The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a woman who suffered an aneurysm in 1987 which resulted in paralysis. Subsequently, she regained full use of her body except for her left hand. She possesses gross motor skills in her left hand but lacks fine motor skills. Respondent is a retail furniture store, which at times pertinent did about three million dollars in business annually. Respondent at times pertinent employed 23 to 26 full-time employees. Respondent went out of business on September 24, 2001. Petitioner interviewed with Doris Hudson and Cindy Gentry about three weeks prior to June 8, 2000. Petitioner was informed that she was hired and could begin work on June 8, 2000. The position she was hired for was accounts payable clerk. During the interview, the matter of the facility of Petitioner's left hand was not noted or discussed. Petitioner believed that the job consisted of mostly working on a keypad with numbers, in the accounts payable section of the bookkeeping office. Petitioner reported for work on June 8, 2000. Doris Hudson, Respondent's Comptroller, an employee of Respondent for over 41 years, provided her with a tour of the premises. Petitioner's first assignment was to type checks. She did this slowly because she could type only with her right hand. Typing checks is an important function of the accounts payable clerk. Most vendors were paid by checks which were prepared by data processing equipment but it was necessary to prepare many checks for local vendors on a typewriter. During the hour and a-half Petitioner worked at the typewriter, she correctly prepared three checks. Ms. Hudson expected an accounts payable clerk to prepare 25 to 35 checks in an hour and a-half. An accounts payable clerk, according to Ms. Hudson, should be able to type 55 words per minute; Petitioner could type only 30 words per minute on a good day. An accounts payable clerk's daily activities included kneeling on the floor and opening a large safe; swinging open a heavy door which has to be unlocked with two keys simultaneously; counting 30 to 50 checks per day and counting currency and coins; and printing out reports which were inserted in a large binder. A substantial part of the duties of the accounts payable clerk required excellent typing and data input skills. The accounts payable clerk was required to reload the printers and this required the coordination of two hands. The accounts payable clerk was required to prepare deposits which required that the employee flip each individual check with one hand and operate a calculator with the other. Ms. Hudson did not discover the deficiencies with regard to Petitioner's left hand until she made inquiry after noting the small number of checks which Petitioner prepared. Ms. Hudson could not use an employee who could not do the activities described in paragraph eight and nine, above. Ms. Hudson could not call others in the office away from their jobs to help a person who had limited use of one hand. She did not have enough employees. When Ms. Hudson's office was fully staffed there were many times when it was difficult to accomplish all necessary duties in an eight-hour day. It was Ms. Hudson's opinion that Petitioner could not perform the duties of accounts payable clerk and that it was impossible to accommodate her deficiencies without disrupting the orderly functioning of her office. After considering Petitioner's capabilities and the requirements of the accounts payable clerk, Ms. Hudson decided that Petitioner was not suitable for employment as an accounts payable clerk and as a result, discharged her. Petitioner was paid $22.61 for 2.66 hours of work. This reflected an hourly wage of $8.50. Petitioner worked as an administrative assistant at Century Boats in Panama City prior to obtaining the job with Respondent. She lost that job in February of 2000, due to a reduction in workforce. After Petitioner left Respondent's place of business she went to work at a clinic run by Bay Medical. She began working there on August 28, 2000, as an insurance coder and biller and was paid $8.00 per hour. She lost that job on February 28, 2001, when the facility closed. She was offered a job in the radiology section but it paid less so she elected to remain essentially unemployed for a year. She did work a one- week job with Cardiology Associates and worked for C-1 Medical Clinic for a month and a-half during that period. Petitioner, at the time of the hearing, was employed by Nextel Communications as a customer care representative and was paid $9.50 per hour. She started February 18, 2002. Petitioner has a hard time buttoning clothes but she can drive an automobile. She testified she could do, ". . . everything pretty much what everybody does." She can't throw a ball up with her left hand or play tennis anymore. She can lift heavy objects up to at least 75 pounds. She has no medical restrictions placed on the use of her left hand.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Chesser 6802 Penny Road Panama City, Florida 32404 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4019 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Petitioner is a thirty-one (31) year old male who has been a diabetic for approximately twenty-five (25) years and during this time has always taken his insulin as prescribed. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a Correctional Officer 1 (Recreational) and assigned to work at the Florida Correctional Institution at Lowell, Florida (FCI). Petitioner began his employment with Respondent effective April 22, 1985. FCI is a facility for housing female felony offenders who require minimum to close security. The grounds of FCI consist of approximately eight hundred (800) acres, of which one hundred (100) acres is within the compound. FCI houses approximately six hundred seventy-five (675) inmates. FCI has a staff of two hundred twenty (220) employees, however, on weekends and on the 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift, as few as eighteen (18) staff members may be on duty. Petitioner was responsible for maintaining the care, custody and control of the inmates involved in recreational activities and his duties would require his response to emergency situations to prevent escape or suppress inmate disorders. Petitioner advised Respondent prior to being hired that he was diabetic but that his diabetes was kept well under control and presented no problem and that he had sight in only one (1) eye. From February 27, 1984, until Petitioner moved to Florida in April, 1985, Petitioner was being treated for his diabetes in West Virginia by Dr. John P. Griffiths. During this period, Petitioner consulted Dr. Griffiths regarding "blackouts". Although Dr. Griffiths mentioned Petitioner's "kidney problem", he did not diagnose the "kidney problem" as being the potential cause of the Petitioner's "blackouts" and did not suggest a way for Petitioner to avoid having these "blackouts" in the future. Petitioner suffered several "blackouts" while living in West Virginia before accepting employment with Respondent, the last one being approximately a year before moving to Florida. These "blackouts" resulted in Petitioner being taken to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Petitioner did not make Respondent aware of these "blackouts" at the time he applied and was accepted for employment by the Respondent. At the beginning of his employment, Petitioner was required to have a complete physical examination which was administered by Dr. A. Rodriquez, Chief Medical Officer, FCI, and his staff. Among the tests administered was a urinalysis which revealed an abnormal level of protein in the urine. Being concerned over the level of protein in Petitioner's urine, Dr. Rodriquez requested Lester Dinkins, Personnel Manager, FCI, to advise Petitioner to see a private physician in this regard. About a week later, Petitioner consulted Dr. Rodriquez who explained the test results and advised Petitioner to see a nephrologist (kidney specialist). On May 2, 1985, Petitioner was examined by Dr. James J. Mahoney, private physician in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Mahoney did not discuss a possible "kidney problem" or tell Petitioner why there was excess protein in his urine. Dr. Mahoney recommended that Petitioner continue on his blood pressure medication, have his blood pressure checked once a day so that medication adjustments could be made as needed, to see an opthamologist, and to keep check on his diabetes. FCI does not provide non-emergency health care for staff, therefore, Petitioner was unable to get his blood pressure checked by the FCI medical staff and did not get it checked by any outside private facility. Petitioner scheduled a second appointment with Dr. Mahoney which was rescheduled by Dr. Mahoney for a later date. Petitioner was dismissed by Respondent before the second appointment and, therefore, he did not keep the second appointment. On May 3, 1985, the day after Petitioner was examined by Dr. Mahoney, he suffered his first "blackout" while on the job. Petitioner was taken to the emergency room at Monroe Regional Medical Center where the medical personnel raised his glucose level and restored him to consciousness. After Petitioner regained consciousness he refused any further medical treatment. When Petitioner returned to FCI after his first "blackout", he was told to take Saturday and Sunday off and report to work on Monday. On Monday, Petitioner assured George Denman, Superintendent of FCI, that he could and would prevent another "blackout". Although Mr. Denman was concerned about Petitioner's ability to discharge his duties properly, he nevertheless allowed Petitioner to return to work on Petitioner's assurance that he could control the "blackouts". On May 9, 1985, Dr. Mahoney advised Respondent by letter that Petitioner's present condition should not interfere with his employment if Petitioner followed Dr. Mahoney's recommendations set out in Finding of Fact 10. There is sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner did not follow Dr. Mahoney's advice. Petitioner "blacked out" again on May 18, 1985, while he was preparing for a softball game between inmates of FCI and another institution. Petitioner was transported to the FCI infirmary and from there to Harold's Clinic and from there to another hospital. This "blackout" occurred on a Saturday when a staff of approximately eighteen (18) employees were on duty at FCI. Petitioner had keys to various parts of the institution in his possession at this time. Once Petitioner was stabilized after the "blackout", he was instructed to take Sunday off and report in on Monday. On Monday, he reported first to Lester Dinkins and then to Mr. Denman who informed him that he would be dismissed on Friday, May 24, 1986 because of Petitioner's inability to perform his duty to maintain proper care, custody and control of the inmates which placed the security of the institution in jeopardy. The prison superintendent is authorized to allow employees up to three (3) weeks leave without pay under extenuating circumstances, however, for a "brand new" employee, such as Petitioner, it would be exceptional. Leave without pay was not offered to Petitioner at any time before his dismissal to seek help with the problem of "blackouts" because Petitioner assured Mr. Denman that he had his problem under control. Additionally, Petitioner did not request any time off to seek help with his problem of "blackouts". Although Petitioner thought his "blackouts" were related to a serious automobile accident that he was involved in during 1972, there was no medical evidence introduced at the hearing to support Petitioner's theory. At the time Petitioner was dismissed, both parties were aware of Petitioner's kidney problem, but neither knew the exact cause or if the kidney problem was related to the "blackouts" or to the diabetes. Although Petitioner would have accepted other alternatives to dismissal, Respondent had no job openings for which Petitioner qualified for at the time. Lester Dinkins did inquire with other agencies and found a job as a Recreational Therapist with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the Gulf Coast Center in Ft. Myers, Florida. Petitioner rejected that job on the basis of being unable to cope with the emotional stress of working with mentally and physically handicapped individuals, and that by moving he would lose Dr. Donald Mars as his primary care physician. In June, 1985, Dr. Mars, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Shands Teaching Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, diagnosed the cause of Petitioner's "blackouts" as the result of Petitioner's continued use of insulin adversely affecting his kidneys so that protein was being excreted with Petitioner's urine instead of being used by his body which caused episodes of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and, since corrective measures were not taken by Petitioner, "blackouts" resulted. A diabetic can take a measurement of the glucose (sugar) level in his body by using the "finger stick" test. This test can be performed in approximately two (2) minutes, and if there is an indication of a low level of glucose, the diabetic can correct the condition by eating some form of carbohydrate, such as bread or pastry, for quick energy. A diabetic can avoid "blackout's" by performing the required number of "finger stick" tests each day and properly responding to the results. In Petitioner's case, it would require two (2) to four (4) tests each day which could be performed on the job. There are other diabetics on the staff at FCI. Petitioner's job performance, other than during the time of the "blackouts", was satisfactory. Petitioner's "blackouts" put the security of FCI in jeopardy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition For Relief filed by the Petitioner, Stephen Retton. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0975 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 in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Findings of Fact 1 and 2 covered in background material. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6.-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 8.-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 16.-18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 19.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 22. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 23.-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 25. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 26.-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 29.-32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 35.-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 37. 38. Rejected as not comporting evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact to the substantial 15. competent 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as modified. 41.-47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 48.-52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 53. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 54.-56. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 23. 8.-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 15. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas R. Williams, Esquire 359 N.E. First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie L. Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 3230 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, Coastal Properties (“Respondent” or “Coastal Properties”), discriminated against Petitioner, Harry (Hal) Hingson (“Petitioner”), based upon his age and race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male who was 60 years old in May of 2014, when Respondent allegedly discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his age. Respondent is a management company for third-party owners of apartment communities, home owners associations, and condominium associations. Respondent employed Petitioner as a maintenance worker at the Twin Oaks apartment complex, a 242-unit apartment complex in Tallahassee, Florida. On May 6, 2014, after work, Petitioner and his supervisor, Clint Creel, were involved in a physical altercation off the job site, while fishing together on a boat. After the boat returned to the dock, Petitioner went inside his home. Rather than securing himself in his residence and calling law enforcement, Petitioner retrieved a gun from his residence, exited his residence, and fired the gun multiple times at Mr. Creel. Mr. Creel was struck in the back of the leg by a bullet and received medical treatment for his gunshot wound. Although he was shot, Mr. Creel returned to work the next day. Petitioner did not return to work the day after the incident as he was seeking medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the physical altercation. Two days after the shooting, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by the Respondent's Vice-President, Ray Allen, in consultation with the President, Dennis Fuller, after Mr. Allen spoke to both Mr. Creel, and Petitioner, about the shooting. Respondent presented the undisputed testimony of Mr. Allen and Mr. Ray that Petitioner's employment was terminated to protect the safety of the other employees and the residents at the Twin Oaks property. Mr. Creel expressed concern about his safety to Mr. Allen if he had to continue working with Petitioner. Mr. Allen and Mr. Fuller also were concerned about the safety of Mr. Creel, as well as the other employees and residents, if Petitioner and Mr. Creel continued to work together. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint alleges that Petitioner was discriminated against based on race and age. In particular, Petitioner alleges that he was discriminated against because he was terminated after the off-the-job altercation, but his younger supervisor was not. The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim of discrimination. Other than testifying that he at one time, prior to the incident, was told that he was moving slow and at another time was told he was acting feeble, Petitioner did not present any direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to reasonably suggest that Respondent discriminated against him in employment because of his age. Even if Petitioner had presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Respondent provided a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner's employment. Petitioner admitted that Mr. Allen advised him that he was being terminated because he no longer wanted Petitioner and Mr. Creel to work together. Petitioner admitted Mr. Allen told him that he would have continued to employ Petitioner by moving him to another property, but there were no other openings. Respondent’s evidence demonstrated that the day after Petitioner was terminated, of its 59 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 11 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. The evidence also showed that 54 days after Petitioner was terminated, of Respondent’s 64 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 10 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent's reason for terminating his employment was a pretext for age discrimination. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint further alleges he was discriminated against based on his race because another employee, a younger African-American, was arrested for DUI but was not terminated. Petitioner presented no evidence at the final hearing to substantiate that allegation, and Petitioner failed to present any evidence whatsoever to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by treating him differently, or terminating his employment because of his race or age.
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 Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact After the motion for continuance was again denied, petitioners declined to offer any evidence and petitioners announced that they would be pursuing certain supposed federal remedies.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harold Mayo, was employed by Respondent in March, 1987, through December 1, 1987. He has difficulty in controlling his emotions. He experiences rapid changes in mood. He has been diagnosed as suffering from a variety of mental disorders all of which have depression and rapid mood changes as part of their symptomatology. He often feels threatened by stressful situations, and sometimes responds to such situations by losing control of himself and crying as well as sometimes withdrawing from human contact. The Respondent, Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc., ("Center") is a private, non-profit organization which receives federal funds in order to provide advocacy for persons with disabilities. The Center has existed in its present, private status since October 1, 1988. Prior to October 1, 1988, the Center was a public agency within the Governor's office known as the Governor's Commission on Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities ("Commission"). The Commission was established in 1977, by executive order of the Governor. Since its creation, the Executive Director of the Commission (now the Center) has been Mr. Jon Rossman. Mr. Rossman is an attorney. Prior to becoming Executive Director of the Commission, Mr. Rossman worked as a staff attorney for the Association of Retarded Persons. The Center provides legal assistance to handicapped individuals, to ensure that they receive appropriate treatment and services by agencies designed to serve them. Specifically, the Center provides representation and advocacy under three programs: one program is designed to represent individuals with certain developmental disabilities defined by Congress. A second program is designed to represent individuals who are recipients of, or applicants for, vocational rehabilitation services from the state. A third program, the Mental Illness Protection and Advocacy ("MIP&A") program, is constituted to provide representation for mentally ill persons. The Center employs between 20 and 30 individuals. Each of the three programs administered by the Center is headed by a program director. The Center employs approximately six or seven attorneys, and several non-lawyer client "advocates." These jobs are supported by secretarial and clerical staff. Mr. Mayo had previously identified himself to Mr. Rossman as a former mental patient at a mental hospital, and therefore, as a "consumer" of mental health services. Mr. Mayo had indicated that he was interested in employment with the Center and in March 1987, Mr. Rossman offered employment in an OPS position to Mr. Mayo at the Commission. Prior to his employment Mr. Mayo had sought the Commission's assistance in dealing with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of HRS. At the time Mr. Rossman offered employment to Mr. Mayo, Mr. Rossman was aware that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation had determined that Mr. Mayo was "not employable." Nevertheless, aware of this determination and of Mr. Mayo's status as a mental health consumer, Mr. Rossman offered Mr. Mayo employment and created an OPS position for him at the Commission. Mr. Mayo began his OPS employment with the Center on March 30, 1987. Mr. Rossman employed Mr. Mayo to assist the Center on two specific projects: a. to review applications which had been received by the Center for membership on an advisory committee; and b. to assist in organizing a conference to be sponsored by the Florida Mental Health Advocates Network. He was not hired to be a client-advocate and his OPS position did not include those duties. Mr. Mayo was assigned a space in a library/conference room in which to work. Mr. Mayo was only required to work as long as he felt able and comfortable in so doing; and was allowed to leave the office any time he felt threatened, to go home if he wanted, to talk to other employees and Mr. Rossman, to go outside and walk around in the parking lot, and to take breaks as he felt necessary when he experienced stress. He would sometimes lie on the floor and cry prior to getting back to work. There were times when Mr. Mayo took days off after experiencing a particularly emotional workday. Mr. Rossman spent entire days and afternoons talking things out with Mr. Mayo, walking around the office complex, and discussing his employment with him. These sessions occurred both in Mr. Rossman's office and in Mr. Mayo's. In short Mr. Rossman and other Center employees made a genuine, wholehearted effort to work with Mr. Mayo and went out of their way to accommodate him. There was absolutely no intent to unlawfully discriminate against Respondent due to his mental illness. In fact, the opposite was shown by the evidence. Mr. Rossman had a genuine desire that Respondent succeed as an employee. On two separate occasions, Mr. Rossman called Mr. Mayo's wife, concerned due to Mr. Mayo's depression and behavior, and expressed his concern and worry about Mr. Mayo's welfare to Mr. Mayo's wife. The contact on Mr. Rossman's part was a simple gesture of human concern for not only an employee but for a person who Mr. Rossman was very interested in his well-being. Instead Mr. Mayo took great umbrage at Mr. Rossman contacting his wife. He assumed that such contact was an affront to him and was treating him as if he could not take care of himself. On more than one occasion, Mr. Mayo tendered his resignation to Mr. Rossman. Mr. Rossman refused to accept the resignations. On several occasions, Mr. Rossman asked Mr. Mayo if Mr. Mayo would mind Mr. Rossman's speaking to Mr. Mayo's psychiatrist, in an effort to get his psychiatrist's opinions and suggestions on what Mr. Rossman could do to make Mr. Mayo's employment experience successful. On these occasions, Mr. Mayo responded that he was insulted by the request, and did not wish Mr. Rossman to contact his psychiatrist. Again, Mr. Mayo's over- sensitivity to attempts to gain insight into his handicap interfered with his ability to perceive the true intent of his employer in making such a request. Mr. Rossman did not contact Respondent' s psychiatrist. 1/ During his employment, Mr. Mayo frequently overstepped his bounds and overstated his position. This included contacting and writing letters to various persons and agencies, writing letters to the editor of publications, contacting "Nightline," and commenting on news articles, either on Commission letterhead or while identifying himself as an employee of the Commission. Mr. Mayo spent Commission time engaged in advocacy of his personal views which was not within the duties of the OPS position for which he had been hired. In April 1987, Mr. Mayo advised Mr. Rossman of his desire to be the Director of the MIP&A program, and further advised Mr. Rossman of his view that it was very important that the Director's position "should be occupied by a consumer, client or survivor." Mr. Rossman began to consider another individual, Kathleen Regan, for the position of Director of the MIP&A program.2/ Mr. Rossman sought Mr. Mayo's views on the matter. Mr. Mayo expressed his opinion that he thought Ms. Regan was incompetent for the position since she was a mental health professional and a middle management employee at HRS, rather than a consumer. Mr. Mayo told Mr. Rossman of a series of concerns he had should there be "such an incompetent source" running the program. He predicted, "it would all be downhill from now on." Ms. Regan was hired as the MIP&A Program Director effective August 1, 1987. As MIP&A Program Director, Ms. Regan would be Mr. Mayo's direct supervisor. At the time, Ms. Regan began, Mr. Rossman communicated to Ms. Regan that he strongly desired to see Mr. Mayo succeed in his employment at the Commission. He asked for her assurance that she would cooperate in that effort. She gave such an assurance. As the first director of the MIP&A program, Ms. Regan was responsible for developing program priorities, and developing a structure for the MIP&A program. Ms. Regan found that she had a number of people who had input into the development of such priorities and structure, including the Commission's Board of Directors, the Executive Director, the 24 members of the advisory committee, and Mr. Mayo. Ms. Regan attempted to integrate all that input into decisions on the direction and structure of the program. Ms. Regan found it difficult to integrate Mr. Mayo's own strong personal convictions about priorities and structure, but attempted to do so. Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan had an extremely difficult time in their working relationship. As an example of the problems between Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan, after it was agreed that they would meet for one-half hour, twice each week, to discuss Mr. Mayo's work, Mr. Mayo submitted a nine-item agenda for the first meeting. Ms. Regan, feeling that one-half hour was insufficient time to discuss so many items, asked Mr. Mayo if he would select two of the items for discussion. Mr. Mayo refused. The following day, Mr. Mayo again attempted to address the entire agenda, refused to select two items for discussion, and told Ms. Regan that he would not "play by her rules." These and subsequent meetings deteriorated,3/ and communications between Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan broke down. Mr. Mayo told Ms. Regan that he did not consider her to be an advocate, but a "badvocate." Mr. Mayo would undertake work activities not assigned to him without first discussing them with Ms. Regan. On a number of occasions, Mr. Mayo would engage in some such activity, embarrassing Ms. Regan when she would get a call or communication from persons outside the Commission inquiring about Mr. Mayo's conduct, and she would be entirely unaware of his activities. Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan experienced difficulties when Mr. Mayo sent out personal correspondence advocating personal views on Advocacy Center letterhead. This included correspondence sent by Mr. Mayo to Mr. Allen Tedder, Executive Director of the Mental Health Association of Florida. At least one such letter was sent on Commission letterhead even though Ms. Regan had specifically instructed Mr. Mayo to have the letter redrafted on non-Commission letterhead. Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan had difficulties when Mr. Mayo refused to acknowledge that Ms. Regan had any right to approve or disapprove his travel requests. Part of Ms. Regan's supervisory duties was to review such travel requests. On another occasion, Mr. Mayo refused to submit his time sheets to Ms. Regan for approval. Again, part of Ms. Regan's supervisory duties was to review and approve employee time sheets. Likewise, when Ms. Regan told Mr. Mayo that he needed to route certain documents through her for signature, Mr. Mayo made an obscene gesture to Ms. Regan three times in the course of the morning. Ms. Regan told Mr. Mayo that his conduct constituted insubordination. His response was, "Fuck you." A frequent issue between Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan was the issue of "partnership." Mr. Mayo asserted that he wanted to be viewed as an equal. Whenever Ms. Regan made a decision he didn't agree with, Mr. Mayo complained that she was violating her commitment to work with him, and was excluding him from the decision-making process. Ms. Regan received complaints from members of the advisory committee about Mr. Mayo. She also received verbal complaints from Martha Larson, Administrator of the hospital program at HRS. Ms. Regan heard from at least one outsider that Mr. Mayo was advocating against her as the program director. Ms. Regan reported these problems to Mr. Rossman. They met frequently in an effort to determine how best to resolve these difficulties. During his employment, people with whom Mr. Mayo had contact, outside the Center, complained directly to Mr. Rossman about Mr. Mayo's behavior and conduct. Many of these complaints were discounted by Mr. Rossman, who frequently defended Mr. Mayo against accusations being made about him. Inside the office, Mr. Rossman also received complaints about Mr. Mayo. There were complaints from other employees about difficulties working with Mr. Mayo, about shouting matches, about Mr. Mayo going through mail, about telephone calls he was making, and about representations made by Mr. Mayo outside of the office, regarding office policy. Mr. Mayo went directly to Mr. Rossman with his own complaints about Ms. Regan. At first, Mr. Rossman told Mr. Mayo that he did not want to get involved, and that Mr. Mayo and Ms. Regan should attempt to work the problems out themselves. However, the problems between Ms. Regan and Mr. Mayo worsened. Mr. Mayo repeatedly asked Mr. Rossman to take him out from under Ms. Regan's supervision. On September 9, Mr. Mayo submitted a written resignation in which he stated that he didn't feel his presence would serve any purpose "without direct involvement in policy matters." Mr. Rossman refused to accept Mr. Mayo's resignation. Instead, however, he agreed to Mr. Mayo's request that he (Mayo) not work under Ms. Regan's supervision. Once again, Mr. Mayo reported directly to Mr. Rossman. By September 9, the Governor had ordered that the Commission would become a private not-for-profit corporation effective October 1. Mr. Rossman was extremely busy making preparations for this transition and did not have the time to give Mr. Mayo as much individual attention as he had previously. The Commission's offices at that point were on two floors, Ms. Regan's office was on the first floor, and Mr. Rossman's office was on the second floor. This period was one of transition, and eventually, all the Center's offices were consolidated on the second floor. During the transition period, the office was very crowded. Mr. Rossman shared a corner of his office with his administrative assistant. Two lawyers shared the conference table at which Mr. Mayo had previously worked. Mr. Mayo was moved to a work location in an alcove outside Mr. Rossman's office on the second floor. When Mr. Mayo expressed concern about his ability to make the move, everyone in the office encouraged him, telling him that he was capable of making the move. Mr. Mayo made an attempt to change office locations. The new location did not work very well because Mr. Mayo felt exposed to other human beings. After September 9, Mr. Mayo continued to report to work each day, and was paid for a full eight hours. During this time Mr. Mayo invented work to do since Mr. Rossman did not have enough work to keep him busy. Following Mr. Mayo's being removed from Ms. Regan's supervision, Mr. Mayo continued to respond to matters that would be properly directed to Ms. Regan. He made calls about the MIP&A program around the state, criticizing the program and Ms. Regan, and again asserting his beliefs that the Center made a bad decision in employing her. As one example, Mr. Mayo, without authorization, contacted people to attend a consumer conference and invited a number of people to come on scholarship. Scholarship means that the Advocacy Center would pay that individual's expenses. No one at the Center (other than Mr. Mayo) had authorized the reimbursement for their expenses. A number of such people arrived without the registrar having any advance notice that they would attend. On another occasion, Mr. Mayo wanted certain individuals to be invited to attend a meeting between some of the staff and some of the members of the Board. Mr. Rossman advised Mr. Mayo that those individuals did not need to be involved. Nevertheless, Mr. Mayo insisted that the meeting was covered by the Sunshine Act, and that 11 members of the public were entitled to attend the meeting. On that basis, without asking permission, Mr. Mayo telephoned members of the advisory committee and invited them to this meeting. Since Mr. Mayo had been unable to work directly for the MIP&A program director, Mr. Rossman asked Mr. Mayo to prepare a job description for his position.4/ Mr. Rossman asked Mr. Mayo to advise him on how Mr. Mayo felt that he could be of use to the Advocacy Center. Mr. Mayo responded by typing out Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, asserting that he should be able "to advocate as a Consumer Consultant in whatever direction I choose (emphasis added)," and "as a Consumer Consultant to be kept up to date on all the workings of the MIP&A and to be involved as a consultant in that work." Following September 9, Mr. Rossman assigned Mr. Mayo the task of rewriting a report or contract which had been prepared by Ms. Regan. Mr. Mayo refused the assignment because of his view that it was "grossly unethical" to rework another person's work product. Although he refused to work on it, Mr. Mayo objected that Mr. Rossman "had refused to allow consumers any part in writing the contract and I could not speak for all consumers . . ." Shortly before October 8, 1987, Mr. Rossman was contacted by Allen Tedder, Executive Director of the Florida Mental Health Association, with a complaint about Mr. Mayo. Mr. Rossman replied to Mr. Tedder by letter dated October 8, 1987 stating that, as a mental health consumer, Mr. Mayo "apparently has less control over his personal feelings than might otherwise be expected," and further, that Mr. Mayo had undoubtedly "let his strong beliefs get ahead of him at times, overstating his position." Mr. Mayo was offended by Mr. Rossman's October 8th letter because of his view that while he had the right to identify himself to others as a person with difficulty controlling his emotions, Mr. Rossman, as a professional, had no such right. Mr. Mayo felt so "demeaned" by the letter that he cried uncontrollably, left the office, and spent the rest of the afternoon crying on the floor at his doctor's office. On October 21, Mr. Mayo left a copy of a memorandum from him to Dr. Schuchts, his psychiatrist, on the desks of both Mr. Rossman and Ms. Regan. In this memorandum, Mr. Mayo complained that he, as a consumer of mental health services, was being excluded from decision-making at the Center, and criticized advocates "who maintain [they] can speak for us." Outlining his opinions in his October 21 memorandum to Dr. Schuchts, Mr. Mayo listed as one of them: "To continue to disobey Jon and act upon my conscience. To attend meetings for which he refuses to "empower consumers and to openly submit reports from those meetings to him." Shortly before October 28, Mr. Gene Padgett, a close friend of Mr. Mayo's and a personal advisor to him, met Mr. Rossman for lunch. At lunch, they discussed Mr. Mayo's status, and Mr. Padgett encouraged Mr. Rossman to give Mr. Mayo a very definite set of guidelines within which to operate. On October 29, Mr. Rossman issued to Mr. Mayo a memorandum dated the previous day. The memorandum of October 28 began with a statement of the problems which had occurred and which Mr. Rossman felt required the setting forth of specific guidelines and limitations for Mr. Mayo's subsequent work activities. The memorandum then set forth specific assignments and guidelines for continued employment. The conditions were reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Mr. Rossman advised Mr. Mayo that he was expected to agree to the conditions if he was going to continue working for the Advocacy Center. Mr. Rossman's purpose in giving Mr. Mayo the memorandum of October 28 was an attempt to salvage Mr. Mayo's employment. By that time, Mr. Rossman had become convinced that excess independence and insufficient direction might be contributing to the problems with Mr. Mayo's employment. He believed that setting forth strict assignments and guidelines, as suggested by Mr. Padgett, might result in a productive work experience for Mr. Mayo. On October 29, Mr. Mayo was given the memorandum and told he must agree to its terms. Mr. Rossman had arranged for two other employees to witness the events of the meeting. Mr. Mayo asked if he could have a copy of the memorandum and if he could have until November 3 to take the document to his attorney. Mr. Rossman agreed to the request. Mr. Mayo left the office and did not return to work. Nothing in the meeting demonstrates any discriminatory purpose or intent on the part of the Center or Mr. Rossman. Mr. Mayo's claim that the presence of the two other employees was intimidating and therefore discriminatory is simply not born out by later events and Mr. Mayo's own actions. On November 10, Mr. Rossman received a letter from Mr. Richard Powers, a Tallahassee attorney, on behalf of Mr. Mayo. Mr. Power's letter indicated no willingness on Mr. Mayo's part to accept the conditions set out in the October 28 memorandum. The letter suggested a meeting to discuss the subject. On November 18, Mr. Rossman, Mr. Mayo, Mr. Parker Thompson (Board Member), and Mr. Powers met at Mr. Power's office. Mr. Mayo and his attorney insisted that Mr. Mayo be allowed to return to work without conditions. Mr. Mayo's return without conditions addressing the problems in the performance of his job was not acceptable to the center. On November 25, 1987, Mr. Rossman wrote to Mr. Powers, confirming Mr. Rossman's understanding that Mr. Mayo was insisting on a "return to work without any conditions," and reiterating Mr. Rossman's own position that Mr. Mayo could return to work "under conditions designed to address problems in his performance." Mr. Rossman agreed in the letter to hold Mr. Mayo's position open until December 1, 1987. Mr. Rossman did not hear further from Mr. Mayo or his attorney prior to, or following December 1, 1987. The only conclusion that can be drawn from Mr. Mayo's action or inaction is that he quit his employment with the Center when he determined that he was not going to be allowed to do as he pleased in his employment. In January 1988, following Mr. Mayo's departure, the Advocacy Center hired an individual, to fill the position of client advocate for the MIP&A program. The individual hired has a history of mental illness -- specifically, bipolar depression. Other than Mr. Mayo, the Commission/Center has employed a number of individuals with a variety of handicaps. The former Program Director for the Developmentally Disabled Program was a person with cerebral palsy who chose not to continue in employment with the Commission when it converted to private status. The Center's CAP Program Director is a wheelchair user, due to childhood polio. She has her desk up on blocks, high enough to accommodate her wheelchair. One of the Center's attorneys has epilepsy. A CAP client advocate for the Center is blind. Another Center employee has a hearing impairment. During his employment, Mr. Mayo was not able to accept supervision and was unable to work in the structured environment at the Center. There was no substantial evidence presented which establishes a nexus between Mr. Mayo's shortcomings and his mental illness. Without such evidence it is difficult to say what role Mr. Mayo's handicap played in his demise. A handicap does not entitle the individual to accommodation in areas unrelated to that handicap. Therefore, the evidence did not demonstrate any discrimination by the Center due to that handicap.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Did Respondent discriminate against Petitioner because of his handicap and in retaliation for filing an earlier discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, as alleged in Petitioner's Petition For Relief, in violation of Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: Petitioner checked the boxes for both Handicap and Retaliation in the section titled "Cause of Discrimination Based On" of the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on May 14, 1994. In the section titled "Date Most Recent or Continuing Discrimination Took Place" of the Charge of Discrimination Petitioner indicated December 22, 1992. In the section titled "The Particulars Are" of the Charge of Discrimination Petitioner indicated: PERSONAL HARM: On a continuing basis I have not been referred for work by my union, with the last occurrence on December 22, 1992. RESPONDENT'S REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION: Mr. Mike Brewer, Union Business Agent, said that I was not wanted in the department in which I had previously worked. DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT: I believe I have been discriminated against because of retaliation for filing (FCHR No. 90-8052) for the following reasons: The last time I contacted Mr. Brewer he hung up on me. continuing Mr. Brewer has referred other union members for work on a basis. A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE was issued by the Commission on March 11, 1996. In Section 3 of the Petition For Relief filed with the Commission on April 15, 1996, Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1993, as Amended, as follows: Conspiring with company to isolate the HANDICAPPED Petitioner in a classification essentially made obsolete with an ex post facto "Crafts Maintenance Contract" subsequent to the July 26, 1990 signing of the A.D.A. (singling him out for "layoff") F.S. 760.10(4b). Filing a grievance to deter the Petitioner from filing any HANDICAP Discrimination complaints, and refusing to process it. Referring others for employment on a continuing basis, (F.S. 760.104(b). Refusing representation. (Foreman/union steward?) At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner Dennis M. Presson was a member of the bargaining unit of the Craft Maintenance Council, Carpenters Local Union No. 1820. Respondent Craft Maintenance Council, Carpenters Local Union No. 1820 Statutes. Commission and the courts. as a Property Craftworker Assistant, and assigned Petitioner to the Furnishings 10. During August, 1990, the work in Furnishings declined and, in lieu of craftworker assistants, including Petitioner, were temporarily assigned on through the first week of October 1990. October 11, 1990, was laid off due to lack of work in Furnishings. Petitioner 12. On November 2, 1990, the remaining six property craftworker assistants higher in seniority than Petitioner. transferred back to Furnishings so that he could be laid off is without merit. department until their function could no longer be justified in lieu of laying The lay-offs on October 11 and November 2, 1990, were caused by lack get back at Petitioner because of his handicap or in retaliation for filing an On October 11, 1990, when Petitioner was laid off, Disney offered as custodians. Although other property craftworker assistants accepted work as On October 12, 1990, Michael Brewer, Shop Steward filed an Employee of seniority - another worker with lower seniority had been retained. Respondent settled with Disney for $2,500 rather than proceed to final and Petitioner received payment. grievance or delayed or refused to process the grievance so as to deter During the grievance process Disney again offered Petitioner a job as From the time Petitioner was laid off on October 11, 1990, until December, 1992, Respondent referred Petitioner to six or seven jobs. These jobs covered every field where the work required unskilled or slightly skilled employees. Petitioner declined each and every offer, stating that he was an artist and wanted a job as an artist. Prior to Petitioner filing this complaint with the Commission, Respondent's last contact with Petitioner was around December 1992, when Petitioner informed Respondent that he had a job as an artist with Dollywood in Tennessee and was moving. On August 27, 1992, Petitioner filed a charge against Respondent with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Respondent "has restrained or coerced and is restraining and coercing Dennis M. Presson, a crafts worker assistant, in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by refusing to advise him of the status of his grievance on his layoff, for arbitrary, invidious and discriminatory reasons and therefore has breached its of fair representation". The National Labor Relations Board dismissed the charge for lack of merit. Respondent has referred Petitioner to jobs where Petitioner's skill matched the classification (unskilled or slightly skilled) of the job being offered. There was no evidence that Respondent had refused or failed to refer Petitioner to jobs that matched his skill because of Petitioner's handicap or in retaliation for filing an earlier discrimination complaint against Disney with the Commission. Petitioner presented no evidence of any job that matched his skill that was available through Respondent which Respondent failed or refused to refer Petitioner for any reason. Based on Petitioner's allegation, Respondent's last refusal to refer Petitioner to an available job occurred in December 1992. There was no evidence that Respondent: (a) conspired with Disney to isolate Petitioner in a classification made obsolete with an ex post facto "Crafts Maintenance Contract" subsequent to the July 26, 1990, signing of the A.D.A. (Americans with Disabilities Act); (b) conspired with Disney to single Petitioner our for lay off; or (c) refuse to represent Petitioner while a member of the union. Petitioner has neither been employed nor has he attempted to obtain any gainful employment since he was laid off by Disney on October 11, 1990. During this period Petitioner has worked on this case and looked after his mother. Petitioner survives on food stamps and other governmental subsidies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Petition for Relief filed by Dennis M. Presson against Craft Maintenance Council, Carpenters Local Union No. 1820 be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 2816 4th Street Orlando, Florida 32820 Thomas Egan, P.A. 56 East Pine Street
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Human Rights Act by maintaining racially segregated restroom facilities, as alleged by Petitioner; and, if so, the affirmative relief which should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the COMPANY operated a business establishment located at Pompano Beach, Florida. BOYKIN a black male, was employed by the COMPANY during a one-week period in 1978. During BOYKIN'S employment, the COMPANY maintained separate restroom facilities, segregated on the basis of race. (Testimony of Boykin.) The COMPANY'S two restroom facilities were racially segregated by the use of signs affixed to the outside door of each restroom--one sign labeled "Colored," and the other, "White." (Testimony of Boykin.) The COMPANY'S maintenance of racially segregated restrooms was offensive to BOYKIN, and the other black employees. (Testimony of Boykin.) As of September 26, 1980, the offending signs by which the COMPANY racially segregated its restrooms were no longer affixed to the restroom doors. (Viewing by hearing officer, accompanied by parties.) The COMPANY presented no evidence controverting BOYKIN'S allegation that it maintained racially segregated restrooms during the time in question. Neither did it assert a legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose for maintaining segregated restroom facilities. BOYKIN presented no evidence to establish that the COMPANY employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during 1977 or 1978.
Conclusions Conclusions: Respondent company maintained racially segregated restrooms for Petitioner and its other employees. The signs, by which the restrooms were labeled, "Colored" and "White" were no longer affixed to the restrooms at the time of final hearing. However, Petitioner failed to prove an essential elements of his claim-- that Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. Recommendation: That the Petitioner for Relief be DISMISSED. Background: On November 27, 1978, Petitioner Michael C. Boykin ("BOYKIN") filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations a complaint of unlawful discrimination against Respondent H. L. Westberry Paving and Trucking Company ("COMPANY"). The gravamen of BOYKIN'S complaint was that he was subjected to an unlawful condition of employment by virtue of the COMPANY'S maintenance of racially segregated restroom facilities. After investigation, the Commission on Human Relations issued its determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that the COMPANY had engaged in an unlawful employment practice, as alleged, in violation of the Human Rights Act, Sections 23.161, et seq., Florida Statutes. After an unsuccessful effort to effect voluntary conciliation of the dispute, the Commission issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation on June 11, 1980. Within the requisite 30-day period thereafter, BOYKIN filed a Petition for Relief from the alleged unlawful employment practice. Notwithstanding the COMPANY'S failure to file any pleading responding to BOYKIN'S Petition for Relief, or request a hearing thereon, the Commission forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 10, 1980, for the assignment of a hearing officer. By Notice of Hearing, final hearing was thereafter set for September 26, 1980. At final hearing, counsel for the COMPANY represented that on September 25, 1980, he received a telephone call from an unidentified employee of the Commission purporting to cancel the hearing scheduled for September 26, 1980. As a result, he asserted his witness was not present at final hearing; he then proffered that, if present, his witness could testify that signs indicating "Colored" and "White" were not now affixed to the doors of the separate restrooms located on the COMPANY'S premises. In order to avoid continuing the hearing, the parties agreed that the undersigned hearing officer should determine whether or not the described signs were present by conducting a viewing of the COMPANY'S premises. In light of this viewing, the COMPANY declined to request a continuance, and indicted that it wished to present no further evidence. The COMPANY also moved to dismiss the Petition for Relief, claiming that the Commission lacked jurisdiction based on: (1) federal preemption of the area by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (2) failure of the Commission to complete its proceeding within 120 days from the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's deferral of this matter to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was offered, and received in support of the motion, after which the motion was denied. The only witness who testified at final hearing was BOYKIN. No other exhibits were offered by either party. The Florida Commission on Human Relations was not represented at final hearing; BOYKIN represented himself, in proper person, and without assistance by the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 10th day of October 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael C. Boykin 801 Powerline road, #161 Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Thomas P. Quinn, Esquire 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard Suite 605, International Building Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33404
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC (Superior), wrongfully terminated Petitioner, James Walker, and refused to rehire him based on his disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner was hired as a laborer by Superior in March 2016. During his tenure with Superior, Petitioner also worked as a flagger and a roller machine operator (roller operator). Superior is a construction company specializing in roadway and highway improvement projects. Superior was Petitioner’s employer as defined by the FCRA. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked for Superior on a construction assignment known as “15901 Wekiva Project” (Wekiva Project). Oscar Matson, Superior’s superintendent at the relevant time, was Petitioner’s ultimate supervisor and made day-to-day decisions regarding equipment and staffing. Mr. Matson made all employment decisions with regard to Petitioner, including his hiring and job assignments. Jose Gomez, the project manager at the relevant time, oversaw the administrative side of Wekiva Project and supervised the engineering staff. Mr. Matson consulted with Mr. Gomez regarding the construction staff, and Mr. Gomez was familiar with all of the employees working on this project, including Petitioner. The parties stipulated Petitioner suffers from a disability. Relevant Policies Although Superior offered evidence of its Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP), there is no evidence it provides protections for applicants or employees with disabilities. The EOP states in relevant part: Statement of Policy To further the provisions of equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal opportunity through a positive continuing program[,] it is the policy of Superior Construction Company to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin. * * * N. Handicapped Relative to direct federal contracts, we shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of a physical or mental handicap in regard to any position of which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. There was no evidence whether the Wekiva Project was federally funded or part of a federal contract. Although there was no evidence of a written policy, there was testimony that Superior had a reasonable accommodation process that allows an employee who requires an accommodation to request one through his or her supervisor or through a Human Resources hotline. This process was followed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s Accommodations Petitioner began working for Superior as a laborer with the primary duties of shoveling dirt and cleaning roads. The laborer position was physically demanding and required standing, climbing, crawling, and lifting up to 40 pounds. The position also required constant walking and moving within the project site. Petitioner worked ten-hour shifts on weekdays and eight-hour shifts on weekend days. In April 2016, approximately a month after he was hired, Petitioner was hospitalized for a toe injury incurred at work. Although he was injured on the job and knew he was obligated to report the injury to his supervisors, Petitioner did not. He failed to report the incident to Mr. Matson or anyone else because he did not want “a workman’s comp” issue. On or around April 19, 2016, Petitioner brought medical documentation titled “Work/School Status” to Superior indicating that his work duties should be modified until May 10, 2016. The medical documentation indicated Petitioner should be limited to “light duty.” It also indicated Petitioner could perform the following activities: “Limit[ed] standing/walking” and “Light weight activity.” As a result, Mr. Matson initially placed him in a “flagger” position. This position involved directing traffic in one place, and was considered “light duty” because it did not involve heavy lifting or continuous walking. Although the timing is unclear, Mr. Matson later placed Petitioner in the position of roller operator, where he operated a large piece of equipment. As a roller operator, Petitioner was not required to stand, walk or lift. There was no evidence Petitioner complained to Mr. Matson regarding the assignment to either the flagger or roller operator position, nor did he request further accommodation. The undersigned finds Superior accommodated Petitioner’s request for “light duty.” Petitioner had no attendance, disciplinary, or other issues from April 2016 through the summer of 2016 in the flagger or roller operator position. On August 12, 2016, Petitioner was admitted into a medical facility and was out of work. Upon his return on or about August 18, 2016, Petitioner gave Mr. Matson medical documentation titled “Disability Certificate.” That document certified that Petitioner was “unable to return to work” and was “not able to work until further notice.” As a result of the August 18, 2016, meeting, Mr. Matson prepared Petitioner’s termination paperwork. What triggered the termination paperwork on August 18, 2016, is in dispute. Petitioner asserts when he returned to Superior, Mr. Matson told him he was concerned about his health and fired him. Superior counters that Petitioner informed Mr. Matson he had to quit because he was unable to work due to his medical condition, and Superior advised Petitioner to reapply when he was ready. For the reasons below, the undersigned finds Superior’s version of the facts is more consistent with the credible evidence and testimony. First, Superior’s version of events is corroborated by Petitioner’s own sworn statements made in his Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination, in which he states Superior “advised me to come back to work when I was ready.” Second, Mr. Matson’s testimony that Petitioner told him he was unable to work is consistent with the Disability Certificate provided by Petitioner and with Mr. Matson’s work notes made on August 18, 2016. Those notes indicate Petitioner “said he had to quit because he has austioprosis [sic]. We filled out a termination paper for him.” Although Petitioner challenges the reliability of these notes because he actually had “osteomyelitis,” it is plausible that Mr. Matson mislabeled or misspelled the illness given his unfamiliarity with it and the phonetic similarity between the two terms. Third, Petitioner’s assertion that he was fired is inconsistent with statements he made on subsequent applications when asked the “reason for leaving” Superior. In one application he answers “no work”; in another he lists “medical reasons.” Nowhere does he disclose or state that he was fired or terminated. Finally, based on Petitioner’s demeanor and the inaccuracies and inconsistencies between his testimony and the other evidence, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony less credible than that of Mr. Gomez and Mr. Matson. Petitioner was unable to recall specific dates or details about alleged conversations or his work/medical status. Petitioner admitted he lied to Superior about the injury causing him to go out on leave in April 2016. He blamed discrepancies between his hearing testimony and sworn statements in the documents submitted to the Commission on his attorney; he blamed inconsistencies in the statements made in his disability benefits paperwork on the insurance company; and he explained misleading statements in subsequent job applications as necessary white lies. The undersigned finds Superior’s explanation that it processed Petitioner’s termination after it was clear he could not work and there was no date certain as to when he could return, and its version of facts surrounding Petitioner’s separation more credible. Regardless, however, of whether he quit or was fired, Petitioner was not qualified to work on August 18, 2016. He offered no evidence, nor is there anything in the record, indicating that his inability to work had ever changed, or that the restrictions and limitations set forth in the Disability Certificate were ever lifted. As such, the undersigned finds Petitioner could not perform his job duties and could not work as of August 18, 2016. Petitioner’s Reapplication Petitioner claims he reapplied for a position with Superior numerous times after August 2016. Other than a July 2017 application, it is unclear how often or what other times he reapplied. Petitioner claims Superior did not rehire him because of his disability. As proof, he states Mr. Matson and Mr. Gomez made comments inquiring about his health. The undersigned finds these comments were innocuous and were expressions of concern for his well-being, rather than related to his specific disability. Petitioner’s attempt at reemployment with Superior is also suspect. There was no admissible evidence to prove that Superior was actually hiring in July 2017. In fact, there was evidence Petitioner only reapplied for work at Superior to better his legal position for future litigation; Petitioner admitted he reapplied for a position at Superior “because my attorney said to reapply to see how they would react.” Petitioner also made statements in disability insurance applications that he was unable to work at the time he reapplied for work at Superior. Specifically, as of July 17, 2017, the date of Petitioner’s Social Security Application for Disability Insurance, Petitioner indicated he could not work and had been unable to work since September 1, 2016. Irrespective of Petitioner’s motives, Superior asserts it did not consider his disability when Petitioner reapplied, but rather that it did not rehire Petitioner because it had no vacancies. Mr. Matson credibly testified that in July 2017, the Wekiva Project was coming to an end and he was struggling to keep the staff occupied until the next assignment. Mr. Matson explained, “we were long on help at that time.” Mr. Gomez also met with Petitioner in July 2017 regarding his reapplication. At the time Superior was working on another project, Project 16903. Mr. Gomez told Petitioner that he would be eligible for the next project, Project 17904, but that project was not starting until late 2017 or early 2018. This is consistent with Petitioner’s application dated July 5, 2017, which has a handwritten notation: “Consider Rehire for 16903 per Jose G. till 17904 Ready.” Mr. Gomez was not responsible for Project 17904, nor was there any evidence that the person hiring for Project 17904 was aware of Petitioner’s disability. Superior never rehired Petitioner. The undersigned finds Superior did not consider Petitioner’s disability, but rather, based its decision not to rehire Petitioner on the fact it did not have any vacancies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, James Walker, did not prove that Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC, committed an unlawful employment practice against him; and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 4th day of January, 2019.
