Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas E. Gibbons, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 19, 1979, and was issued certificate number 99-2054. At the times pertinent hereto, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department. At the times pertinent hereto, Respondent, Officer Robert Grant, Officer William A. Drossman, and Officer Phillip Seguin were police officers employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department and were assigned to the canine unit (K-9 Unit). On December 23, 1988, several City of Fort Lauderdale police officers became involved in a vehicle chase of a burglary suspect. The sequence of events described below occurred during the early morning hours before daylight, and resulted in the arrest of Michael Jerome Jones. The Respondent, Officer Grant, Officer Drossman, Officer Seguin, and several other officers heard the call on the radio and responded to assist in apprehending the suspect. Law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions became involved in the chase of the suspect. After being involved in the chase for a short while, the suspect abandoned his vehicle and sought to escape on foot. Among those involved in the foot chase of the suspect were the Respondent, Officer Grant, Officer Drossman, and Officer Seguin. Each of these K-9 officers utilized his dog in the chase. The chase of the suspect occurred in the vicinity of Oswald Park and the subsequent apprehension occurred in a field adjacent to the park on the north. This area is out of the geographical jurisdiction of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Consequently, these K-9 officers had not worked in this area before. Between the park area and the area of the apprehension is a cyclone wire fence approximately five feet in height which was, at the time of the incident, covered with vines. Oswald Park is a lighted, fairly open area. The area of the apprehension is a field that was dark and overgrown with vegetation. Officer Grant exited his vehicle on Northwest 27th Street, Fort Lauderdale, in pursuit of the suspect. Officer Grant first considered releasing his dog so that the dog could make a running hit on the suspect. Because another officer came between Officer Grant's location and the direction the suspect was heading, Officer Grant could not release his dog. The officers involved in the chase surrounded the area in which the suspect had run. Officer Grant and his dog were stationed on the north side of the field. Several officers, including Officer Seguin, were in Oswald Park. Officer Grant believed Respondent to be west of the suspect. Officer Drossman's dog tracked the suspect into a fenced yard. Officer Drossman located the suspect hiding on top of a two-story barn and told the suspect he was under arrest. Instead of obeying, the suspect jumped off the south side of the roof and continued to run toward Officer Grant's position. Officer Drossman and another officer advised Officer Grant by radio that the suspect was heading in his direction. Officer Grant, who was on the northeast corner of the field, observed the suspect jump over the fence into the field. Officer Grant had his dog on a leash that was approximately fifteen feet in length. Officer Grant's dog tracked the suspect to the southeast corner of the field and located the suspect while he was lying face down on a sand hill. At no point after the point of apprehension did the suspect offer any resistance to any law enforcement officer. 1/ The conflicts in the evidence are resolved by finding that Petitioner established the following facts by clear and convincing evidence. Officer Grant's dog bit Mr. Jones at least once on the shoulder area of his outstretched right arm and held on to the shoulder, causing Mr. Jones to cry out in pain. Officer Grant placed Mr. Jones under arrest and handcuffed Mr. Jones using metal handcuffs with his hands in front. No other officer assisted Officer Grant in handcuffing Mr. Jones. Respondent was in Oswald Park when he heard Officer Grant's dog make contact with Mr. Jones. Respondent believed that only one officer was at the arrest scene and decided to assist that officer. After he tied his dog to the fence separating Oswald Park and the arrest site, Respondent leaped over the fence, which was approximately five feet in height, and proceeded to the arrest area. Respondent dropped his flashlight 2/ while crossing the fence and located the arrest scene from the noises being made by Mr. Jones, Officer Grant, and Officer Grant's dog. Respondent ran from the southern area of the field over to where Officer Grant was standing with Mr. Jones. After Mr. Jones was handcuffed, Officer Grant took his dog off and pulled Mr. Jones to his feet by pulling on the handcuffs. Officer Grant saw Officer Drossman and Officer Drossman's dog standing behind him while Officer Grant was lifting Mr. Jones off the ground. Respondent arrived on the scene of the arrest just as Officer Grant was pulling Mr. Jones to his feet. Respondent grabbed Mr. Jones and pulled him away from Officer Grant. Respondent was making comments about how he had hurt his hand and got dirty trying to find Mr. Jones and then started striking Mr. Jones while Mr. Jones was handcuffed and not resisting. Respondent struck Mr. Jones with his fists in the upper torso area, causing him to fall to the ground, and kicked him several times. Respondent helped Mr. Jones to his feet and subsequently struck him again, causing him to fall to the ground. Officer Seguin, who was stationed across the fence in Oswald Park, heard the suspect screaming and heard sounds like someone was being hit. Officer Seguin also testified that he saw the light from flashlights in the area of the arrest. Mr. Jones never slipped a cuff during this incident, nor did he ever try to fight Respondent. After Respondent stopped hitting Mr. Jones, Respondent walked south of the field with Mr. Jones to the fence. At the fence, Respondent prodded Mr. Jones to climb up on the fence by kicking him on the back of his legs. Once Mr. Jones was on the fence, Respondent pushed him so that Mr. Jones fell to the other side of the fence and into Oswald Park where Officer Seguin and Officer Salisbury were waiting. While the proof was sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent committed a battery upon Mr. Jones immediately following his arrest, it was insufficient to demonstrate that the manner in which Respondent caused Mr. Jones to cross the fence entailed the use of excessive force or that it constituted a battery on the person of Mr. Jones. Officers Salisbury and Seguin then took custody of Mr. Jones. 3/ Mr. Jones was handcuffed to the front at the time he came into the custody of Officer Seguin and Officer Salisbury. Officer Salisbury re-cuffed Mr. Jones with his hands behind his back and placed Mr. Jones in his police car. Officer Salisbury later returned Officer Grant's handcuffs to him. Mr. Jones was transported back where he had abandoned his vehicle and the foot chase began. Respondent and most of the other officers involved in the chase gathered at this location. Sgt. Runnerstrom, who was the supervisor for the K-9 unit officers, was also present. The officers present thereafter engaged in a bull session wherein Respondent bragged about having made Mr. Jones, whom he called an "ass-hole", a lesson for making him sweat, jump the fence, and get dirty. On January 12, 1989, some unknown party wrote a letter to Captain Thomas of the City of Fort Lauderdale Internal Affairs Department which in detail complained of Respondent's behavior on December 23, 1988. This letter was written from the perspective of someone who was at the scene of the arrest and charged Respondent with having used excessive force against Mr. Jones. The letter was delivered to an area of the police department that has restricted access. This letter was assigned to Internal Affairs Sgt. Richard Herbert for investigation. After Officer Grant, Officer Drossman, and Officer Seguin gave statements to Sgt. Herbert, each was separately approached by Respondent. Respondent first learned of the Internal Affairs investigation through another officer on March 9, 1989. Officer Grant testified that he could not remember exactly what Respondent had said to him, but that he construed the conversation as a request to modify the statement that Officer Grant had given to internal affairs by saying that it had been too dark for him to see whether Mr. Jones had slipped a cuff. Officer Grant also testified that Respondent never asked him to lie and that the conversation could have been interpreted differently. Officer Drossman testified that Respondent asked him to say that it was too dark for him to have seen what had happened. Officer Drossman also testified that Respondent did not ask him to lie. Officer Seguin testified that he had several conversations with Respondent about the matter, but that Respondent did not try to tell him what to say. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner asked Officer Grant or Officer Drossman to lie about the incident. While discussing the manner in which Mr. Jones came over the chain link fence, Respondent stated to Officer Seguin that Respondent would have to "out and out lie about how the guy came over the fence." On March 21, 1989, Respondent gave a sworn statement to Sergeant Herbert which was consistent with the version of the events of December 23, 1988, to which Respondent testified at formal hearing. This sworn statement did not accurately describe the events that occurred at the scene of the arrest on December 23, 1988. At the conclusion of the Internal Affairs investigation, Respondent's employment with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent committed battery against the person of Michael Jerome Jones on December 23, 1988, and that he subsequently gave a false statement to internal affairs about the incident. It is further recommended that Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of October, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The policy being challenged provides that: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. This provision is routinely and customarily embodied in the notices issued by Respondent to parties before it in matters arising under Florida Statutes 447.307 and 447.503. The Respondent acknowledges that it did not adopt and promulgate the policy pursuant to Florida Statutes 120.54 or any other relevant provision of Chapter 120. On 12 July 1979 Petitioner filed a petition with Respondent in which Petitioner sought to represent certain employees employed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This petition was accepted by Respondent and on 30 July 1979 Respondent issued a Notice of Representation Hearing and a Prehearing Order. This Prehearing Order directed the parties to that proceeding to file with Respondent at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing, and serve upon each other, a prehearing statement, identifying: Those fact disputes to be presented for resolution. Any and all legal questions to be presented for resolution. The legal authority to be relied upon by each party in presenting its arguments. Those witnesses to be called at the hearing, except rebuttal witnesses. The approximate time necessary to present the party's case. Any outstanding motions or procedural questions to be resolved. This Pre-Hearing Order then provided: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. Petitioner did not file its prehearing statement within the prescribed 7-day period and on 21 August 1979 Petitioner was notified that the hearing scheduled to commence 23 August had been cancelled. On 22 August Petitioner was advised that a written order cancelling the 23 August hearing had been entered by the Commission. Thereafter Petitioner filed the petition here under consideration contending that the policy of Respondent to enter the cancellation-of-hearing notice in prehearing orders is a rule and invalid by reason of not being promulgated pursuant to Chapter 120. Respondent takes the position that the provision in the prehearing order is not a rule, but even if it could otherwise be considered to be a statement of general applicability, it is exempt from being so found by 447.207(6), Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mike Ostrom, was employed by Respondent, Beachers Lodge Condo Association, Inc., as a maintenance man for approximately seven years until his termination on March 23, 2012. Respondent is a Florida condominium association, located at 6970 A1A South, St. Augustine, Florida 32080. James W. Gilliam is the licensed community association manager for Respondent, is 78 years old, and has many years of property management experience. Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination on the grounds of his age (55) and disability (eye surgery) with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) on March 23, 2012. Following an investigation, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on September 27, 2012. Petitioner filed a timely appeal of the Commission's determination on October 19, 2012. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and a final hearing was conducted on December 11, 2012, in St. Augustine, Florida. Petitioner's work as a maintenance man involved numerous duties, including general maintenance to the grounds and buildings, painting, repairing balconies and other structures not requiring a general contractor, electrical work, and maintaining the pool. Petitioner worked alone much of the time. Prior to the arrival of Mr. Gilliam as the association manager, Petitioner had a good working relationship with the former manager, Steve Burdick. Under Mr. Burdick's supervision, Petitioner had more freedom to perform his maintenance work without what he calls "interference." Mr. Gilliam is more of a "hands on" supervisor than the previous manager had been. Petitioner was resistant to the constant checking on his work by Mr. Gilliam. He believed Mr. Burdick recognized his experience and left him alone to perform his daily tasks with passive supervision. Mr. Gilliam, as a new manager with Respondent, was given instruction by the association president, Joanne Dice, on behalf of the board of directors, to more closely supervise the maintenance staff. In Petitioner, Mr. Gilliam saw a good employee who "liked to do things his way." Mr. Gilliam estimates that Petitioner would do about 90 percent of the assigned tasks differently from how he would prefer them done. Mr. Gilliam tried to get Petitioner to come around to his way of doing things because he was responsible to the board of directors for properly maintaining the property. Mr. Gilliam believes he did not harass Petitioner, but does remember upsetting him on one occasion when he called him "Michael" rather than his given name of "Mike." After Petitioner made clear the fact that he preferred to be called "Mike," Mr. Gilliam never called him "Michael" again. Mr. Gilliam gave clear instructions as to how he expected the tasks assigned to Petitioner be performed, yet Petitioner continued to do things his way. Mr. Gilliam often had a certain order or priority for performing required maintenance tasks which Petitioner regularly failed to follow. After Petitioner had eye surgery and was placed on limited duty by his physician, Dr. Oktavec, Mr. Gilliam confirmed the light detail in a letter dated March 19, 2013, so that Petitioner would not suffer further injury to his eye through over exertion. Ms. Dice was elected president of the board of the condo association in 2010. She lives in Gainesville, Florida. On three separate occasions (July 26, October 27, and November 3, 2011), she drove from Gainesville to St. Augustine to discuss Petitioner's complaints of alleged harassment by Mr. Gilliam. She believed that Mr. Gilliam's job was to establish priorities and assign tasks to be completed. Sometimes, due to inclement weather and other factors, priorities would have to shift. Ms. Dice observed that Petitioner complained that he did not need anyone to tell him how to perform his job. She noted that Beachers Lodge Condominiums is a large property that requires the cooperation of all employees along with the board of directors to maintain it to the standards expected by the owners and their guests. For a year, Ms. Dice and Mr. Gilliam tried to help Petitioner improve his performance, eliminate any deficiencies, and brighten his attitude, all to no avail. A few months after the final meeting Ms. Dice held with Petitioner, she agreed with Mr. Gilliam that Petitioner's behavior could no longer be tolerated and that he should be terminated for cause. The March 23, 2012, letter from Mr. Gilliam terminating Petitioner's employment was explicit in its reasons for termination. The letter offered 13 reasons for the termination and addressed all charges made by Petitioner against Mr. Gilliam. The reasons may be summarized as follows: On October 11, 2011, Mr. Gilliam gave Petitioner a list of daily and weekly duties which he acknowledged having received. Petitioner complained about receiving such a list. On October 25, 2011, Mr. Gilliam gave Petitioner a disciplinary letter for having falsified his timecard on October 19, when Mr. Gilliam observed Petitioner driving down A1A at a time he said he was still at work. Petitioner requested owners send letters to Mr. Gilliam that he was giving Petitioner too much direction and that Petitioner was doing a good job, another indicator of not taking direction. On October 14, 2011, Petitioner did not complete a washing task he was assigned, but went on to perform another task he deemed more important. Again, on March 13, 2012, Mr. Gilliam issued Petitioner a letter addressing corrective action for not following instructions. Petitioner accused Mr. Gilliam of jerking him by the coat in front of witnesses. No witnesses came forward to support this claim. Mr. Gilliam listed issues with Petitioner's work ethic in the March 13, 2012 letter. Petitioner had broken a floor during cleaning which was cited in the March 13 letter. Another refusal to take guidance was listed in the March 13 letter. Mr. Gilliam advised Petitioner that that the failure to correct his behavior concerning following direction would lead to "additional correction." Petitioner refused to sign this letter. Petitioner had been previously advised that he was to engage in light activity based upon his physician's prescription, and as set forth in a March 19 letter from Mr. Gilliam. On March 23, 2012, a St. Johns County deputy came to the office of the association and advised Mr. Gilliam that Petitioner had filed a complaint for assault against him, which the deputy determined not to be a criminal matter. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after receiving the March 23 letter terminating his employment. His claim was denied by the Department of Economic Opportunity, since he had been terminated for misconduct. He is currently in the process of losing his home and has only found work with his church for 7-8 hours a week. Petitioner admits that he stood up for himself when he disagreed with Mr. Gilliam by cursing him, calling him names, and writing complaint letters to condo owners and board members. Petitioner claims he was discriminated against by his 78-year-old boss, Mr. Gilliam, who allegedly said, "if you were 30 and not 50, you could do this job better." This alleged statement was not corroborated by any witnesses and was denied by Mr. Gilliam. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Gilliam discriminated against him by making fun of him after he had eye surgery. The letter dated March 19 shows that Respondent recognized the eye injury and surgery and warned Petitioner to engage in only light duty as ordered by his doctor. No witnesses testified to the alleged derogatory comments concerning Petitioner's vision. Respondent was never made aware of any claim of discrimination against Petitioner based upon his alleged disability. Their understanding was that Petitioner needed surgery on his eyes which was performed successfully by his physician and corrected the problem. Petitioner was not replaced by a younger employee when he was terminated. Respondent continued with just one full-time maintenance man and two part-timers. The roster of employees for Respondent shows that the remaining maintenance men are ages 56, 45, and 23. Petitioner is seeking $800,000 in lost wages, yet provided no evidence to support an award of that magnitude should he be successful in his discrimination claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Respondent did not commit the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Gilliam Beachers Lodge Condo Association, Inc. 6970 A1A South St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Mike Ostrom 900 South Rodriguez Street St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, LP Ormond Beach, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare ("Signature") committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race by subjecting her to disciplinary procedures that were not applied to non-minority employees.
Findings Of Fact Signature is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7). Signature is a provider of long-term nursing care in many markets in the United States. Signature operates the skilled-nursing facility in Ormond Beach that is the locus of this proceeding. Petitioner is a black female. On February 29, 2012, Petitioner was hired by Signature as a Certified Nursing Assistant (“CNA”). Petitioner’s job consisted of providing personal care to the residents of Signature’s Ormond Beach facility, including assisting the residents with their activities of daily living (“ADLs”). Signature terminated Petitioner’s employment in August 2013, when she failed to show up for work or call to notify her superiors that she would not be there. Petitioner did not contest the grounds of her dismissal in this proceeding. Petitioner’s complaint is limited to her allegations of disparate treatment on the job at Signature. At the time of her hiring, Petitioner was provided a copy of Signature’s “Stakeholder Handbook,” a document setting forth the company’s employment policies, including its anti- discrimination and anti-retaliation policies. The handbook sets forth Signature’s policies and procedures that prohibit, among other things, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, national origin, or any other categories of persons protected by state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Prior to filing her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR, Petitioner never made a complaint of employment discrimination while working at Signature. Signature also has a written “Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy” (abbreviated herein as the “Abuse and Neglect Policy”). Petitioner received a copy of this policy during her orientation and raised no objection to any of its contents. The policy states that the facility will “immediately report and thoroughly investigate allegations of mistreatment, neglect, abuse, misappropriation of resident’s property or any injury of unknown origin.” The policy further states, “Employees accused of participating in alleged abuse will be immediately suspended until the findings of the investigation have been reviewed by the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, and Human Resources Director.” Signature’s uniform practice is to suspend the accused employee without pay during the investigation. If the investigation discloses that the employee did not commit the alleged abuse, then the employee receives back pay for the period of the suspension. On September 27, 2012, Petitioner’s supervisor, Director of Nursing Judy Wade, issued a “Stakeholder Performance Improvement Plan” to Petitioner because of resident complaints. Ms. Wade wrote: You’ve had three residents complain of your care in the past five months. Complaints summarized as “less than gentle” care, that you told resident you couldn’t provide care because we didn’t have enough staff, sitting in resident room without resident’s permission, rudeness, and lack of assistance to residents in need.[2/] These complaints resulted in you being removed from providing care for these residents. Staff complaints summarized as: Not open to direction, makes excuses, confrontational, not a team player, and off the floor without informing nurse. Ms. Wade went on to outline Petitioner’s future expectations, which included providing care “in a timely, gentle and caring manner,” assisting co-workers and taking direction from superiors “in a positive, friendly manner,” and not leaving the floor without permission of the supervising nurse. The Performance Improvement Plan concluded with the statement, “If any expectation is not fully met your employment will be terminated.” Petitioner was not suspended pursuant to the Performance Improvement Plan because it addressed work performance issues, not “abuse” or “neglect” as defined by the Abuse and Neglect Policy. In late October 2012, Signature suspended Petitioner without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an incident in which a resident whom Petitioner had placed upright in a wheelchair, fell out of the wheelchair and was injured. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she placed the resident in the wheelchair and saw the resident fall. Petitioner’s only contention is that a white co-worker, Claudia Dominique, was also present and witnessed the fall but was not suspended. Luz Petrone, then the human relations director for Signature’s Ormond Beach facility, and Tiffani Petersen, the facility’s abuse prevention coordinator, testified that at the time of the incident they were not aware of any involvement by or allegation of abuse and neglect against Ms. Dominique. Therefore, they were in no position to suspend Ms. Dominique for the resident’s fall. Both women testified that Ms. Dominique would have been suspended if there had been an allegation of her involvement in the incident. The investigation concluded that Petitioner needed additional training on wheelchair usage but that she had not engaged in any abuse or neglect. Signature reinstated Petitioner to her position and paid her for the time she had missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On November 19, 2012, Petitioner was suspended without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an allegation of abuse and neglect. Petitioner did not allege that any white employees were involved in this incident. The record does not disclose the specifics of this incident, but does indicate that the investigation concluded with a finding that Petitioner had not engaged in any abuse or neglect. Petitioner was reinstated to her position on November 26, 2012, and reimbursed for the work she missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On January 15, 2013, Petitioner was suspended without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an allegation that she was being “rough” with a resident while providing care. One of Petitioner’s co- workers, Tina Williams, was involved in the incident and was also suspended pending the investigation. The investigation concluded that Petitioner needed additional training but had not engaged in any abuse or neglect.3/ Petitioner was reinstated to her position and paid for the time she missed while on suspension, as was Ms. Williams. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On March 5, 2013, Signature suspended Petitioner without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation regarding rough handling of a resident and failure to toilet a resident when the resident asked to use the bathroom on March 2. A white co-worker, Patricia Capoferri, was also involved in the incident and was also suspended without pay pending investigation. Ms. Capoferri asserted that the resident in question was assigned to Petitioner but that Ms. Capoferri had to answer the resident’s call light because Petitioner would not do so.4/ Ms. Capoferri claimed that she had to answer Petitioner’s “lights all the time, because she don’t answer them.” Upon completion of the investigation, Signature determined that the allegations of abuse or neglect against Petitioner were not substantiated. Petitioner was reinstated to her position and paid for the time she had missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. Petitioner credibly testified as to the hardship caused by the suspensions imposed on her during the investigations. It is reasonable to assume that a person attempting to survive on a CNA’s wages can scarcely afford to go a week without being paid, even when she ultimately receives full compensation for the suspension. Petitioner suffers from high blood pressure, and the tension generated by the frequent suspensions required several visits to her physician. On March 11, 2013, Signature terminated Ms. Capoferri’s employment as a result of the investigation. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Capoferri never went into the resident’s room on March 2, and that Signature suspended and fired Ms. Capoferri in order to cover its tracks regarding its pattern of discriminatory actions against Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that Signature acted against Ms. Capoferri only after Petitioner filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR. However, Ms. Capoferri was suspended on March 5, three days before Petitioner filed her complaint. Ms. Capoferri was fired on March 11, three days after Petitioner filed her complaint, but Ms. Petrone and Ms. Petersen credibly testified that they were unaware of the complaint at the time Ms. Capoferri’s employment was terminated. Petitioner offered no credible evidence to support her somewhat fanciful claim that Signature would fire a white employee solely to shield itself from a charge of discrimination by a black employee. Signature offered persuasive evidence that it applies its Abuse and Neglect Policy consistently and without regard to race or any other protected category. In April 2013, an allegation of abuse and neglect was made against Nancy Harnonge, a white CNA working at the Ormond Beach facility. Consistent with its policy, Signature suspended Ms. Harnonge without pay pending investigation and then reinstated her to her position with back pay after the investigation concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated. In May 2010, an allegation of abuse and neglect was made against Ms. Capoferri, who was suspended without pay pending investigation and then reinstated with back pay after the investigation did not substantiate the allegations. Petitioner never complained of discriminatory treatment or harassment to any supervisor at Signature prior to filing her Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Signature for her several suspensions pending investigation of abuse and neglect allegations. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Signature's stated reasons for her suspensions were a pretext for race discrimination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Signature discriminated against her because of her race in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner made no claim that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of Signature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that LP Ormond Beach, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2014.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1988, shortly before 9:00 a.m., Sheriff Deputy William Emral of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office was notified by radio that the Sheriff's Office dispatcher had received an anonymous telephone call advising that two white males were loading what appeared to be narcotics into a white four-door Cadillac, with Florida license plate number 367-ZGX. The caller indicated that the Cadillac was headed northbound on the highway from Lower Matecumbe Key. Deputy Emral then took up a stationary position at mile marker 84 and began watching the northbound traffic. At about 9:05 a.m., he observed the Cadillac described by the anonymous caller. Deputy Emral began to follow the subject Cadillac northbound. He followed the Cadillac for approximately one mile and then activated his emergency lights and pulled the Cadillac over. From the time Deputy Emral first saw the subject Cadillac until the time he pulled the Cadillac over, he did not observe anything about the car or the driver that would have caused him to stop the Cadillac. Had it not been for the information provided by the anonymous caller, Deputy Emral would not have stopped the subject Cadillac. The Respondent, Mark Alfred Herre, was driving the Cadillac at the time Deputy Emral pulled it over. Mr. Herre did not flee and obeyed the directions given to him by Deputy Emral. He produced his driver's license which showed his name as Mark Alfred Herre. The car was rented and, when requested, he produced the rental contract showing that it had been rented by another individual. Deputy Emral reported this information to his base and to his superior, Captain Wilkinson, who later arrived at the scene. Deputy Emral observed two bags, one green and one gray. These were soft sided bags and appeared to be stuffed between the rear and front seats of the rented car, on both the driver and passenger sides. They were relative large, approximately three feet by four feet in size. The rental contract produced by Mr. Herre indicated that the vehicle was rented by a Maryland resident named Robert E. Lee. Mr. Herre could produce no authorization from Mr. Lee that he was entitled to use the vehicle nor could he produce the name of someone who could confirm he was authorized to be driving the subject vehicle. At about this time, Captain Wilkinson arrived at the scene as backup. At this point, Mr. Herre was not suspected of a crime and continued to answer questions from the Deputy. He stated that the bags in the car contained diving gear. Deputy Emral is a certified diver and the story seemed suspicious and inconsistent with the Deputy's previous diving experiences. Mr. Herre did not ask any questions or make other inquiries as to why he was stopped. Deputy Emral did explain that an anonymous tip was received and discussed this information with the Petitioner. At this point, Deputy Emral and Captain Wilkinson conferred and because of the information received by the anonymous tip to the Sheriff's Office and the inability of the Petitioner to prove he had authorization to be driving the rented vehicle, they decided that the vehicle should be taken into custody. In preparation for taking a vehicle into custody, an inventory of the vehicle is made as a standard procedure. Mr. Herre was not placed under arrest at this time. Mr. Herre was asked for, but declined to give, permission for the Deputy to search the vehicle. The vehicle was then searched and it was determined that the two bags in the passenger compartment contained bales of marijuana. Captain Wilkinson then took charge of the vehicle and drove it to the Sheriff's Office. Captain Wilkinson stated that even if no contraband were in the vehicle, he would probably have driven it to the substation to await confirmation that Mr. Herre was actually authorized to be in possession of the rented car and the same was not actually stolen. At the Sheriff's Office, the Cadillac was thoroughly searched and the car and its contents were photographed. Three bales of marijuana were recovered from the back seat and ten bales of marijuana were recovered from the trunk. Samples tested positive for marijuana. For purposes of this case, the parties have stipulated that the marijuana found in the subject Cadillac weighed a total of 300 pounds. On November 17, 1988, the Department issued a Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. The assessment was based on an estimated retail price for marijuana of $700.00 per pound times the stipulated 300 pounds, which comes to a total estimated retail value of $210,000.00. The tax, surcharge, and penalty assessed against Mr. Herre were as follows: 50% Tax $105,000.00 25% Surcharge 52,500.00 Additional penalty of 50% 78,750.00 Total Amount of assessment $236,250.00 Daily interest on the amount due is $51.78. The Notice of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings described above was properly and correctly prepared and notice of it was properly given to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. On December 28, 1988, Mr. Herre was sentenced in Case No. 33-88-00446- CF-A to a period of five (5) years probation and to pay $5,000.00 in costs. The sentence in the aforementioned case was as a result of criminal charges arising from Petitioner's arrest for the conduct alleged in the Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings dated November 17, 1988.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Mark Alfred Herre, is liable for taxes, surcharges, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and assessing the amount of such liability at $236,250.00, plus interest at the rate of $51.78 per day since November 7, 1988. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Bronis, Esquire 1395 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March 1991. Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of his race, color, or national origin in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2000).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Bamawo is a black male from Nigeria. Mr. Bamawo began working for the Department at the Dade Correctional Institution ("DCI") as a correctional officer in March 1993. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Bamawo was a career service employee whose duties included the care, custody, and control of inmates of the institution. Mr. Bamawo normally worked the third shift, from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. During most of the time Mr. Bamawo was employed at DCI, Captain Scott Pardue, as the third shift supervisor, directly supervised Mr. Bamawo. According to Mr. Bamawo, he and Captain Pardue did not "see eye-to-eye" even though Mr. Bamawo tried to get along with Captain Pardue. The first incident that Mr. Bamawo considers discriminatory occurred in 1995, when Captain Pardue formally disciplined Mr. Bamawo for writing graffiti.3 Mr. Bamawo denies that he wrote the graffiti, and he made a verbal complaint to a superior officer identified as "Colonel Thompson." Mr. Bamawo also asserts that, in 1995, an Anglo corrections officer was promoted to sergeant, and Mr. Bamawo was required to follow his orders. Mr. Bamawo asserted that he made many complaints to Captain Pardue about this sergeant but that Captain Pardue did nothing. Also in 1995, Captain Pardue made two remarks to Mr. Bamawo that Mr. Bamawo considered offensive: On one occasion, Captain Pardue apparently was looking at a picture of an African woman in a National Geographic magazine when he asked Mr. Bamawo if "you people live in houses or sleep in trees"; Mr. Bamawo believed Captain Pardue was making a derogatory comment about Mr. Bamawo's being a native of Africa. Another occasion was at Thanksgiving, when Mr. Bamawo brought a can of corn to a covered-dish lunch; Mr. Bamawo opened the can of corn and set it on the table with the other food, and Captain Pardue asked if this was the way people in Africa ate corn. These remarks caused Mr. Bamawo to be humiliated and embarrassed in front of his co-workers. Mr. Bamawo asserts that Captain Pardue refused to approve his requests for time off the job but would approve time off for Anglo officers. When Captain Pardue refused Mr. Bamawo's requests for time off, Mr. Bamawo asked other captains for approval, and, when they refused to approve his requests for time off, Mr. Bamawo called in sick. Mr. Bamawo recalls that, on one occasion, he was forced to miss an appointment because Captain Pardue ordered him to work overtime. According to Mr. Bamawo, Captain Pardue accused Mr. Bamawo of being a minute late on one occasion and penalized him, although Mr. Bamawo recalls that Captain Pardue did not penalize others for being late. It was Mr. Bamawo's perception while he worked at DCI that, countless times, Captain Pardue changed the work assignments of Anglo officers when they requested a change, but that Captain Pardue never changed Mr. Bamawo's work assignment when he requested a change. Mr. Bamawo believed that he was given the assignments that no one else wanted. On March 21, 2000, Mr. Bamawo was involved in an altercation with Sergeant Frankie Tindall. Mr. Bamawo called Sergeant Tindall "bitch" and threatened to "blow away" Sergeant Tindall when Sergeant Tindall questioned Mr. Bamawo about trash that littered his post.4 On April 23, 2000, Captain Pardue designated Correctional Officer Orol as third-shift supervisor in DCI's north annex "Yard One"; Mr. Bamawo was one of three other correctional officers assigned to Yard One at the time. As designated supervisor, Mr. Orol had the authority to assign tasks to the three other officers. Mr. Bamawo protested Captain Pardue's choice of Mr. Orol because Mr. Orol had been out of the academy only six months; Mr. Bamawo felt that he should have been designated supervisor because he was the senior officer on the shift. Captain Pardue told Mr. Bamawo that he felt more confident with Mr. Orol in the position of supervisor. Mr. Bamawo told Captain Pardue that he was going to file a grievance. At some point during the daylight hours of the third shift on April 23, 2000, Mr. Orol told Mr. Bamawo to complete a check of the perimeter fence, which Mr. Bamawo considered a difficult job to do in the daylight because it was very hot work. Mr. Bamawo refused the order and told Mr. Orol that he would do the fence check when the sun went down. After a time, Mr. Orol called Mr. Bamawo on the radio and told him again to check the perimeter fence; Mr. Bamawo again refused, using a radio shorthand phrase meaning, "Do it yourself." Captain Pardue was monitoring the radio transmission and heard the exchange between Mr. Bamawo and Mr. Orol. Captain Pardue thought that Mr. Bamawo had responded to Mr. Orol in a "nasty" tone of voice, and, fearing that Mr. Bamawo and Mr. Orol might get into a confrontation, Captain Pardue radioed Mr. Bamawo and told him to come to the control room. Captain Pardue took Mr. Bamawo into a copy room and confronted him about his attitude toward Mr. Orol. Mr. Bamawo again complained about Captain Pardue's choice of Mr. Orol as supervisor rather than Mr. Bamawo. During the discussion, Mr. Bamawo became agitated, turned, and walked away from Captain Pardue. Captain Pardue called to him and told him to come back; Mr. Bamawo turned back and approached Captain Pardue with his fists clenched, called Captain Pardue "bitch," and said he would "bust" Captain Pardue.5 At this point, Captain Pardue, fearing for his safety, called Jeffrey Wainwright, who was the acting warden of DCI. After talking with Captain Pardue and Mr. Bamawo, Mr. Wainwright reassigned Mr. Bamawo to the women's facility across the street from DCI. Mr. Bamawo threatened to file a discrimination complaint if Mr. Wainwright did anything to him as a result of the incident with Captain Pardue. Mr. Bamawo was terminated from his employment with the Department on May 4, 2000. Mr. Bamawo appealed his termination to PERC, which found that the Department had just cause to terminate him based on the incidents of March 21 and April 23, 2000. Mr. Bamawo testified that, through the years, Captain Pardue made "countless" derogatory remarks about Mr. Bamawo's race and national origin. At first, according to Mr. Bamawo, he thought that Captain Pardue was joking, but that, eventually, he saw hate behind Captain Pardue's remarks.6 Mr. Bamawo also claims that Captain Pardue gave him bad work assignments; refused to give him days off; and used rookie officers like Mr. Orol to "agitate" him. Mr. Bamawo believes that he was terminated in retaliation for having threatened to file a grievance against Captain Pardue for unprofessional conduct because Captain Pardue designated Mr. Orol as the supervisor on April 23, 2000, and allowed him to give orders to more senior correctional officers. Other than his complaint to "Colonel Thompson" about the graffiti incident in 1995, Mr. Bamawo did not complain during the years he worked at DCI, either verbally or in writing, that Captain Pardue made racist remarks or derogatory remarks about his national origin or that Captain Pardue discriminated against him in any respect. Mr. Bamawo stayed in his job as a correctional officer at DCI because he liked the job, thought everyone was friendly, and liked working with the inmates. He had no problem with anyone on the job except Captain Pardue and Sergeant Tindall.7 Summary The evidence presented by Mr. Bamawo is not sufficient to support a finding that his termination by the Department was motivated by discriminatory intent or retaliatory. Mr. Bamawo failed to present any evidence to support a finding that the Department has ever imposed a lesser penalty on anyone not a black or a person of African origin for having threatened a Department sergeant or captain with violence. Mr. Bamawo has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that his termination was retaliatory because he had not, at the time he was terminated, filed an employment discrimination complaint; rather, Mr. Bamawo had merely threatened Mr. Wainwright that he would file such a complaint if disciplinary action were taken against him for the April 23, 2000, incident involving Captain Pardue. The evidence presented by Mr. Bamawo is not sufficient to support a finding that he was subjected to continual harassment based on his race or national origin such that his ability to function as a correctional officer was impeded. Although Mr. Bamawo, as a black man of African origin, is a member of two protected classes, he did not present evidence sufficient to establish that he was treated differently from other correctional officers with respect to pay, assignments, time off, or any other aspect of his employment with the Department, and he did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that he was forced to endure an abusive and hostile work environment at DCI. The evidence submitted by Mr. Bamawo is sufficient to establish that, in 1995, Captain Pardue made a remark about Africans sleeping in trees and a remark about the manner in which Africans served canned corn, but, even though Mr. Bamawo was humiliated and embarrassed by these boorish remarks, these two isolated instances of derogatory comments based on race and national origin are not indicative of a pervasively hostile or abusive work environment.
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 the Petition for Relief of Oghenerhoro Bamawo. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 18th day of September, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Department is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of said chapter, which includes the duty of granting or denying an application for a mortgage broker license, as set forth in Section 494.037, Florida Statutes. Applicant is a resident of the State of Florida and has a present address at 2400 North Ocean Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305. On November 26, 1985, Applicant submitted a partially completed Application for Registration as a Mortgage Broker (hereinafter Application), under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. From the Application, Applicant was born March 19, 1935. He is a citizen of the United States and is a resident of the State of Florida. The files of the Department indicate that Applicant is not now and never has been granted a license as a mortgage broker by the Department. On February 28, 1986, the Department entered a Final Order Denying the Application for Registration as a Mortgage Broker and Notice of Rights against Applicant (hereinafter Denial Order). Applicant timely requested a hearing and William J. Kendrick, Hearing Officer, was assigned to preside over these proceedings. An administrative hearing was held on August 18, 1986, and on October 22, 1986, said Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order recommending that Applicant's Application be approved. The Department has reviewed the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and adopts and incorporates them by reference with two minor exceptions which are discussed in the Conclusions of Law section herein.
