The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications required for a correctional officer pursuant to Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2006),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b), 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 by the Department as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, having been issued Correctional Certificate #170241. Respondent and Candida Nowlin are engaged and live together. They have lived together since 2002. Ms. Nowlin has two children from a previous relationship and she and Mr. Saria have a child together. At the time of the events giving rise to these proceedings, the couple was under a great deal of stress because of a serious accident involving one of Ms. Nowlin's children. On the evening of November 6, 2006, Mr. Saria and Ms. Nowlin had an argument. She asked him to leave, and he refused. In his anger, he slammed a cordless phone in their home against the kitchen counter. However, there is no competent evidence that he struck or grabbed her, or threw her into a wall. The only competent testimony presented is that he touched her arms in order to move her out of his path as he went to another room in the home, but did not harm her in any way. Ms. Nowlin felt that she and Mr. Saria needed some time apart, so when Mr. Saria refused to leave their home, she went with her young daughter next door to her neighbor's home to call the police. Her neighbor, Ms. Epley, was having a dinner party. She noticed that Ms. Nowlin was crying and she let her use her phone, but was distracted by her hostess duties. She did not remember Ms. Nowlin being injured, and Ms. Nowlin did not tell her that Mr. Saria had beaten her up. Ms. Nowlin called the police from Ms. Epley's home. Two officers came to the home, then-officer Barraclough and Sergeant Spears. They interviewed Ms. Nowlin, Ms. Epley, and Mr. Saria, and arrested Mr. Saria and took him away. After they had removed Mr. Saria from the home, the two officers completed statements from both Ms. Epley and Ms. Nowlin. Officer Barraclough testified that he saw scratches and red marks on Ms. Nowlin's arms. However, his testimony was contradicted by all other witnesses who testified, and is not credited. Sergeant Spears, who did not testify, took Ms. Nowlin's statement. While she was doing so, Ms. Nowlin's mother came to the home. Her testimony, which is credited, is that Ms. Nowlin had no bruises or marks on her arms and that Ms. Nowlin was primarily upset at that point because Mr. Saria had been arrested. The only competent evidence of what happened between Ms. Nowlin and Mr. Saria during their argument is the testimony of the two of them. They both deny vehemently that he struck her or engaged in any unwanted touching. They both insist that they had an argument because of the amount of stress they were under, and that the police were called because Ms. Nowlin felt they needed some time away from each other.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, 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 24th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Cynthia Y. Pall is employed by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) as a sergeant. Ms. Pall has been employed by the HCSO since May of 1977. She is a black female. In October, 1991, Ms. Pall applied for a promotion to detention lieutenant. She did not receive the promotion. The position went to Michael Sawyer, a white male. Applicants for promotion to detention lieutenant were reviewed by Colonel David Parrish, the HCSO Detention Department Commander. Mr. Parrish has a Master's degree in criminology and has worked for the HCSO since May, 1974. Since 1981, Mr. Parrish has been responsible for operation of the HCSO jail system. He was promoted to his current position in 1985 and is the highest ranking officer in the Detention Department. Mr. Parrish has historically sought recommendations for internal promotion from the supervisors in the Detention Department. Each supervisor is encouraged to nominate one employee from within the supervisor's squad and one employee from outside the supervisor's squad. Promotional candidates are required to have completed a sufficient period of time in their current positions and to have successfully passed an examination to be eligible for promotion. A list of "eligibles" is prepared identifying those employees eligible for the promotion. From those eligible, Mr. Parrish reviews the materials and prepares an information package about each candidate for the promotion. Each information package includes the resume submitted by each candidate. Twelve persons sought the position at issue in this proceeding. Seven of the twelve, including five white males, had been passed over for promotion to lieutenant previously. In reviewing candidates for promotion, Mr. Parrish considers the experience, test scores, annual performance evaluations, education and recommendations of the applicants. No one factor is determinative; the overall quality of the candidates is paramount in the decision making process. Some employees who lacked substantial college education have been promoted. Many individuals, male and female, black and white, have applied and been passed over for promotion. Mr. Parrish reviews the eligibles with two Detention Department majors. After review, Mr. Parrish makes a recommendation to the Sheriff as to which person should be promoted. The review and recommendation process has been utilized since 1981 and continues unchanged to the present. With rare exception, Mr. Parrish's recommendations have been followed by the Sheriff. Ms. Pall has been employed by the HCSO since May of 1977. She became a sergeant in 1982, served as an administrative sergeant until approximately 1984, and then became a detention sergeant, the position she presently holds. Most of Ms. Pall's experience has been in the care, custody and control of inmates. She has trained and supervised subordinate employees, and planned and coordinated their work assignments. She created the HCSO victim notification program. She developed a cash accounting system which resulted in increased accountability in the handling of cash within the Detention Department. During her employment as an administrative sergeant, she handled correspondence for Mr. Parrish. She was responsible for facility maintenance, bookkeeping, inspections and inactive records. Michael Sawyer has been employed by the HCSO since the end of 1980 or beginning of 1981. He was initially employed as a correctional officer, serving for about five years as a deputy and then as corporal for three more years. Thereafter, he was promoted to sergeant. During his HCSO employment, Mr. Sawyer worked in the records section for approximately one and a half years, during which time he trained civilians to assume the responsibilities of the position. He worked in the booking section for approximately two years. He thereafter worked on the detention floor for approximately four and a half years and was responsible for care, custody and control of inmates. As a sergeant, Mr. Sawyer was assigned to a special projects unit. During this period, he worked as an accreditation coordinator for two HCSO jail facilities and was responsible for assuring that the facilities would meet standards for accreditation. He also served as the HCSO fire safety officer for approximately two and a half years and was responsible for compliance with fire safety, health department, and worker's compensation regulations and OSHA requirements. At various times during his HCSO employment, Mr. Sawyer has been in a supervisory position, responsible for between five and 20 individuals. Five promotional candidates, including four white males, had worked for the HCSO longer than had the successful applicant, Mr. Sawyer. One white male applicant had worked for the HCSO longer than had Ms. Pall. As to the responsibilities Mr. Sawyer has successfully performed related to special projects and facility accreditation coordination, Ms. Pall has not been provided with similar opportunities. There is no evidence that, as to experience, Ms. Pall is more or less qualified than Mr. Sawyer for the position at issue in this proceeding. The HCSO administers a test of skills required in the lieutenant position to applicants. Of the 100 points available on the test, Ms. Pall scored a 78. Mr. Sawyer scored an 85. At the review immediately prior to the promotional decision at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Pall received a performance evaluation of 89 points. Her evaluator, a black male, wrote that Sgt. Pall needed to visit all areas of the pod more frequently and that she permitted some deputies to become to "familiar" with her. Although good, the performance evaluation score was lower than she had received in the preceding three year period when her scores were 92, 92.75, and 93. At the review immediately prior to the promotional decision at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Sawyer received a performance evaluation of 96.5 points. His evaluator, a white male, wrote that Sawyer was extremely qualified and should receive highest consideration for promotion at the earliest opportunity. At the time of application, Ms. Pall had a high school diploma and had completed one year of studies at Hillsborough Community College. She had completed eight advanced law enforcement training courses. According to Mr. Sawyer's application, he was two credits shy of receiving an Associate in Arts degree from Hillsborough Community College. This information was not correct. Mr. Sawyer needs more than two hours of additional credit to receive the degree. He had completed five advanced law enforcement training courses. Review of educational information was based solely on the information submitted by the applicants. There was no attempt made by the HCSO to verify the education information submitted. Applicants were not required to submit educational transcripts. Although Mr. Sawyer's educational information was apparently overstated on his application, there is no evidence that HCSO officials were aware of the misleading information. There is no evidence that Mr. Sawyer was encouraged by HCSO officials to misstate his educational credentials in order to receive the promotion. There is no evidence that the review of educational credentials was related to the race or gender of the applicants or that, as to the review of said credentials, Ms. Pall was discriminated against on the basis of race or gender. Mr. Sawyer received recommendations for promotion from six persons with whom he had worked. Ms. Pall received two similar recommendations. Based on his review of the foregoing factors and the information available, Mr. Parrish determined that Michael Sawyer was the best qualified candidate for promotion to detention lieutenant. The information was presented to the Sheriff. Michael Sawyer received the promotion. Although the evidence does not establish whether or not Mr. Parrish determined a "ranking" order for the promotional candidates, had Mr. Parrish established a ranking of the candidates, Ms. Pall would have ranked well. There is no evidence of any discord between Mr. Parrish and Ms. Pall. There is no evidence that any HCSO official has stated or implied that Ms. Pall was not qualified for promotion, but rather the evidence establishes that Ms. Pall is clearly qualified for promotion. The HCSO has implemented an affirmative action plan which provides for employment and promotion of female and African-American personnel. The HCSO does not utilize a quota system, but considers minority group status in making employment decisions. Mr. Parrish has previously recommended black females for employment and promotion, including two black women who were promoted to currently held lieutenant positions, Ms. Pall's promotion to sergeant, and a black woman promoted immediately prior to the time the hearing was conducted. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Pall's race or gender were considered in the determination of the best qualified candidate for promotion to detention lieutenant. The evidence establishes that in this case, both Michael Sawyer and Cynthia Y. Pall were qualified for promotion to the rank of detention lieutenant. Based on the information available to the Mr. Parrish and to the Sheriff at the time of the promotion, Michael Sawyer was determined to be the best qualified candidate for promotion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed by Cynthia Y. Pall. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6219 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact, which are not supported by citations to the record as is required by Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, twelve names were on the list of eligibles. Rejected as to supervision of Sawyer by Pall, irrelevant. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. 8. Rejected, number of supervised employees is irrelevant. 11. Rejected, irrelevant. Although Mr. Sawyer's educational information was apparently overstated on his application, there is no evidence that HCSO officials were aware of the misleading information or that HCSO officials encouraged Sawyer to misstate his educational credentials in order to receive the promotion or to discriminate against other applicants on the basis of race or gender. 12-13. Rejected, irrelevant. 14. Rejected, subordinate. 15-16. Rejected, as to determination that Sawyer was "not qualified," not supported by the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. 17. Rejected, subordinate. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Joe Episcopo, Esquire 1060 West Busch Boulevard Suite 103 Tampa, Florida 33612 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire THOMPSON, SIZEMORE & GONZALEZ Suite 200 109 North Brush Street Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601
Findings Of Fact At all times materiel hereto petitioners were inmates et Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) and were subject to discipline for failure to obey orders. Piccirillo was disciplined for failure to comply with an order to report to the infirmary or sick call. Piccirillo was aware that his name was posted on the bulletin board directing him to report to the medical department and et the time specified he failed to so report, was disciplined, and he lost gain time. A doctor visits LCI twice per week and inmates with medical problems can be seen by the doctor on these days. No patient is required to undergo medical treatment for minor ills if he so elects. Because of the limited time a doctor is available to LCI it is necessary that those inmates so designated see the doctor at the scheduled time. Inmates who do not understand an order may request clarification. If the inmate cannot read he is not punished for failure to obey written orders. Prior to disciplinary action being taken against an inmate for disobedience of orders, the disciplinary report is investigated and, after the investigator finds the charge to be true, discipline may be administered. Additionally, the inmate has a grievence procedure he may follow after the investigator recommends disciplinary action be taken. Occasionally, inmates are given orders by correctional officers which are unlawful. The inmate may obey the order and say nothing, he may obey the order and file a grievance, or he may refuse to obey he order and successfully defend the disciplinary report for failure to obey the order. It is not an offense for an inmate to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
Findings Of Fact On October 1, 1978, Respondent initiated its Young Adult Conservation Corps program (YACC) at its Everglades Youth Camp. This facility is located in Palm Beach County on the J. W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. It has traditionally served as a summer camp for children ages 8 through 14. The YACC was an experimental program funded by the Federal Government and was intended to train hard-core unemployed young people, ages 16 to 23. The enrollees in the program were required to live at the camp, which is located in a remote and isolated area. Petitioner was hired on a temporary basis to serve as a "houseparent." In this capacity, Petitioner was assigned responsibility for the enrollees conduct after the work day. He was to provide guidance during the evening hours and insure that enrollees observed the nightly curfew. Respondent received unconfirmed reports that Petitioner was fraternizing with a female enrollee and warned him that such conduct as unacceptable by letter dated December 7, 1978. Petitioner, who was single and about the same age as the enrollees, was not successful in maintaining the degree of enrollee discipline sought by Respondent. Because Petitioner's difficulty in maintaining the desired atmosphere resulted, in part, from his youth and marital status, Respondent determined that he should be replaced by an older, married couple. This was essentially a policy decision. However, Respondent had also decided to fire Petitioner because of his increasingly poor attitude toward his job and his inability to control the enrollees. By memorandum dated January 5, 1979, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was discharged based on the policy decision to fill houseparent positions with married couples. No reference was made to Respondent's performance in this memorandum.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of an unlawful employment practice as charged in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott William Katz, Esquire 3959 Lake Worth Road Lake Worth, Florida 33461 G. Kenneth Gilleland, Esquire 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Colonel Robert M. Brantly Executive Director Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Respondent in retaliation for Petitioner's efforts in behalf of minority employees of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Priscilla M. Young, was a licensed practical nurse employed by Respondent, BAT Management Foundation, Inc. (BAT), at its Orlando Health Care Center (OHCC), as a floor nurse responsible for the care of approximately 60 residents during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Her immediate supervisor was Joan Renee’ Banton. Petitioner began working at OHCC as an LPN in 1992. In 1987 she had been convicted of a felony, aggravated battery, in circuit court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 30 months. After serving 8 of the 30 months, she was released without probation. At that time, she went to nursing school and was subsequently licensed in Florida as a practical nurse. At no time did she ever conceal her conviction from either the nursing school or licensing authorities. Petitioner was hired at Winter Park Memorial Hospital after graduating from nursing school and becoming licensed. At that facility she worked for both Joan Renee’ Banton and Sue O’Brien. During this period, Ms. O’Brien left Winter Park Memorial to take a position with BAT at its OHCC facility. Somewhat later, Petitioner saw an advertisement by BAT in the newspaper and applied for employment there. She claims Ms. O’Brien, who was at that time director of nursing was happy to see her when she arrived to fill out the application. Petitioner was interviewed for employment at OHCC by Ms. Stanley, who was the unit manager of the north wing at the facility. The employment application form contained a question which asked the applicant if she "had ever been convicted of a felony or, within the last five years of a misdemeanor, which resulted in imprisonment." Petitioner claims she was not sure how to interpret the verbiage and asked Ms. Stanley. Ms. Stanley also was not sure, so they discussed it with Ms. O’Brien. Based on their discussion, the determination was made that Petitioner did not have to list her felony conviction because it had occurred more than five years prior to the application. This was an incorrect decision because clearly the application requires listing a felony conviction regardless of when it happened, but requires listing of only those misdemeanor convictions which occurred within the last five years prior to application. Nonetheless, Petitioner was hired. During the course of her employment with OHCC, Petitioner had no disciplinary problems. Both Ms. Stanley and Ms. Banton deny having had any problems with her or her work. Petitioner contends that at least twice during the term of her employment, however, she complained to Ms. Banton about Banton’s use of the term, "you people" in reference to the aides and orderlies who worked for her, all of whom were minority of some nature: African American, Hispanic, or Asian. Ms. Banton cannot recall Petitioner’s having ever complained to her about that, and she denies having ever used that term. She claims that if she ever did refer to the employees as a group, it would have been phrased more as "you guys," or something like that. Considering the evidence of record, however, it is found that Ms. Banton probably did use the term "you people" and that Petitioner did complain about that usage to Ms. Banton. According to Ms. Banton, shortly after Petitioner was hired, all people who had knowledge of her conviction had left employment with OHCC. Ms. Stanley had taken employment elsewhere. Ms. Banton also left employment with OHCC in August 1994 because of rumors involving management problems with which she did not want to be involved. Somewhere between two and three weeks after leaving OHCC, however, Ms. Banton received a call from Mr. Allen, the owner of the company, asking her to come back to OHCC as Director of Nursing to replace Ms. O’Brien whom he intended to discharge. She agreed, and when she assumed her new role, she quickly received a phone call from Mr. Allen. In this telephone call, Mr. Allen asked if Petitioner was employed at OHCC. When Banton replied that she was, Allen reportedly revealed he had received a background check on Petitioner which indicated she had a felony conviction. According to Banton, Allen, who did not want any felons working in his nursing homes, directed Banton to check Petitioner’s background to see if the conviction had been noted on her application. She did, and when she reported to Allen that it had not been listed, he directed Banton by telephone to fire the Petitioner. Ms. Banton did what she had been directed to do. Petitioner contends that Banton’s attitude at the time of discharge was cavalier. Ms. Banton admits that at the time she had the discussion with Mr. Allen, she knew that Petitioner had served time in prison, but did not know why. She also claims that she did not know that Petitioner had discussed the conviction with Stanley and O’Brien and had been advised not to list it. Petitioner’s termination from employment with OHCC was based on her failure to disclose her felony conviction. Petitioner claims the termination was based on her speaking out for the other nursing assistants, all of whom were minority, when they were accused of incompetence. Ms. Banton, however, cites instances where when she would come in at night to check on how things were going, she would find pillows and chairs scattered around as if people were sleeping on their shift. She discussed this with Petitioner and admits the discussions were sometimes loud, but she never took any disciplinary action against Petitioner or wrote her up for this. Banton absolutely denies having ever disciplined any employee in public, always taking an employee to a private area to take corrective action. Petitioner is adamant in her contention that the fundamental basis for her discharge from employment with OHCC is retaliation for her standing up for the minority nursing assistants who were accused of incompetence. She firmly believes that her failure to list her felony conviction was seized upon as a pretext upon which to support the unlawful basis for her discharge. She cites that both Banton and O’Brien knew of her conviction and the fact that she had served time, when they all were employed at Winter Park Memorial, and that though it was not listed on her application for employment with OHCC, O’Brien knew about it at the time of her hiring, and Banton knew about it when she, Banton, subsequently came to work at OHCC. Coincidentally, Petitioner claims to have been instrumental in Banton’s obtaining employment at OHCC.
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 determining that Petitioner, Pricilla Young, was not subjected to racial discrimination or retaliation because of her advocacy on behalf of minority employees; that her discharge from employment with Respondent, BAT Management Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Orlando Health Care Center was based on a determination by Mr. Allen, the owner thereof, that her prior felony conviction disqualified her from employment at the facility; and that she is not entitled to back pay, expenses, or compensatory damages as a result thereof. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2000 COPIES FURNISHED: Priscilla M. Young 312 Lime Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805 Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Scruggs & Carmichael, P.A. One Southeast First Avenue Post Office Box 23109 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 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 Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner based upon mental disability.
Findings Of Fact The final disputed-fact hearing began on time. Petitioner was present, as was the attorney for Respondent. Petitioner appeared pro se and responded clearly and affirmatively to the undersigned's questions, stating that she knew that she could be represented by an attorney but for reasons of her own she chose to represent herself. After explaining the duty to go forward, the burden of proof, and the order of proof, the undersigned inquired of both parties whether any further explanation was necessary; whether they had any questions; and whether the undersigned could do anything to make the process easier on either of them. At that point, Petitioner gestured to a piece of paper and requested to meet with Respondent's counsel for purposes of negotiating a settlement. A brief recess was granted for that purpose, and the undersigned left the hearing room. Upon returning to the hearing room, the undersigned inquired whether a settlement had been reached and was informed that one had not been reached. Petitioner then announced that, "Since they won't settle, I have no more to say." The undersigned inquired at length to be certain Petitioner understood that: she could call witnesses; she could testify on her own behalf; and she could present documents, either through her own testimony or that of others. Petitioner stated that she understood but did not want to call witnesses or testify. She gestured at what appeared to be her proposed settlement document, but which could have been something else, stating that she only had a document. The undersigned explained that very few documents could be called "self-authenticating" and gave a brief explanation of what type of testimony is necessary to lay a predicate to put any document into evidence. Petitioner said she did not wish to testify. She did not offer her piece of paper. The undersigned explained that if Petitioner did not testify and did not offer her single document, she could not prevail, and that based upon the allegation in her Petition that she has a "mental disability/handicap," the undersigned needed to be assured that Petitioner understood that unless she testified to something, called witnesses to testify, or offered some exhibits, the undersigned would have no choice but to enter a recommended order of dismissal. Petitioner assured the undersigned that she understood and refused to proceed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. 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 1st day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Michele B. Brown, pro se 2634 North Point Circle, Apt. B Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda S. Bennett, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the instant proceeding was instituted within the time requirements of Section 120.54(4)(b), Florida Statutes; and If the first issue had been answered affirmatively, whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.004(12), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Notice of a proposed amendment to Rule 33-3.004(12), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rule"), was published by the Respondent, the Department of Corrections, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, Number 21, page 2318, on May 24, 1991. Pursuant to Section 120.54(4)(b), Florida Statutes, challenges to proposed rule amendments "must be filed with the division within 21 days after the date of publication of the notice. " Pursuant to Section 120.54(4)(b), Florida Statutes, challenges to the Proposed Rule were required to be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on or before June 14, 1991. Notice of the existence of the Proposed Rule was placed on a library bulletin board at Avon Park Correctional Institution. The Petitioner learned of the Proposed Rule in early June, 1991. The evidence failed to prove that the exact date notice was placed on the bulletin board. On June 11, 1991, the Petitioner signed a Petition for Determination of Validity of Proposed Rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Petition"), challenging the Proposed Rule. The Petition was placed in a dorm mail box by the Petitioner at approximately 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 11, 1991. The Petition was in a sealed envelope, was marked "legal mail" and had stamps on it. The usual procedure for processing mail at Avon Park Correctional Institution which would have applied to the mailing of the Petition was generally as follows: The mail placed in the dorm mail box, including the Petition, would have been picked up for processing the day it was placed there; b The mail would have been taken to the control room and processed (sorted and stamps added, if necessary); c. Mail placed in the mail box in which the Petition was placed and at the time it was placed there by the Petitioner would have been taken to the local United States Post Office on Wednesday, June 12, 1991. No log of outgoing legal mail was kept in June, 1991. In light of the procedure normally followed by Avon Park Correctional Institution, the Petitioner only allowed two days for the Petition to travel to the United States Postal service in Avon Park, Florida, and, from there, to the Division of Administrative Hearing in Tallahassee, Florida: one day from Wednesday, June 12, 1991, the date the Petition was delivered to the United States Post Office, to Thursday, June 13, 1991, and one day from Thursday, June 13, 1991, to Friday, June 14, 1991. The Petition was not placed in the dorm mail box until eighteen days after notice of the Proposed Rule was published. Mail received by the Division of Administrative Hearings is generally handled in the following manner: All mail is opened the day it is delivered; Once opened, the envelope is disposed of and the contents are stamped with the time and date delivered. This date constitutes the date of "filing" of pleadings; The contents of the mail are then processed. The Petition in this case was not filed until June 19, 1991, eight days after it was placed in the custody of the Respondent. The evidence failed to prove that the time the Petitioner allowed for the mailing of the Petition was reasonable: placing the Petition in the dorm mail box at 5:30 p.m., when the Petitioner should have known that the mail could not reasonably be taken to the United States Post Office until the next day, June 12, 1991, only allowed two days for the Petition to be delivered by the postal service. The evidence failed to prove that the Respondent was responsible for the late filing of the Petition in this case. The Petitioner failed to file the Petition within twenty-one days after the publication of notice of the Proposed Rule.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in one or more of the following ways: by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race and/or gender; (b) by subjecting Petitioner to a hostile work environment; and (c) by retaliating against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, a black female, as a correctional officer on or about February 25, 2002. Petitioner was initially assigned to the Hernando County Jail. After a series of transfers at Petitioner's request, Respondent assigned Petitioner to the Lake City Correctional Facility in July 2005. Petitioner continued to serve at that facility until she was terminated. On multiple occasions during her employment, Petitioner received copies of Respondent's Harassment/Sexual Harassment policy and Respondent's Code of Ethics policy. Petitioner received formal training relative to the substance of these policies when she was hired and annually thereafter. In October 2007, Petitioner filed two grievances against Captain Michael Register and Chief Daniel Devers. The grievance against Chief Devers alleged a "hostile" work environment. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Chief Devers created a divide-and-conquer environment by telling new staff that "several dirty officers work for Respondent and that the new staff are to tell on them and replace all the old staff members." The grievance against Captain Register alleged race and gender harassment. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that Captain Register did not relieve Petitioner on time "for three weeks straight." Petitioner believed that Captain Register's alleged conduct was due to his dislike for her and favoritism toward other staff members. Petitioner did not allege that Captain Register or Chief Devers ever said anything to Petitioner or anyone else regarding her race or gender. In response to Petitioner's grievances, Respondent performed an in-house investigation. Subsequently, Petitioner's grievances against Captain Register and Chief Devers were denied as unfounded. Petitioner alleges that she was sexually harassed by Officer/Correctional Counselor Roderick Polite. As a Correctional Counselor, Officer Polite did not have authority to change the terms and conditions of Petitioner's employment except that it was possible for Petitioner to receive work orders from a Correctional Counselor. Petitioner went on two consensual dates with Officer Polite prior to his alleged harassment. The first date was in late November 2007. The second date was in early December 2007. At the time that Petitioner went on these dates, she was temporarily broken up with Correctional Officer Darian Blue. In late November and early December 2007, Petitioner worked the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. Officer Polite was assigned to the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. Petitioner refused to go to Respondent's December 14, 2007, Christmas party with Officer Polite. Thereafter, Officer Polite called Petitioner's house continuously for three days. In a telephone conversation on December 17, 2007, Officer Polite allegedly told Petitioner that he "just had sex with a girl." Officer Polite also allegedly stated that his fascination with her would be over if she would just give him oral sex. Petitioner told Officer Polite "no" and ended the conversation. Petitioner claims that Officer Polite began to harass her at work after the December 17, 2007, telephone conversation. According to Petitioner, the harassment continued until January 10, 2008. Specifically, Petitioner claims that Officer Polite was critical of her work performance and changed the procedures she was to follow regarding mail distribution and the cleaning of pods by inmates. Officer Polite allegedly also accused Petitioner of improperly counseling an inmate. Petitioner alleges that Officer Polite "wrote her up" on one occasion. However, Petitioner admits that she never saw the alleged write-up. Petitioner also admits that she never suffered any adverse action as a result of the alleged write-up. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Officer Polite never filed a disciplinary action against Petitioner. Petitioner did not complain about Officer Polite's conduct until January 9, 2008. On that date, Petitioner spoke with Captain Joseph Ruby about Officer Polite's alleged conduct. Respondent’s sexual harassment policy prohibits physical and verbal harassment, including inappropriate threats and requests. The policy also set forth the procedure by which employees should utilize to complain about harassment and states that complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, on January 10, 2008, Petitioner was interviewed by Respondent's in-house investigator. Petitioner told the investigator about Officer Polite's alleged harassment but stated that she did not want to file a formal grievance against him. Petitioner simply requested that she be allowed to return to work and that she not have to work with Officer Polite. Officer Polite subsequently resigned his position as a Correctional Counselor and stepped down to a Correctional Officer position. Additionally, Respondent changed Officer Polite to the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift. If there were occasions when Petitioner's and Officer Polite's shifts overlapped, Respondent granted Officer Polite's requests not to work around Petitioner. In March 2008, Petitioner applied for one of three open positions as a Correctional Counselor. Based on the interview panel's recommendation, Warden Jason Medlin selected a white female and two black females for the positions. Petitioner was not selected for one of the positions because of her personnel and disciplinary record, including a prior allegation of excessive force against inmates. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding the personnel and disciplinary records of the three females selected for the positions. On March 30, 2008, Petitioner was assigned to the control room in the South 2 Unit. Her primary duty was to maintain the log and to open doors for other officers. At some point during her shift, Petitioner removed an inmate from his cell, took him to master control, and left him there. A Lieutenant requested another Correctional Officer, Amanda Sanders, to escort the inmate back to his cell and assist Petitioner with a search of the inmate's cell. When Officer Sanders and Petitioner arrived at the cell, the inmate's cellmate, Jose Sandoval, was sitting on his bunk bed. Officer Sanders told Inmate Sandoval to leave the cell. When Inmate Sandoval did not comply, Petitioner ordered him to stand up to be handcuffed. Inmate Sandoval continued to sit on his bunk bed. Petitioner then told Officer Sanders to call a "code red," a request for assistance from other officers. Officer Sanders did not comply immediately with Petitioner's request because Officer Sanders did not believe there was a need for assistance or a reason to handcuff Inmate Sandoval. Next, Petitioner grabbed Inmate Sandoval by his arm, physically removed him from his bed, and placed him face first into the wall. Officer Sanders did not have any contact with Inmate Sandoval when Petitioner removed him from his bed. Inmate Sandoval somehow turned to face Petitioner who had her back to Officer Sanders. Officer Sanders heard a "smack" and concluded that Petitioner had struck Inmate Sandoval. Officer Sanders then saw Inmate Sandoval spit at Petitioner. Officer Sanders immediately called a "code red" and assisted Petitioner in placing Inmate Sandoval on the floor and handcuffing him. Other officers arrived and removed Inmate Sandoval from his cell and the unit. As recorded on the facility's video cameras, the officers carried Inmate Sandoval by his neck, two or three feet off the floor. The officers choked him and slammed him onto the floor. The cameras recorded Inmate Sandoval in the medical department, so incoherent that he had to be held up to prevent him from falling over. When force is used against an inmate, the incident report must be sent to the Florida Department of Corrections' Inspector General (IG). In this case, the IG performed an investigation, concluding that Inmate Sandoval was assaulted by the facility's officers and that blood was cleaned off the walls to hide the assault. Respondent subsequently received a copy of the IG's report. On April 11, 2008, Respondent terminated all officers involved, including Petitioner, for violation of Respondent's Code of Ethics. Specifically, Respondent terminated Petitioner for physically abusing the inmate, for failing to report the extent of abuse on the inmate in written reports and during the IG's investigation, and for failing to call into the facility as directed while on administrative leave after the incident. Other officers that were terminated included the following: (a) Correctional Officer Darian Blue (black male) for use of excessive force; (b) Lieutenant Phillip Mobley (white male) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (c) Captain/Shift Supervisor Joseph Ruby (white male) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (d) Correctional Officer Grace Davie (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (e) Correctional Officer Melissa Fontaine (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; and (f) Correctional Officer Eunice Cline (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse. Respondent did not terminate Officer Sanders. The IG's report did not show that she violated any of Respondent's policies during the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 9th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chelsie J. Roberts, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dafney Cook 2445 Dunn Avenue, Apt 610 Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway. Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's proposed decision to award a contract to The Next Step Adolescent and Youth Community Center, Inc., pursuant to RFP No. K8025 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1999, Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice (Department), issued and advertised RFP No. K8025, which was a request for proposals (RFP) for a 16-bed, non-secure detention program. Petitioner, Non-Secure Detention Home, Inc. (Non-Secure Detention Home) and The Next Step Adolescent and Youth Community Center, Inc. (Next Step) submitted proposals. Another provider submitted a proposal but it was rejected as nonresponsive and was not evaluated. On June 1, 1999, the Department posted the tabulations for the RFP, recommending the contract be awarded to Next Step. Next Step received the highest number of points, 248.66, and Non-Secure Home Detention ranked second with 209.33 points. Non-Secure Detention Home filed a protest on June 3, 1999, and an Amended Notice of Protest on July 1, 1999. There were three evaluation committee members: Anna Bustamante, Kenneth Williams, and Allen Hepburn. Mr. Williams is a community youth leader supervisor with the Department. Mr. Hepburn is a juvenile probation officer supervisor, who supervises the court unit for the Department. The RFP provides that the program is to be operated at a provider-leased or owned facility. Next Step indicated in its proposal that Next Step would be leasing two homes. One of the homes was to be leased from Reginald Rucker, who was the president and a member of the Board of Directors for Next Step. A copy of the lease was included with the proposal and stated that Reginald Rucker and his wife, Charlene Rucker, were to be the landlords. There was no indication in Next Step's proposal that the facility was owned by anyone other than Reginald and Charlene Rucker. The property is described as "Lot 9, in Block 125 of Leslie Estates Section Fourteen, According to the Plat thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 116, at Page 95 of the Public Records of Dade County." In May 1996 the property was sold by the Veteran's Administration to Reginal Rucker, Charlene Rucker, and Connie White. Connie White is an employee of the Department, and a former employee at Non-Secure Detention Home. Ms. White's job duties do not include determining the facilities in which juveniles will be placed. For a two-week period, Kenneth Williams supervised Ms. White. At the time that the proposals were being evaluated, Mr. Williams was not supervising Ms. White nor was he aware that Ms. White had any interest in the property proposed to be leased by Next Step. Allen Hepburn knows Connie White. He also knows Connie White's sister, Gladine White, both socially and professionally. Mr. Hepburn is acquainted with Gladine White's husband. Mr. Hepburn attends the same church as Connie White and Gladine White. He does not know either Reginald Rucker or his wife, Charlene Rucker. Mr. Hepburn was not aware that Connie White had any interest in the property which Next Step proposed to use if it received the contract. The RFP set out the proposal award criteria. The proposals were to be evaluated on the statement of work, organizational capability, management approach, and past performance. The evaluation areas were weighted with 65 percent for statement of work, 10 percent for organizational capability, 15 percent for management approach, and 10 percent for past performance. The percentage used in the evaluation of past performance was subdivided as follows: Historical Implementation 1% Educational achievements 5% Recidivism rates 2% QA evaluation 2% Community involvement 1% CMBE subcontracting 1% The RFP stated: Offers without prior Department contract experience shall receive a rating based on the average score of the other competing offers in evaluating their proposals in accordance with stated criteria. This provision of the RFP was not protested within the time frames provided in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, and the RFP. Fifty points was the maximum number of points which could be awarded for past performance. The past performance evaluation consisted of five areas which could receive from zero to ten points. The evaluators were given a scale by which to award points. If the proposal did not address an area, zero points would be awarded. If the proposal response were deemed unsatisfactory, two points would be awarded. Four points would be awarded for a poor proposal response. An adequate proposal response would be worth six points. If the proposal was evaluated to be very good, it would receive eight points. An excellent proposal response would be awarded the maximum of ten points. For the past performance section, Non-Secure Detention Home garnered 12 points from Mr. Williams, 21 points from Ms. Bustamante, and 26 points from Mr. Hepburn for a total of 59 points. Next Step did not have previous experience with the Department. Evaluator Hepburn gave Next Step a total of two points for the past performance section. Ms. Bustamante awarded Next Step ten points for the past performance portion. Mr. Williams gave Next Step a total of six points for past performance. The RFP required that Next Step be given the average of the other competing proposals because Next Step did not have previous experience. Non-Secure Detention Home had the only other competing proposal for the solicitation. Eric Stark, a contract manager for the Department, attempted to apply the provision in the RFP by averaging the scores that each of the evaluators had given Non-Secure Detention Home for past performance and using that average in computing the total scores from each of the evaluators. The average score given to Non-Secure Detention Home was 19; thus a rating of 19 was applied in the evaluation of the past performance of Next Step in lieu of the original scores given by the evaluators. The RFP requires the following: The PROVIDER shall comply with the Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of the Inspector General's Statewide Procedure on Background Screening for Employees, PROVIDERS, and Volunteers. The PROVIDER agrees, to comply with the requirements for background screening as mandated in Section 985.01, Florida Statutes. Failure to comply with the Department's background screening procedure could result in cancellation of the contract. Reginald Rucker was a former employee of Non-Secure Detention Home. Mr. Xavier Moore, the Executive Director for Non-Secure Detention Home, made a request to the Department of Juvenile Justice to do a preliminary FCIC/NCIC and DHSMV screening check on Mr. Rucker. According to Mr. Moore the screening did not indicate a problem with Mr. Rucker being employed by Non-Secure Detention Home. Mr. Rucker was employed with Non-Secure Detention Home from 1997 until June 10, 1999. On October 4, 1995, an Order to Seal Records Pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692 was issued in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida, sealing all records pertaining to Reginald Rucker's arrest on January 13, 1990, by the Florida Highway Patrol for cocaine and marijuana possession. The order stated that Mr. Rucker was not adjudicated guilty of charges stemming from the arrest. The RFP did not require the proposers to submit a financial statement or audit; however, the evaluators were asked to rate the proposals based on whether an acceptable financial statement or audit was included. Neither Next Step nor Non-Secure Detention Home submitted a financial statement or audit. Next Step received the following points for its non- existent financial statement: eight points from Mr. Hepburn; zero points from Mr. Williams; and zero points from Ms. Bustamante. For its nonexistent financial statement Non-Secure Detention Home received the following scores: six points from Mr. Hepburn; a N/A which equated to zero points from Mr. Williams; and six points from Ms. Bustamante.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding the contract for a 16-bed, non-secure detention program to The Next Step Adolescent and Youth Community Center, Inc. and dismissing the protest of Non-Secure Detention Home, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 14th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter S. Pesetsky, Esquire Pesetsky & Zack, P.A. 1367 Northeast 162nd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. "Bill" Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
