged an unlawful employment practice against him based on his gender and provided in pertinent part: I am a male with parental responsibilities. I believe I was discharged because of my gender. I worked for Respondent as a Temp employee/Parking Lot Attendant beginning on July 28, 2012. On June 28, 2013, I was unable to report to work because I had to take care of my twins due to not being able to get a baby sitter. I was terminated. The reason given was excessive tardiness. Tammy King, Human Resources Manager for Volusia County, conducted a review and investigation into the circumstances of Petitioner’s Complaint. Ms. King responded to FCHR Investigator Jim Barnes by letter dated November 6, 2013, concluding that Petitioner had not been discriminated against on the basis of his gender or any other basis. In his Investigative Memorandum dated April 23, 2014, Investigator Barnes noted that: Complainant was offered multiple opportunities to provide a rebuttal but has not responded. During an introductory telephone call, Complainant provided no additional information relative to his complaint. A telephone message was left on voicemail requesting an interview but Complainant has not responded. Complainant filed this complaint of discrimination based on his gender. The findings of the investigation do not support the allegation. Complainant alleged that he had been terminated because of his gender, after being told he was terminated for excessive tardiness/absenteeism. Respondent related that Complainant was late for work 13 times and failed to report for work four times in 5 months. After repeated counseling and cautions, Complainant was terminated for tardiness and absenteeism. Complainant provided no evidence of discriminatory animus, and no documentary or testamentary evidence that he was discharged for anything other than the stated reason. Upon completion of its investigation, FCHR issued a “Determination: No Cause” finding “that no reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred.” Petitioner testified that following the termination of his employment with AUE he found employment with Americano Resort as a porter and entertainer. Petitioner testified that he was terminated from his employment with Americano Resort after he was absent on a Monday, following a weekend trip to Georgia. Petitioner failed to report or call in his absence because he was tired and stayed home to take care of his twin infants. At hearing, Petitioner candidly admitted that he had no evidence to suggest that, had he been a female, he would have been treated any differently by AUE.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2014
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was hired by Piedmont Airlines on January 26, 1987. When Piedmont Airlines merged with USAir, Inc., Petitioner became the Respondent's employee. Petitioner began work for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, in August, 1989. Prior to that time she had been employed in Boston. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 1989, Petitioner received an on-the-job injury. Petitioner was given a medical leave of absence on March 26, 1990. After October 16, 1989, Petitioner had a permanent lifting restriction and could not do work above her shoulders. At all times material to the issues in this case, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an open time station agent. Her job responsibilities in that position included: staffing the gates, the ticket counters, handling baggage, air freight, the ramp, and weight and balance checks. Since she worked "open time," Petitioner was required to fill in for customer service agents on vacation or away from the job because of extended illness. The Petitioner's particular job function and schedule on any given week was determined by the absences of other employees and Petitioner's seniority to bid for the job assignments available. When employees were out on vacation or other prolonged absences, their job positions were available for bid. Based upon seniority, Petitioner, and other open time station agents, received work and shift assignments from the open job positions. The most senior person bidding for a particular assignment would be awarded the job position. In order for an open time station agent to receive an assignment at the ticket counter, for example, there must be an available opening, and the employee seeking the assignment must be the senior bidder for the job. After October 16, 1989, Petitioner could not perform the duties associated with the jobs an open time station agent was required to perform. Since she could not lift more than ten pounds, Petitioner could not work the ticket counters or baggage. As ramp agents must be able to assist wheelchair passengers and check baggage unsuitable for carry on, it is unlikely Petitioner could have worked the ramp or gates. Further, assuming openings were always available (an assumption not supported by the record), Petitioner could have performed weights and balance checks; however, she did not have enough seniority to successfully bid that position for a full-time assignment. Respondent was not permitted to, unilaterally, deviate from the bidding system used with its employees. Prior to her medical leave of absence, Petitioner received her full salary and all benefits. From October, 1989 until March, 1990, there were no positions available in Orlando for which Petitioner was physically able to perform the duties. Vacancies in other USAir sites were made known to Petitioner. Specifically, vacancies in reservations in Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Utica were disclosed. It was believed that Petitioner could perform the duties required in the reservations department. Ultimately, Petitioner was not interested in the reservations positions because she did not want to relocate at that time. Further, she had concerns related to her pay classification and seniority were she to accept such an offer. Petitioner applied for open sales positions in February, 1990. The vacancies were in Newark, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. Petitioner did not attend an interview in Pittsburgh and all positions then available were filled. In June, 1990, Petitioner accepted a position with American Airlines in Hartford, Connecticut. That job was as a reservations agent. Respondent deemed the acceptance of the job with American as a resignation and terminated Petitioner's employment with USAir.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-1039 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 8, 13, 15, 16, and 21 are accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12, 17 and 18 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraphs 14, 19 and 20 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: NOTE: The acceptance of the proposed finding of fact does not include the acceptance of the footnoted information which, in all instances, has been rejected as argument, editorial comment, or irrelevant. 1. Paragraphs 1 through 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 33, 36 are accepted. Except as set forth above, paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 19 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 26 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 31, it is accepted that Petitioner knew of, and applied for, sales positions, but did not attend the interview due, she alleged, to illness. Otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: N. James Turner, Esquire 200 E. Robinson Street Suite 1110 Orlando, FL 32801-4334 Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Esquire P.O. Box 1873 Orlando, FL 32802 Alan L. Cohen 2345 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 32802 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Ste. 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Ste. 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Amended Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 8, 1997.
Findings Of Fact 1. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Clerk of Court, Duval County. She was a Clerical Support Aide II until her promotion to Court Records Aide in 1996. Her duties in both positions involved administrative support clerical work, which included cashier functions. 2. The quality of Petitioner's work is not at issue, as Petitioner received satisfactory and above satisfactory evaluations while employed by Respondent. 3. In 1996, Petitioner was under the supervision of Janice Sain in the Traffic Department. Ms. Sain held the position of Assistant to the Clerk. Her responsibilities included overseeing the traffic violations bureau, purchasing department, and the tax deeds department. At the time, Petitioner was assigned to Courtroom 51 which handles first appearances for traffic-related cases, accidents, and misdemeanors. Break Room Incident 4. Employees such as Petitioner would report to work by faxing a daily sign-in sheet each morning showing that the employee was on duty. It was in this manner that Ms. Sain would keep track of whether employees had reported to work from the various branch locations around the city. If an employee was unable to communicate by facsimile, the employee would call in to report that they were at work. 5. On or about November 22, 1996, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Wanda Myers,’ advised Petitioner that she had not received Petitioner's daily sign-in time sheet. She repeatedly questioned Petitioner regarding the time sheet. Petitioner became nervous and returned to her desk in the cashiering area. Petitioner began shaking and gasping for breath. Petitioner was instructed by Ms. Myers to go into the employees' break room.’ 6. Petitioner believes that a sign which read, "Out of Order" was placed on the outside door of the break room while she was in there. However, there was no evidence presented at hearing to support that belief. The witnesses who were at work that day did not recall seeing a sign on the door. 7. Petitioner filled out a leave request form for sick leave from 3:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. Ms. Myers denied that request writing in the comments section, "Denied-told her Janice Sain on way to office to speak with her and told her she could not leave." 8. Ms. Sain was called by Wanda Myers who requested that Sain come to the Traffic Department ("Traffic") as soon as possible to counsel Petitioner. Ms. Sain went to Traffic and spoke to Petitioner. Petitioner filled out another leave slip that afternoon for sick leave from 4:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. which was approved by Janice Sain. Ms. Sain wrote in the comment section, "Jarrilyn used her break and went home upset at 3:40." 9. Petitioner called her fiancé, Edward Davis, who met her at her job. Petitioner drove herself home and Mr. Davis followed her. 10. Petitioner later submitted an amended leave request form for the same date and time period but requesting that the leave be designated as worker's compensation. This leave was disapproved as Petitioner's worker's compensation claim was denied and she, therefore, was not entitled to worker's compensation leave. Respondent does not have the authority to approve worker's compensation leave without notification from the worker's compensation office that the claim had been approved. 11. Petitioner sought medical attention on November 25, 1996, three days after the break room incident. The doctor who saw Petitioner wrote a note excusing her from one day's work: "Jarrelyn [sic] is to be excused from work for a period of 1 day and may resume work as of Wed Nov 27, 1996." Petitioner returned to the doctor again on November 27, and December 4, 1996. No documentation was presented as to Petitioner's ability or inability to work as a result of those doctors' appointments. 12. There was no evidence presented that Petitioner was denied sick leave when requested, with the exception of waiting 40 minutes on November 22, 1996. Transfer to University Boulevard Branch Office 13. Petitioner's promotion to Court Records Aide was effective December 9, 1996. On approximately the same date, another employee, Mary Carter, had an accident and broke her back. Ms. Carter had previously been assigned to the Beaches Branch satellite office. Ms. Carter's medical absence led toa rotation of the cashier staff to provide adequate staffing in the various branch offices. Petitioner was transferred to the University Boulevard branch office as a result of this rotation of staff following Ms. Carter's accident and subsequent medical absence. 14. It is common for cashiers employed by Respondent to have varying work locations over a period of time. Assignments for cashiers were subject to change. Respondent tries to provide three to seven days notice to employees on permanent location changes. 15. Respondent's branch offices are physically located within the county Tax Collector's branch offices. Branch offices are also known as satellite offices. The University Center branch office has only one employee (cashier) of Respondent. 16. Petitioner did not provide Respondent with any documentation suggesting that she had medical restrictions relating to her employment duties prior to her transfer to the University Boulevard branch. Lunch Hour at Branch Offices 17. The branch or satellite offices were operated in 1996 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Employees of Respondent assigned to these branch offices, at that time, did not have a designated lunch period. The times that employees were able to take breaks were determined by the public. That is, sometimes lines of people waiting for assistance would be long. At other times which were less busy, employees took their breaks. Employees at branch offices frequently worked through lunch (as lunchtime was a typical time when the public would come in) and the employees would be paid overtime.* Employees would be given signs to place in their cashier windows for temporary breaks. 18. If an employee had an appointment or needed a designated time period away from the satellite office, Respondent requested that the employee provide advance notice in an effort to facilitate securing a staffing relief. Lorraine Thomas, who is currently a Court Records Aide Senior, would provide lunch relief on occasion to the satellite offices. Ms. Thomas would also provide relief when a clerk was out sick, if the employee's children were sick, or if an employee had doctor's appointments or other personal business. In the case of an emergency, cashiers at the branch office would need to call Traffic for relief. Ms. Sain would often transport employees in an effort to ensure coverage at the branch offices. Despite these efforts, there were times that a branch office would be closed due to being understaffed. 19. At the time of Petitioner's transfer to the University Boulevard office, none of the medical documentation provided by Petitioner to Respondent indicated that Petitioner had medical restrictions regarding her employment. 20. After being advised of the transfer to University Boulevard, Petitioner put in a transfer request dated December 11, 1996. The transfer request was submitted to Gwendolyn Loadholtz, Director of Human Resources. The transfer request states her reason for a transfer was to learn something new. Petitioner also put a check mark next to the word "other" but did not add any further explanation in the space provided. Petitioner did not state any medical reason for the transfer request. 21. Petitioner's doctor signed an Excused Absence from Work form dated December 12, 1996, stating that Petitioner should be excused from work from December 16, 1996, through December 20, 1996. 22. Petitioner's doctor completed a Medically Excused Absence form which stated that Petitioner was under the doctor's care for anxiety and depression, and "it is recommended that she be allowed a daily lunch break." The date of this form is not entirely clear but appears to be January 2, 1997. According to Petitioner, her doctor's office faxed this form to Respondent. Respondent, however, has no record of receiving it. Ms. Loadholtz, Director of Human Resources, testified that she did not receive it and that it was not in Petitioner's personnel file. Ms. Wanda Myers’ last day of employment was January 3, 1997, and there is nothing in the record to indicate whether or not Myers received the doctor's note. In any event, Petitioner wrote a hand-written letter dated January 3, 1997, to "Traffic Management" complaining that she was not getting a lunch hour. 23. Petitioner was treated in the same manner as other employees at the branch offices of Respondent regarding lunch breaks. Petitioner was not the only branch employee without a designated lunch break. 24. On or about January 6, 1997, Petitioner filed a grievance, through her union steward, regarding the lunch break issue. The grievance was resolved in Petitioner's favor. Thereafter, branch employees were afforded a lunch break if they wanted one. 25. Petitioner worked at the University Boulevard branch from December 16, 1996, until January 21, 1997, when her transfer request was granted and she was moved to Misdemeanor "A". Transfer to Misdemeanor "A" 26. Petitioner's doctor wrote a letter dated January 20, 1997, which stated in pertinent part: This is to state that the above named patient has been under my care. She has been diagnosed to have an anxiety disorder that at the present time is exacerbated by the stimulation of having to deal with the public in her place of work. It would be to this individual's advantage, as far as recovering from her present condition, to be placed temporarily in a position in which she would not have to be dealing directly with the public. 27. Petitioner's request for transfer was granted after Respondent received this January 20, 1997, letter from Petitioner's doctor. She was transferred to the Misdemeanor "A" Department effective January 21, 1997. That Department consisted of cashiering, as well as processing violation of probation cases, worthless checks, and processing the Salvation Army payments. Maxine Russell, Senior court Records Clerk, was her supervisor at Misdemeanor "A". Ms. Russell had no knowledge of 10 Petitioner's having a serious medical condition and did not regard her as having a disability. When Ms. Russell became aware of the January 20, 1997, doctor's letter regarding Petitioner, she assigned Petitioner to work at a desk processing payments with minimal contact with the public. 28. Ms. Russell held an initial conference with Petitioner on January 30, 1997, to go over her duties. In a written chronology that Russell maintained during that time period,’ a notation was made on January 21, 1997, that Petitioner volunteered her assistance in helping on the counter and cashiering when necessary. Petitioner's testimony denied that she volunteered but acknowledged that she did on occasion work at the counter when requested. 29. Petitioner received a mid-probation evaluation on or about March 5, 1997, and received a satisfactory rating in every category on the evaluation sheet. 30. Since the January 20, 1997, doctor's letter referenced the desirability for Petitioner to be placed in a non-public job setting, Russell requested an updated doctor's statement regarding her need for continued accommodation. This request was made on or around March 18, 1997. Russell needed the statement to keep Petitioner in a non-public setting since most of the employees' duties involved contact with the public. Russell did not receive an updated doctor's statement regarding Petitioner's need for further accommodation. 11 31. Petitioner complained about her new assignment and felt it was not adequately addressing her medical needs. On or about April 7, 1997, Russell moved Petitioner to yet another desk. Her new duties included processing probation violations which did not involve working with the public, and answering phones during breaks and lunch times. Periodically, Petitioner would have to deal with probation officers, but not members of the public. 32. Petitioner had a doctor's appointment on April 2, 1997. She returned with a Medically Excused Absence form which stated that Petitioner was under the doctor's care for counseling "from 4/2/97 to se" + with nothing written in the blank. As April 2, 1997, was the only date referenced on this form, the form was simply an excuse from work for that date only. Petitioner's leave record shows she took one and one-half hours of sick leave that day. The form was silent as to any continuing work conditions that were necessary or even recommended for Petitioner. 33. Petitioner received a satisfactory performance evaluation on August 5, 1997. 34. Petitioner's leave record reveals that she frequently was granted sick leave and was also granted leave without pay when her leave was exhausted. She was not disciplined for excessive leave nor is there any suggestion in the record that Respondent accused Petitioner of abusing her leave. 12 35. Other than the January 20, 1997, letter stating that it would be to Petitioner's individual advantage to be placed temporarily in a position in which she would not have to be dealing with the public, there is nothing in the record to support anything more than a temporary placement of Petitioner in a position not dealing with the public.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Jarrilyn D. Black, pro se 8030 Old Kings Road, South Number 49 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 For Respondent: LaShanda R. Dawkins, Esquire 117 West Duval Street Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED : That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13" aay of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Ait Bidsex \, dis oe f pos Adhinistrat 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 /3%> day of July, 2001. 17
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner based on her race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent initially hired Petitioner through a temporary labor service. Petitioner worked for approximately 60 days as a temporary employee in the position of a medical transcriptionist preparing medical chronologies. At the end of the 60-day period, Respondent decided to eliminate Petitioner's position. Petitioner decided to enhance her career opportunities by applying for a position as a paralegal with Respondent. In a letter dated June 19, 1996, Petitioner expressed her interest in working for Respondent as a full-time employee. According to the letter, Petitioner had worked for over 20 years as a secretary/administrative assistant, including some experience in the areas of management and supervision. The letter, together with Petitioner's resumé, indicated that she had experience as a legal secretary. In a letter dated August 26, 1997, Respondent offered Petitioner a job as a paralegal. Petitioner accepted the offer. Randy Fischer, Esquire, explained the duties of a paralegal to Petitioner and gave her a copy of a paralegal's job description. The duties included, but were not limited to, the following: (a) drafting pleadings and correspondence; (b) drafting discovery requests; (c) organizing files and preparing file indexes; (d) investigating cases; (e) scheduling depositions; (f) attending document productions, exhibit exchanges, and pretrial conferences; and (g) assisting in legal research. Respondent gave Petitioner an employee handbook. The handbook included, among other things, information about attendance, discipline, and the firm's anti-discrimination policies and procedures. Petitioner also received a paralegal manual and billing guidelines. Respondent's anti-discrimination policy communicated to employees that sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination would not be tolerated. Respondent had an "open door" policy by which employees could report discrimination to the office manager or the office-managing partner. At all times material here, Mr. Fischer was the office-managing partner, and Janet Siefert was the office manager. Petitioner never took advantage of the opportunity to report any alleged racial discrimination to anyone on Respondent's staff. From the beginning of her employment as a paralegal, Mr. Fischer communicated to Petitioner that she would be expected to schedule, coordinate, and calendar activities for attorneys. He frequently was critical of Petitioner's performance because she failed to meet these expectations. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Fischer's criticisms were racially motivated. Respondent regularly provided written performance evaluations of employees. Petitioner's first review took place in December 1997. The evaluation indicated that Petitioner's attendance or dependability and teamwork were "highly acceptable." Her performance in oral expression, writing ability, decision-making ability, work product accurateness, and work product volume was "acceptable." Petitioner "needed to improve" in the following areas: (a) knowing subject matter; (b) analyzing problems; (c) obtaining information; (d) meeting deadlines; (e) performing assignments resourcefully and creatively; (f) recording billable time; (g) showing initiative; and (h) following through on assignments. Petitioner's overall rating on the evaluation was "acceptable." During the evaluation, Mr. Fischer counseled Petitioner about her job deficiencies. He particularly discussed Petitioner's need to follow appropriate guidelines for billing. This was important because Respondent routinely had to reduce Petitioner's excessive billing time in some areas. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was singled out in terms of having billing time entries removed from the timesheets. In February 1998, Petitioner began having problems with her attendance and low work productivity. A written disciplinary action dated February 11, 1998, outlined the following deficiencies: (a) inattention to detail in handling files by failing to schedule the continuation of a deposition; poor performance in handling the Angela Davis file; leaving the building during work hours without proper authorization; (d) being late for work on numerous occasions; and (e) taking numerous personal absences. Regarding the Angela Davis file, Petitioner's failure to follow instructions adversely affected Mr. Fischer's handling of the file. Mr. Fischer became angry because it took Petitioner two hours to drive from Ocala, Florida, to Gainesville, Florida, with only a portion of the Angela Davis file that he had requested. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Fischer's anger was racially motivated. Petitioner admits that she occasionally left the building during her work breaks to go to the bank or for other personal reasons instead of spending that time in the employees' break room. She asserts that she did not know she had to have permission to do so and that she had to sign in and out. According to Petitioner, other employees were allowed these privileges without being reprimanded. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credible. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that her attendance record was problematic due to personal problems. On at least one occasion, Mr. Fischer agreed to let Petitioner make up some of the time she had lost. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent's attendance policy was applied more rigidly to Petitioner than to any other employee. More importantly, Petitioner admitted that she was not qualified to perform all of the duties of a paralegal when she accepted the position. It is clear that she had difficulty learning "on-the-job." On February 20, 1998, Mr. Fischer wrote Petitioner and another paralegal a note regarding the importance of pulling a file together and following directions. Mr. Fischer had gone to mediation without the necessary file documents because Petitioner and her co-worker had not followed his directions. On March 12, 1998, Mr. Fischer reminded Petitioner and another paralegal about the importance of providing him with daily timesheets in a timely manner. Petitioner and her co-worker were at least a week behind in providing him with their timesheets. On March 26, 1998, Petitioner used the firm's copy machine and other supplies for personal reasons. On April 8, 1998, Petitioner was late to work due to a flat tire. In May 1998, Petitioner requested a more flexible work schedule so that she could attend class in Orlando, Florida, one afternoon each week. Mr. Fischer responded that her billing hours were already low and that she was routinely late to work. However, Mr. Fischer agreed to give her the time off for a 30-day period if she documented her time at the office, improved her productivity, and billed a minimum of 25 billed hours per week. In June 1998, Mr. Fischer had to remind Petitioner again about the importance of keeping calendars for the attorneys. Because Petitioner failed to follow instructions, no attorney from Respondent's office attended a scene viewing. In July 1998, Mr. Fischer sent Petitioner an e-mail message criticizing her for not properly issuing a subpoena and deposition notice. When he realized that Petitioner was not at fault, he promptly apologized in a subsequent message. On August 18 and 19, 1998, Petitioner received two personal facsimile transmissions at the office. On August 25, 1998, Mr. Fischer gave Petitioner a written disciplinary action and placed her on probationary status. The discipline was based on the following reasons: (a) Petitioner had been out of the office for various personal reasons 31 times in the last 90 days; (b) Petitioner had provided Respondent with inaccurate or incomplete reasons for those absences; (c) Petitioner's productivity was below office standards; (d) Petitioner had failed to properly schedule activities and calendar events for an attorney; (e) Petitioner had failed to follow repeated instructions in relation to file handling, scheduling depositions, and scheduling meetings; (f) Petitioner had used firm time to receive and review personal facsimile transmissions, to discuss personal information, and to participate in personal telephone calls; and (g) Petitioner had inappropriately used firm resources. On September 16, 1998, Mr. Fischer gave Petitioner another written disciplinary action. The memorandum outlined continued problems with Petitioner's performance. One example of Petitioner's poor performance involved her failure to properly arrange for a deposition. Other examples involved excessive billing for making summaries of records; the lack of time billed for other case activities, such as setting and noticing depositions and hearings; failure to resolve unpaid costs on a case; and modification of timesheets after they had been edited. The September 16, 1998, disciplinary action also reviewed continued problems with Petitioner's attendance and attitude. Respondent's paralegals are required to bill 100-105 hours per month. Some examples of Petitioner's billing hours are as follows: (a) March 1998, 97.3 hours; (b) April 1998, 58.9 hours; (c) May 1998, 74.3 hours; and (d) June 1998, 69.7 hours. Respondent fired Petitioner on September 25, 1998. Her termination was based on cumulative reasons, including low productivity, failure to be attentive to detail in the handling of files, and frequent absences and tardiness. During the time that Petitioner worked for Respondent, Mr. Fischer fired Robin Carr, a white female, for similar reasons that Petitioner was terminated: excessive absences, inappropriate use of personal time in the office, and excessive personal telephone calls. Mr. Fischer also fired Art Monig, a white male, for low work productivity. Ms. Carr and Mr. Monig both worked as paralegals. Petitioner testified that, on one occasion, Ms. Carr and other employees were in the employees' break room discussing the turnover of staff in the office. Petitioner testified that Ms. Carr made the statement that Petitioner did not have to worry about losing her job because she was a "token." In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Seifert made this comment. Ms. Carr did not testify at the hearing but Ms. Seifert did testify and denies making such a statement or ever hearing it made. Similarly, Jennifer Whitehead, who was Mr. Fischer's secretary from February 1997 through May 2001, testified that she never heard anyone in the office make a statement that Petitioner was a "token" or a "quota." Nevertheless, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is persuasive. Petitioner admits that she never reported the statement allegedly made by Ms. Carr to anyone in Respondent's office. She admits that Mr. Fischer never made inappropriate racial comments in her presence. Mr. Fischer's dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance may have caused Petitioner to be uncomfortable from time to time, but there is no evidence that his reactions to her poor performance were racially motivated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorine Alexander 1421 Southwest 27th Avenue Apartment No. 1807 Ocala, Florida 34474 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Fischer, Esquire Boehm, Brown, Fischer & Harwood, P.A. Post Office Box 4140 Ocala, Florida 34478 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner abandoned her position of employment in the career service system of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Helen L. Chappell, a career service employee of Respondent with the Polk County Public Health Unit at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Petitioner worked sporadically in Respondent's employment during the month of March, 1989. She was credited with a total of 28 hours of work during that month. Respondent's records reflect that Petitioner did not actually work any hours in the months of April or May, 1989. On May 5, 1989, Respondent received notification from personnel of the Division of Risk Management of the Department of Insurance that Petitioner, a recipient of workers compensation benefits, had reached maximum medical recovery from a previous injury. Shortly thereafter, the Division provided Respondent with a copy of a medical report documenting the extent of Petitioner's recovery. The medical report, while noting Petitioner's recovery, also restricted her employment activities to preclude activities involving "a lot of head and shoulder movement." By certified letter dated May 11, 1989, the acting administrative director of the Polk County Health Unit informed Petitioner of the receipt of the medical report and the medical restrictions contained in the report. Further, the letter set forth Respondent's position that such restrictions would not interfere with Petitioner's performance of her duties as a clerk specialist. The letter concluded by directing Petitioner to return to work immediately to avoid the presumption that she had abandoned her position of employment with Respondent. The letter's certified mail return receipt reflects that Petitioner received the letter on May 15, 1989. In the course of a telephone conversation with the acting administrative director on May 25, 1989, Petitioner was informed that she must return to work no later than June 2, 1989. Petitioner did not return to work on June 2, 1989, or at any time thereafter. On June 15, 1989, the acting administrative director notified Petitioner by certified mail that Petitioner was presumed to have abandoned her career service employment position with Respondent as a result of the failure to report to work within three days of the June 2, 1989 deadline. The certified mail return receipt documents delivery of the letter on June 20, 1989. On August 1, 1986, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of a copy of Respondent's employee handbook. Employees are placed on notice by contents of the handbook that any employee who is absent without authorization for three consecutive workdays may be considered to have abandoned his or her employment position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration concluding that Petitioner abandoned her position in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave for the period June 2-June 15, 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4183 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esquire HRS District 6 Legal Office 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Fifth Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33514 Helen L. Chappell Post Office Box 109 Lake Wales, Florida 33859 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aletta L. Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief should be dismissed as untimely because it was received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations more than 35 days after the date of the Commission's "no cause" determination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the pleadings (as supplemented by Petitioner's response to the August 2, 2002, Order to Show Cause and his representations at the August 23, 2002, telephonic hearing), the following findings are made: On August 16, 2001, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent with the Commission. The charge of discrimination alleged that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in September 2000 when it fired Petitioner based upon his race.1 The address for the Commission listed on the charge of discrimination form was 325 John Knox Road, Suite 240, Building F, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The charge of discrimination was investigated by the Commission staff, and based upon the results of the investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission determined that "there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." The date of the determination was May 8, 2002. On that same date, notice of the determination (Notice) was provided to Petitioner by U.S. Mail. The Notice stated: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Determination has been made in the above-referenced complaint that there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred. A copy of the Determination is attached. [Petitioner] may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE. * * * If [Petitioner] fails to request an administrative hearing within 35 days of the date of this notice, the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992). (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner received the Notice four or five days after it was mailed, which would have been May 13, 2002, at the latest. The address for the Commission listed on the Notice was 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Included with the Notice was a blank petition for relief form. Petitioner filled out the form and mailed it to the Commission. Consistent with the charge of discrimination, the Petition alleges that Petitioner was fired by Respondent based upon his race and that the reasons asserted by Respondent for his firing were pretextual. The Petition was post-marked in Orlando on June 13, 2002 (36 days after the Notice, and at least 31 days after Petitioner's receipt of the Notice). Petitioner's delay in completing and mailing the Petition was due to his "inability to obtain counsel." Despite the Commission's new address being printed at the top of the Notice, Petitioner mailed the Petition to the Commission at its old address on John Knox Road. The Petition was not received by the Commission until July 9, 20022 (62 days after the Notice, and at least 57 days after Petitioner's receipt of the Notice). The envelope in which the Petition was received by the Commission includes a forwarding sticker affixed by the postal service. Thus, it appears that the 26 days that it took for the postal service to deliver the Petition from Orlando to Tallahassee is attributable to the postal service's mail forwarding process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of September, 2002.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Fredrick Bass, was subjected to employment discrimination by the Respondent, The University of West Florida, on account of his race or disability or as retaliation because of his past filing of an EEOC complaint against a former employer.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black male with a disability involving a post- traumatic, arthritic condition of the left knee. In his past work history, the Petitioner had been a firefighter. When he was thus employed, on one occasion, he filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the fire department where he was employed. The Respondent is the University of West Florida, a state agency. It became embroiled in the disputes at issue when it first advertised for the filling of a vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor and, after the advertising and interviewing process described below, hired another black male with a disability, instead of the Petitioner. The Respondent advertised to fill the vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor because of the death of the person who had previously occupied that position. There was an insufficient response to the first advertisement of the vacancy, and Dan Simpler, the Director of Building Services for the Respondent, who would supervise the occupant of that position, requested that the position be re-advertised. The Petitioner had not responded to the first advertisement, in any event. The second advertisement was issued in August of 1993. This time, the Petitioner was one of the applicants who responded. Several applicants withdrew after learning that the salary for the position would be at the lower-end of the advertised salary range and was insufficient for their needs. This left the Respondent with only three remaining applicants, who appeared to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. One of the three applicants was the Petitioner. The Respondent, in the conduct of its application and selection process, inquired of former employers, concerning whether they would give an applicant a favorable recommendation. The Respondent so inquired of the Petitioner's former employers. The Respondent was unable to obtain a favorable recommendation from any of the Petitioner's former employers. In response to Mr. Simpler's inquiry, the Chief of the Fire Department at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Petitioner's most recent former employer, informed Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner had informed Mr. Simpler that he believed that the Chief of the Fire Department would not give him a favorable recommendation because the Petitioner had once filed a complaint with the EEOC against that employer. In any event, Mr. Simpler deemed that having a pool of only three applicants gave the Respondent insufficient choices for the position. Therefore, he requested that the position be advertised for a third time in order to obtain a larger pool of applicants. In response to the third advertisement, a number of other applications were received. One of them was that of James O. Rankins, who is a male, African-American, who also has a disability. See Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Mr. Rankins' application reflected considerable supervisory experience, both during his service with the United States Army and his position as a Site Manager for Service Master, Inc. at the Monsanto plant near Pensacola, Florida. He retired from the United States Army as a Sergeant Major, the highest non- commissioned rank. In the opinion of Mr. Simpler and others involved in the hiring at the University, this demonstrated a high level of leadership capability. Since his military retirement, in his capacity as the Site Manager for Service Master, Inc., the maintenance contractor, at the Monsanto chemical plant near Pensacola, Florida, he had supervised 45 custodial personnel. He was responsible for cleaning and maintenance of 150 buildings and shops, as well as over 250 offices and restrooms. The Petitioner was an applicant in the third pool of applications in response to the third advertisement. Mr. Simpler learned of a former employer, Lanyap Corporation, and questioned the former owner concerning the Petitioner's previous employment at that firm. Larry Wiggins, the former owner of Lanyap Corporation, told Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. Mr. Wiggins advised Mr. Simpler that the Petitioner had not been employed as a Supervisor by Lanyap Corporation, although the Petitioner had indicated that to be the case on his application for employment filed with the Respondent. The five persons on the Respondent's selection committee, charged with hiring to fill the subject position, considered the qualifications and experience of all of the applicants. After evaluating all of the applicants, with the assistance of personal interviews, the committee recommended that James Rankins be employed as the Senior Custodial Supervisor. Members of the selection committee recommended Mr. Rankins for the position based upon his superior qualifications and experience, including his demonstrated leadership and supervisory abilities. The Petitioner's race and disability were not factors in the selection process. Indeed, Mr. Rankins is an African-American, also with a disability, as shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Ms. Bertha Mae Jones is the staff member at the University who interviewed the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Rankins. Ms. Jones is black and has been employed at the University for 27 years. She does not recall hearing the Petitioner mention his handicap or disability but stated that it would not have mattered if he had one, as long as he could do the job in question. She also interviewed Mr. Rankins and felt that Mr. Rankins had much superior qualifications and experience. He demonstrated that he had had a long-term ability for good supervision. Because of his superior qualifications, Ms. Jones recommended that Mr. Rankins be hired instead of the Petitioner. None of the members of the selection committee, other than the Director of Building Services, knew that the Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against one of his former employers. The filing of that complaint was shown to have had no effect on the hiring decision made by the Respondent's selection committee. The selection committee's recommendation that Mr. Rankins be employed to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor was forwarded to the head of the department and to the Vice-President for Administrative Affairs. The recommendation was accepted. Mr. Rankins, a black male with a disability, was hired by the Respondent to fill the subject position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order concluding that the Respondent, the University of West Florida, did not commit an unlawful employment practice, by employing James O. Rankins to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor, instead of the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2450 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The following numbers assigned to proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner do not correspond to any numbered paragraphs in the Petitioner's letter/proposed recommended order because there were no such numbered paragraphs. The Petitioner did prove that he belonged to a racial minority, and that proposed finding is accepted. The Petitioner's assertion that he was qualified for the position in question has not been proven, and that is rejected. The Petitioner's proposed finding that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected for the position, is rejected because he was found to be less qualified than the applicant chosen for the position. The Petitioner's proposed finding to the effect that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with his qualifications, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderance of the evidence. The relevant advertisement and interviewing process was that after the third advertisement, when the Petitioner remained an applicant and Mr. Rankins' application was received, the position did not remain open, Mr. Rankins was hired at the conclusion of that third advertisement and interview selection process. The remainder of the Petitioner's "proposed findings", in essence, constitute argument concerning the weight of the testimony and evidence but to the extent that he attempts to assert that it has been proven factually that Mr. Simpler had not talked to the fire chief, the Petitioner's former employer, because the telephone numbers at the relevant fire station were not the same as the fire chief's actual telephone number, does not prove that Mr. Simpler did not talk to the fire chief. In fact, it is found that he did. This proposed finding, to the extent that it is one, is rejected. The apparent proposed finding that the five board members on the selection committee found the Petitioner qualified, subject to the fact that it had received bad recommendations from former employers, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. In fact, the Petitioner was not the best qualified person for the position, Mr. Rankins was. These are the only proposed findings of fact that can be gleaned from the letter filed by the Petitioner. The remainder constitutes an attempt at legal and factual argument which do not constitute proposed findings of fact amenable to specific rulings. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fredrick Bass 75 South Madison Drive Pensacola, Florida 32505 M. J. Menge, Esquire SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the City of Ocala (the City or Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Nyleah Jackson (Petitioner) because of her race.
Findings Of Fact On May 2, 2016, Petitioner, who is an African-American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II in its Electric Utility Department. On October 10, 2016, Petitioner moved to a lateral Administrative Specialist II position with the City’s Public Works Department to perform generally the same type of duties in that department’s sanitation division. An Administrative Specialist II is expected to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. As an Administrative Specialist II, Petitioner received mostly satisfactory, although never exceptional, ratings in her performance evaluation reviews in both the City’s Electric and Public Works Departments. In each of Petitioner’s performance evaluation reviews, her rater or supervisor was tasked with assigning a 1, 2, or 3 rating for each of 10 different tasks, examples of which include “Quality of Work,” “Efficiency,” “Responsibility,” and “Customer Focus.” A rating of 1 means that the employee performed a task below the standard. A rating of means that the employee meets task requirements. A rating of means the employee exceeds standards. Petitioner received a rating of 2 (Meets Standard) for every task on every review produced by the City, except for her April 19, 2017, evaluation on which Petitioner received a 1 in the category of “Responsibility” due to alleged problems related to tardiness and failure to properly notify her supervisors of absences. During January 2017, an Administrative Specialist III position became available within the City’s sanitation division because the person previously filling that position moved into another position. In accordance with the City’s hiring process governed by its City Employee Handbook, the City’s Human Resources Department (HR) reviewed the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, confirmed that it was budgeted and set to be filled, and evaluated whether it was governed by any collective bargaining agreements. Upon determining that the position was governed by the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, on January 13, 2017, the City posted the job internally for five days to allow existing City employees to apply for the position before allowing external applications. Similar to the Administrative Specialist II position, the City’s Administrative Specialist III position is required to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. An Administrative Specialist III, however, has expanded duties and responsibilities. While all administrative specialists throughout the City perform similar tasks, each division in the City may have a different distribution of duties for its employees due to the kind of work required for that division’s services. These differences would not be reflected in the listing for an open Administrative Specialist III position. Such listings were drafted by an outside consultant to generally describe the Administrative Specialist III position for all departments throughout the City. For the sanitation division, the Administrative Specialist III position has a substantial customer service component. Specifically, the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division is required to answer a large volume of phone calls from angry citizens for various sanitation complaints. For that reason, the hiring managers placed importance on the applicants’ people skills, patience, and ability to maintain a calm, customer-friendly demeanor when dealing with angry citizens. Petitioner testified that the director of the City’s Public Works Department, Darren Park, suggested that she apply for the open Administrative Specialist III position due to Mr. Park’s belief that she had performed well in a previous interview. Therefore, Petitioner explained, on January 23, 2017, she applied for the City’s vacant Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. In accordance with City policy, HR reviewed all of the internal applications for the position to preliminarily screen applicants who did not meet the minimal qualifications. Petitioner’s application and three other internal candidates’ applications were found to have met the minimal qualifications and were forwarded to the department’s hiring managers for interviews. Of the four internal applicants forwarded by HR to the hiring managers, the only other minority applicant was a Hispanic male. Shortly after the internal applications were submitted, the two hiring managers, Dwayne Drake and Cloretha McReynolds, reviewed the applications and interviewed the City’s internal applicants. Dwayne Drake, a Caucasian male, was the division head of sanitation. Cloretha McReynolds, an African-American female, was a supervisor in the sanitation division. A few days after the City received Petitioner’s application, Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds interviewed Petitioner for the open position. During Petitioner’s interview, as well as in all of the other interviews for the position, the hiring managers used a list of prepared questions, entitled “Sanitation Administrative Specialist III Behavioral Interview Questions.” The questions were designed to allow the hiring managers to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an applicant’s personality traits, people skills, and behavioral characteristics. During her interview for the position, Petitioner admitted that one of her weaknesses was that her assertiveness could sometimes be mistaken for aggressiveness. This comment by Petitioner concerned Mr. Drake because the sanitation division has many callers already upset when they call. Mr. Drake felt that Petitioner’s comment was a “big hurdle” that Petitioner would have to overcome in order to be selected for the Administrative Specialist III position. Similarly, Ms. McReynolds testified that Petitioner’s response that her assertiveness could be misinterpreted as aggressiveness concerned her because “we were looking for a specific – we were looking for someone with a great personality.” When further pressed by Petitioner why customer service was valued so highly for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. McReynolds testified: Q. Okay. Are there different weights that you hold for one question than the other? For example, someone said they don’t have experience in payroll, but they also said that they are very well with handling customers, is there a system for you that you say: “Hey, well, this is more important than the other one? This one holds more weight than the other one”? A. Anyone can be taught to do payroll. Q. Right. A. Anyone can’t be taught to be respectful on the phone and customer friendly. I can teach someone how to do payroll, I can teach someone to do billing. I can teach someone how to do that position, but I can’t teach someone to be nice to the customers. And I needed a nice person, a person who is going to be able to, when they get yelled at, better keep calm and deal with it, calm the customer down. And that’s what I was looking for. After the internal interviews, and as provided for by the City Employee Handbook and its collective bargaining agreements, the hiring managers decided to list the available Administrative Specialist III position externally. Petitioner testified that, following her interview, Mr. Drake came to her office and told her that the hiring managers were looking for a “better fit” for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position and that the City would advertise the position externally. Petitioner testified that, based on this statement, she inferred that the hiring managers had already determined that the City would not hire any of the internal applicants for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position because they had already determined that none of the internal applicants were qualified. In his testimony, Mr. Drake confirmed that he spoke with Petitioner following her interview, but denied that he told Petitioner, or any other City employee applicant, that they were already disqualified. Instead, Mr. Drake explained that, following the internal applicant interviews, he spoke to Petitioner because she was a Public Works employee and he wanted to tell her in person that they were going to look for external applicants. Mr. Drake’s testimony is credited. After the open Administrative Specialist III position was listed externally, three external applications were forwarded to the hiring managers, who interviewed those candidates consistent with City policy, using the same prepared questions as used in the internal interviews. After completing the external interviews, the managers both decided Jenna Hylkema, a Caucasian female and external applicant, to be the best applicant, and she was hired for the position. Ms. Hylkema had a high school diploma, a bachelor degree in criminal justice and had previously worked for the City as a dispatcher for the Ocala Police Department. At the time she was hired for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. Hylkema was working at the Department of Children and Families investigating child abuse cases and related issues. Both of the hiring managers agreed that Ms. Hylkema’s employment history and performance in her interview made her the strongest candidate for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. Notably, Ms. McReynolds testified that Ms. Hylkema “was a call – a 911 call person [at the police department], and she was able to deal with - I thought she would be better to deal with the stress level, as far as – and also her personality in accepting calls.” Both Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds confirmed that their ranking preference was informal and not reduced to writing, but that, after all of the interviews, they discussed each of their orders of preference out of the seven applicants. According to both hiring managers, Petitioner ranked third or fourth of the seven applicants. Although they believed Petitioner was qualified, the hiring managers thought that Jenna Hylkema’s work experience and performance in her interview made her the most qualified applicant for the position. Also notable, Ms. Hylkema performed better on the objective components of the interview process. Petitioner herself confirmed that Ms. Hylkema performed better than she had in the objective portions of the interview, including scoring twice as high in an objective typing speed test. Both hiring managers credibly testified that neither Petitioner’s race, Jenna Hylkema’s race, nor anyone else’s race influenced their decision to hire Ms. Hylkema for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. A few months after Ms. Hylkema was hired for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, another Administrative Specialist III position opened in the Public Works Street Division, which was filled by Erica Wilson, an African-American woman who, like Petitioner, was working as an Administrative Specialist II when she applied. Petitioner did not apply for this position. Petitioner confirmed this, but failed to provide any explanation as to why the City’s policies discriminated against her, as an African-American woman, but apparently did not discriminate against Erica Wilson in their decision to hire her for another open Administrative Specialist III only a few months later. When asked why she did not apply for the other Administrative Specialist III position, Petitioner testified that she wanted the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. Despite evidence indicating that there was no illegal discrimination in the City’s process of filling the position for which Petitioner had applied, Petitioner alleged that there were irregularities in the selection process. For example, Petitioner contends that Ms. Hylkema was not qualified because Ms. Hylkema held a criminal justice degree that did not include advanced business or secretarial classes in college. The evidence, however, demonstrated that the City’s hiring process was flexible enough to allow certain criteria to be waived in favor of other experience, and that all applicants who were interviewed met the minimal qualifications for the position. Petitioner also alleged improprieties in the hiring process on the grounds that the City’s hiring managers did not use a formal numerical scoring in their evaluations and failed to keep complete notes during their interviews to confirm that each question was asked to every candidate. The City’s hiring process for vacant positions, however, does not require any specific numerical scoring system or prescribed notation process. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the hiring managers appropriately weighed their impressions of the candidates through their interviews and the other materials provided to determine who would be best to respond to angry phone calls that the City’s sanitation department would receive. Throughout that process, and with no evidence of illegal discrimination, the managers appropriately ranked Petitioner as the third or fourth best candidate for the Administrative Specialist III position. The evidence at the hearing did not reasonably suggest that the process used during the selection process was suspicious, vulnerable to arbitrariness, or indicative of illegal discrimination. When asked about the City’s interview procedure, Petitioner said that she had no objection to the City asking questions to discern whether or not, subjectively, the interviewers thought an applicant was a good fit for the job. In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was not hired for the open position for which she applied because of her race, or that the City otherwise engaged in illegal discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2018.
