The Issue Whether Respondent, Lincare, Inc., is liable to Petitioner, Sharon Ford, for subjecting her to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Complaint Allegations Lincare is a Tampa-based company that focuses on home- healthcare services. It has an annual revenue of over $3 billion and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company based in Germany. Ms. Ford, a married woman with children, is an accountant and an attorney. Lincare first hired her as its acquisition counsel in 2001 and promoted her to director of acquisitions in 2002. She held that position for almost 15 years before she left the company on January 27, 2017. Mr. Tripp, a married man with children, served as an Arabic linguist in the Army before obtaining his law degree. Lincare hired Mr. Tripp to replace Ms. Ford as its acquisition counsel in 2002 and promoted him to general counsel in 2013. He still holds that position. On January 19, 2018, almost a year after leaving Lincare, Ms. Ford filed a Complaint with the Commission alleging a hostile work environment. She alleged that Mr. Tripp, over a 15-month period from December 2015 through March 2017, subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment. On July 13, 2018, the Commission issued its notice of determination of no reasonable cause and mailed it to Ms. Ford. The notice advised her that she “may request an administrative hearing . . . by filing a Petition for Relief within 35 days of the date the determination was signed by the Executive Director.” Ms. Ford received the notice in the mail on July 16, 2018. On August 16, 2018, 34 days after the Commission issued its notice, Ms. Ford requested an administrative hearing by mailing her Petition to the Commission via U.S. mail. The Commission received the Petition on August 20, 2018. On the same day, the Commission generated its transmittal letter. But, instead of transmitting the Petition to DOAH, the Commission advised Ms. Ford that the Petition appeared to be untimely because it was received three days beyond the 35-day deadline under section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes. After Ms. Ford responded that she timely requested a hearing by post-marking her Petition before the 35-day deadline, the Commission transmitted the case to DOAH on September 21, 2018. The transmittal letter, dated August 20, 2018, did not dismiss the Petition as untimely but rather requested assignment of a judge to “conduct all necessary proceedings required under the law.” Lincare’s Structure and Policies Between 2015 and 2017 Lincare had three officers: chief executive officer (“CEO”), chief financial officer (“CFO”), and chief operating officer (“COO”). The corporate chart had the CEO at the top and the CFO and COO, who reported to the CEO, immediately thereunder. The second tier of the chart listed six department heads, none of whom were corporate officers: corporate compliance officer, head of business innovation, head of human resources, head of public relations & communications, general counsel, and director of acquisitions. These managers were equal on the hierarchy chart and all reported directly to the CEO. As director of acquisitions, Ms. Ford brought in the deals, negotiated the business side, and quarterbacked them to closing. She helped move the deals along by ensuring that Lincare personnel communicated and accomplished their required tasks. She provided business advice to the legal department and worked closely with the acquisition attorney (on smaller deals) and the general counsel (on larger deals). Ms. Ford received a salary and an objective bonus tied to the deals that closed.2/ As the general counsel, Mr. Tripp oversaw legal affairs and supervised five lawyers in the legal department, but had no control over any other department. As to the deals, Mr. Tripp handled the legal aspects, such as contracts, due diligence, and compliance, provided legal advice, and assessed risks. The CEO, COO, and CFO had sole authority to decide whether a deal closed. Mr. Tripp received a salary and a discretionary bonus tied to the company’s financial success in a given year. Although Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp gave each other advice, they were equals on the corporate chart. Mr. Tripp had no authority over Ms. Ford and lacked the power to hire, discipline, promote, transfer, fire, or control her compensation. They were coworkers who both answered directly to the CEO. The head of human resources (“head of HR”) ran the HR department and its roughly 15 to 18 employees. Directly under the Head of HR was the employee relations director, Ms. Adams. Among other things, the HR department oversaw the employee handbook and investigated reports of discrimination and harassment. The handbook included a detailed anti-harassment policy forbidding sexual harassment by any employee at work or at work-related events outside the office. Harassment was defined to include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for conduct of a sexual nature, and other unwelcome behavior that was personally offensive and interfered with work effectiveness done in person or through electronic means. The policy prohibited any employee from making employment decisions based on the submission to or rejection of sexual advances, and noted in bold that any violation would subject an employee to discipline up to an immediate discharge. The handbook contained a detailed reporting procedure for employees who believed, had concerns, or suspected they or anyone else may have been harassed. The policy required them “to immediately notify” a named individual based on their location, which included the employee relations director or the HR Manager for employees in the corporate office. The handbook required employees to follow the procedure and noted that the failure to do so could adversely affect their rights to pursue a claim. Lincare took harassment allegations seriously. Once an allegation was reported, the employee relations director or HR managers investigated; the legal department was not involved unless a particular legal question arose. They obtained as much information as possible from the victim, spoke to potential witnesses, reviewed available documents, and interviewed the accused. If the investigation uncovered no corroborating evidence and the accused denied any wrongdoing, a report would be added to the accused’s personnel file; upon a second allegation, the accused would be terminated. If a supervisor retaliated against an employee for reporting harassment, that supervisor would be terminated. Lincare disseminated the handbook and updated versions to employees and required them to sign a form acknowledging that they received the handbook and would abide by its policies. Ms. Ford signed such forms each time she received a revised handbook, including in 2015——the version in effect until she left Lincare in January 2017. She knew about the harassment policy, the reporting requirement, and the fact that her failure to so report could adversely affect her rights. Friends and Coworkers for Over 15 Years Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp worked closely together at Lincare for 15 years and they became good friends in the process. When Lincare hired Mr. Tripp as acquisition counsel in 2002, he worked closely with Ms. Ford on hundreds of deals. They were in constant, daily contact to strategize, handle diligence and compliance issues, advise each other on the tasks they both had to complete, and ensure the deals closed. They also had a close friendship. They regularly went to lunch alone and with others, as often as three days per week, attended social events with mutual friends, and spoke on the phone and texted about business and personal matters. They had much in common as married parents with kids around the same age and they enjoyed each other’s company. When Mr. Tripp became general counsel in 2013, Ms. Ford initially worked closely with the new acquisition counsel. In late 2014, however, she and Mr. Tripp resumed working closely together when Lincare began negotiating larger transactions. Project Maverick was the largest acquisition of Ms. Ford’s career and it closed in March 2016. Project Falcon was the largest divestiture of her career and it closed in August 2016. These two deals, and others, required Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp to work even more closely together from 2015 until she left the company in January 2017. They often met multiple times per day. Ms. Ford sought Mr. Tripp’s assistance on the legal side and he sought her assistance on the business side. As before, she remained the quarterback shepherding the deal forward. Their friendship continued during this period. They invited each other to lunch regularly, alone and with coworkers. They attended social events with friends, including holiday dinners in 2015 and 2016. On out-of-town work trips, they rented cars together and sometimes spent time alone, such as for meals. They continued to text and speak on the phone about business and personal matters. They talked about their families, children, and other personal matters much like longtime friends do. They checked in on each other when personal crises occurred. And, when Ms. Ford began tense negotiations with the CEO about her compensation, which ultimately led her to leave Lincare, she relied on Mr. Tripp as a sounding board and for moral support. Even after Ms. Ford left the company in January 2017, she maintained contact with him. They had lunch alone at least once. For months, they continued to text each other, even about personal matters such as when she texted him after he had been in a car accident. However, their communication largely ceased once Ms. Ford filed a lawsuit against Lincare over her compensation. Ms. Ford’s Testimony Accusing Mr. Tripp of Sexual Harassment The first incident occurred on December 11, 2015. In that 10 to 20 minute conversation in her office, Mr. Tripp professed strong feelings for her and that he desired a confidential, sexual relationship with her. She rejected him and said they were just friends. She immediately called her husband and spoke to him all the way home. She felt humiliated, embarrassed, and angry. She did not attend a football game that weekend with other coworkers to avoid Mr. Tripp and kept her communications with him to e-mail for the next week. The second incident occurred in her office later in December 2015. While discussing another affair that may be happening at work, Mr. Tripp said he could not report the other employee because he wanted to do the same thing with Ms. Ford, notwithstanding the professional and personal risks. She again rejected him. For the next few weeks, Ms. Ford tried to avoid him as much as possible, but she had to face him because the deals began to lag. She said he continued to make comments here and there, but she offered no specific details. The third incident occurred in January 2016, after a conference call in Mr. Tripp’s office. He said he knew Ms. Ford was avoiding him, but he could not function. He told her he was willing to leave his wife, but she again rejected him. Over the next few months, the comments and innuendo pretty much ceased so Ms. Ford decided to go back to being friends to ensure that the Maverick and Falcon deals closed. However, a fourth incident occurred in the parking lot after a late conference call in June 2016. Mr. Tripp professed that his feelings were stronger now and that he was waiting for Ms. Ford to change her mind. She said her feelings had not changed and he said he understood. For the remainder of 2016, Ms. Ford testified generally that Mr. Tripp continued to make comments about his inability to function and that he got more obsessive as the year progressed. But she offered little detail about the comments or where and when they occurred, except that she had to be around Mr. Tripp’s wife several times and she and Mr. Tripp agreed it was uncomfortable. The fifth incident occurred in October 2016 when Mr. Tripp told her he was learning Hebrew to “connect” with her in her native language. He tried to communicate with her in Hebrew in person and via text, despite her telling him to stop because it made her very uncomfortable. As a result, she again started to avoid him at the office, though he texted her to see if she was alright and admitted to acting like a high school student. In January 2017, Mr. Tripp continued with innuendo, spoke in Hebrew, and told Ms. Ford that he might move closer to her. She believed he was obsessed, which made her nervous about his stability and her safety. But she offered no specific dates on which these events occurred. Mr. Tripp came to Ms. Ford’s office twice that month after she had heated meetings with the CEO, including on her last day at the company, January 27, 2017. He cried because he could not imagine how he would go on if she left, as she was the only reason he came to work every day. That evening, he told her on the phone that he now knows what a divorce feels like. Mr. Tripp continued to harass her following her departure, including taking his family to the same ski resort in March 2017. She testified that she stayed in her room to avoid him and never initiated contact with him while there, though text messages admitted into evidence confirm she texted him several times, about a security breach and generally about his vacation. In January 2018, a year after she left the company during a mediation of her lawsuit against Lincare, Ms. Ford for the first time accused Mr. Tripp of sexual harassment. She had not reported the allegations pursuant to Lincare’s policy, though she knew it required her to do so. She never informed other coworkers either. In fact, the only person she said she told was her husband, though he did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Ford testified that she did not report the allegations because she had a contentious relationship with the CEO during this period and she believed the CEO would terminate her. She also was concerned that Mr. Tripp was unstable and could decide to kill the deals to ensure she missed out on her bonuses. Lastly, she thought reporting would be futile due to Lincare’s culture of harassment, including by one of the two individuals to whom she was directed to report, the head of HR. Mr. Tripp’s Testimony Denying the Alleged Sexual Harassment Mr. Tripp said that he never harassed Ms. Ford. Indeed, no one has ever accused him of harassment. He said he never expressed romantic feelings for her, suggested having a sexual relationship with her, or did anything to scare her. Ms. Ford’s allegations against him came as a shock. He believed they had been good friends for over 15 years and she never indicated otherwise. They enjoyed each other’s company, had children around the same age, and spoke often about business and personal things, like friends often do. Even during the period of alleged harassment, he noticed no changes in her behavior. They continued to invite each other to lunch regularly, often eating together alone, and continued to discuss deeply personal matters about their families. They texted each other often and attended holiday dinners with friends. She chose to sit next to him at a work event at a hotel in the fall of 2016. The same could be said for business trips during this period. On a March 2016 trip to New York, Ms. Ford left a group dinner early with him because he was sick, they worked out the next day, and had breakfast. On an August 2016 trip to Nashville to celebrate the closing of the Maverick deal, they rented a car together and went to dinner alone after Ms. Ford invited him. On a trip to New York in August/September 2016, Ms. Ford stayed with Mr. Tripp to retrieve his briefcase from the office and went to the airport together after the rest of the team left. Mr. Tripp admitted to learning some Hebrew, but because he liked languages (he was an Arabic linguist in the Army), not to become romantically connected to Ms. Ford. He practiced with her because she was the only person he knew who spoke Hebrew, just as he did with other coworkers who spoke another language. She never said it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Tripp also admitted that his wife suggested moving closer to Plant High School because it had a beneficial program for their son. The idea had nothing to do with Ms. Ford, who did not live nearby, and they decided not to move in any event. Even on her final days at Lincare, they had usual interactions. Mr. Tripp admitted calling Ms. Ford the evening of her last day (but said he had not come down to her office earlier) to express concern for his friend and sadness that they would no longer be working together. He did not recall commenting about a divorce, but if he had, it only related to her being a friend. For a few months after she left Lincare, Mr. Tripp believed their relationship had not changed. They continued to text each other and had lunch alone at least once. Though he took a ski trip to the same resort in March 2017, his wife chose the resort and Ms. Ford reached out to him several times during that trip to see how he was doing. Ms. Ford also texted him after he had a car accident in March/April 2017. It was not until several months after Ms. Ford left Lincare and filed her lawsuit against the company that he noticed a change in her attitude. At one point, he invited her to lunch with a mutual friend, but she did not respond and he later learned they had lunch without him. Ms. Ford also told him on the phone that he was going to hate her someday, though he had no idea then what that meant. After a hurricane in August/September 2017, he reached out to make sure she was safe; she thanked him and wished his family well too. That was their last communication before the sexual harassment allegations were made. Credibility Findings as to the Conflicting Testimony After hearing the conflicting testimony from Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp and observing their demeanor, the undersigned found it exceedingly difficult initially to determine who is telling the truth and who is quite an effective storyteller. Ms. Ford’s conviction in her accusations against Mr. Tripp was equal to his conviction in his denials. But, when considering all of the record evidence and testimony, the scales of credibility tip in Mr. Tripp’s favor for several reasons. For one, Ms. Ford cultivated a professional and personal relationship with Mr. Tripp throughout the alleged harassment period and continued to do so even after she left Lincare. Although she said she maintained contact because they had to work together and she wanted him as an ally, she also accused him of stalker-like, obsessive, humiliating, and unstable behavior. Her efforts to maintain a friendship with him, even after leaving Lincare, are at odds with someone who feels humiliated and fears for their safety. Ms. Ford’s testimony also veered from the affidavit she filed with the Commission. She testified that he generally made comments between November 2016 and January 2017, yet her affidavit offered more specifics as to the comments allegedly made. Her testimony about him moving to her neighborhood was entirely omitted from her affidavit. Her testimony about his efforts to sometimes communicate with her in Hebrew was at odds with the affidavit’s claim that he did so “continuously.” And, her testimony about the comments he made on her last day at Lincare differed as to substance and degree from her affidavit. Further, Ms. Ford’s testimony was directly refuted by other evidence. She testified that she did not affirmatively communicate with him about anything personal in March 2017, but text messages confirm that she checked in with him several times during the trip about his vacation and engaged in more friendly conversation than initially admitted. Ms. Ford’s reasons for waiting until a year after she left Lincare to report the accusations also call her credibility into doubt. Though she testified that she feared Mr. Tripp would kill two large deals and her bonuses therefrom, those deals closed in March and August 2016, and yet she never reported the allegedly ongoing harassment before she left Lincare at the end of January 2017. It also cannot be ignored that she waited until January 2018 to report the accusations and did so during the mediation of her compensation lawsuit against the company. Lastly, though not fatal to her claim, Ms. Ford’s failure to present any corroborating evidence cannot be ignored. She testified that she lost weight, suffered hair loss, and could not sleep, and said that it was the worst year of her life. Yet, the record is devoid of evidence that any other friends or coworkers noticed such changes, that she missed work or social events, or that she suffered at work in any way. She said he sent her inappropriate text messages, but provided no proof of them. She apparently kept a journal about work issues, but did not document the harassing incidents. And, though she said she immediately told her husband in December 2015, she chose not to present his testimony even though he was the only person who could corroborate her accusations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Sharon Ford, failed to timely file her Complaint and, regardless, that Ms. Ford failed to establish that Respondent, Lincare, Inc., committed an unlawful employment practice against her, both of which warrant dismissal of her Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 17th day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment based on Petitioner's pregnancy and sexual harassment, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a family-owned business engaged in the retail sales of wine, spirits, cigars, specialty gourmet foods, and party favors. Respondent operates about 28 stores, mostly in south Florida. Respondent employs at least 225 employees. Its chief executive officer is Paul (Bubba) Kassal. Other executive officers, superior to Bubba Kassal, are his brother Michael, who also serves as vice-president of personnel, and their father, who, with his father, started the company in 1955. Respondent hired Petitioner on October 13, 2003, as a human resources manager. As such, Petitioner reported to the human resources director. At the time of hiring Petitioner, Bubba Kassal informed her, presumably secretly, of his intent to fire the existing human resources director. Six months later, after the termination of the human resources director, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position. As human resources director, Petitioner's primary duties were to ensure that all of Respondent's employees were paid, file all reports with the appropriate agencies, prepare internal employment policies, train managers in good hiring practices, run background checks, ensure compliance with all safety, workers' compensation and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) issues, terminate employees, counsel employees, file unemployment compensation reports, and participate in the strategic planning for new stores. The Kassals were satisfied with Petitioner's work performance during her entire employment with Respondent. Respondent's main offices are located in Ft. Lauderdale. While working for Respondent, Petitioner commuted over one hour each day from her home in Port St. Lucie to her office in the corporate headquarters. The issues in this case divide neatly into the claims of a hostile work environment and sex discrimination due to pregnancy. The claim of a hostile work environment pertains to Petitioner's first two years with Respondent, which were from late 2003 through late 2005. The claim of discrimination due to pregnancy pertains to Petitioner's last months with Respondent, which were from spring 2008 through fall 2008. As noted below, there is evidence supportive of a claim of a hostile work environment, although this evidence fails to establish such a claim for the reasons explained below. However, the limited evidence of a hostile work environment is in no way linked to the termination of Petitioner's employment in 2008 while she was pregnant. This termination, which was due to complications associated with her pregnancy, was essentially by mutual agreement and in no way was due to some form of quid pro quo sex discrimination or retaliation for her failure to reciprocate Michael Kassal's flirtation or infatuation. Petitioner's version of events for 2003-05 is credited because Michael Kassal did not testify. Petitioner's version of events for 2008 is largely uncredited due to some inconsistencies in her testimony where she implies, for instance, that she understood that Respondent might not keep open her existing job until after she delivered. Petitioner's version of events for 2008 is less than the more plausible testimony of Bubba Kassal and Respondent's outside counsel, Amy Galloway. Shortly after starting work, Petitioner began receiving unwelcome attention from Michael Kassal, whose office was near Petitioner's office. Michael Kassal, who was married at all material times, routinely complimented Petitioner's hairstyle, teeth, shoes, and clothes. When Respondent sponsored a wine tasting at its Port St. Lucie store, Michael Kassal invited Petitioner to attend. Michael Kassal repeatedly asked Petitioner to lunch or dinner. Petitioner went to lunch with Michael Kassal only a couple of times because she was uncomfortable with the level of attention that she was receiving. During her first year of employment, Petitioner was preoccupied with the demands of her job and largely ignored the uninvited attention that Michael Kassal directed toward her. During her second year of employment, Petitioner initiated corporate-wide training sessions in sexual harassment. She used these occasions to remind Michael Kassal, when he made her uncomfortable with his comments or behavior, that he knew better and he needed to stop such inappropriate behavior. Undeterred, Michael Kassal instead confided in Petitioner that he felt trapped in his marriage, could not leave his wife due to their two children, and believed that he would have been much happier if he had met Petitioner a couple of years earlier because they would have been so good together. Michael Kassal said that his wife, who was, at times, an employee of Respondent, was an alcoholic. Petitioner suggested that Michael Kassal or his wife take advantage of Respondent's employee assistance program. Michael Kassal rejected this advice and instead stated that, if Petitioner would not go out with him, he would go out with a woman at the gym where he worked out. On Petitioner's birthday, Michael Kassal routinely gave her a card. Petitioner kept only two of the cards and could not identify the years that they were received. One card contains a handwritten note: "And I need you more than want you[,] and I want you til the end of all time." Michael Kassal printed his name at the bottom of the note, adding a heart- shaped symbol in place of the dot over the "i." The other birthday card states: Dear Angella, It[']s presently July 10th and you are in India and I am wishing I were with you riding on Elephants and protecting you from the dangers so far from home. I must tell you we all miss you and only have kind thoughts about how professionally you have with us with Cami and Johanna. You have always blessed us with organization and administrative magic. I sit here and count the days before I can smell Victor[i]a's Secret Rapture perfume. Thank you for your intervention. You have been a breath of fresh air. I know it[']s been a whirlwind to some of us to catch up but it[']s worth the effort. I always have your back. I hope this year[']s birthday brings happiness and fills your heart with songs and sunshine. I hope you get a new pair of shoes and a toothbrush. Thanks again for all your loyalty and dedication. Sincerely, Michael Kassal. The "i" in "Michael" bears no dot or other symbol. Bubba Kassal testified that Michael sent birthday cards to all of the employees of the company and that this was part of the family atmosphere that characterizes the company, which continues a tradition of family picnics, employee fitness programs, and comprehensive fringe benefits. Bubba Kassal also testified that he and his brother kiss each morning. However, Bubba Kassal did not testify that the contents of the birthday cards quoted above resemble the contents of the birthday cards that Michael Kassal sends to, say, the company truck drivers or warehouse workers. The thoughtfulness that Michael Kassal extends daily to his brother and annually to his employees is distinct from the intimacies inherent in the shorter birthday card and the reference to smelling Petitioner's perfume again. These intimacies corroborate the portion of Petitioner's testimony that describes an inappropriate level of emotional attachment from Michael Kassal toward Petitioner; the inference easily follows that this level of emotional attachment is atypical of the conventional employer-employee relationship at Respondent. Three omissions loom large in Petitioner's proof of her claim of a hostile work environment. These omissions are considered in ascending order of significance. First, at no time during her employment with Respondent did Petitioner complain to anyone about Michael Kassal's behavior. She testified that she believed a complaint would be futile because Michael Kassal was the boss. Respondent countered with evidence that complaints about Michael Kassal's wife led to her termination and argument that Petitioner's complaints would likewise have received a fair hearing. Respondent's contention overlooks the fact that Michael's wife was convicted of driving under the influence, and her continued operation of a company vehicle presented an insurance problem for Respondent that could not be ignored. Petitioner is right on this point--her complaint would have been futile. Bubba Kassal was not in a position to control his brother, and, on this record, their father does not seem to have been playing a prominent role in the business during the time in question. Factually, the failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection to unwelcome sexual behavior in the workplace may sometimes undermine the credibility of the complainant. This is not the situation here, though, because, as noted above, Petitioner's version of events from 2003-05 is unrebutted and confirmed by two birthday cards. Legally, the failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection to unwelcome sexual behavior in the workplace may sometimes preclude a finding of notice to the employer, so as to preclude a conclusion of vicarious liability. This is not the situation here, though, because, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Michael Kassal was Respondent for purpose of establishing notice and concluding vicarious liability for his behavior. The second omission is that nothing in the record establishes that the behavior of Michael Kassal impeded Petitioner's work performance. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, this omission is not outcome-determinative, but, as noted above, Petitioner's work was always satisfactory, at least until her health deteriorated during her pregnancy, which is discussed below. The third omission is that the evidence fails to establish that Michael Kassal continued to lavish inappropriate attention on Petitioner after the end of 2005. The record is silent as to the nature of the relationship between Michael Kassal and Petitioner for the two and one-half years from the end of 2005 until the disclosure of her pregnancy in the spring of 2008. It is at least as plausible that, unfueled by any encouragement from Petitioner, Michael Kassal's infatuation with her tapered off after a couple of years, rather than burned with the same intensity for four and one-half years. The behavior of Michael Kassal from late 2003 through late 2005 suggests nothing more than an infatuation with Petitioner, which, however inappropriate, excludes the sexually charged actions of offensive touching or sexually explicit invitations or comments. The behavior in this case is limited to unaccepted invitations to lunch, dinner, and dates, inappropriate revelations about Michael Kassal's personal life, and transparent attempts at flattery that, at their best, suggest a failure to recognize boundaries and, at their worst, wander between the narcissistic and infantile. The record is not especially rich in detailing Petitioner's response to the inappropriate attention lavished on her by Michael Kassal, except that there is no indication whatsoever that Petitioner welcomed the attention, reciprocated in any fashion, or was in any way flattered by Michael Kassal's two-year infatuation. There is some evidence that the attention made Petitioner embarrassed and somewhat uncomfortable, but this evidence is insufficient to establish that Petitioner's subjective reaction took the form of a feeling that she was physically threatened or personally humiliated or that she was laboring under an alteration of her working conditions. Such reactions, if they had occurred, would have been disproportionate to the level of attention that Michael Kassal directed toward Petitioner. Except for the frequency of comments about attire or appearance, which may have occurred on a daily basis, the record fails to establish the frequency of the invitations to lunch, dinner, and dates or the inappropriate revelations about Michael Kassal's personal life, but these occurrences were probably infrequent. Objectively considered, none of Michael Kassal's behavior was physically threatening or humiliating, none of his behavior was so pervasive or severe as to alter the conditions of Petitioner's employment, and none of his behavior could reasonably have adversely affected Petitioner's work performance. Based on these findings and the Conclusions of Law below, Petitioner has failed to prove a hostile work environment from 2003-05. The inception of the claims arising out of Respondent's treatment of her pregnancy is March or April 2008, when Petitioner learned that she was pregnant and due to deliver in November. In June, Petitioner decided to reveal her pregnancy to family, friends, and Respondent. On the morning that Petitioner had decided to inform Respondent of her pregnancy, the first person who came to her office was Bubba Kassal. He congratulated Petitioner, laughingly saying, in a manner that did not offend Petitioner, that he did not know that she had a boyfriend. Bubba Kassal then spoke of his two boys and added that he was sorry that Petitioner's mother was no longer alive to support her at this time. Bubba Kassal called his mother and told her, and she called Petitioner the next day and congratulated her. The record does not disclose whether Petitioner told Michael Kassal at this time, or, if she did, the nature of his response. A short while later, on June 13, Petitioner had an office visit with her physician, who became concerned about her high blood pressure. The physician asked if Petitioner could work at home, and Petitioner assured him that she could. The physician wrote a note to this effect. Driving back to the office, Petitioner called Ms. Galloway, with whom Petitioner had worked on human-resource issues. Petitioner told Ms. Galloway about her pregnancy, the health risks, and the support that she had already received from "the Kassals." Ms. Galloway advised Petitioner just to go in and tell them that she needed to work at home. Toward this end, Petitioner arranged a meeting with Michael and Bubba Kassal on June 18. At the meeting, Petitioner gave the Kassals a copy of her physician's note. Petitioner acknowledged that she had been with Respondent a long time, and she thanked them for the work that she had been allowed to do. She mentioned her pregnancy complications, which included blacking out and falling--these made the long drive between work and home especially dangerous. Petitioner offered to recruit someone to replace her, but she wanted to be kept on the payroll in return for performing various human resource duties as best as she could, mostly from home. Michael Kassal reacted to the request poorly. He replied that it had not been his idea to purchase a house so far from the office in Port St. Lucie, and the human resources director needed to be onsite. Notwithstanding Michael Kassal's reaction, Respondent accepted Petitioner's request, as Bubba Kassal and Petitioner generally agreed to an arrangement in which Petitioner would continue to be paid her normal salary through delivery in return for working on human resources matters on a limited basis. An important component of the understanding reached at the June 18 meeting was its term, which was through the birth of the baby. Bubba Kassal asked what would happen if, after baby was born, Petitioner decided not to return to work. Petitioner was unable to promise that she would return to work, but replied that she needed to work, and she could bring her aunt from Jamaica to watch the baby. Bubba Kassal asked when the work-at- home arrangement would go into effect, and Petitioner replied it was intended to go into effect right away, but she would try to work with them and offered to help find someone to perform her duties in her absence. Bubba Kassal replied that he had someone in mind. Petitioner herself testified that Bubba Kassal asked what would happen if they liked the replacement, and Petitioner replied that she understood that they had a business to run, implying that, consistent with this understanding, they might not have a position for her after the baby were born, just as she might not want to return to work with Respondent. Bubba Kassal promised to memorialize the understandings reached at the meeting. Despite the doctor's orders, Petitioner continued to report to the office until the July 4 weekend. At that time, she asked Bubba Kassal about the document to memorialize their understandings, and he said that Amy Galloway was working on it. On July 7, Ms. Galloway emailed to Bubba Kassal a draft letter agreement, which, among other things, confirmed that neither party was committing to Petitioner's ongoing employment after the birth of the baby. On July 8, Petitioner sent an email to Bubba and Michael Kassal and Ms. Galloway advising them that she was on bed rest and would submit FMLA paperwork as soon as possible. For some reason, the recipients did not receive this email, so they were unaware in early July of the status of Petitioner, who, understandably, did not undertake any unnecessary communications during her period of bed rest in order to save the baby. On July 11, Petitioner visited the doctor, who found that her blood pressure had soared to 200/100. Petitioner talked him out of ordering an ambulance to take her to the hospital, but the doctor ordered bed rest for Petitioner. By this time, Petitioner realized that, for the remainder of her pregnancy, she would not be able to perform even at the limited level that she had said she would work at the June 18 meeting. From this point forward, the June 18 understanding was superseded by Petitioner's medical issues. On July 11, Petitioner returned to the office briefly to advise her staff that she would be going home for the time being. While at the office, she saw an invoice from Ms. Galloway's law firm that reflected legal research conducted a couple of days after the June 18 meeting and concerned the Title VII ramifications of Petitioner's situations. Petitioner assumed that Respondent was terminating her and began to cry. On the same day, Petitioner returned to the doctor's office and had him complete the FMLA paperwork, which Petitioner had previously thought was unnecessary. The necessity for FMLA paperwork was as much Petitioner's realization, on July 11, that she could not perform even the limited duties contemplated by the June 18 understanding as her discovery, also on July 11, that Respondent had ordered its counsel to research Title VII. Later on July 11, Petitioner returned to the office with the completed FMLA paperwork and left it for Bubba Kassal. Pursuant to this paperwork, the FMLA period, during which Respondent would have to keep open her job, expired before the projected delivery date. On July 14, Petitioner returned a telephone call of Ms. Galloway and updated her on her condition. As Ms. Galloway confirmed in an email of the same date to Bubba Kassal, Petitioner wanted to take her FMLA time and understood that she would not be able to perform the transitioning tasks contemplated in the June 18 understanding. Ms. Galloway promised Petitioner that she would discuss with Bubba Kassal a reworking of her benefits, including maintaining present health benefits and obtaining disability benefits. On August 5, Petitioner sent an email to Bubba and Michael Kassal advising that she had not received her paycheck on August 2 and stating that she "continued" to be available to perform her end of the June 18 understanding. This is an attempt to document a fact that was untrue: Petitioner had not been able to perform her responsibilities under the June 18 understanding at any time after July 11. Ten minutes after receiving the email, Bubba Kassal emailed Ms. Galloway stating that they would proceed by paying Petitioner disability benefits through the birth, paying the company's portion of the health insurance until the birth, and giving Petitioner access to her company laptop computer and cellphone until October 1 in return for a release, presumably from any employment-related liability claims. It is impossible to infer that Bubba Kassal was miffed at Petitioner's misstatement, but it is likely that the misstatement motivated Bubba Kassal to define the status of Petitioner's employment relationship. By letter dated August 5 from a human relations employee to Ms. Galloway, the position of Respondent was documented, at least internally. This letter states that Petitioner's FMLA start date is July 11, 2008, and end date is October 4, 2008. This letter restates the undertakings that Bubba Kassal detailed in his August 5 email and notes that Petitioner has exhausted all of her sick and vacation time. The letter notes that the June 18 understanding was superseded by Petitioner's subsequent incapacitation. On August 14, Ms. Galloway emailed a letter to Petitioner reiterating much of the contents of the August 5 email and noting that, due to Petitioner's emergent health needs, Respondent had hired an acting human resources director on July 28. Ms. Galloway's letter restates the conditions set forth in Bubba Kassal's email of August 5, adding only that there is no expectation that Petitioner can perform any human resource duties and omitting the request for a release. A couple of weeks later, Petitioner emailed a brief message to Ms. Galloway acknowledging receipt of the letter and thanking her for all that she "does," but not otherwise responding to the letter. On October 8, Ms. Galloway sent another letter to Petitioner noting that the FMLA period had expired and that Respondent continued to perform the conditions detailed in the August 14 letter. The letter asks for the return of the laptop computer and cellphone. On November 5, Petitioner delivered her baby. One month later, she spoke with Ms. Galloway exploring, in Ms. Galloway's opinion, the possibility of returning, if her replacement were not working out, or obtaining additional severance pay. Ms. Galloway explained the company's view that the termination was voluntary, not involuntary. Eventually, Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner another week's salary, through July 18, and extended her insurance through December 31, so that Petitioner would have another chance to exercise her COBRA rights. Respondent advised that it was treating Petitioner's termination date as October 4, which was when the FMLA period had expired. There is no evidence of discrimination in Respondent's handling of Petitioner's pregnancy. Respondent assigned no role of substance in the 2008 events to Michael Kassal, whose objections to the June 18 understanding were completely ignored. There is no evidence that the company's actions in 2008 were influenced in any way by Michael Kassal's 2003-05 infatuation. Petitioner testified to a 4-6 week period during which she had previously worked at home. However, this earlier period of working at home was when Petitioner was engaged in the solitary task of converting payroll systems on the computer, and she needed a quiet place to work. Working at home under these conditions is entirely appropriate. During this period, Petitioner was working exclusively on this task, leaving her other human resources duties to others or deferring them until the conversion was finished. Any insistence by Respondent in 2008 that Petitioner work in the office is justified because Petitioner's duties generally required her to be in the office, where she would be available for, among other things, drop-in visits by corporate management needing assistance in the wide range of personnel matters that arise daily in a business of this size. However, Petitioner's claim of discriminatory treatment regarding working at home misses the larger point that, in the June 18 understanding, Respondent allowed her to work at home for the duration of her pregnancy. This understanding was defeated, not by Respondent's insistence that she work in the office, but by Petitioner's deteriorating medical condition. Petitioner also testified that Respondent allowed other managers to work at home. Again, this proof overlooks the fact that Respondent also allowed Petitioner to work at home under the June 18 understanding, and her subsequent inability to do so was due to her deteriorating health, not the demands of Respondent. Also, the other situations are distinguishable, even if Respondent had prohibited Petitioner from working at home. While one district manager's wife recovered from a broken leg and another district manager recovered from a heart attack and stroke, they worked in some fashion, either with reduced hours in the office or reduced hours from home. Petitioner's situation was different in the nature of her duties, which were corporate-wide, not district-wide; the fact that she was completely unavailable for an extended period of time; and probably for the fact that, for a substantial period of time, she failed or was unable timely to communicate her situation to Respondent. Based on these findings, Petitioner has failed to prove any form of sex discrimination in Respondent's handling of her pregnancy in 2008.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of June, 2010 . COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Bogdan, Esquire Robert Anthony Bogdan, P.A. 410 Southeast 1st Terrace Pompano Beach, Florida 33060-7108 Salvatore H. Fasulo, Esquire Trip Scott, P.A. 110 Southeast Sixth Street, 15th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, an African-American male, as a nursing assistant at the community healthcare facility known as Jackson Hospital in Marianna, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. Petitioner obtained his designation as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) subsequent to his employment by Respondent. Petitioner entered into a conversation with a female co-worker and CNA at Jackson Hospital on or about June 12, 2003. In the course of the conversation, he made an unwelcome sexual request of the co-worker. Petitioner was not on duty at the time and had returned to the hospital for other reasons. Subsequently, on June 12, 2003, the female co-worker filed a complaint with Respondent's human resource office at the hospital alleging unwelcome requests for sexual favors by Petitioner, inclusive of a request that the co-worker engage in sexual relations with Petitioner. In the course of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was made aware of the strict guidelines and "zero tolerance" policy of Respondent toward sexual harassment. Respondent's policy expressly prohibits sexual advances and requests for sexual favors by employees. Discipline for a violation of this policy ranges from reprimand to discharge from employment of the offending employee. Petitioner has received a copy of the policy previously and he knew that violation of that policy could result in dismissal of an erring employee. Violations of this policy resulted in dismissal of a non- minority employee in the past. Corroboration of Petitioner’s policy violation resulted from interviews with other employees in the course of investigation by the hospital director of human resources. Further, in the course of being interviewed by the director, Petitioner admitted he had propositioned his co-worker for sexual favors. As a result of this policy violation, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on June 16, 2003. At final hearing, Petitioner admitted the violation of Respondent's policy, but contended that termination of employment had not been effected for white employees for similar offenses in the past. This allegation was specifically rebutted through testimony of Respondent's hospital human resources director that a white male employee had been previously discharged for the same offense. Accordingly, allegations of Petitioner of dissimilar treatment of employees on a racial basis for violation of Respondent's policy are not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Bowles 4193 Evelyn Street Marianna, Florida 32446 H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquire Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A. Post Office Box 1508 Marianna, Florida 32447 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is what should be the award to Petitioner as to back pay, interest on the amount awarded, retirement system contributions, attorney's fees, and costs.
Findings Of Fact Had Petitioner retained her employment with Respondent, she would have earned $161,014.11. However, she actually earned $125,865.87. As a result of Petitioner's being terminated by Respondent, she lost income in the amount of $35,148.24. As a result of Petitioner's being terminated by Respondent, she lost pension contributions in the amount of $7,110.16. Consequently, Petitioner incurred a total monetary loss in the amount of $42,258.41. As to whether Petitioner incurred a break in service, no one from the Division of Retirement was called to testify. Consequently, no evidence was presented as to that issue. Petitioner suggests that she should receive credit for retirement from October 8, 1993, the date of her termination when she was a career service employee, to January 1995, the date that she again became a career service employee. Petitioner's suggestion is a reasonable resolution to the issue of break in service and should be implemented if there exists a break in service. No argument was presented to contradict that the statutory interest rate is ten percent per annum. Petitioner's counsel testified that she expended 437.80 hours on this matter and Petitioner's expert opined that such hours are reasonable. Respondent's expert opined that 241.30 hours are reasonable. Petitioner's expert did not review the index of the official file of this matter, which was maintained by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent's expert reviewed the index online. Further, Respondent's counsel reviewed the Verified Motion, but did not review the file of Petitioner's counsel. Respondent's expert questioned whether Petitioner's counsel personally performed the tasks in certain entries in the Verified Motion or whether a secretary performed the tasks, not whether the tasks were performed. However, Respondent's expert did not question, and did not indicate that he was required to question, Petitioner's counsel on such entries prior to hearing. Regarding such entries, Petitioner's counsel testified that she, not her secretary, performed the tasks in the entries. The testimony of Petitioner's counsel is found credible. Respondent's expert also questioned whether some entries contained adequate detail and specificity to support them, not whether the tasks were performed. The expert's testimony is found to be credible. The detail and specificity are inadequate in the entries identified by Respondent's expert. The lack of detail and specificity dictate a reduction in the number of hours requested by 98.30 hours. Consequently, the number of hours reasonably expended by Petitioner's counsel in this matter is 339.50. Petitioner and her counsel entered into a mixed agreement (Agreement) for representation at $250.00 per hour and for contingent fees. The Agreement provided in pertinent part as follows: agree to pay my attorneys from the proceeds of the gross recovery including costs and fees awarded attorney's fees, if applicable the following fee: * * * b. 40% of any recovery up to $1 million after the filing of an answer or the demand for appointment of arbitrator through the trial of the case; 40% becomes immediately applicable as soon as the matter is set for trial; * * * My attorneys shall be entitled to choose the fee at the hourly rate [$250.00 per hour] if I am entitled to an award of attorneys fees from the client or the contingency, whichever is greater. In the event there is a court-awarded fee which is more than the contingency fee, the attorneys shall keep the court-awarded fee in lieu of the contingency fee provided it is greater than the contingency fee and provided the court-awarded fee is actually collected. The hourly rate of $250.00 by Petitioner's counsel is within the range of rates for this matter. The hourly rate of $250.00 is reasonable. Therefore, the amount of reasonable attorney's fees in this matter is $84,875. Petitioner requests an enhancement of attorney's fees by one-third because of the uniqueness or unusualness of this matter. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that this matter is a unique or unusual case involving employment discrimination. Petitioner's counsel requests costs in the amount of $3,094.49. The Verified Motion contains taxable and non-taxable costs.2 Costs identified as fax or facsimile, postage, cab fare, and transportation to and from the courthouse should be excluded as inappropriate. As a result, the reasonable amount of costs is $2,844.48. Petitioner's Verified Supplemental Motion indicates additional attorney's fees associated with this hearing in the amount of $11,200.00, representing 44.80 hours (out of a total of 65.30 hours indicated) at a rate of $250.00 an hour; and additional costs associated with this hearing in the amount of $12,100.91. Regarding the supplemental attorney's fees, no explanation was submitted as to why the entries from June 6, 2003 to August 20, 2003 were not available at hearing. Notwithstanding, the supplemental documentation is sufficiently detailed and specific. As a result, the number of supplemental hours reasonably expended by Petitioner's counsel is 44.80, and the reasonable amount of supplemental attorney's fees is $11,200.00. Regarding the supplemental costs, the cost for the services rendered by Petitioner's experts are included in the $12,100.91. Petitioner obtained the services of an expert on attorney's fees and an expert on lost wages and benefits. For the services rendered by the expert on attorney's fees, the cost was in the amount of $1,775.00. For the services rendered by the expert on lost wages and benefits, the cost was in the amount of $9,006.25. The total cost for the services rendered by the experts is in the amount of $10,781.25. Again, costs identified as fax or facsimile, postage, cab fare, and transportation to and from the courthouse should be excluded as inappropriate. Additionally, regarding costs, Petitioner represents that the parties agreed to equally share in the expense of the court reporter for the hearing, which is shown on the Verified Supplemental Motion as $663.00. Respondent did not refute the representation. Consequently, the reasonable amount of supplemental costs is $12,054.91.
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 as to back pay, interest on the amount awarded, retirement system contributions, attorney's fees, and costs: Ordering the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services n/k/a Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to pay Gloria Garcia (Garcia) back pay in the amount of $35,148.24. Ordering the Department to make contributions to the Florida Retirement System on behalf of Garcia in the amount of $7,110.16. Ordering the re-evaluation of Garcia's break in service by the Division of Retirement. Further, ordering that, if it is in compliance with and satisfies applicable statutes and rules of the Division of Retirement, Garcia receive credit in time for retirement from October 8, 1993, the date of her termination, to January 1995, the date that she again became a career service employee. Ordering the Department to pay to Garcia's counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $96,075.00 and costs in the amount of $14,899.39, totaling $110,974.39. Ordering the statutory interest rate of ten percent per annum be applied to the amounts awarded. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of October, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Respondent or the Agency), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Sharon Douse (Petitioner), during her employment with the Agency and then by terminating her employment, based upon her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, and the national origin of her spouse, and by illegally retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Sunland Center in Mariana, Florida, is operated by the Agency as an intermediate-care facility for developmentally- disabled individuals. Connally Manor is a residential setting within Sunland Center for 16 developmentally-disabled individuals with significant behavioral and medical involvement. Petitioner began her employment with the Agency on July 15, 2011, until her dismissal on January 5, 2012. During her employment, she was classified as career-service employee, Human Services Worker II, assigned to provide direct care for residents in Connally Manor. As a career-service employee, Petitioner was required to serve a one-year probationary period, during which she was subject to termination at will. While employed with the Agency, Petitioner had a number of performance deficiencies and conflicts with her co-workers and supervisors. On July 22, 2011, Petitioner attended training for the treatment and care of residents. Shortly thereafter, however, Petitioner mishandled residents on at least two occasions. As a result, Joe Grimsley, a senior human services support supervisor for the Agency, suspended Petitioner from working independently with residents, and asked Petitioner to work closely with her peers to learn appropriate care procedures. On August 25, 2011, because of excessive absences and failure to perform duties in a timely manner, Petitioner received counseling from Mr. Grimsley and Agency behavior program supervisor Scott Hewett. Petitioner was counseled for excessive absences because, from July 18 through August 22, 2011, Petitioner took a total of 48 hours of leave time, which was greater than the Agency's policy of no more than 32 hours in a 90-day period. Although Petitioner discussed most of those absences with her supervisor prior to taking the time off, as a result of her absences, Petitioner missed some of her initial training, including professional crisis management training. During the August 25, 2011, counseling session, Mr. Grimsley and Mr. Hewett also discussed other issues of concern with Petitioner, including resident care, following chain of command, team work, proper parking, and data collection sheets. As a follow-up, on the same day as the August 25th counseling, Petitioner received some in-service training regarding proper log book documenting, proper use of active treatment sheet, and unauthorized and excessive absences. Mr. Grimsley permitted Petitioner to go back to her duties of working directly with residents after she received additional training on August 27, 2011. On September 8, 2011, Petitioner's supervisors once again found it necessary to counsel Petitioner regarding resident care, chain of command, teamwork, parking, and data collection, as well as to address two incidences of unsafe handling of residents, and Agency policy regarding food in the bedrooms, and class and work schedules. Because of Petitioner's continued performance deficiencies, on October 5, 2011, Mr. Grimsley wrote an interoffice memorandum to his supervisor, Agency residential services supervisor, Julie Jackson, recommending Petitioner's termination. The memorandum stated: Mrs. Jackson: I am writing to you in regard to Mrs. Sharon Douse HSW II Second Shift Connally Manor Unit 3. Mrs. Douse came to us July 15, 2011, since then she has had three employee documented conferences, due to poor work habits, resulting in corrective action, including retraining. These deficiencies include and are not limited to data collection, excessive absences, and unsafe handling of residents. This past week she was insubordinate to her immediate supervisor by refusing to answer the phone after being requested to do so twice, and being directed that it is part of her job. [Mr. Hewett] as well as my self [sic] has made every effort to help Mrs. Douse achieve her performance expectation; however these attempts have been met with resistance as Mrs. Douse openly refuses to take direction from her supervisors and also to seek the assistance of her peers, who have many years of experience working with the Connally Manor population. Mrs. Douse has not met probationary period. Her continual resistance to positive mentoring and her confrontational attitude and demeanor towards her supervisors and coworkers is creating an increasingly difficult work environment, not only on Connally Manor, but also on the other houses within the unit. It is apparent that Mrs. Douse lacks the willingness to improve her overall poor work performance. I am formally requesting Mrs. Douse to be terminated from her employment here in Unit 3. Mr. Grimsley's testimony at the final hearing was consistent with the above-quoted October 5, 2011, interoffice memorandum, and both his testimony and memorandum are credited. Upon receiving Mr. Grimsley's memorandum, Ms. Jackson submitted a memo dated October 26, 2011, to the Agency's program operations administrator, Elizabeth Mitchell, concurring with the request for Petitioner's termination. In turn, Ms. Mitchell agreed and forwarded her recommendation for termination to Sunland's superintendent, Bryan Vaughan. Mr. Vaughan approved the recommendation for termination, and, following implementation of internal termination proceedings, Petitioner was terminated on January 5, 2012, for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period. Petitioner made no complaints to Mr. Grimsley or anyone else in the Agency's management until after Mr. Grimsley's October 5, 2011, memorandum recommending Petitioner's termination. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Commission on March 29, 2012, after her termination, charges that she was "discriminated against based on retaliation, disability, marital status, sex, color, race and age." The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's allegations. In particular, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination2/ alleges that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her because of her age by "not providing [her] with the same training as offered the other employees -- [professional crisis management training] was offered to the younger employees who were hired at or around the same time [as Petitioner]." The evidence at the final hearing, however, showed that Petitioner was scheduled for, but missed professional crisis management training, because of her absences early in her employment. The evidence also showed that professional crisis management training was not necessary for the position for which Petitioner was hired. Nevertheless, the evidence also demonstrated that, if Petitioner had not been terminated, the Agency intended to provide her with that training. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also asserts that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her by "[n]ot allowing [her] to have . . . scheduled time off . . . [and taking away her] scheduled time off August 12th & 13th and [giving it to a] Caucasian female." The evidence did not substantiate this allegation. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had extraordinary time off during her first two months of employment. Next, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination states that Mr. Grimsley did not follow up on her written concerns and verbal complaints to the "depart[ment] head" regarding the welfare of the disabled residents. Petitioner alleges that she was terminated as a result of her complaint that Mr. Grimsley "sat in the kitchen and baked cookies with the staff who were neglecting disabled residents." Petitioner, however, failed to present any evidence at the final hearing with regard to this allegation. Rather, the evidence showed that, while employed, Petitioner never reported any instances of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Florida Abuse Registry, as required by her training. And, there is no evidence that she reported any such concerns to any outside agency prior to her Charge of Discrimination. Petitioner otherwise presented no evidence suggesting that she was terminated in retaliation for engaging in any protected activity. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination further states that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability because Mr. Grimsley did not allow her to be properly monitored by her physician, and that when she would bring in her doctor's notes, Mr. Grimsley would refuse to put them in her personnel file. The only support for this claim were two medical reports on Petitioner, one prepared in April 2011, and one prepared in October 2011. According to Petitioner, she gave the reports to someone at the Agency's human resources office. She could not, however, identify the person to whom she gave the reports. Also, according to Petitioner, it was in November 2011, after she was recommended for termination, that she gave her medical reports to the Agency to be filed. Considering the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's testimony regarding this allegation is not credible. In addition, the evidence did not show that Petitioner ever asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Rather, based upon the evidence, it is found that Petitioner never advised the Agency, and the Agency was unaware, that Petitioner had a disability. It is also found that Petitioner never asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner, in her Charge of Discrimination, further contends that part of the employee counseling session documented on employee-documented conference forms dated August 25, 2011, and all of the counseling session documented in a September 8, 2011, employee-documented conference form, were held without her, and that some of the concerns expressed on those documents were fabricated. There were two forms documenting discussions from the August 25th session that were submitted into evidence — - one was signed by Petitioner, the other was not. The employee-documented conference form from the September 8, 2011, session was signed by Petitioner's supervisors, but not Petitioner. Mr. Grimsley, who was present for all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the forms, testified that the documented discussions occurred, but that he just forgot to get Petitioner's signatures on all of the forms. During the final hearing, Petitioner acknowledged most of the documented discussions, including two incidents of mishandling residents and the resulting prohibition from working with residents imposed on her until she received additional training. Considering the evidence, it is found that all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the three forms actually took place, and that they accurately reflect those discussions and the fact that Petitioner was having job performance problems. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also alleges that a fellow employee discriminated against her because of her age and race based on an incident where, according to Petitioner, a co-worker screamed and yelled at her because Petitioner had not answered the house telephone. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted into evidence affidavits regarding the incident from the co-worker and another worker who observed the incident. Neither of the affidavits supports Petitioner's contention that she was discriminated against. Rather, they both support the finding that Petitioner had trouble getting along with co-workers and accepting directions from Agency staff. Further, according to Petitioner, after she talked to Mr. Grimsley about the incident, he spoke to both Petitioner and the co-worker, and their conflict was resolved. The incident occurred after Mr. Grimsley had already recommended that Petitioner be terminated. Finally, Petitioner alleges in her Charge of Discrimination that Mr. Hewett discriminated against her based upon her marital status, race, and the national origin of her spouse. In support, Petitioner contends that Mr. Hewett "made rude comments about art work on my locker that Scott knew my husband had drawn[,]" asked, "[do] blacks like classical music?" and, upon seeing Petitioner's apron that was embroidered with a Jamaican flag, Mr. Hewett said, "You can't trust things from overseas," when he knew that her husband was Jamaican. Petitioner also stated that Mr. Hewett "bullied her" about answering the telephone. While Petitioner testified that she wrote to Agency management regarding these comments and the alleged bullying by Mr. Hewett, she did not retain a copy. The Agency claims that Petitioner never complained about these alleged comments or Mr. Hewett's alleged bullying while she was an employee. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and Petitioner's demeanor during her testimony, it is found that Petitioner did not raise these allegations against Mr. Hewett until after her termination from the Agency. It is further found that if Mr. Hewett made the alleged comments, as described by Petitioner during her testimony, Mr. Hewett's comments were isolated and not pervasive. Further, Petitioner's testimonial description of Mr. Hewett's comments did not indicate that his comments were overtly intimidating, insulting, or made with ridicule, and the evidence was insufficient to show, or reasonably suggest, that Mr. Hewett's alleged comments made Petitioner's work environment at the Agency hostile or intolerable. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that the Agency discriminated against Petitioner by treating her differently, creating a hostile work environment, or terminating her because of her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, or her spouse's national origin. Petitioner also failed to show that the Agency retaliated against her because of any complaint that she raised or based upon Petitioner's engagement in any other protected activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent, McDonald's Corporation, discriminated against Petitioner, Carolyn Hadley, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who worked at the Cocoa Beach, Florida, McDonald's restaurant from October 1, 2000, until March 17, 2001. She voluntarily terminated her employment. Respondent owns and operates restaurants and is subject to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent has an extensive, well-conceived, "Zero Tolerance" policy which prohibits unlawful discrimination. This policy is posted in the workplace, is distributed to every employee at the time he or she is employed, and is vigorously enforced by management. There are published procedures which can be easily followed by an employee who believes that he or she has been the victim of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner did not avail herself of Respondent's "Zero Tolerance" policy. Petitioner complains of two isolated instances of what the evidence clearly shows to be workplace "horseplay" as the basis of her unlawful employment discrimination claim. On one occasion, a shift manager placed a promotional sticker on Petitioner's forehead. The second involved ice cream being placed on Petitioner's face. The evidence reveals that the "horseplay" complained of was typical of this workplace and not race or sex based. Practical jokes, food fights, ice down shirt backs, and similar activities, while not encouraged by corporate management, were a part of the routine at this restaurant. Petitioner was not the singular focus of the "horseplay"; it involved all employees. There is no evidentiary basis for alleging that it was racial or sexual in nature, as it involved employees of differing races and sexes. Approximately a month after the latest of the incidents complained of, on March 17, 2001, Petitioner voluntarily terminated her employment. Six months later, in September, 2001, Petitioner complained to Dexter Lewis, an African-American corporate employee who is responsible for investigating claims of unlawful workplace discrimination, about the two incidents. She claimed that she had been embarrassed by the incidents but did not suggest to him that they had been racially or sexually motivated. Mr. Lewis investigated the alleged incidents; he confirmed that the incidents had occurred and that similar incidents were widespread, but not racially or sexually motivated; he reprimanded the store manager and shift manager for their unprofessional management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 22nd day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn Hadley 135 Minna Lane Merritt Island, Florida 32953 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia Brennan Ryan, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802-1526 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment and/or retaliation while employed with Respondent in violation of Subsections 760.10(1)(a) and/or (7), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the definition found in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired as an employee of Respondent in July 1993, as an X-ray technologist ("tech") in the Radiology Department. She is an adult female and, as such, is a member of a protected class. During her employee orientation, Petitioner received and read a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook. Among other things, Respondent's Employee Handbook addresses the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. Respondent's policy strictly prohibits sexual harassment and states that Respondent "will not tolerate such action by employees." Respondent's policy also encourages any employee who feels that he/she is being subject to sexual harassment to discuss and/or make a complaint with the Human Resources Department. Any such complaint is handled according to Respondent's Policy No. 9510-17, in order to ensure appropriate investigation and action. Respondent's employees also receive computer-based training regarding sexual harassment and Respondent's policy prohibiting the same, every year. Petitioner received this computer-based training regarding sexual harassment. In October 2006, Petitioner started training to be a magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") tech. Petitioner was chosen to be cross-trained from an X-ray tech to a MRI tech by Greg Phillips, who was then the manager of Diagnostic Imaging. Phillips became her unofficial "mentor" at Respondent's facility. Petitioner received on-the-job training for an MRI tech from Chris Depelteau, Amy Brantly, and Lucinda Swales, all of whom were MRI techs at the time. In December 2006, Petitioner received a secondary job code which allowed her to work independently as an MRI tech part-time. Essentially this meant that she could "take call." That same month, Paul Licker was hired by Respondent as lead MRI tech. Depelteau had also applied for this job, but had not been chosen. Upon being hired by Respondent, Licker was also made aware of its policy regarding sexual harassment. As lead MRI tech, Licker was responsible for scheduling the MRI techs, ordering supplies, working on protocols, ensuring that patients were being properly scanned and treated, and following up with the MRI techs as they cared for patients. Therefore, Licker became Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Like all the other MRI techs, Licker also trained Petitioner in MRI. In training Petitioner, Licker often taught her different techniques or ways of doing things than the way she had been taught by the other MRI techs. Licker, on several occasions, sought to teach Petitioner his way of doing things on the computer, which was different from the others. In doing so, Licker invaded Petitioner's workspace and engaged in inappropriate touching, particularly by covering her hand with his while manipulating the mouse, to the point that she became uncomfortable. Licker also started implementing changes and different ways of doing things throughout the MRI department. As lead MRI tech, Licker had the authority to implement such changes. Also, during this same period, if Licker added patients or made other changes to her schedule, Petitioner would argue with or complain to him. In fact, Petitioner did not like Licker and also told Depelteau and other employees that Licker was a "bad supervisor." Licker himself recognized that Petitioner did not like the way he was supervising the department. A few weeks after Licker started working for Respondent, Petitioner approached Phillips complaining that Licker was calling her, other female employees, and patients, "Babe." For instance, Licker would say, "Babe, I need you to do this for me," when asking Petitioner to complete a task. Petitioner indicated that she thought that the use of this term was inappropriate and demeaning and that it made her uncomfortable. In fact, other employees who were friendly with Petitioner understood that Licker was using the term "Babe" the way another person might use the terms "Sweetie," or "Honey," i.e., in a non-sexual or non-derogatory way. However, understanding that Licker was a new supervisor who may not have understood that the term suggested something sexual in using the term "Babe," Phillips suggested to Petitioner that she speak directly with Licker to resolve this issue. Phillips also spoke to Licker directly regarding his use of the term "Babe." Specifically, Phillips advised Licker that he "needed to carefully choose his words around patients and employees." Phillips also advised Licker that some people did not like being addressed by "Sweetie or Hun or Babe," and that he should refrain from using these terms in the workplace. Licker understood Phillips' suggestion and tried to refrain from calling Petitioner, or anybody else, "Babe" or any word similar to the term. Petitioner did not complain about any other alleged inappropriate conduct by Licker to Phillips, or any other manager, until February 1, 2007. However, shortly after he started working for Respondent, Licker made an inappropriate comment in the cafeteria to Petitioner. Licker stated to other employees that he could not sit next to Petitioner because they were sleeping together. Licker made a similar inappropriate comment to Dana Keach when he first started employment at Parrish. He suggested that there was a lesbian relationship between Keach and another woman. This conduct was not reported until much later. Prior to February 1, 2007, it became readily apparent that the MRI department was suffering serious setbacks because the department employees were not working cooperatively together. The biggest problem in the MRI department appeared to be a lack of teamwork resulting from the staff's inability to communicate effectively with one another. Licker advised Gallacher that he was struggling in his "daily interactions" with Depelteau and Petitioner and that he simply "could not make the group happy, whether it was scheduling or time off or just getting through the day." MRI's problems grew to the point that Phillips and Gallacher both stepped in to try to improve communications and teamwork among Licker, Petitioner, Depelteau, and Shelly Hugoboom, the MRI CT assistant. The entire MRI department engaged in team-building meetings and even worked with the medical center's chaplain in an attempt to learn to work together. These department meetings were intense and discussion often became heated among the MRI staff members. In addition to these team-building meetings, Gallacher met with staff members individually to discuss their concerns. Gallacher also addressed the interpersonal skills issues between Petitioner and Hugoboom. Specifically, Gallacher met with the two employees together "to see if they could put [their issues] to rest and move on." In the midst of these efforts to improve the department, Petitioner came to Phillips on February 1, 2007, complaining that Licker was continuing to call her "Babe," and that he had also offered her some concert tickets. Phillips observed that Petitioner was extremely upset and immediately contacted Human Resources Manager Roberta Chaildin to start an investigation in regard to Licker's alleged behavior. Phillips and Chaildin spoke with Petitioner and Licker, individually, regarding Petitioner's claims. When questioned regarding the concert ticket, Licker explained that he had been looking to sell an extra ticket that he had. Licker advised Phillips and Chaildin that Petitioner had taken his offer to sell her the extra ticket "out of context," when she assumed that he was asking her to the concert on a date. Licker specified that he had asked Petitioner if she wanted to buy his extra ticket and "tag along" with him and his friends to the concert. Licker also offered his extra ticket to other people besides Petitioner. After speaking with Petitioner and Licker, Phillips and Chaildin determined that they were dealing with a "he-said- she-said situation and a misunderstanding." "He said, I was trying to sell the ticket or give it away. She said, he had asked me out on a date to a concert." Phillips and Chaildin determined that this was not a case of "sexual harassment" by Licker. They did, however, warn Licker that as a supervisor, he had to be "extremely careful" in how he spoke to his subordinate employees. Phillips and Chaildin advised Petitioner that they had investigated her claim and concluded that there was no evidence of sexual harassment. They encouraged her, however, to file a report if she continued to have issues with Licker. Over five months passed without a complaint or incident. Then on July 11, 2007, Licker verbally counseled Petitioner regarding her having accumulated nine tardy appearances ("tardies") at work since January 1, 2007. In speaking with Petitioner, Licker wanted to ensure that Petitioner understood that she needed to be on time in the future, as she had exceeded the number of tardies deemed acceptable by Respondent. To ensure that nothing said during the verbal counseling session was misconstrued by Petitioner, Licker had another supervisor, Boyd Wallace, serve as a witness. The tardies cited in Licker's verbal counseling to Petitioner were unrelated to instances when he would excuse her from work due to slower volume in the MRI department. On August 21, 2007, Licker observed Petitioner on the telephone being advised by security that she had parked in a "no parking" zone. During the conversation, Petitioner became agitated. Licker documented and filed the incident. Phillips personally addressed this incident with Petitioner. On October 10, 2007, the MRI department was working an already full schedule when Licker had to add a patient to the schedule due to an emergency situation. Petitioner objected to Licker adding another patient to the day and became withdrawn and resentful. Licker instructed Petitioner that she needed to change her attitude and become more cooperative. The evidence is not persuasive that Licker assigned Petitioner "menial tasks" after she complained about his having offered her the concert tickets in February 2007. In October 2007, Gallacher, Phillips and Chaildin met Petitioner and issued her a Decision Day disciplinary letter. A "Decision Day" meeting and letter is a management tool in which the employee is given a paid day off to contemplate whether they wish to remain an employee of Respondent. This resulted from Respondent's concerns regarding her "interpersonal skills." This was an issue that had been continuously addressed by Licker and other supervisors or managers at Respondent. The incident which prompted the progressive disciplinary action involved Debbie York, a relatively new employee who resigned from the MRI department, claiming that Petitioner and her interactions with other employees and with Licker was the reason for her leaving. During the Decision Day meeting, Petitioner stated that she was the "victim" and brought up the previous incidents of allegedly being sexually harassed. Petitioner was reminded that she had not complained of any other instances of alleged sexual harassment since she complained of Licker's offering her concert tickets in February 2007 and that the matter was investigated and resolved. From the point of view of management, the Decision Day meeting was intended to address Petitioner's on-going issues with her co-workers and her supervisor. However, Petitioner did not bring up any new incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Licker during the Decision Day meeting. Following the meeting, Petitioner took her Decision Day letter and returned to work. The Decision Day letter called for the creation of an Action Plan, which Respondent uses to help a struggling employee "become invested with the organization and with [his or her] team." Thereafter, Petitioner met with Gallacher to discuss what should be included in her Action Plan. On November 7, 2007, an Action Plan was drafted and signed. It included a number of initiatives designed to assist Petitioner in being "re[-]engaged" with the MRI department. Despite being placed on an Action Plan, Petitioner continued to have issues with Licker being her supervisor. On November 20, 2007, Licker verbally counseled Petitioner for her failure to discuss changes in her weekly schedule with him. Licker specifically identified Petitioner's "communication skills" as a continuing issue. On December 19, 2007, Petitioner was suspended without pay for two days for stating that Licker was being an "asshole," or something to that effect, in front of a co-worker. Petitioner accepted responsibility for her comment. Along with her suspension, Petitioner was also issued a written warning stated in pertinent part, "Upon your return [from suspension], you will be expected to demonstrate a high level of interpersonal skills towards your co-workers, management and this organization and work on completion of your Action Plan items. Any reports of less than acceptable behavior or performance or deviation from a Diagnostic Imaging or PMC policy or procedure will result in immediate termination." As a result of the written warning, Petitioner also lost 50 percent of her annual merit increase. In January 2008, management considered that the MRI department was still very "dysfunctional." Scott Hazelbaker, the new executive director of Diagnostics/Cardiovascular, met with all of the MRI employees as a group to discuss his "expectations of working together as a team." Hazelbaker also discerned that Licker lacked leadership skills to be an effective supervisor. In fact, none of the MRI employees had much respect for Licker's management style. On April 10, 2008, Hazelbaker, Gallacher, and Chaildin met with Petitioner to discuss her progress under the Action Plan. During the meeting, Hazelbaker reviewed Petitioner's history toward Respondent, explaining that her negative attitude could not be tolerated. Specifically, her negativity, failure to be a team player, and refusal to embrace or become engaged in Respondent's culture were detrimentally affecting the work of MRI as a whole. Hazelbaker continued by advising Respondent that as a result of her "track record," she could either resign from her employment or be terminated. Petitioner was advised that if she resigned, Respondent would pay her for two weeks in lieu of having her work through her notice period, pay her the balance of her personal leave bank, extend her health benefits for two weeks so that she could fill her prescriptions, and even designate her eligible for rehire in its system. At the end of the meeting, Petitioner tendered her resignation notice to Respondent. At no time during the meeting did Petitioner ask to leave the room or make a call in order to seek advice or legal counsel. Further, at no time during the meeting did Petitioner raise her past issues regarding Licker and the alleged sexual harassment she suffered. The evidence is persuasive that Licker did not influence the decision to terminate Petitioner. He had not asked for her to be terminated. In August 2009, more than one year after Petitioner resigned, Respondent received a complaint regarding Licker from then-X-Ray Tech Dana Keach, who claimed that Licker made sexually suggestive comments to her. Following an investigation, Licker was terminated, effective September 24, 2009, for "communication unsuitability between care partners." It does not appear that Licker was terminated for engaging in sexual harassment. The evidence is not persuasive that during the time he was employed by Respondent that Licker had inappropriate discussions in the workplace on numerous occasions in front of both male and female employees; nor that Licker would also discuss pornography in the workplace.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Lesa Burkavage's, claims of unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation against Respondent, Parrish Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Respondent intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner on the basis on her national origin/Hispanic (Puerto Rican) or gender/female (sexual harassment). Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was removed from her position with the Respondent in retaliation for her filing of a sexual harassment complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 12, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings and the parties involved. All procedural prerequisites and requirements have been duly accomplished or satisfied. Respondent, Martin-Marietta Electronics Information and Missiles Group, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Florida which employs more than fifteen employees. Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Margarita Coll, is a female, hispanic, citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was an employee of Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., during all relevant periods, and was a de facto employee of Respondent for approximately four and one-half years. Petitioner was employed at Respondent company through a temporary agency called Associated Temporary Services and placed with the Respondent on January 5, 1987 as a receptionist/secretary in Martin-Marietta's Fleet Administration Department off Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. Her responsibilities included record keeping, filing and helping Respondent's employees with company vehicles. Petitioner reported to the Respondent's Fleet Manager, Linda Reilly. Her day to day work assignments and supervision were received exclusively from the Fleet Manager. Petitioner worked in her position at the pleasure of the Respondent. She was assigned a "buyer" at Martin- Marietta who worked with the requesting department to fashion a position to meet the department's needs. The work was bidded out and awarded to the temporary employment agency who best met Respondent's criteria, on an annual basis. Over time, Petitioner assumed additional job responsibilities and in June, 1988 received a commendation for exceptional performance from Respondent's supervisors. In an effort to reward her efforts, Reilly successfully upgraded her position, first to Administrative Assistant and then to Fleet Analyst. When she was reclassified as a Fleet Analyst, the contract for her position was awarded to Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., since Associated Temporary Services did not provide technical employees under their contract with Respondent. Petitioner always worked at Martin-Marietta as a temporary employee and was never employed as a regular employee of the company. As such, she had no company benefits; she was classified as a contract laborer and her services were purchased by purchase order. Petitioner completed no company employment application, was not subject to Martin-Marietta performance appraisals and had no Martin-Marietta employment records or personnel file, other than her contract labor time slips. Petitioner received her pay from Hi-Tec. In June, 1990, Marilyn Quinonez was placed in the Fleet Administration Department as a Fleet Administrative Assistant by a temporary employment agency. Friction quickly developed between Petitioner and Quinonez. Petitioner believed that Quinonez was hired to assist her and became upset when she would not follow Petitioner's supervision or directions. Quinonez understood that she was to report to the Fleet Manager, and objected to the way Petitioner treated her. On November 15, 1990, Reilly was laid off by Respondent as part of a reduction in force and was replaced by Joseph LaPak. LaPak observed the bickering between Petitioner and Quinonez and that it continued to escalate over time. In December, 1990, the temporary positions in the department were reevaluated and the contract requirements for both positions were rewritten. The titles of both Petitioner and Quinonez were changed to that of Fleet Administrative Assistant. Any language in the contract which called for Petitioner to direct the clerical duties of the department were eliminated. In the fall of 1991, Quinonez met with LaPak and Wally DuBose to clarify her reporting responsibilities. It was confirmed that Quinonez and Petitioner were to report to the Fleet Manager, and that Petitioner did not have supervisory authority over Quinonez. Nevertheless, disputes between Petitioner and Quinonez continued. Attempts by management to resolve the problems were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1992, during the normal lunch hour, an altercation occurred between Petitioner and Quinonez. When Quinonez returned from lunch, she found Petitioner at her computer terminal. Quinonez asked for it back. Petitioner refused and an argument ensued. The two women became so angry and loud that a neighboring supervisor had to come over and separate them. Wally DuBose sent both Petitioner and Quinonez home for the day. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, LaPak was not in the office at the time. DuBose then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Paul Smilgen, and it was decided that Petitioner would be removed from the contract for her failure to work with fellow employees and management, and for general insubordination. LaPak was not involved in the decision to remove Petitioner. The decision was communicated to Hi-Tec. They, in turn, notified Petitioner that same evening that she was being replaced on the contract and not return to the Fleet Administration Department. Hi-Tec offered to attempt to place Petitioner elsewhere at Martin-Marietta but Petitioner refused because the openings available at the time paid less that the Fleet Administrative Assistant position. When LaPak first became the Fleet Manager in November of 1990, Petitioner and Quinonez worked in a very small work space. While Petitioner was training LaPak and working on the computer, LaPak's body was frequently close to Petitioner's and she felt pinned in a corner by him. After the initial working relationship was established and LaPak came into Petitioner's work area, he would touch her on her arms or shoulder in order to get her attention. In December, 1990, Petitioner complained to DuBose about LaPak touching her and making her uncomfortable. Both Petitioner and DuBose talked to LaPak about the fact that Petitioner did not want LaPak to touch her. LaPak honored that request and did not touch her again. He made every reasonable effort to get her attention when he needed to talk to her without touching her. In October, 1991, Petitioner complained to the Martin-Marietta EEO office that LaPak was sexually harassing her by inappropriate touching. Respondent then conducted an immediate investigation into the allegations and attempted to resolve the matter through internal mediation. Petitioner's testimony and other witnesses' testimony concerning sexual comments, innuendoes or propositions and inappropriate touching allegedly made by LaPak that occurred between December, 1990 and October, 1991 were inconsistent and are not credible. Petitioner presented no relevant or material evidence to show that Petitioner was the victim of national origin discrimination. Respondent's articulated reason for its decision to remove Petitioner from her contract labor position was not based on gender discrimination or national origin discrimination, nor was it pretextual. Petitioner failed to prove that her termination of employment at the Respondent's company was in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued in which the Charge of Discrimination is DENIED and the Petition for Relief is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(in part), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 13, 14(except as to date of hire), 15(in part), 16(in part), 18(except as to the date of the counseling session), 19(except as to the date of the counseling session), 20, 21(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 5(in part: Petitioner was first a contract employee with Associated Temporary Services), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 15(in part), 16(in part), 17. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 11, 12, 21(in part). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4(in part), 5, 6(in part), 7, 11(in part), 12, 13, 14(in part). Rejected as argument or a conclusion of law: paragraphs: 9, 10, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 4(in part), 8, 11(in part), 14(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 6(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kay L. Wolf, Esquire John M. Finnigan, Esquire GARWOOD, MCKENNA & MCKENNA, P.A. 815 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32806 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner (“Holly Mathis” or “Ms. Mathis”), in contravention of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01 through 760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ experienced sexual harassment and/or disparate treatment during her employment at Respondent, O’Reilly Auto Parts (“O’Reilly”).
Findings Of Fact O’Reilly is a retail distributor of automobile parts headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. On approximately August 11, 2014, Ms. Mathis began working at an O’Reilly’s store in Panama City Beach, Florida (“store no. 4564”). Her duties included pulling automobile parts from the store’s inventory and using an O’Reilly’s-owned vehicle to deliver automobile parts to mechanics in the surrounding area. Ms. Mathis was the only female employee at store no. 4564. Upon beginning her employment with O’Reilly, Ms. Mathis received a copy of the O’Reilly Auto Parts Team Member Handbook (“the Handbook”) detailing policies, benefits, and the responsibilities of O’Reilly’s employees. One portion of the Handbook specifies that O’Reilly’s employees “are not discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, military obligation, disability, or other protected class as defined by federal, state or local laws.” Another portion of the Handbook addressed harassment and stated that “[a]buse of other team members through ethnic, racist, or sexist slurs or other derogatory or objectionable conduct is unacceptable behavior and will be subject to progressive discipline.” This portion of the Handbook continued by describing sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment is a specific form of harassment that undermines the integrity of the employment relationship – it will not be tolerated. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual’s employment. Submission to or rejection of the conduct is the basis for an employment decision affecting the harassed team member. The harassment substantially interferes with a team member’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. This portion of the Handbook also instructed employees how to report harassment: If you feel you have been discriminated against or have observed another team member being discriminated against due to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sex, age or veteran status, you should immediately report such incidents to your supervisor/manager, local Human Resources representative, the corporate Human Resources Department, or anonymously via the company’s T.I.P.S. Hotline at 1-800-473-8470 without fear of reprisal. A prompt, thorough investigation will be made as confidentially as possible. Appropriate action, up to and including termination, will be taken to ensure that neither discrimination nor harassment persists . . . . The Handbook instructs an O’Reilly’s employee with work-related concerns to bring them to the attention of his or her supervisor. If the work-related concern involves that employee’s supervisor, then the Handbook instructs the employee to “speak directly with the next level of supervision.” Store no. 4564 had a poster notifying employees that sexual harassment is illegal. The poster stated that: If you experience or witness sexual harassment, report it immediately to your supervisor or the Human Resources Department without fear of retaliation. The company will promptly investigate all complaints as confidentially as possible. If the company concludes that sexual harassment did occur, disciplinary action will be taken with the offender(s) up to and including termination. The poster listed two “hotline” phone numbers that O’Reilly’s employees could utilize to report sexual harassment. Also, the Handbook states that “[s]moking, eating, and drinking are not allowed in company vehicles, and team members are not permitted to possess food or beverages, including water, within the cab of a store delivery vehicle.” As noted above, Ms. Mathis began working for O’Reilly on approximately August 11, 2014. She typically worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Ms. Mathis’ hiring by O’Reilly was probably facilitated by the fact that she had previously worked with the store’s general manager (Paul Stephenson) at an Advance Auto Parts store. Ms. Mathis considered Mr. Stephenson to be a “big brother.” However, in September of 2014, Mr. Stephenson began directing sexual comments toward Ms. Mathis, and inappropriate conduct by Mr. Stephenson continued through April of 2015.2/ During Ms. Mathis’ employment with O’Reilly, Mr. Stephenson was the highest-ranking employee at the Panama City Beach store. Therefore, Mr. Stephenson had supervisory authority over Ms. Mathis. On April 4, 2015, Ms. Mathis and Mr. Stephenson were working at store no. 4564. When Ms. Mathis asked to leave early so that she could spend time with her newborn, Mr. Stephenson repeatedly asked her to expose her breasts to him. Ms. Mathis refused Mr. Stephenson’s requests but was eventually allowed to leave work early. However, Ms. Mathis had been under the impression that she would not be allowed to leave early unless she complied with Mr. Stephenson’s request. On approximately April 13, 2015, Ms. Mathis applied for a position at an Autozone store approximately five minutes from store no. 4564. By April 14, 2015, Ms. Mathis had secured a new position at that Autozone store and submitted a letter of resignation to O’Reilly on April 14, 2015. Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct did not stop after Ms. Mathis submitted her letter of resignation. As discussed in her Petition for Relief, Mr. Stephenson attempted to touch her in an inappropriate manner many times on April 15, 2015, and succeeded in doing so on April 16, 2015. Ms. Mathis reaffirmed that statement during her testimony at the final hearing. The undersigned finds Ms. Mathis’ testimony regarding Mr. Stephenson’s conduct in April of 2015 to be credible. April 16, 2015, was Ms. Mathis’ last day of work at store no. 4564, and she began working for Autozone on April 17, 2015. In addition to Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct, Ms. Mathis asserts that she was subjected to disparate treatment by her direct supervisor, William Yohe. Specifically, Ms. Mathis testified that Mr. Yohe would belittle her by calling her “stupid” in front of co-workers and customers. Male employees did not experience such verbal abuse. In addition, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to decline deliveries without giving Ms. Mathis the same option. When a male driver declined a particular delivery, then Ms. Mathis was required to handle it. Also, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to have food and beverages in the O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. However, Mr. Yohe sent Ms. Mathis home early on April 10, 2015, for having a Gatorade in a delivery vehicle. With the exception of family and friends, Ms. Mathis told no one (including no one with authority over Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Yohe in O’Reilly’s chain-of-command) of the sexual harassment and disparate treatment she experienced at store no. 4564. Ms. Mathis did not report the sexual harassment and disparate treatment to anyone associated with O’Reilly because she was worried that Mr. Stephenson or Mr. Yohe would learn of her complaints and fire her. As a single mother of a newborn, she could ill afford to be out of work. As for the anonymous T.I.P.S. Hotline in the Handbook, Ms. Mathis was concerned that her anonymity could not be maintained because she was the only female employee at store no. 4564. The undersigned finds that Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stephenson sexually harassed her in April of 2015 as described above. There was no reliable evidence to rebut Ms. Mathis’ allegations regarding Mr. Stephenson. For example, another driver at store no. 4564 testified that he never observed any behavior towards Ms. Mathis that amounted to a violation of O’Reilly’s policies. However, that testimony and his written statement were of little use because the other driver worked Mondays and Tuesdays while Ms. Mathis usually worked Wednesday through Friday. Mr. Stephenson did not testify during the final hearing. He did give a written statement to O’Reilly in which he denied any inappropriate conduct of the nature described by Ms. Mathis. However, and as explained in the Conclusions of Law below, Mr. Stephenson’s written statement was hearsay, and it did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. In addition, several other O’Reilly’s employees submitted written statements explaining that they had never seen any discrimination at their workplace and/or that they were unaware of any discrimination occurring at their workplace. However, those employees did not testify, and their written statements did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. Mr. Yohe gave a written statement in which he noted that no one had complained to him about being sexually harassed. However, and as noted above, Ms. Mathis told no one other than friends and family about her experiences at store no. 4564. While Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Stephenson during her employment at O’Reilly, she did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to other types of disparate treatment. Mr. Yohe denied verbally abusing Ms. Mathis, and O’Reilly’s witnesses persuasively testified that male and female drivers were treated equally with regard to having prohibited items in O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. As for Ms. Mathis’ assertion that she was forced to make deliveries that male drivers declined, Mr. Yohe rebutted that assertion by testifying that Ms. Mathis was unable to successfully work the front counter at store no. 4564 because she had yet to accumulate sufficient knowledge of automobile parts. Therefore, if the front counter was short-staffed at certain times, then a male driver would be asked to work the front counter and Ms. Mathis would have to handle all of the deliveries during that time period. The undersigned also finds O’Reilly had reasonable measures in place to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior. It is also found that Ms. Mathis failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities offered by O’Reilly.
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 Holly Mathis’ claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 13th day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 8, 1988, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination based upon sexual harassment with the City of Clearwater, Office of Community Relations, involving Respondent. Petitioner had been employed at Respondent from approximately April, 1987 until she resigned in November, 1987. This case was duly noticed for hearing on August 24, 1988, by Notice of Hearing dated June 6, 1988. Petitioner received this Notice of Hearing, and did appear at the hearing. Petitioner testified, under oath, at the hearing that she did not want to pursue her claim of sexual harassment, and would offer no evidence in support of her claim. In fact, she did not offer any evidence in support of her claim.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner's claim of discrimination based upon sexual harassment against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1988 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Moore 1411 Illinois Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida 34663 Scott McGregor, Owner Heavenly Bodies II 3323 U.S. 19 North Clearwater, Florida 34619 Ronald M. McElrath Office of Community Relations Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Miles Lance, Esquire Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618
