The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, sex, or as retaliation in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, a 56-year-old African- American female, as a Food Support Worker at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. Petitioner was promoted to the position of Food Service Worker on May 10, 2002, with probationary status until May 10, 2003. On February 12, 2003, Petitioner was terminated from her employment for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period in the career service. In the course of her employment with Florida State Hospital, Petitioner was aware of the strict safety guidelines implemented by Respondent to protect employees from injury. Petitioner also knew that violation of the safety rules could result in dismissal of an erring employee. Violations of these policies had resulted in dismissal of both non-minority and minority employees in the past. On February 9, 2003, due to an unsafe act and violation of Respondent’s safety rules, Petitioner proceeded to cut the tip of her left thumb in the process of slicing cabbage. Petitioner was not using a cutting glove, a mandatory requirement of the safety rules. As a result of this rule violation, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on February 12, 2003. At final hearing, Petitioner admitted the cutting injury to her finger, but contended that termination of employment had not been effected for other younger white employees for similar offenses in the past. These allegations of Petitioner were non-specific and uncorroborated; they are not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Annette Carroll 10202 Northwest Third Street Bristol, Florida 32321 Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Jacqueline H. Smith, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, having been issued certificate number 281123. Respondent was employed by the City of Madison Police Department from December 2008 through July 2009. At the beginning of 2009, Respondent was 23 years old. Sometime in late December 2008 or early in 2009, Respondent received the telephone number for E.B.H. from Paige Bell, a friend of E.B.H.'s. At the time Ms. Bell gave Respondent E.B.H.'s number, E.B.H. was 16 years old. Respondent knew that E.B.H. was under the age of 18. Although the exact time-frame of the communications is unclear, in approximately January or February of 2009, Respondent and E.B.H. texted and called each for a one to two-week period. They never met in person. During their short period of communication, the two sent each other pictures of themselves so that each knew what the other looked like. E.B.H. testified that the first pictures sent were normal photos where she was clothed. After receiving those, she testified that Respondent asked her for "sexy" photos of herself wearing no underclothing. In response, E.B.H. sent him two pictures of herself, either nude or partially nude. The communication between Respondent and E.B.H. was brief, lasting no more than a few weeks. Once E.B.H. learned that Respondent was a law enforcement officer, she stopped texting him because she did not want either of them to get in trouble. Sometime after the texting stopped, the police chief for City of Madison Police Department received an anonymous complaint alleging that Respondent had possession of nude pictures of a minor female. On July 7, 2009, Sergeant Benton Ebberson was assigned to conduct an internal investigation in response to the complaint. As part of his investigation, Sergeant Ebberson spoke to several individuals who did not testify at hearing. What those individuals told him during the investigation is clearly hearsay. However, from these interviews, Sergeant Ebberson was able to gather enough information to get descriptions of the photos and identify E.B.H. as the subject of the photos. As a consequence, Sergeant Ebberson located and, with the permission of her parents, interviewed E.B.H. She admitted sending the photos to Respondent, but no longer had possession of the phone from which the texts were sent or copies of the pictures. Her father had discovered her actions and the pictures earlier in the year, and had deleted the photos and confiscated her telephone. Respondent also was interviewed as a consequence of the internal investigation. Consistent with the information he gave during his interview, he denies asking for the photos and claims E.B.H. sent them to him on her own volition. Whether he asked for the pictures is not particularly relevant. There is no dispute that E.B.H. sent and Respondent received at least two pictures of E.B.H. in which E.B.H. was wearing little or no clothing. Respondent claims that, while he received the pictures and looked at them, he did not know they were pictures of E.B.H., and therefore a minor, because the pictures did not include her face. However, he knew that the pictures were received from E.B.H.'s telephone number. Respondent did not report receiving the pictures to either his supervisors or to E.B.H.'s parents. Respondent also claims that upon receiving the pictures, he simply deleted them. His testimony to this effect is not credible. E.B.H. testified credibly that while she had sent inappropriate photographs to a former boyfriend on a separate occasion, she had sent these photographs to Respondent only. Regardless of the possible motives involved for complaining, it makes no sense that anyone would be able to complain to the police department and that the photos could be described in sufficient detail for Sergeant Ebberson to be able to locate E.B.H. unless Respondent either talked about receiving the photos or showed the photos to someone else. The photos, however, are not in evidence. E.B.H. knew she was either completely nude or only partially dressed, but could provide very little other information about the photos. No evidence was presented to indicate that the photos included a depiction of sexual conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 14th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kerra A. Smith, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ernest M. Page, IV, Esquire Post Office Box 167 Perry, Florida 32348 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's allegation of subjection to an unlawful employment practice is barred by Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by Respondent until her termination on November 15, 1996. Petitioner discussed the firing with her attorney in January of 1997. Petitioner was apprised by the attorney that she could file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Prior to August of 1997, Petitioner's attorney informed her that he had filed a Charge of Discrimination on behalf of Petitioner with the EEOC. Petitioner was led to understand that an investigator for EEOC would contact her. Petitioner was never contacted by the EEOC. On April 14, 2000, Petitioner received a notice from her attorney that apprised Petitioner that the attorney had been suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court for a period of 10 days. Later in either May or June, Petitioner read a newspaper article that recounted the suspension of Petitioner's attorney from the practice of law. Petitioner then determined to consult her present counsel in this matter, David Glasser, Esquire, to handle the charge she believed had been filed with the EEOC. Petitioner learned through Glasser that her previous counsel had not filed a complaint or charge with the EEOC. On July 10, 2000, Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR. Petitioner has neither filed a complaint with the Florida Bar Association or filed a legal malpractice suit against her previous counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 David Glasser, Esquire Glasser and Handel 150 South Palmetto Avenue Suite 100, Box N Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Douglas Kreuzkamp, Esquire American Red Cross Blood Services King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1763 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether transsexualism is a disability that is protected by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Whether an allegation of discrimination based on transsexualism is sex discrimination, pursuant to the FCRA.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined by the FCRA. Petitioner, Connie Fishbaugh, is a transsexual woman who has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID), also known as transsexualism. Transsexualism is a recognized mental health disorder that causes a desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex. It is usually accompanied by the wish for one's body to be congruent with the preferred sex. When left untreated, persons diagnosed with transsexualism display symptoms of severe anxiety, severe depression, and dysfunction. GID is recognized as a medical condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disabilities (4th ed.) and the International Classification of Disease (World Health Organization 10th ed.). Gender identity, which is established at an early age, is an individual's internal psychological identification as male or female. A transsexual person is someone whose gender identity is in conflict with the person's anatomical sex at birth. This conflict creates emotional pain and suffering. A person's gender identity cannot be changed through psychotherapy or through any other known treatment. Based on contemporary medical knowledge and practice, sex-reassignment is the only effective, medically prescribed treatment for this condition. The medical process of sex reassignment takes place over several years and requires life-long medical treatment and monitoring. Sex reassignment relieves the distress caused by GID for the great majority of transsexual people. Nonetheless, sex reassignment is not a cure. A person who undergoes sex- reassignment continues to carry a diagnosis and requires lifelong medical monitoring and treatment. Prior to undergoing sex-reassignment, Petitioner experienced sever anxiety, depression, and distress based on her lifelong gender dysphoria. As the years progressed, Petitioner's depression, anxiety, and distress about her gender dysphoria became more acute. Although, during this period, Petitioner fathered three children. Petitioner took part in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, the accepted medical protocol for the diagnosis and treatment of transsexual persons. As part of this protocol, Petitioner's treatment included: psychological evaluations, during which time she was diagnosed with GID; completion of the "real life experience," which required her to live full-time as a female; administration of hormone therapy to create desired secondary sex characteristics; and sex-reassignment surgery. Petitioner completed sex-reassignment surgery in July 1995. Sex-reassignment surgery is an accepted treatment for transsexualism. Petitioner completed psychiatric and psychological treatment following surgery. She has been undergoing hormone therapy as part of her treatment regime since approximately 1992. Although Petitioner completed sex-reassignment surgery and is now considered medically female, she must continue to undergo hormone treatments and medical monitoring for the rest of her life. Also as a result of the irreversible medical treatment she received, Petitioner is unable to bear or produce children. Several years after completing sex-reassignment, Petitioner applied for a position with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office in the spring of 2001. Petitioner notified the Sheriff's Office of her transgender status before she applied for the position. Petitioner successfully completed Respondent's required pre-employment medical and psychological testing prior to her hire. She did not have any restrictions or request any accommodations on her ability to perform the essential functions of her position. She was hired as a deputy sheriff in May 2001 and was terminated on January 27, 2002. On July 5, 2002, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR alleging employment discrimination under the applicable state and federal law. Following the Determination: No Jurisdiction, Petitioner is pursuing her disability claim only under state law and her sex discrimination claim under both state and federal law. In her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges that she was harassed based on her transsexuality. When she reported this harassment, Petitioner alleges that Respondent did not take steps to respond to the harassment. Rather, the Inspector stated that she "should have known that it would be hard" and that "because of [her] situation, no one wanted to hire [her]." It is alleged that no steps were ever taken by Respondent to respond to the complaints of harassment. Eventually, Petitioner was terminated based on allegations of insubordination. On February 21, 2003, FCHR issued a determination letter stating that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's claims of discrimination on the basis of handicap or on the basis of sex.
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 Charge of Discrimination with prejudice because there is no basis to conclude that transsexualism is included in the class of persons protected by the FCRA, under either handicap or sex discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda G. Bond, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen M. Doering, Esquire National Center for Lesbian Rights 3708 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609-4452 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex, by sexual harassment, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1) and/or (2), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an adult female, and as such, is a member of a protected class. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to protect the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders and to rehabilitate offenders, pursuant to Section 20.315, Florida Statutes. In August 2007, Petitioner applied for a job as a correctional officer with the Florida Department of Corrections through the Charlotte Correctional Institution (the Facility) located in Punta Gorda, Florida. Petitioner's contact person during the application process was Recruitment Sergeant Dennis Britton. Petitioner was initially interviewed by Sergeant Britton. At the conclusion of the interview, Petitioner was about to leave when Britton grabbed her by the shoulder, pulled her to him and bent down to her face in a kissing position. Petitioner put her hands on his chest, pushed him away and left. On other occasions during the interview process, specifically on August 21, 2007, and October 1, 2007, Briton coerced Petitioner to come into his office at the Facility and proceeded to physically and sexually assault Petitioner. Britton would grope, grab, and forcibly kiss Petitioner against her will. Throughout the recruitment process, both Britton and Petitioner exchanged e-mails of a professional and personal nature. On or about September 10, 2007, Warden Adro Johnson approved Petitioner for employment with the DOC. Warden Johnson, not Sergeant Britton, made the hiring decisions at Charlotte Correctional Institution. November 30, 2007, was Petitioner's first day of employment at the Facility. On November 30, 2007, Petitioner was again compelled to appear at Britton's office where he proceeded to physically and sexually assault Petitioner. Britton groped, grabbed, and forcibly kissed Petitioner against her will. On several other occasions between November 2007 and March 2008, Britton would summon Petitioner to his office and proceed to make sexual advances on her against her will. In December 2007, Petitioner completed New Employee Orientation. A component of the New Employee Orientation is training with regard to Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and, specifically, the Sexual Harassment policy. Petitioner completed the computer-assisted training on sexual harassment in December 2007. In addition, new employees are routinely provided with hard-copy pamphlets on sexual harassment. Respondent's sexual harassment policy is also posted at various locations at Charlotte Correctional Institution. At no time during this period did Petitioner complain, verbally or in writing, to her supervisor or anyone else at the Facility. On March 14, 2008, Petitioner started the correctional officer training academy at the Facility. On March 17, 2008, Petitioner filled out an incident report stating she had been sexually harassed by Sergeant Dennis Britton. The report was sent up the chain of command, and Warden Johnson immediately removed Sergeant Britton from his position as the recruitment sergeant and reassigned him to a position on the compound. An investigation into the allegations was started on March 19, 2008, by Respondent's Office of the Inspector General. The investigation was led by Inspector Daryl J. McCasland of the Office of the Inspector General. The findings of the investigation were that Britton violated Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-208.033(22) (Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee). On April 9, 2008, while the investigation was still pending, Sergeant Britton submitted his resignation, effective May 1, 2008. Britton admitted to the accusations of sexual battery against Petitioner to the warden of the Facility. Britton was removed from the Facility on or about April 9, 2008. Petitioner testified that on at least five separate occasions between April 23, 2008, and May 23, 2008, Respondent allowed Britton to return into the Facility and granted Britton access into the restricted-access inner-compound where Petitioner worked so that he was able to continue to harass Petitioner. However, this testimony was uncorroborated and deemed unreliable. At no time during Petitioner's employment did Sergeant Britton supervise Petitioner or work directly with her. He did not discipline her, set her schedule, or assign her duties. From November 30, 2007, until March 14, 2008, Petitioner worked inside the secure perimeter, while Britton worked as the recruitment sergeant outside the secure perimeter in the administration building at the Facility. Petitioner was in the academy beginning March 14, 2008, and Sergeant Britton had no supervisory or training responsibilities over officers in the training academy. Petitioner was continually in the correctional officer academy from the time she filed her initial complaint on March 17, 2008, until Britton's resignation became effective on May 1, 2008. While in the academy, Petitioner was continually with other trainees and other instructors. Sergeant Britton never made any additional sexual advances or had any conversation with Petitioner following her complaint on March 17, 2008. Inspector Daryl McCasland substantiated the complaint against Sergeant Britton for battery, conduct unbecoming a public employee, and failure to follow written procedures. The inspector forwarded his results to the Office of the State Attorney in Punta Gorda which declined to prosecute. Respondent acted in a prompt and reasonable manner to stop the harassment and address it once it was known. Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care in the reporting of the harassment. Petitioner presented no evidence on the issue of retaliation. Petitioner presented no evidence of quantifiable damages. Her testimony was that she felt harassed and physically upset by the conduct of Britton and that she felt harassed and physically upset by her fellow officers after her complaint become known, but no proof of an adverse employment action was presented. Given the lack of evidence to support Petitioner's allegations, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her sex or age, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment based on her sex or age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Frito-Lay, Inc. ("Frito-Lay"), makes and sells snack foods, including many familiar brands of chips. Petitioner Frances G. Danelli ("Danelli") is a former employee of Frito-Lay. Frito-Lay initially hired Danelli in or around 1998 as a packer for its West Valley, Utah, plant. When Danelli's husband was transferred to Florida, she took a job for Frito-Lay in Pompano Beach, Florida, and later moved to the company's West Palm Beach Distribution Center as a route sales representative ("RSR"). Danelli worked in Florida as a Frito-Lay RSR for more than 15 years, and her routes eventually included such large stores as Publix, Walmart, Winn-Dixie, and Target.1/ RSRs sell and deliver Frito-Lay products to retail stores, and these stores, in turn, sell the products to consumers. RSRs are responsible, as well, for presenting the company's products to shoppers in the best way possible to increase sales. So, RSRs not only sell and deliver products to stores, but they also unload the products, stock the shelves, set up displays, and remove unsold items whose sell-by dates have expired. RSRs are paid an hourly wage plus commissions. RSRs are required to compete for sales against other companies' vendors, who (like Frito-Lay's personnel) are trying to place as many of their products as possible onto the shelves of the snack food aisle. Shelf space is essential for growing sales, and competition for product placement can be fierce. There is no dispute that Danelli's performance as an RSR was fine, perhaps even exemplary. Frito-Lay considered her to be a good employee. Danelli went to work early each morning, usually arriving at the warehouse by 4:00 a.m. so that she could get to her first store by 5:00 a.m., which would give her a head start on other vendors. When Danelli got to the warehouse, she would clock in on her handheld computer, which she also used to track the goods she delivered to each store. Upon returning to the warehouse, she had paperwork to complete and print from the handheld computer. In 2013, Frito-Lay started requiring drivers of delivery trucks over a certain size, including RSRs such as Danelli, to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations. As relevant, these regulations require an RSR to take at least a ten-hour break before driving a commercial vehicle, and they prohibit an RSR from driving a commercial vehicle after 14 consecutive hours on duty. Frito-Lay programmed its employees' handheld computers so that an employee subject to the DOT regulations would receive a conspicuous warning if he or she attempted to clock in to work less than ten hours after last going off duty. As Danelli testified at hearing, if the computer told her to wait, she would go to the warehouse, pick up some product, fix her truck, and then sign in when the handheld said she could go. Evidently, however, to get the warning, an employee needed to log on as a "regulated" employee; if, by mistake, a "regulated" employee logged on as "non-regulated," she would not get the warning. Danelli found it difficult to comply with the DOT regulations, which led to Frito-Lay's imposing discipline against her in accordance with the company's Corrective Action Process set forth in its Sales National RSR Handbook, which governed Petitioner's employment. The handbook prescribes a process of progressive discipline that begins with "coaching," which is a form of pre- discipline. As the name suggests, a "coaching" is, essentially, a nondisciplinary intervention whose purpose is to correct an issue before the employee's conduct warrants stronger measures. If coaching is ineffective, the Corrective Action Process calls for increasingly severe steps of discipline. The steps of discipline consist of a Step 1 Written Reminder, a Step 2 Written Warning, a Step 3 Final Written Warning, and a Step 4 Termination. The particular discipline to be imposed depends upon the severity of the infraction and the step of discipline, if any, the employee happens to be on when the infraction is committed. Steps of discipline remain "active" for six to nine months, depending on the step. If the employee does not commit any further disciplinary infractions during the active period, the step "falls off." If the employee commits another disciplinary infraction within the "active" period, however, he or she moves to the next disciplinary step in the Corrective Action Process. On June 5, 2014, after having previously been coached to maintain compliance with the DOT regulations, Danelli received a Step 1 Written Reminder for four violations of the 10-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. On July 25, 2014, Danelli received a Step 2 Written Warning for a new violation of the 10-hour rule. Once again, Danelli did not appeal the discipline. On October 7, 2014, Danelli was given another coaching, during which she was informed that (i) an investigation into her DOT hours was in process, and (ii) the company was concerned that she might be getting assistance on her route from her husband in violation of the RSR Performance Standards. On January 27, 2015, Danelli received a Step 3 Final Written Warning for violating the 14-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. Under the Corrective Action Process, a Step 3 Final Written Warning remains "active" for nine months and is the final step prior to a Step 4 Termination. On May 2, 2015, Danelli committed another DOT violation. Because she was already on a Step 3 Final Written Warning, she was suspended pending further investigation. Danelli maintains that this violation, and others, resulted from her making a simple mistake with the handheld computer, namely failing to log on as a "regulated" employee, which cost her the electronic warning she otherwise would have received. She points out, too, that in this instance, the violation was minor, merely clocking in ten minutes early. These arguments are not wholly without merit, and if Frito-Lay had fired Danelli for a single, ten-minute violation of the DOT regulations, the undersigned would question the company's motivation. But that is not what happened. Danelli did not just violate the ten-hour rule once or twice, but many times, after multiple warnings, and in the face of increasingly serious disciplinary steps. Further, Frito-Lay did not terminate Danelli's employment over this latest violation of the ten-hour rule, even though it would have been justified in doing so within the parameters of the Corrective Action Process. Instead, the company placed Danelli on a Last Chance Agreement. Last Chance Agreements are not specifically provided for in the Corrective Action Process but are used, at the company's discretion, as a safety valve to avoid the occasional unfortunate termination that might result from strict adherence to rigid rules. In this regard, the agreement given to Danelli, dated May 15, 2015, stated as follows: We strongly considered [terminating your employment]. However, due to the unique facts and circumstances involved here, as well as your 15 years of service with the Company, the Company is willing to issue this Last Chance Warning. This step is over and above our normal progressive disciplinary process, and is being issued on a one-time, non-precedent setting basis. . . . [A]ny subsequent violations by you may result in discipline up to and including immediate termination. More specifically, any future violations [of the DOT regulations] will result in your immediate termination. As Danelli put it, the Last Change Agreement was a "sign of grace" from Frito-Lay. By its terms, it was intended to be "active and in effect for a period of 12 months." The undersigned pauses here to let the Last Chance Agreement sink in, because the fact that Frito-Lay did not fire Danelli in May 2015 when——for objective, easy-to-prove reasons, after a by-the-book application of progressive discipline——it clearly could have, is compelling evidence that the company was not harboring discriminatory animus against Danelli. After all, if Frito-Lay had wanted Danelli gone because of her age or her gender, why in the world would the company not have jumped at this golden opportunity, which Danelli had given it, to fire her with practically no exposure to liability for unlawful discrimination? The irony is that by showing mercy, Frito-Lay set in motion the chain of events that led to this proceeding. In or around November of 2015, Danelli underwent surgery, which required her to take some time off of work. For several years before this leave, Danelli's route had consisted of a Super Walmart and two Publix stores. When she returned, the Super Walmart had been assigned to another RSR, and to make up for its loss, Danelli's supervisor, Stanley Gamble, put a third Publix grocery on Danelli's route, i.e., Publix #1049 located in Tequesta, Florida. Danelli was acquainted with one of the managers at the Tequesta Publix, a Mr. Morgan. On her first day back, Danelli and Mr. Gamble went to that store, where Mr. Morgan told Mr. Gamble that he was "glad Frances is here." Mr. Morgan had complained to Mr. Gamble about the previous RSR, who left the store "all messed up," according to Mr. Gamble. Danelli also met Sarah Oblaczynski, the store's "backdoor receiver," which is the Publix employee who checks in merchandise. On her new route, Danelli usually went to the Tequesta store first, early in the morning. She soon ran into a vendor named Tony who worked for Snyder's of Hanover ("Snyder's"), a snack food company that competes with Frito-Lay. From the start, Tony was nasty to Danelli and aggressive, telling her that "there is no space" for two vendors. Tony was possessive about shelf space within the store, as well as the parking space close to the store's loading dock. Danelli thought, because of Tony's behavior, that he might be using drugs. On Tuesday, April 6, 2016, Petitioner had an argument with Tony over the shelf space that the store manager previously had awarded to her for the display of Frito-Lay products. Tony asserted that he had been promised the same space and said to Danelli, "You're going to take that stuff out of the shelf." Danelli told him, "No, Morgan said that's still my space." At this, Tony began cursing and pushed Danelli's cart into her, yelling, "That fucking Morgan!" Danelli later spoke to Mr. Morgan, who assured Danelli that the shelf space in question was hers and said he would leave a note to that effect for Ms. Oblaczynski. There is a dispute as to when Danelli reported the forgoing incident to Frito-Lay. She claims that, before the end of the day on April 6, she told Mr. Gamble, her supervisor, all about the matter, in detail, and requested that someone be assigned to accompany her on her route the next day because Tony planned on taking her shelf space. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble just laughed and said he did not have anybody to help her. Mr. Gamble testified, to the contrary, that Danelli had neither reported the April 6, 2016, incident to him nor asked for any assistance. (Danelli admits that she did not report the incident to Mr. Canizares, sales zone director, or to Human Resources ("HR")). Without written documentation regarding this alleged discussion, it is hard to say what, if anything, Danelli reported on April 6, 2016. It is likely that Danelli did complain to Mr. Gamble about Tony on some occasion(s), and might well have done so on April 6. What is unlikely, however, is that Danelli notified Mr. Gamble that she felt she was being sexually harassed by Tony. Tony's boorish and bullying behavior, to the extent directed at Danelli, seems to have been directed to her qua competitor, not as a woman. At the very least, the incident is ambiguous in this regard, and one could reasonably conclude, upon hearing about it, that Tony was simply a jerk who resorted to juvenile antics in attempting to gain the upper hand against a rival vendor. The undersigned finds that if Danelli did speak to Mr. Gamble about Tony on April 6, he—— not unreasonably——did not view the incident as one involving sexual harassment. As far as Mr. Gamble's declining to provide Danelli with an escort, assuming she requested one, his response is reasonable if (as found) Mr. Gamble was not clearly on notice that Danelli believed she was being sexually harassed. Danelli, after all, was by this time an experienced and successful RSR who undoubtedly had encountered other difficult vendors during her career. Indeed, as things stood on April 6, a person could reasonably conclude that Danelli in fact had the situation under control, inasmuch as Mr. Morgan had clearly taken Danelli's side and intervened on her behalf. What could a Frito-Lay "bodyguard" reasonably be expected to accomplish, which would justify the risk of escalating the tension between Tony and Danelli into a hostile confrontation? During the evening of April 6, 2016, Danelli talked to her husband about the problem at Publix #1049, and they decided that he would accompany her to the store the next morning before reporting to his own work, to assist if Tony caused a scene. On April 7, 2016, Danelli's husband drove to Publix #1049 in his own vehicle. Although no longer an employee of the company, Danelli's husband entered the store wearing a Frito-Lay hat, and he stayed in the snack aisle while Danelli went to the back to bring the order in. Ms. Oblaczynski, the receiver, presented Tony with a note from Mr. Morgan stating that Danelli's products and sales items were assigned to aisle one. In response, Tony started swearing about Mr. Morgan and the denial of shelf space, made a hand gesture indicative of a man pleasing himself, and told Ms. Oblaczynski that "they can take a fly[ing] F'n leap." Tony had made this particular hand gesture about Mr. Morgan on a number of previous occasions, in front of both men and women. Mr. Danelli left to go to work once Danelli's product was placed, and she left to go to the next store on her route. When Danelli returned to the warehouse, she went to Mr. Gamble's office and told him about the April 7, 2016, incident. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble laughed in response. Danelli asked Mr. Gamble if the company would conduct an investigation, and he said yes. She recalls that every day thereafter, she asked Mr. Gamble if he had heard anything because she thought "we [Frito-Lay] were investigating" and that HR was on top of it. Danelli admits, however, that she "intentionally" did not tell Mr. Gamble that her husband had accompanied her to Publix #1049 to assist her in the store that morning. She did not report this detail because she knew it was "bad." In conflict with Danelli's account, Mr. Gamble testified that Danelli did not report that Tony made a sexual gesture in front of her or used coarse or profane language in her presence on April 7, 2016. The undersigned finds that Mr. Gamble most likely did not laugh at Danelli or otherwise treat her dismissively upon hearing her report of the incident. If Mr. Gamble had believed the matter were so trivial or amusing, he would not likely have agreed to investigate. The undersigned finds, further, that however Danelli described the incident, she did not make it clear to Mr. Gamble that she perceived Tony's behavior as a form of sexual harassment. Danelli did not make a formal written complaint to that effect at the time, and the situation at Publix #1049 was, at the very least, ambiguous. More likely than not, Mr. Gamble viewed the troublesome vendor from Snyder's as an unwelcome business problem to be dealt with, not as a perpetrator of unlawful, gender-based discrimination. To elaborate, putting Tony's "sexual gesture" to one side momentarily, the rest of his conduct, even the cursing, while certainly objectionable, is not suggestive of sexual harassment; it is just bad behavior. Tony's temper tantrums and outbursts no doubt upset Danelli and others, but that does not turn them into gender discrimination. Further, Danelli seems to have handled the situation well until she resorted to self-help on April 7, 2016. The responsible Publix employees were already aware of the problem, and in due course, they complained to Snyder's, which unsurprisingly removed Tony from that store. Meantime, had Danelli felt physically threatened or afraid as a result of Tony's more aggressive antics, she (or Publix) could have called the police; this, indeed, would have been a safer and more reasonable alternative to bringing along her husband or another civilian for protection, which as mentioned above posed the risk of provoking a fight, given Tony's volatility. Ultimately, it is Tony's "sexual gesture" that provides a colorable basis for Danelli's sexual harassment complaint. But even this gives little grounds for a claim of discrimination, without more context than is present here. To be sure, the "jerk off gesture" or "air jerk" is obscene, and one would not expect to see it in polite company or in the workplace. Yet, although it clearly mimics a sexual practice, the air jerk is generally not understood as being a literal reference to masturbation. That is, the gesture is not typically used to convey a present intention to engage in masturbation or as an invitation to perform the act on the gesturer. Rather, the jerk off gesture usually signifies annoyance, disgust, disinterest, or disbelief. As with its cousin, the "finger" (or bird) gesture, the sexual connotations of the air jerk are (usually) subliminal. Here, there is no allegation or evidence that Tony's jerk off gesture was undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification or was intended or perceived as a sexual advance on Danelli (or someone else)——or even as being overtly sexual in nature. (Obviously, if the evidence showed that, under the circumstances, Tony was, e.g., inviting Danelli to participate in sexual activity, this would be a different case. The undersigned is not suggesting, just to be clear, that the air jerk gesture is inconsistent with or could never amount to sexual harassment, but only that it is not unequivocally a sign of such harassment, given its commonly understood meanings.) To the contrary, it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that Tony made the gesture to indicate that he regarded Mr. Morgan's note as pointless and annoying. It was roughly the equivalent of giving them the bird, albeit arguably less contemptuous than that. For these reasons, the undersigned finds it unlikely that, assuming Danelli described the gesture (which is in dispute), Mr. Gamble thought Danelli was complaining about sexual harassment, as opposed to a very difficult vendor. On April 13, 2016, Mr. Gamble visited Publix #1049 and spoke to Ms. Oblaczynski about the situation. During this conversation, Ms. Oblaczynski stated that the "Frito-Lay people" did nothing wrong. She further specified that "the person [Danelli] had with her did nothing wrong." After speaking with Ms. Oblaczynski, Mr. Gamble met with Danelli while she was servicing her second account. Right off the bat, Mr. Gamble asked Danelli who was with her at Publix #1049 on April 7, 2016. She eventually admitted that her husband was with her in the store that day. Aware of the seriousness of her offense and the active Last Chance Agreement, Danelli asked Mr. Gamble, several times, if she would be fired. That same day, Mr. Gamble called Carlos Canizares to tell him what he had learned. Mr. Canizares instructed Mr. Gamble to stay with Danelli while she finished servicing her accounts and then to obtain a written statement from her about the incident. Later on April 13, 2016, Danelli provided a written statement in which she confirmed that her husband had been working with her at Publix #1049 the previous week. Danelli has since described this statement as a "full written account of the harassment [and] rude sexual gestures." Danelli knew, of course, that HR would review her statement, and yet she said nothing therein about having complained to Mr. Gamble or any supervisor about harassment generally or Tony in particular; about Tony's use of course or improper language; or about having requested an escort to help keep Tony in line. On the instructions of the company's HR department, Mr. Gamble conducted an investigation into the "rude sexual gesture" about which Danelli had complained. Specifically, he called Mr. Morgan, the Publix manager, and asked him about the incident. Mr. Gamble also requested that he be allowed to review any videotapes and documents concerning the incident. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Gamble that Publix was investigating the matter. Mr. Gamble's request to allow Frito-Lay access to Publix videotapes and documents was, however, turned down. Tony's boorish behavior aside, the fact remained that Danelli, without prior approval, had allowed a non-employee to perform work or services for Frito-Lay at one of the stores on her route, which the RSR Performance Standards specifically prohibit without express authorization. RSRs who are found to have permitted non-employees to accompany them on their routes are either discharged or issued multiple steps of discipline, as Danelli knew. Because Danelli violated this rule while on an active Last Chance Agreement, Frito-Lay decided to terminate her employment. On April 26, 2016, Mr. Canizares met with Danelli to inform her that she was fired. Danelli timely appealed her termination pursuant to the company's Complaint and Appeal Procedure, electing to have her appeal decided by a neutral, third-party arbitrator. The arbitration hearing took place in January 2017. Three months later, the arbitrator ruled that Danelli's termination had been proper and carried out in accordance with Frito-Lay's employment policies. Danelli does not presently deny that she violated the DOT regulations and the company policy forbidding the use of non-employees as helpers while on duty, nor does she dispute that Frito-Lay had sufficient grounds for imposing the disciplinary steps leading to the Last Chance Agreement. Indeed, she does not contend that it would have been wrongful for Frito-Lay to have fired her in May 2015 instead of offering the Last Chance Agreement. Her position boils down to the argument that because Frito-Lay could have exercised leniency and not fired her for bringing her husband to work at Publix #1049 (which is probably true2/), its failure to do so can only be attributable to gender or age discrimination. Put another way, Danelli claims that but for her being a woman in her 50s, Frito-Lay would have given her another "last chance." This is a heavy lift. As circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Danelli points to the company's treatment of another RSR, a younger man named Ryan McCreath. Like Danelli, Mr. McCreath was caught with a non-employee assisting him on his route. Unlike Danelli, however, Mr. McCreath was not on any active steps of discipline at the time of the incident, much less a Last Chance Agreement. Although Mr. McCreath's disciplinary record was not unblemished, Frito-Lay did not terminate his employment for this violation of the RSR Performance Standards. Instead, he received three steps of discipline and was issued a Final Written Warning. Mr. McCreath's situation is distinguishable because he was not under a Last Chance Agreement at the time of the violation. Moreover, it is not as though Mr. McCreath got off scot-free. He received a serious punishment. Danelli could not have received a comparable punishment for the same offense because she was already beyond Step 3; her record, unlike his, did not have room for the imposition of three steps of discipline at once. The McCreath incident does not give rise to a reasonable inference that Frito-Lay unlawfully discriminated against Danelli when it terminated her employment for committing a "three-step violation" while on an active Last Chance Agreement. There is simply no reason to suppose that if Danelli, like Mr. McCreath, had not had any active steps of discipline when she violated the rule against having non- employees provide on-the-job assistance, Frito-Lay would have terminated her employment for the April 7, 2016, infraction; or that if Mr. McCreath, like Danelli, had been on a Last Chance Agreement when he violated the rule, Frito-Lay would have issued him a Final Written Warning in lieu of termination. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of Frito- Lay's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Danelli, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age- or gender-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age or gender discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay took any retaliatory action against Danelli for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay committed or permitted sexual harassment of Danelli or otherwise exposed her to a hostile work environment. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Frito-Lay did not discriminate unlawfully against Danelli on any basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Frito-Lay not liable for gender or age discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Is Respondent employer guilty of an unlawful employment practice, pursuant to Section 760.10, F.S., for discrimination on the basis of handicap, to wit: diabetes?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner was employed part-time at Respondent Jackson County Hospital as an x-ray aide. In this position, he transported patients to and from the x-ray department. Petitioner had diabetes when he was hired by Respondent. He disclosed his diabetes on his initial health information sheet. The employer was aware of Petitioner's diabetes when he was hired. However, on his initial health information sheet Petitioner also represented his health status as "excellent" and denied having any physical condition which impaired his body as a whole. He further represented that he had no defect "which may prevent your performance in the job. . . ". Accordingly, the employer did not know that he had a handicap, if any, when it hired Petitioner. While he was employed as an x-ray aide, Petitioner had two "reactions" on the job due to his diabetes, and he was laid off immediately prior to having a third "reaction." Petitioner did not describe the nature of his diabetic "reactions", and no other record evidence revealed their symptomatology. Nonetheless, Petitioner felt that he did his job well and got along well with everyone. This testimony was unrefuted. Indeed, both of Respondent's witnesses acknowledged that Petitioner performed his job duties acceptably. Petitioner went to Respondent hospital's emergency room as soon as he had these reactions. He assumed that some of the x-ray technicians whom he worked with in the hospital x-ray department talked to Wayne Austin, the head of the x-ray department, about his situation. No other witnesses supported his assumption. No forms reporting either of Petitioner's "reactions" were received by Jim L. Treglon, Respondent hospital's assistant administrator. Wayne Austin knew of Petitioner's diabetes but had no knowledge of either of Petitioner's "reactions" prior to laying him off. When Mr. Austin laid Petitioner off on August 15, 1994, he told Petitioner that it was due to the hospital's economic restructuring. Petitioner believed, upon the basis of conversations with other employees who were not called to testify, that he was laid off due to his diabetes. According to Mr. Treglon and Mr. Austin, the employing hospital underwent a personnel restructuring process by reduction of work force for financial reasons, and Petitioner was laid off as part of the larger financial conservation scheme. Petitioner had the least seniority and was a part-time employee, so his position was eliminated. There is no evidence that Petitioner's position was ever recreated or refilled. At the same time Petitioner's position was eliminated, another x-ray aide with more seniority was allowed to work weekends only, thereby reducing the hours for which that aide was paid. It is possible, but not proven, that this other aide's hours were eventually increased or restored when the hospital's economic situation improved. At the same time Petitioner's position was eliminated, the x- ray department's clerk-secretary was allowed to resign, and that position was not filled. As part of the employer's restructuring process, a total of 17 employees were eliminated from the employer's total work force based only upon seniority at approximately the same time Petitioner's position was eliminated. Mr. Treglon testified that as of the date of formal hearing, the employer employed at least 40 people who have disclosed disabilities. The definition of "disability", as used in his testimony, was not given.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief herein and determining that Petitioner recover nothing thereby. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position at the City because of his physical handicap, diabetes, in violation of Section 760.10(1(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Petitioner could be reasonably accommodated to perform the essential functions of his duties as an Engineer I position with the City Sewer Department.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 40 year old male. Petitioner was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus in 1979. This is a Type I Classification of diabetes which required that Petitioner must take insulin from its onset. Petitioner is further classified as a "brittle" diabetic, which is a type that is difficult to control. Additionally, Petitioner has hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) and an adrenal insufficiency. This combination is rare. Petitioner is a handicapped person. Petitioner worked steadily at a variety of jobs in the engineering construction field from 1979 to the time he was hired by the City of Tampa on December 12, 1990. Petitioner's diabetic condition did not place any restrictions on his ability to fulfill his job responsibilities at any of his places of employment between 1979 and December 12, 1990. Petitioner was hired by the City of Tampa, an employer, as an Engineer Tech 2 on December 12, 1990. As an Engineer Tech 2, Petitioner was responsible for monitoring the electrical and instrumentation construction at a sanitary sewage treatment plant, and for sewage pumping stations throughout the city. He was essentially an inspector. Prior to accepting employment with the City, Petitioner talked with his prospective supervisors, Jack Kulik and Jeff Taylor, about his diabetic condition. During the period Petitioner was employed as an Engineer Tech 2, he had some insulin reactions on the job in the office. Those reactions were caused by a lowering of Petitioner's blood sugar level. When these reactions occurred, office personnel would assist Petitioner by encouraging him to eat a food product containing sugar. The episodes would take 15-30 minutes to subside. During the period Petitioner was employed as an Engineer Tech 2, he drove a City car alone while at work, and drove his personal car to and from work. When at a construction site, Petitioner went near high voltage panels, into manholes, and also into open pits with open wells on a regular basis. The supervisor, Jack Kulik, did not have any concerns about Petitioner's ability to drive a car. Petitioner received a good performance evaluation for his work as an Engineer Tech 2 on June 12, 1990. He was rated as either "Excellent" or "Fully meets Expectations" in all 13 rating categories. Petitioner's diabetes did not prevent him from performing the essential functions of his job. Petitioner was promoted to an Engineer I position in August 1990. From August 1990 through early February 1991, Petitioner worked half- days at the Hookers Point facility, and then commuted to downtown Tampa to work a half-day. The Engineer I position was primarily an office job, with 80% of the responsibilities in-office and 20% at various job sites. During the period between August 1990 and February 1991, Petitioner had several insulin reactions in the office of the Engineer I position. His new supervisor Korchak did not recognize the symptoms of Petitioner's reaction. He characterized Petitioner as being "asleep" on the job on three occasions, and was impaired on numerous other occasions. Due to his physical handicap, Korchak lost confidence in Petitioner's ability as an engineer. Petitioner ate food to counteract the reactions, which took 20 to 30 minutes to subside. In August 1990, shortly after Petitioner was promoted to an Engineer I position, he was involved in an automobile accident, while driving his personal car. The accident resulted from a diabetic reaction. When he was able, Petitioner called his supervisor, Mr. Korchak, and reported the accident. Mr. Korchak relayed the information about the accident to Andy Cronberg, a deputy director, second in command of the department, who was in an office adjacent to Mr. Korchak when he received the call from Petitioner. Mr. Cronberg made a decision, at that moment, in August 1990, based solely on his conversation with Mr. Korchak, to revoke petitioner's privilege to drive a City car. The decision to revoke Petitioner's driving privileges was made in accordance with a general policy of the City, and not on individualized analysis of Petitioner's condition. The decision to restrict Petitioner's driving privileges was not communicated to Petitioner until a performance review on February 8, 1991. In addition, during this same period, Korchek began tailoring and limiting Petitioner's position to in-office functions only, based on what Korchek believed Petitioner could accomplish safely, and downgraded his evaluation when he rated him on his performance review. Prior to the implementation of the decision to restrict Petitioner's driving privileges on February 8, 1991, the City's representatives did not speak to Petitioner about his driving abilities; they did not speak or consult in any way with Petitioner's doctors; nor did they speak with Petitioner's previous supervisor with the City, Jack Kulik. The first contact the City had with Petitioner's doctor was a response to a questionnaire sent to Dr. Sumesh Chandra and, received by the City on February 27, 1991, wherein Dr. Chandra indicated that Petitioner could safely and effectively operate an automobile. The City's representative Mr. Rice indicated that Dr. Chandra's response raised more questions than it answered, and the City did not restore Petitioner's driving privileges. Neither Mr. Rice, nor any other City employee ever consulted with Dr. Chandra to clear up the confusion they had over Dr. Chandra's statement that Petitioner could safely and effectively drive a car. Petitioner is licensed to drive by the State of Florida. His license has never been revoked, either in Florida or any other state. Dr. Chandra stated that, in his opinion, Petitioner could safely and effectively operate an automobile because, "He's capable, dexterous, and coordinated. He's like any normal individual except that he is unfortunately diabetic. So for routine capacity his skills are like any other normal individual." Twenty percent of the Engineer I position required travel to various job sites. Because Petitioner was not allowed to drive an automobile on city time, and was restricted in in-office functions while performing his Engineer I position, he was not able to fulfill the essential functions of the Engineer I position. Following a request by Phil Rice of the Sewer Department, the City received a letter from Dr. Jai H. Cho, a physician on May 15, 1991, that Petitioner had seen for a short period of time. Dr. Cho's letter indicated, among other things, ". . . it is inevitable, that he will develop hypoglycemia with loss of consciousness in the future because of his concurrent illness with diabetes and adrenal insufficiency." Dr. Cho never specifically addressed the issue of whether Petitioner could safely drive an automobile or work alone at job sites, either in writing or in phone conversations with Mr. Rice. No City representatives ever discussed Petitioner's ability to drive a car or work alone on a job site with Petitioner, Dr. Chandra, Dr. Cho, Petitioner's previous supervisors with the City, or Petitioner's previous supervisors with other employers. On May 20, 1991, the City terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner was informed of his termination by Mr. Korchak, Mr. Hoel, and Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice told Petitioner that the reason for the termination was the City's concern about its potential liability. Following his termination, Petitioner was unemployed for nine months. Petitioner was then hired in September, 1992, by Omega Tech in Hardee County, Florida, to work at the Hardee Power Station, performing the same duties as he performed as an Engineer Tech 2 for the City of Tampa. Petitioner commutes the 68 miles each way from Tampa to Hardee County every day in his own car. At the Hardee Power Plant, Petitioner is exposed to the same conditions to which he was exposed while working for the City of Tampa. During the 13 years since Petitioner was diagnosed with diabetes, he has never injured any other person as a result of his diabetes, nor received any serious injury to himself. At the present time, the position of Engineer I with the City of Tampa has been eliminated, and has been replaced by a person holding a contractors license. If Petitioner had remained employed with the City of Tampa, he would have earned $36,294.44 from the period June 20, 1991, through September 18, 1992, exclusive of health benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of his handicap when his employment was terminated; The Petitioner receive back pay and health benefits in accordance with applicable law; and The Petitioner be awarded the attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of this action. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39(in part), 40, 41, 42, 43 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 15, 39 (Petitioners was hired by Omega Tech) Rejected as hearsay: paragraph 33 Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11(in part), 12,13,14(in part),15,17,18,19,20(in part),22(in part),23,25,26,30,31 Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial or argument: paragraphs 8,9,11(in part),14(in part), 20(Petitioner's written comment),21,24(in part),27,28,29 Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 16,22(in part),24(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire KELLY, McKEE, HERDMAN & RAMUS, P.A. 1724 E. Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 323605 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd. Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113 Mr. Kenneth C. Perry City of Tampa 306 East Jackson Street 7N Tampa, Florida 33602 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner filed her charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations within 365 days after the alleged discriminatory act; and (2) Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in connection with Petitioner’s employment by Respondent on the basis of her national origin, gender, or pregnancy.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Olivera is a Cuban-American female. The City hired her, effective March 8, 1993, to work as a secretary in the City Manager’s office. After one week, Olivera was promoted to the position of Office Manager, a more demanding job that entailed much greater responsibilities. The evidence regarding Olivera’s performance as Office Manager is in conflict. Her supervisors believed that Olivera was a marginal employee who failed to discharge her duties satisfactorily. The City has placed in evidence a number of contemporaneous memorandums and other documents that memorialize one or another of Olivera’s perceived performance deficiencies. In contrast, Olivera believed she was performing well, and that her supervisors’ complaints about her were, for the most part, false, exaggerated, or unfair — and worse, a pretext for unlawful discrimination. (Olivera admitted that she had had problems with tardiness during her first year of employment, but all agreed that Olivera had corrected this particular deficiency.) In short, Olivera perceived that she had been singled out for disproportionately harsh treatment and had been made the scapegoat when others failed to do their jobs. More ominously, Olivera accused the City Manager, R.J. Intindola, of constantly having made racist comments about Blacks and Cubans. She claimed that Mr. Intindola uttered racial slurs with such frequency that the workplace became hostile. Further, Olivera asserted that her complaints about Mr. Intindola’s behavior fell on deaf ears. As with the issues pertaining to Olivera’s job performance, the evidence regarding Mr. Intindola’s conduct is in conflict. Mr. Intindola himself denied having uttered the slurs that Olivera put on his lips, yet he admitted that “one time,” in Olivera’s presence, he had referred to another employee, Christy Dominguez, as a “crazy Cuban.” Mr. Intindola claimed that everyone present knew that he was kidding and laughed at the repartee between him and Ms. Dominguez. No one who testified at hearing corroborated Olivera’s account of Mr. Intindola’s conduct. Indeed, Ms. Dominguez, who has been employed with the City since May 1974, disclaimed having witnessed any discriminatory behavior in the workplace there, despite having been the subject of the one possibly derogatory comment that Mr. Intindola indisputably made. On or around April 24, 1995, Olivera was asked to resign her employment with the City to avoid being fired, which would be the consequence of her refusal. Faced with this choice, Olivera submitted a letter of resignation dated April 24, 1995. Thereafter, she received severance pay equal to two-months’ salary. Some time later, most likely during the first few weeks of March 1996, Olivera filed both a Charge Questionnaire and an Affidavit (collectively, the "Federal Forms") with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In the Federal Forms, Olivera alleged that the City had discriminated against her, primarily on the basis of her national origin. The EEOC notified Olivera by letter dated March 22, 1996, that, because her charge had not been timely filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the commission had forwarded the Federal Forms to the FCHR. On May 6, 1996, according to a date stamp on the face of the document, the FCHR received a Charge of Discrimination that appears to have been signed by Olivera on April 14, 1996. In this Charge of Discrimination, Olivera again alleged that the City had discriminated against her on the basis of national origin, in violation of her rights under the Florida Human Rights Act. Ultimate Factual Determinations The evidence in this record is not sufficient for the trier to ascertain whether, as a matter of objective historical fact, Olivera adequately performed on the job or not. Suffice it say that a preponderance of evidence fails to establish anything except that Olivera, on the one hand, and her supervisors, on the other, sincerely believed the opinions they expressed on this subject. In other words, Olivera honestly believes that she performed competently and was discriminated against. Her supervisors at the City, in turn, honestly believe that Olivera did not measure up to the Office Manager’s position and needed to be let go for that legitimate reason and no others. The upshot of this inconclusiveness is that Olivera has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the City violated her civil rights. Olivera’s conviction that she was the victim of unlawful discrimination, no matter how sincerely and firmly held, is not proof of the fact, at least not without more than the evidence in this record establishes. By the same token, the evidence does not exactly exonerate the City, in the sense of proving that its hands were completely clean or that it acted honorably in respect of Olivera. Rather, more likely than not, Mr. Intindola did on occasion make offhand comments about Cubans at which some persons could take offense. A preponderance of evidence fails to show, however, that he uttered these remarks with a discriminatory intent; that Olivera (or anyone else) suffered any material harm or humiliation as a result of hearing them; or that he did so with such frequency or in such fashion that his conduct could be called extreme. In sum, while it is fair to infer, and the trier so finds, that Mr. Intindola was not always as sensitive to the feelings of others as, in hindsight, he probably should have been, there is nevertheless insufficient evidence to support a finding that he acted willfully or that Mr. Intindola’s occasionally insensitive behavior was so consistently and frequently repeated as to become a condition of Olivera’s employment with the City. Likewise, the greater weight of evidence fails to establish that the environment in which Olivera worked was a hostile or abusive one. On this record the trier cannot say that, more likely than not, the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, insult, and ridicule. Further, the evidence does not establish that Olivera was treated differently than similarly situated employees who were neither Cuban- American, female, nor pregnant. In the final analysis, then, considering the totality of the circumstances, the evidence presented at hearing demonstrates no more than that the City terminated the employment of an at-will employee for performance-related reasons unrelated to her national origin, gender, or medical condition (pregnancy).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Olivera's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 12th day of June, 2001.
