The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment and retaliation for her complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto. It is undisputed that that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and that timeliness and jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Respondent obtained a contract with the United States Navy for a project to be performed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. It became the contractor for the project in approximately December of 1991. The contract, in pertinent part, provided that the Respondent would provide local cartage trucking services for the Navy on and in the environs of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The project involved loading and transportation of aircraft parts and related supplies and equipment. The Petitioner was hired as a truck driver, delivering aircraft parts for the naval aviation depot (NADEP). During the course of that employment, there came a time when the Petitioner contended that she had been discriminated against because of her gender. The Petitioner contends that in a meeting in December of 1991, she was told by Terry Meyers, an employee of the Respondent and the Petitioner's supervisor, that she "didn't look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to look for another job. The meeting in which the statements were allegedly made was a meeting called by the Petitioner's supervisor and the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis, to address certain deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance. Another employee, Mr. Braughton, was also counseled at the meeting concerning his performance as a truck driver. His was the same type of employment position as that occupied by the Petitioner. Mr. Braughton is a white male. The Petitioner maintains that she informed a white male employee, Mike Morris, of the statements allegedly made at the meeting and that he immediately made a telephone call to Mr. Frank Moody, the president of the corporation, to put the president and the corporation on notice of sexual discrimination against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was not present when Mr. Morris made that telephone call to Mr. Moody. Even had he made reference to alleged sexual discrimination in his telephone call to Mr. Moody, Mr. Morris only learned of the purported sexually-discriminatory statements from the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that Mr. Morris informed her that he had heard the statements made while standing at the door of the room in which the meeting occurred and that Mr. Morris initiated the telephone call on his own volition to Mr. Moody, based upon hearing those statements. Mr. Morris, however, testified to the contrary, stating that the Petitioner approached him and claimed that she was on probation and was fearful of being laid off from employment and that the Petitioner told him of the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements and that he did not hear them himself. He further testified that the Petitioner instructed him to contact Mr. Moody concerning her fears about her job and the alleged discriminatory statements or she would contact "HRO and EEO and have the contract shut down". Mr. Morris, indeed, called Mr. Moody but never mentioned the statements alleged by the Petitioner to have been made to her by Mr. Meyers during the performance evaluation meeting. In fact, it has been demonstrated by Mr. Morris' testimony, which the Hearing Officer accepts as more credible, that the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Morris about a sexually-discriminatory statement or purported sexual discrimination. Mr. Morris, instead, spoke to Mr. Moody about problems he saw occurring in the operation in Pensacola which he attributed to the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis. He told Mr. Moody that Mr. Francis was allowing employees to leave work early without Mr.. Moody's knowledge and still crediting them with working a full day on such occasions which, in effect, cost the corporation additional salary monies which were unearned. The meeting in which the Petitioner was allegedly confronted with the statement that she did not look like a truck driver and had three weeks to look for another job was called and conducted by Mr. Francis and Mr. Meyers was present. It is undisputed that Mr. Moody terminated Mr. Francis shortly after the telephone conversation with Mr. Morris. He replaced Mr. Francis with the current project manager, John Jacobs. Mr. Moody testified that in a telephone conversation with the Petitioner that she never mentioned to him the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements referenced above. Instead, he was told by both Mr. Morris and the Petitioner that she was concerned that she might lose her job because of the results of the meeting with Mr. Francis, in which he told her that she needed to improve her job performance. In fact, the management of the Respondent perceived a genuine job performance problem involving the Petitioner's conduct of her job duties. This was disclosed in the testimony of both Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Morris, where it was revealed that the Petitioner had had a continuing problem performing her job correctly and that Mr. Morris and the management personnel had worked with her constantly during the course of her employment term with the Respondent, taking more time and personal attention with her than with other employees. This was done in order to repetitively explain her job duties and give her additional chances to improve her work performance, in comparison to the lesser degree of attention and remedial help that they accorded other employees. Prior to February 3, 1993, the Petitioner had been employed with the Respondent for over a year. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs established, however, that even though her probationary period had long since elapsed, he still considered the Petitioner to be, in effect, an employee in training because she was deficient in correctly accomplishing all of the duties of her job. She was slow in performing her job duties, including preventive maintenance inspections of her vehicle and in making the "pickups and deliveries" of freight she was required to transport on her truck in the performance of her duties. The counseling session concerning her work performance occurring in December of 1991, referenced above, was during her probationary period. The white male employee, Mr. Rick Braughton, who was also counseled about deficient work performance on that occasion, was informed that he might not remain employed past his probationary period unless his performance improved. The Respondent had a regular practice and procedure, as part of its truck safety and preventive maintenance program, that employees, who were drivers, were required to give a preventive maintenance and safety inspection of their vehicles each day prior to leaving the company facility or terminal to transport aviation parts or other freight. This was regarded as crucial to proper job performance by the employer because of the concern about safety of the drivers and avoidance of damage, and liability for damage, to the expensive equipment and parts which the Respondent was required by its contract to transport, such as expensive military aircraft parts and related equipment. Among these preventive maintenance inspection duties that driver/employees, such as the Petitioner, were required to perform daily was the requirement to check the air in the truck tires and "top off" the tires with the required air pressure, if necessary. 10 Mr. Jacobs established that there came a time when the Petitioner was noted to have failed on multiple occasions, in the same week, to check and air her tires. Finally, upon this deficiency coming to his attention again on February 3, 1993, Mr. Jacobs suspended the Petitioner for a day without pay, for failing to check and air her tires. The Petitioner claims that she was the only employee singled out for this treatment concerning failure to inspect and air her tires. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs is deemed more credible, having observed the candor and demeanor of all of the witnesses, and it is determined that the employer had a good-faith belief that the Petitioner was deficient in this regard and that the reprimand, consisting of the one-day suspension, was justified. It was not demonstrated that, even if the Petitioner's version of events is true and that other driver/employees were not disciplined for failure to air their tires, that such a circumstance occurred as a result of the employer's knowledge of other driver/employees failing to air their tires and arbitrarily choosing not to discipline them. In fact, it was not demonstrated by preponderant, non-self-serving evidence that other employees had not been disciplined for failure to air their tires. In fact, it was not shown, other than by the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, that other employees had failed to air their tires when required. The other drivers are mostly male, but one is a female. There was no showing that she was treated any differently than the male drivers. In summary, it has been established that the employer accorded the reprimand to the Petitioner because of a good-faith belief that her performance had been deficient, on repeated occasions, in this respect. It is undisputed that prior to the date the Petitioner received the reprimand, consisting of one-day suspension without pay, that the Petitioner had a generally good attitude about her job insofar as management was able to observe. Even though management had had some concerns about her performance and the slow manner in which she was learning certain aspects of her job, with resulting deficient effects upon her performance, management forbore from using these concerns to reduce her performance rating. She received good evaluations of her performance, insofar as her personnel record is concerned, prior to the time she was suspended for one day on February 3, 1993. After the Petitioner received the suspension she developed a "bad attitude" insofar as her perception of management was concerned. She began to complain frequently about vehicle safety or purported concerns she had about the condition of her vehicle related to safety, particularly the truck brakes. Prior to her suspension, she had never complained in this regard. Management also perceived that she appeared to show down her work performance and management came to believe that it was an intentional delay of her work performance on an ongoing basis. Prior to receiving the reprimand, she was never known to complain to management concerning discrimination on account of her gender. She had never informed the project manager or any other supervisory personnel concerning her purported belief that employee Meyers was "following her". Only after she received the reprimand on February 3, 1993 did she elect to file a sexual discrimination charge with the Commission. Mr. Meyers had some supervisory authority over the Petitioner. His job duties also required that he drive his truck around the Naval Air Station and the immediate vicinity in the normal performance of his duties. This circumstance resulted in his being in close proximity to the Petitioner during the course of their respective work days. He contends that he was not purposely following her for the purpose of harassing her. The overall evidence of record reveals, however, that he, indeed, did follow or stop in her vicinity on a number of occasions to observe her work performance. This was not shown to be out of the ordinary scope of his supervisory duties, especially because of management's concern that the Petitioner was not progressing in the learning and performance of her job duties as well as other employees, including the other female driver. The project manager, Mr. Jacobs, felt that the Petitioner's attitude continued to decline after the February 3, 1993 reprimand. He felt that her attitude and performance reached its lowest level on the date she was observed to be loading "unauthorized equipment" (apparently a portion of a helicopter assembly weighing approximately 4,000 pounds) on the flatbed trailer of her assigned work truck. She was not authorized to load that equipment and apparently, according to her testimony, she did so in order to provide a substantial amount of weight on her trailer for the purpose of having her brakes inspected by the quality assurance official for the project. She went to an unauthorized area for approximately one hour to have this inspection performed without the approval of the Respondent's management. Further, it was not necessary, in order to evaluate the brakes on the vehicle for proper function and safety, to have the weight of the unauthorized load placed on the trailer. If, indeed, the brakes had been defective, it would have been entirely possible that the expensive aircraft parts she had placed on the trailer without authorization could have been substantially damaged, the truck or other property could have been damaged, and, indeed, the Petitioner or other persons could have been injured. Additionally, the Petitioner misrepresented the reason she was in the unauthorized area where she had her brakes inspected by Mr. Lett, the quality assurance officer. In this connection, because she had begun to complain repeatedly about the condition of her brakes and her vehicle (after her reprimand), the project manager, Mr. Jacobs, had had certain other employees come in on several occasions at approximately 6:00 a.m., before normal working hours, and before the Petitioner arrived on the job site, to inspect the Petitioner's truck for safety and appropriate preventive maintenance purposes. These employees were not informed that it was the Petitioner's truck they were inspecting at the time they were told to do the inspections. The Respondent was attempting to ascertain the true condition of the Petitioner's truck and determine whether her reports concerning safety problems, particularly with her brakes, were accurate or not. In fact, on the morning of the day when the unauthorized load was placed on the truck and the Petitioner had Mr. Lett perform the inspection of her brakes at the unauthorized area, one of the Petitioner's co-employees had inspected her brakes before she arrived to take custody of her truck that morning. He had determined that the brakes were operating properly. The Petitioner and Mr. Lett apparently felt that the brakes were deficient when they were inspected early in the afternoon of that day. The record does not reveal whether the brakes were deficient when Mr. Lett inspected them or that some change in the adjustment of the brakes or other problem had arisen since the employee inspected them early that morning and found them to be in proper operating order. Be that as it may, management was of the belief on that day and prior thereto that the Petitioner, although reporting brake deficiency problems, did not truly experience such brake deficiency problems with her truck. This belief was based upon management perceptions concerning the Petitioner's attitude after her reprimand and upon the independent, confidential inspections management had other employees do on the Petitioner's truck. Accordingly, whether its belief was accurate or not, management was of the good-faith belief, on the date she was observed loading unauthorized, expensive equipment onto the flatbed truck, in an unnecessary fashion, for the purpose of having her brakes inspected, while being absent from her work assignment for one hour in an unauthorized area, that it had performance-related reasons to terminate her, which it did. This decision was made against the background of the increasingly poor attitude displayed by the Petitioner since her reprimand and because of the continuing problems management had experienced with the Petitioner's job performance since her initial employment one and one- half years previously. Although the Petitioner testified that as early as December of 1991, the management of the Respondent had spoken with her regarding her work performance and she interpreted that meeting as an attack on her gender and not upon her poor work habits, this contention was not verified by any other testimony. Having observed the candor and demeanor of the Petitioner versus that of the other witnesses, it is determined that her testimony is less creditable because of its self-serving nature. Although the Petitioner testified that a comment was made that "she did not look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to find another job, this was not verified through testimony of any other witness. To the extent that any other witnesses testified concerning these statements being made in a belief that discrimination had been exhibited toward the Petitioner, the evidence reveals that this information only came to these people through self-serving reports by the Petitioner herself. Meyers directly contradicts that these statements were made to the Petitioner and he states that he never heard anyone tell her that she had three weeks to look for a job or that she "didn't look like a truck driver". The petitioner provided no testimony or evidence which could show how these alleged statements constituted "sexual discrimination" or how the statements related to her sexual discrimination claim. It was not shown that any member of management, with employment-decision authority, made or condoned such statements even if it had been established that they evidenced gender-based discrimination, which was not done. The Petitioner did not complain of sexual discrimination per se until after she had received a reprimand from management. Likewise, she began to repetitively claim that her equipment was unsafe after the reprimand. The Petitioner may have been overly sensitive to management's concern for safety inspections of her truck because of being reprimanded for safety violations and was afraid she would "get into trouble" with management if she did not constantly report feared safety problems. The fact was established, however, that management had a genuine, good-faith belief that it was being harassed by these repetitive, unsafe equipment reports by the Petitioner, given the then- prevailing atmosphere surrounding the Petitioner's employment, characterized by her less than satisfactory attitude, as perceived by management, and the fact that management's confidential inspections of her equipment did not reveal any safety problems of the type reported by the Petitioner. Finally, it is especially noteworthy that during this period of time when the Petitioner made the claim of sexual discrimination and retaliation based upon her claim, that the Respondent had in its employ, in an identical job position, a female truck driver who had had no unsatisfactory experience by management with her performance, was not subjected to investigative or disciplinary measures, and who is still satisfactorily employed with the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition herein in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1459 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact which are not in separately-numbered, discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs contain some proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and some which are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are intertwined with argument and discussions of the weight of the evidence or testimony. Because the paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact contain both findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and which the Hearing Officer rejects, discrete, specific rulings thereon are not practicable. It suffices to say that all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are subordinate to, but have been considered and addressed in the findings of fact portion of this Recommended Order and have been in that fashion completely ruled upon. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The same considerations are true of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Some portions of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent consist of merely discussions and argument concerning the weight of the evidence and some are acceptable to the Hearing Officer based upon the Hearing Officer's determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Some are rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on the same subject matter. Here, again, this Recommended Order completely and adequately addresses the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, and the Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer and to the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence or as being immaterial, unnecessary, or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry W. McCleary, Esquire 3 West Garden Street Suite 380 Pensacola, FL 32501 Donna Gardner, Esquire 213 South Alcaniz Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Duval News Management Company, d/b/a Newsouth Distributors, has its main office in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent has been in the wholesale magazine, book and news distribution business in Jacksonville for the past 80 years. The Ocala, Florida branch where Petitioner was employed has been in operation since approximately 1974. Respondent employed 15 or more employees at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Christine Rios is the Petitioner. She was hired on September 20, 1974 in the book return department of Respondent's Ocala operation. In 1977, Petitioner was promoted from that position to an office job as accounts receivable clerk in the Ocala office. As the result of an automobile accident on October 14, 1992, Petitioner suffered a dislocated shoulder, cracked ribs and a cervical sprain. She returned to work part-time on December 17, 1992. Petitioner resumed full-time work duties on February 18, 1993, subject to the restriction that she not lift over 20 pounds. Her duties as accounts receivable clerk did not require lifting weights greater than 20 pounds. On April 14, 1993, Gil Brechtel, President of Newsouth Distributors, met with all employees of the Ocala branch that worked inside the facility. Excluded from the meeting were route salesmen. At the meeting, Brechtel announced that non-supervisory employee jobs within the facility were to be eliminated. Each employee, inclusive of Petitioner, was given the opportunity to transfer to the Jacksonville office or, in lieu of transfer, accept severance pay and other benefits. Each employee was given a letter confirming this announced reduction in the work force. Subsequently, all employees who worked inside the facility, except the office manager, were laid off at various times between May 1, 1993 and May of 1994. Petitioner was laid off on September 27, 1993, at which time she was given a termination letter with an attached summary of benefits and a severance pay check. Petitioner's check was in the total gross sum of $5,722.34 minus deductions for a net sum of $3,980.93. At the time of her layoff, Petitioner was performing essential functions of her job without any accommodations by Respondent. After the announced reduction in work force, Respondent employed one part-time employee to handle warehouse duties requiring lifting up to 60 pounds plus some clerical duties that were formerly performed by Petitioner. Although she had stated to others that she needed to work full-time, Petitioner asked Ron Nichols, the Ocala branch manager, if she could be considered for the position. Nichols told her that she could be considered if the lifting restrictions imposed by her physician were removed. No further inquiry was made of Nichols by Petitioner and she never attempted to explain at any time to Nichols how she might be able to perform the job with reasonable accommodation. Several different employees at different times filled the part-time receiver/stocker job until the consolidation and reduction in work force had been fully carried out. At that time, the office manager assumed the duties of receiver/stocker and some of the clerical functions formerly performed by the accounts receivable clerks, although the bulk of account receivable clerk tasks were transferred to the Jacksonville office. No one was hired to replace Petitioner following her termination on September 27, 1993. No new accounts receivable clerks were employed in the Ocala branch following Petitioner's termination. As a result of the reduction in work force, 18 employees were laid off. The only person currently performing any warehouse duties or office clerical work at the Ocala branch is the office manager, MaeDean Crabtree. At the time of Petitioner's employment, Respondent had in effect an employee handbook containing a policy prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap. The same handbook also provides a complaint resolution procedure. If an employee has a complaint, the employee is directed to contact the supervisor or manager to discuss the matter. At no time prior to her termination or filing of her charge of discrimination did Petitioner contact her supervisor, Crabtree, or the manager, Nichols, with any allegations of job discrimination or failure to provide reasonable accommodation. At the final hearing, Respondent's stated non-discriminatory reason for the elimination of Petitioner's position, consolidation of operations with a resultant reduction in work force, was not disputed or negated by Petitioner. Petitioner's contention was that she should have been allowed to work part-time in the receiver/stocker position and was not given reasonable accommodation by Respondent in that regard. Petitioner provided no evidence demonstrating that she requested the position subject to reasonable accommodation. Petitioner failed to demonstrate at the hearing that she could perform the duties of the part-time position which required the ability to lift up to 60 pounds. Currently, Petitioner is employed with a temporary job agency performing office/clerical work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of April, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-4. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 5.-6. Subordinate to HO findings. 7. Adopted by reference. 8.-9. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 10. Rejected, relevance. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael B. Staley James P. Tarquin Attorneys At Law 2045 Northeast Second St Ocala, FL 33470 Allan P. Clark Attorney At Law 3306 Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32202 Sharon Moultry Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd, Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, against Petitioner due to his age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an Employee Relations Specialist from July 30, 2007, to March 7, 2008. Petitioner’s position as an Employee Relations Specialist was a full-time salaried exempt position. Throughout Petitioner’s employment, Mary Campbell was the Director of Human Resources for Respondent, and William Davis was the Human Resources Manager for Respondent. Campbell was Petitioner and Davis’s direct supervisor. On March 6, 2008, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Campbell, effective Friday, March 7, 2008. Pursuant to Respondent’s termination policy, salaried exempt employees are expected to provide a minimum of four weeks’ notice of their resignation, and failure to do so could block their eligibility for rehire and payment of accrued paid time off (PTO). Petitioner failed to provide the required four weeks’ notice when he resigned his employment with Respondent. Petitioner understood that resigning with less than four weeks’ notice would block his eligibility for rehire, but, despite that understanding, he chose to resign on such short notice because he was starting a new job the next Monday. Petitioner expressed that understanding in his resignation letter, stating: “I understand the ramification of my early resignation but my future employer will not hold a position for thirty days.” (Resignation letter, Respondent’s Ex. 1). On March 7, 2008, Campbell signed a Personnel Action Notice relating to Petitioner’s resignation of employment, stating that “Dwayne Clark resigned his position for another opportunity without proper notice, accepting the consequences of losing PTO and rehire eligibility.” Campbell, without the involvement of Davis, classified Petitioner as ineligible for rehire on March 7, 2008. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged this action was not discriminatory. The Monday after his resignation, Petitioner began working for Citizens Property Insurance as a Human Resources Generalist, and was involuntarily terminated after six weeks of employment with Citizens. In July 2009, Davis was promoted to Director of Human Resources after Campbell resigned from her employment with Respondent. On April 15, 2011, Richard Rivera was hired by Respondent as the Human Resources Manager. Prior to that, Rivera was employed by University of Florida Shands Medical Center’s (UF Shands) Human Resources Department, which shares the same building with Respondent’s Human Resources Department. Rivera knew Petitioner as a human resources employee of Respondent in 2007/2008. However, they had never spoken prior to mediation of this matter in 2017. Since becoming Director of Human Resources, Davis has received several requests for an exception to the termination policy from former employees classified as ineligible for rehire. Though he has the authority to do so, Davis has never made an exception to the termination policy or rehired anyone who had been classified as ineligible for rehire. In July 2010 and early 2012, Petitioner asked Davis to make an exception to the termination policy and reclassify him as eligible for rehire. However, Davis did not reclassify Petitioner as eligible for rehire because “[w]hen you make an exception, you have problems enforcing the policy going forward, so that’s why I do not make exceptions.” Petitioner claims that while he was employed with Respondent, Campbell made two exceptions to the termination policy and allowed the rehire of two former employees who had been classified as ineligible for rehire. However, other than their gender and race, Petitioner could not name or otherwise identify the two former employees in a way that would allow Respondent to attempt to verify his claim. Petitioner asserted that a physician assistant (PA) had been rehired by Respondent after providing less than four weeks’ notice of her resignation. Respondent was able to identify that individual as Allison McFauls. Ms. McFauls has worked as a Senior PA since 1998 and has never been an employee of Respondent or subject to Respondent’s termination policy. Ms. McFauls has always been employed by UF Shands, which is a separate entity from UF Jacksonville Physicians, Inc., with a separate human resources department and separate personnel policies. Neither Davis nor Rivera is aware of any employee of Respondent receiving an exception to the termination policy. Davis classified Hubert Collins, an Employee Relations Manager, who is nearly 20 years younger than Petitioner, and Christy Wright, who is even younger than Collins, as ineligible for rehire due to their failures to comply with the required resignation notice period in the termination policy. During their conversation in July 2010, Petitioner asked Davis if Respondent would be interested in contracting with Petitioner’s consulting company to assist with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance review. Respondent did not contract with Petitioner because Respondent performed compliance review work and completed its Affirmative Action Plan in-house. Davis did not ask Petitioner questions regarding his age and does not recall having a conversation with Petitioner about retirement since Petitioner’s employment with Respondent. Even if such topics of conversation occurred, Petitioner agreed he may have been the one to raise them. On September 12, 2016, Petitioner applied online for a vacant Employee Relations Specialist position with Respondent. However, due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with Respondent’s four-week notice requirement, Petitioner was ineligible for rehire with Respondent in September 2016. On September 14, 2016, Rivera reviewed the applications and selected which applicants would be interviewed and considered for the open Employee Relations Specialist position. Because Petitioner was ineligible for rehire, Rivera removed Petitioner from further consideration. Rivera did not base his decision on Petitioner’s age, and there was no persuasive evidence of record that Rivera was biased against Petitioner because of his age. On September 14, 2016, Rivera rejected Petitioner’s application in the online application system and entered “ineligible for rehire” as the reason for rejecting Petitioner’s application. The same day, Petitioner was sent a form email notifying him that his application had been removed from consideration for the Employee Relations Specialist position. No one but Rivera was involved in the decision to remove Petitioner from consideration for the position. Rivera did not inform Davis or anyone else that Petitioner had applied for the Employee Relations Specialist position. Likewise, Davis never directed Rivera or anyone else to reject applications from Petitioner. Petitioner did not communicate with Davis, Rivera, or any other employee about his September 12, 2016, application. Nor did Petitioner request an exception to the termination policy from Davis or anyone else in 2016. Davis did not know that Petitioner had applied for the Employee Relations Specialist position until November 2016, when Respondent was notified by the Commission that Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination. After receiving Petitioner’s charge of discrimination in November 2016, Davis reviewed Petitioner’s September 2016 application, and noticed that Petitioner stated that he had resigned from his employment with Citizens Property Insurance, which Davis knew to be false. If Petitioner had been hired for the Employee Relations Specialist position, Davis would have terminated Petitioner’s employment for falsifying his application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Margaret P. Zabijaka, Esquire Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Suite 1700 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Jesse D. Bannon, Esquire Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Suite 1700 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Dwayne E. Clark, Sr. 11334 Bridges Road Jacksonville, Florida 32218 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as an Accountant II on December 1, 1987 and in December of 1993, was promoted to Tax Auditor II. In September of 1991, the Respondent received a complaint regarding Petitioner from a taxpayer. The taxpayer alleged that the Petitioner had accused the taxpayer of attempting to sabotage the Petitioner's van. When questioned about the complaint, the Petitioner stated that the taxpayer had attempted to damage his van because the Petitioner had denied the taxpayer's refund claim. The Petitioner's supervisor investigated Petitioner's claims, counseled him and suggested that the Petitioner participate in the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Petitioner declined assistance. In October and November of 1992, the Petitioner began making bizarre allegations about his co-workers and supervisors engaging in outrageous and deviant sexual conduct and activities, and began to behave strangely. The Petitioner told his supervisors that his co-workers were engaging in sex with his mother, aunt, uncle and other members of his family. According to the Petitioner, these sexual activities were taking place in the office. The Petitioner was upset particularly at one co-worker, who Petitioner stated had moved in next door to him or into his neighborhood in order to spy on Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner stated that the "sex police" were observing him at Walmart. The police would get on top of his van to spy on him according to Petitioner. During this time, the Petitioner filed a "sexual harassment" complaint with the Respondent's Inspector General. Petitioner's statement to the investigators repeated the bizarre accusations outlined above regarding his co- workers. After investigating the Petitioner's claim, the Respondent's Inspector General found no evidence to substantiate these allegations and statements. Because the Petitioner's increasingly bizarre behavior, the Respondent became concerned about the Petitioner's ability to perform his duties as a Tax Auditor I. Therefore, the Respondent requested that the Petitioner go to a psychiatrist for an evaluation. The Petitioner agreed and went to the Apalachee Center for Human Services, where he was examined by Dr. Terence Leland, a psychologist and Dr. Inez Bragado-Spence, a psychiatrist. The evaluation consisted of three, one- hour interviews and various written tests. It was understood that the results of this examination would be shared with Respondent. Dr. Leland reported to the Respondent that the Petitioner had made delusional statements of the type made to and investigated by the Inspector General and found to be baseless. The Petitioner reported that co-workers and others were spying on him. The Petitioner reported alleged sexual liaisons at the office between various employees and supervisors. The Petitioner reported plots against him by various conspirators and "hit men" of the Respondent. Dr. Leland's diagnosis was that the Petitioner suffered from a delusional (paranoid) disorder, persecutory type. It was Dr. Leland's opinion that the Petitioner clearly needed treatment. Dr. Leland felt that the Petitioner could not perform his duties without treatment, and recommended requiring treatment as a condition of the Petitioner's continued employment. During this period, the Petitioner's job performance suffered. Based upon Dr. Leland's reports, the Respondent required that the Petitioner obtain treatment as a condition of continued employment. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement which required the following as a condition of continued employment: Seeking psychiatric treatment within 40 days. Furnishing documentation that treat- ment had commenced and was continuing for as long as treatment was recommended. Following the prescribed treatment so long as it was recommended. The Petitioner commenced treatment in June of 1993, Dr. Prasad, a psychiatrist, prescribed medication for the control of Petitioner's illness and Suzan Taylor, a counselor associated with Dr. Prasad, held regular counseling sessions with Petitioner. As a result of his treatment, the Petitioner was asymptomatic, his work improved, and he was promoted to Tax Auditor II in December of 1993. In the summer of 1994, approximately one year after commencing treatment, Dr. Prasad and Suzan Taylor began to suspect that the Petitioner was no longer taking his medication when he again began making delusional statements. At the same time, the Petitioner's supervisor began to notice the reoccurrence of Petitioner's prior conduct. When confronted by his doctors in November of 1994 about the failure to take his medication, the Petitioner stated that he had quit taking it. He was given the option of getting shots of the same medication on a regular basis, but he declined. On November 18, 1994, the Petitioner had an altercation with a co- worker and received a one-day suspension. Dr. Prasad had diagnosed the Petitioner as having major depression with psychotic features of persecution and delusion. Dr. Prasad's opinion was that the Petitioner could not perform his essential job functions without treatment. On or about November 21, 1994, the Petitioner told his supervisor that his last visit to Dr. Prasad was on November 16, 1994. Dr. Prasad was contacted by Petitioner's employer, and Dr. Prasad issued a final report dated November 23, 1994, in which she stated that the Petitioner refused to take any further medication or follow her directions; therefore, there was nothing further she could do to help him if he refused her recommended treatment. She did not release Petitioner from treatment. The Respondent issued its proposed letter of termination based upon the Petitioner's refusal to continue treatment contrary to his agreement and the Petitioner's behavior on the job. In a response to the letter of termination, the Petitioner made bizarre statements about the co-worker with whom he had had the altercation with on November 18, 1994. At a pre-determination conference conducted by William Fritchman, the Respondent's Chief of Personnel and Training (at the time), it was suggested that the Petitioner go to another doctor for evaluation and treatment, if necessary. The Petitioner stated that he would not seek further medical help and stated that he would not take any drugs. The Respondent had real concerns about the Petitioner's ability to perform his job duties, his interaction with taxpayers, and potential harm to fellow employees. Based upon Dr. Prasad's diagnosis and opinion that Petitioner required continuing treatment and Petitioner's declining job performance, Mr. Fritchman issued the Final Action Letter of Termination citing the Petitioner's breach of the conditions of employment, as agreed in the letter of April 30, 1993, which constituted insubordination. Petitioner offered no evidence showing he was sexually harassed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's claim be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Franklin Post Office Box 572 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0572 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6668 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether or not Respondent, Seminole County Public Schools, discriminated against Petitioner, Juanita O. Jones, in employment by reason of race, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, and documentary evidence, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a black female, who has been employed by Respondent since 1991. She has served Respondent as an Executive Secretary, Elementary Education; Executive Secretary to the Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent; and a Technical Assistant, Media Center, Sanford Middle School. Prior to her employment by Respondent, Petitioner was employed as a word processing systems operator by the Florida Department of Corrections. In late 1999 or early 2000, Petitioner applied for the advertised position of Specialist, Applications Software. Respondent had advertised three separate Specialist, Applications Software, position vacancies during a two-month period. Although interviewed for the vacancies for the first two positions, Petitioner was not selected for the first two advertised vacancies. Petitioner does not contend that her non- selection for the first two positions was a result of unlawful discrimination. Applicants for the three Specialist, Applications Software, positions were interviewed by a two-person panel: Regina Klaers and John Davis. Ms. Klaers is Supervisor, Student Support; Mr. Davis is Manager, Student Support and Information Services. These individuals supervised the Specialist, Applications Software, position and were intimately familiar with the job requirements. Thirteen individuals applied for the third Specialist, Applications Software, position. Of the thirteen, ten met the minimum qualifications. Three applicants were interviewed. Applicants who had been previously interviewed, Petitioner among them, were not interviewed an additional time as the interviewers felt they had sufficient knowledge from the previous interviews. Petitioner had been interviewed twice previously. The interviews focused on three areas: (1) school- based experience with student data; (2) customer service experience; and (3) "people skills." These were critical areas for the position. The interviews were particularly important in assessing an applicant's "people skills." It was the opinion of the interviewers that one applicant's qualifications in these critical areas exceeded the other applicants', including Petitioner's. Based on the interviews, Elizabeth Jean Smith, a white female, was selected for the position. Ms. Smith had significantly greater school-based "data-entry" experience with the student data systems, WANG and SASI, than did Petitioner. Immediately prior to being selected for the position in question, Ms. Smith's position was Clerk/Receptionist-Customer Service. Both interviewers agreed that Ms. Smith demonstrated better "people skills." Credible evidence supported the selection of Ms. Smith based on her extensive school-based experience with student data systems and her customer service experience. While "people skills" are less empirically quantifiable than the other critical areas of the interviewers' focus, nothing revealed during the final hearing led the undersigned to believe that Petitioner had better "people skills" than did the individual selected for the position. Respondent selected Elizabeth Jean Smith for the Specialist, Applications Software, position because she was more qualified for the position than other applicants, including Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 30th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Alberto E. Lugo-Janer, Esquire 3501 West Vine Street, Suite 281 Kissimmee, Florida 34741-4673 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as envisioned in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005), on the basis of the Petitioner's disability or handicap, and his age. It must also be determined whether the Respondent committed retaliation against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's alleged exercise of statutorily protected rights in complaining about health, or safety concerns, regarding his operation of a machine or device while an employee of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Jimmy D. Forehand was hired by the Department of Management Services or its predecessor on January 21, 1977. He was employed at that Agency for approximately 27 and one-half years through June 30, 2004. For the last 19 years of his tenure he was classed as an electrician. This is the entry level electrician trade position and has fewer complex duties and skills required for its performance, as opposed to the more complex position of master electrician, in terms of working with complex wiring, wiring problems, electrical devices, and so forth associated with that latter position. It has been stipulated that through his termination date of June 30, 2004, Mr. Forehand, was qualified to perform the duties and functions of his job. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing all state government agency resources, services, properties, benefits, and procurement. It manages state-owned facilities, handles state human resources or personnel matters, employee benefit matters, as well as procurement of such things as office space and office supplies. It maintains the physical integrity of all state-owned properties. The Petitioner was employed for the Respondent by the Division of Facilities Management and Building Construction (Division of Facilities) which is responsible for managing and maintaining office complexes and other properties owned by the state. The Petitioner specifically worked for the electrician unit of that Division. The Disability Claim The Petitioner experienced several purported medical conditions which resulted in workers' compensation claims during his tenure as an employee. The ones relevant to this case commenced in approximately 1992. In 1992 the Petitioner was engaged in a repair work assignment at a DMS-administered office building in downtown Tallahassee. He allegedly became exposed to asbestos during that job. The Petitioner and the employer, DMS, initiated a First Report of Injury and a workers' compensation claim ensued regarding the asbestos incident. The progress of that workers' compensation claim and its disposition are not relevant to this case, aside from the diagnosis concerning that claim as a part of the predicate for showing a disability for purposes of the case at bar. In any event, in 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by a physician with asbestosis. Because of that diagnosis, through the workers' compensation process, the employer and carrier have authorized the Petitioner, in all the years since, to have an annual medical examination and chest X-ray under the auspices of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Financial Services. This is for the purpose of monitoring the status of the asbestosis. The Respondent has stipulated that it was aware of the diagnosis of asbestosis. It does not agree that the asbestosis constitutes a disability for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (i.e. handicap). The Petitioner was released from the physician with regard to the asbestosis situation without work limitations or restrictions due to that diagnosis. Sometime in 1999 the Petitioner injured his left knee on the job, apparently a severe sprain. A workers' compensation notice of injury was filed and a workers' compensation claim process ensued whereby he received treatment for his knee problem. When he reached maximum medical improvement he returned to work with a light duty recommendation from his treating physician, on a temporary basis. In fact, the Respondent accorded him a temporary light duty assignment after he returned to work from the knee injury. The Respondent, through the Petitioner's supervisors, particularly Joe Jacobson, generally made an effort to try to find the Petitioner a light duty assignment when he returned from illness or injury, based upon a doctor's recommendation and/or the Petitioner's own request for light duty. His supervisor, Mr. Jacobson, would customarily call other building managers, the "OP/CON Center" and other agencies in an effort to find a light duty post Mr. Forehand could perform in until he was ready for the full duties of his regular position. Thus, on several occasions Mr. Forehand was placed in light duty as a janitor or answering phones. It was not always possible to find temporary light duty for Mr. Forehand when he requested it or when a doctor recommended it. Apparently Mr. Forehand was on leave without pay for a number of months on at least one occasion when no light duty was available for him. In this connection, however, the Respondent, throughout Mr. Forehand's tenure as an employee or at least since his 1992 asbestosis diagnosis, has shown a penchant for allowing Mr. Forehand to occupy and perform his duties in his regular position of electrician by working at his own pace, without regard to any time limit for performing his duties, without prohibition on his taking frequent rest breaks, and with tolerance for his late arrival at work, if tardiness was related to his physical condition. Thus, in a defacto fashion, the Respondent accommodated what it knew of Mr. Forehand's impairments, as he related them to the Respondent, or as they learned of them from reports from his physicians and from the workers' compensation process (i.e., breathing difficulties and to some extent left knee impairment after 1999). In any event, the preponderant evidence establishes that when the Petitioner requested light duty and/or his physician recommended it, the Respondent would provide him with light duty if it was available, although it was not always available. It accommodated what it knew of his impairments when he worked in his regular position, performing his regular duties, by the means described above; even though the Petitioner did not for the most part request rest periods, frequent breaks from his duties, additional time to complete his assignments, or for permission to trade assignments with another worker who might have a less physically taxing job. In fact, when the matter of his physical difficulties came up, or was raised by the Petitioner in a conversation with his supervisor on at least one occasion, his supervisor told him in effect to "do the best you can." The implication thus clearly was that if the Petitioner needed rest breaks, needed additional time to do assignments, that the Respondent would accommodate him by not holding him to a strict standard as to when his job duties got performed. Since approximately the year 2000 or the fiscal year 2000-2001 the Respondent, like other state agencies, have been under a mandate from the Legislature and the Office of the Governor to save on costs and to become more efficient in its operations. One of the primary means of accomplishing this has been to require a reduction in the Agency's workforce. The Respondent has thus experienced a loss of employment positions since that fiscal year in each budget year and session of the Legislature. It has thus lost approximately 635 full-time positions over a four-year period ending with the 2005 Legislature and Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Petitioner's position was identified by the year 2000 Florida Legislature to be eliminated, by making it "non-recurring," such that his position would be cut or eliminated effective July 1, 2001. The Respondent's supervisors did not want him to be laid off. Therefore, they avoided his lay-off in that fiscal year by re- classifying him or his position into a vacant position within the Division of Facilities. They made the decision to retain him even with knowledge of his past workers' compensation claims, his asbestosis diagnosis and his knee injury of 1999 with related occasional light duty and time off from work. When the 2000 Legislature identified his position as being one which would be non-recurring or deleted after July 1, 2001, the Respondent held a meeting with the Petitioner and all other employees whose positions had been deemed non-critical and subject to deletion in the job force reduction. What had occurred was explained and their options and procedures to remain employed or become re-employed were explained. Because his supervisors wanted to save him from lay-off, and re- classified a different position to place him in, he was protected when the 2001 Legislature carried through with its previous year alteration of his position to non-recurring funding by withdrawing all funding and rate supporting his original position. In continuation of its mandate to reduce the work force, the 2003 Legislature made 20 positions non-recurring, including the Petitioner's. This meant that the funding was determined to be non-recurring, meaning that the positions would be funded one more year, but at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, 2004, these positions would no longer be funded and would be abolished. In the Governor's and agency's budget preparation process thereafter, in 2003 and early 2004, the Legislatively- mandated reduction of 20 positions was incorporated. The Agency, however, in late 2003 or early 2004, arrived at the conclusion that it needed 15 of those 20 positions to be re- classified as critical positions necessary to its mission. Therefore, in the Legislative budget-making process, beginning in February and early March 2004, it sought to convince the Legislature's Appropriations staff and members that 15 of the positions were critical. It was successful in doing that during the Legislative session. The Petitioner's position was not re-established as a recurring, critical position. This was because his position had previously been determined to be non-critical in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and, since his job duties and responsibilities had not changed since that time, his position was again deemed to be no longer critical to continued division operation. It was determined by the Respondent that the functions of his position could be performed by including them in the duties of other positions, to be performed by persons who qualified for and occupied those positions (such as master electricians). Although Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, wanted to find a vacant position to place the Petitioner in as he had done in the 2000-2001 fiscal year job force reduction, there were no vacant positions available in which to place the Petitioner. Mr. Jacobson's testimony establishes this, as does that of Clint Sibille and Cherri Linn (Mr. Jacobson's supervisors). The fact that Mr. Jacobson had a desire to try to find a way to retain the Petitioner is somewhat corroborated by the statement or message from Ms. Linn to Mr. Jacobson to the effect that "you can't save him this time." This meant that, unlike the situation in 2000-2001, there were no vacant positions which could be converted to a position in which to place the Petitioner. Moreover, the testimony of the supervisory lead worker, Bill Kerr, corroborated that of Joe Jacobson and Clint Sibille that there were no vacant positions to place the Petitioner in or to convert to a position suitable for his qualifications. Their testimony shows that the Petitioner's position was not a critical one in the division, especially because it did not involve duties concerned with intricate electrical wiring, wiring repairs, working on complex electrical devices and other complex electrical work. This testimony established that it made no sense to convert a master electrician position into one which met Mr. Forehand's lesser qualifications because a qualified person in a master electrician position, can perform the Petitioner's duties and many more duties in terms of complexity and critical importance than can a person with the Petitioner's lesser qualifications in an entry-level electrician position. Mr. Forehand is not a licensed electrician. The Respondent thus determined that there were no positions which were vacant and sufficiently less critical to its operation as to justify it in converting such to one which met the Petitioner's qualifications (in a managerial context). The Petitioner was not told of his lay-off until June 14, 2004. In fact, Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, did not know that it was certain to occur until immediately before Mr. Forehand was told, several days before at the most. Clint Sibille had told Mr. Jacobson before the Legislative session convened that Mr. Forehand's position might be eliminated but he was not certain at that time (approximately in December 2003 or January 2004). It is not clear which supervisor or manager made the initial decision that the Petitioner's position was not critical. It apparently was the recommendation of Clint Sibille, in concert with Cherri Linn, and with the final approval of the Division Director, then LeeAnn Korst. Mr. Jacobson, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, did not request that his position be deleted. During most of 2003, the Petitioner's job duties included operation of a florescent bulb or lamp crushing system. This was a device known as a VRS Bulb Crusher also known as the "bulb eater." It had apparently been purchased by the Agency sometime in 2002. The device consists of a large drum with a vertical tube through which burned-out florescent light bulbs are inserted so that they fall into the large drum where a mechanical device is operated which crushes the bulbs for disposal. The Petitioner performed a large portion of the bulb crusher's operation. This was particularly true during early 2004, when the Petitioner used the machine at a more intense level. Sometime in February 2004, the exhaust or filtration system of the machine sustained damage, or a break, so that dust and particulate matter and any gaseous or chemical contents of the broken bulbs had the opportunity to leak out of the area of the break into the ambient air. A temporary repair was made and a permanent replacement part was ordered from the manufacturer. The machine continued to malfunction, however, and the repair did not hold. The Petitioner complained to Bill Kerr, his lead worker, concerning the dust and particulate matter the machine apparently sprayed into the air. He also complained to his supervisor, Joe Jacobson. The Petitioner stated that he believed that the dust and particulate matter and other unknown contents of the broken florescent bulbs might aggravate the breathing problems he professed to have, which he related to his original asbestosis diagnosis. These complaints began in early March 2004. The Petitioner also complained to Dave Wiggins, the Respondent's Environmental Supervisor in March of 2004. When the complaints were made and the temporary repair was not successful, the Respondent stopped all use of the bulb machine in early March 2004. This was contemporaneous with the time or occasion when the Petitioner refused to use the machine any longer. The complaints about the bulb crushing machine were reported up the "chain of command" so that on March 16, 2004, Glen Abbott, the Employee Relations Specialist of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services, made a written "medical report" (according to the Petitioner's testimony) concerning the Petitioner's reported exposure to "poisonous chemicals" in the fluorescent bulbs being crushed through operation of the machine. This report was apparently required for workers' compensation purposes. The Petitioner also told Clint Sibille, Mr. Jacobson's supervisor, of the machine's purported malfunction. Mr. Sibille asked Dave Wiggins, the Environmental Specialist, to investigate the machine to determine if the machine was malfunctioning or if the problem reported by the Petitioner was caused by operator error. Mr. Wiggins and Joe Jacobson, after investigating the matter, believed it to be caused by operator error in the manner in which the bulbs were inserted into the vertical tube of the machine. The Petitioner maintains that he asked Clint Sibille to send him to a doctor concerning his fears of heath problems related to the machine and states that Clint Sibille told him to "see his own doctor." Mr. Sibille did confer with Cherri Linn about the Petitioner's request and Cherri Linn informed him that the Petitioner would have to engage in the workers' compensation report and claim process in order to see a doctor concerning his health-related fears about the bulb crushing machine. Mr. Sibille then told the Petitioner's supervisor Joe Jacobson to tell the Petitioner of this. Thereafter, at some point during the period of March through June 2004, after the Petitioner reported his complaints concerning the use of the bulb crusher, Glenn Abbott told all the electricians and carpenters who had worked with the machine to obtain medical examinations under the normal workers' compensation procedure, to try to ascertain if there are any deleterious effects caused by these persons' operation of the machine. Sometime in early May of 2004, the Petitioner called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and spoke to someone there and made a verbal report of his belief concerning unsafe conditions regarding operation of the bulb crushing machine. After the Petitioner left employment with the Respondent Agency in July of 2004, the machine and the warehouse space where it was located was examined by a representative of the DEP and samples were taken, in an effort to ascertain if any hazardous materials had been produced by the machine or were present in that working area. On May 18, 2004, the Petitioner re-injured the same knee which he had injured in 1999. A Notice of Injury concerning this knee injury was filed to trigger the workers' compensation process and the Petitioner saw a doctor through the workers' compensation procedure who examined and treated his knee problem (severe sprain). He was off work for a few days and then was sent back to work by the physician with a prescription of "light duty." He thus became available for work with light duty, at the doctor's recommendation, on or about June 1, 2004. At about this time he told his lead worker Bill Kerr, of his blood clot and showed him the doctor's report concerning leg swelling. He also informed Joe Jacobson of this. He sought light duty and indeed Joe Jacobson made substantial efforts to find light duty available for him by calling the various building managers and the "opcon" center to see if any light duty was available. Mr. Jacobson went so far as to try to ascertain if there were any office filing duties that the Petitioner could perform. He was unable to locate any light duty work for the Petitioner at this time. Joe Jacobson took annual leave in early June and while he was on annual leave, he received a call from his employer, (apparently Cherri Linn) around June 10th or 11, 2004, requiring him to come back to work because the job force reduction lay-off was going to be imposed on the Petitioner and his presence as his supervisor was apparently needed. On June 11, 2004, the Petitioner was called and told to report to work on Monday morning, June 14, 2004. On Monday the Petitioner was called in to a meeting with Joe Jacobson and Tim Carlisle and told of his lay-off. He was immediately required by the Department's Inspector General, Tim Carlisle, to take boxes and pack up his belongings and to leave the premises. Carlisle helped him pack his belongings and ushered him off the Respondent's premises. The Petitioner maintains that he did not know of his lay-off until that same day, which happened to be his fifty-fifth birthday. He was placed on leave with pay until June 30, 2004, his actual termination date. In July of 2004, apparently on or about July 2, 2004, he filed a formal written complaint to the Chief Inspector General regarding his concerns and feared health consequences of the operation of the bulb crushing machine. On or about July 20, 2004, Mr. Forehand visited a walk-in medical facility because he contends he was experiencing shortness of breath, chest pains, and tightness in his chest. He attributed these symptoms to use of the bulb crusher back in March and earlier. He testified that he was diagnosed with silicosis and that he physician determined that he could not tolerate walking 30 to 60 minutes at a time or lifting more than 15 or 20 pounds. Neither this physician nor any other testified, nor was non-hearing medical information admitted into evidence in this regard. Interestingly, Mr. Forehand's testimony indicates he was diagnosed with a heart condition, apparently based on these symptoms, and in late 2004 underwent insertion of an arterial stint. The Petitioner thus complained to his supervisors beginning in about early March 2004, concerning the fears he had about the results of the machine operations. He complained verbally to DEP in early May of 2004, but made no written formal complaint, to any agency or person, until after his termination in July 2004. The Petitioner was not asked to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry concerning the operation of the bulb crushing machine and made no written complaint to any supervisory officials of the Respondent, who could then themselves submit a complaint to the Inspector General or to the Human Relations Commission. In fact, in his own testimony the Petitioner admits that he made a written complaint in July of 2004. In an apparent effort to show that the Respondent's proffered non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual, the Petitioner advanced testimony from a number of witnesses, including himself, which he maintains shows a pattern and practice by the Respondent of retaliating against, and, if necessary, effectively firing older, disabled employees or employees who complain of safety hazards. In this regard, of the five positions selected to be eliminated in the job force reduction of 2004, four had incumbents when the decision was made. All four of those incumbents were over 40 years of age. Two of those four positions, however, became vacant before they were eliminated by the job force reduction. Ms. Ashraf Achtchi was fired by the Respondent before her position became officially eliminated in the job force reduction and Preston Booth voluntarily resigned from his position for unknown reasons. Ms. Achtchi testified to the general effect that she felt she had been discriminated against because of being ill and under medical treatment, yet she was still singled out (in her view) for being absent or tardy. Although the record may establish that she is over 40 years of age, there is no persuasive evidence that she suffered from a legally cognizable disability as that condition or term is defined below, even if she was under a doctor's care, was ill, and had frequent tardiness or absentness due to illness or a doctor's visit during her employment tenure. In any event, other than her own subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's speculations based upon hearsay, there is no persuasive, competent evidence to show that she was terminated for any reasons based upon an unproven disability, her age or due to any retaliation regarding any protected status within the purview of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner maintains that both he and Mr. Feizi were over 40 and disabled. Whether or not the Petitioner established proof of disability will be dealt with in the conclusions of law below. Mr. Feizi apparently suffered from a disease of the nervous system (AMS) and was confined to a wheel chair much of the time. It may thus be inferred that, for purposes of the legal elements of disability referenced below, that Mr. Feizi was disabled. Other than his subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's subjective testimonial speculation, based upon hearsay, however, there is no competent, persuasive evidence concerning the reasons Mr. Feizi was terminated, other than that his position was simply eliminated through a job force reduction in the manner described in the above findings of fact. There is no persuasive, credible evidence to show that he was dismissed from employment based upon his age or due to his disability or as retaliation, nor was that proven with regard to Ms Achtchi. Other employees testified concerning alleged retaliatory conduct on the part of the Respondent. Sid Palladino and John Corbin opined that they had been retaliated against for making safety complaints of various kinds, as well as for testifying on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Ralph Cleaver testified that he left the Department to work for the Department of Agriculture because he had filed a "whistle blower" claim and that the Respondent, in his view, would use retaliation for his taking such an action. Barry McDaniel was 60 years old when hired and, abruptly soon thereafter, was asked to resign, according to his testimony, without any given reason. He testified that Mr. Sibille had him read a book purportedly advocating hard work and the hiring of young workers. The book was entitled "The Go Getter." According to Mr. McDaniel's testimony, the book was required to be read by all employees under Mr. Sibille's supervision. There was no evidence, however, that although Mr. McDaniel was asked to resign, that any other employee was so treated. The book was not in evidence and the undersigned has only Mr. McDaniel's subjective testimony concerning his thoughts regarding the theme and content of the book, in relation to his subjective belief that his age was the reason he was asked to resign. He testified that his immediate superior, who was also 60 years of age, was "gone" shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of any circumstances or facts concerning why Mr. McDaniel or his supervisor were actually asked to resign or in the case of his supervisor, may have voluntarily resigned. There are insufficient facts and circumstances established by the evidence to show any discriminatory motive related to age or otherwise with regard to the terminations of either of these men. Sid Palladino testified that he was reprimanded for not wearing his uniform and that other employees were not reprimanded when they had not worn uniforms either. He also testified that he felt he was retaliated against for making safety complaints as well as for testifying in support of the Petitioner in this proceeding. In fact, his reprimand was rescinded shortly after it was given him when it was learned that he had not worn his uniform or worn it properly because the uniform supplied him did not fit. Additionally, other than their anecdotal comments in their testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Palladino or Mr. Corbin were retaliated against for complaining of safety issues and the same is true of Ralph Cleaver opining that he was about to be retaliated against for being a whistle blower, and Barry McDaniel as well. There is simply no definitive, credible proof, other than these employees' own subjective opinions, upon which to base a finding that there was any pattern and practice of retaliation against employees for complaining about safety hazards, for supporting other employees' discrimination claims, for making whistle blower claims, for being disabled or on account of their age, which could be persuasively probative of the discrimination and retaliation claims of the Petitioner.1/ In this connection, it is also found that there are a number of remaining employees in the Petitioner's division, who were his age or older. Indeed, Mr. Robert Smith had retired and then was later re-hired by the Department and the Division after suffering at least one episode of injury and medically prescribed light duty. Likewise, there are an unknown number of disabled or physically impaired persons remaining employed by the Department, after the dates and circumstances occurred with regard to the Petitioner's discriminatory claims. At least two of them testified in this proceeding. These facts belie the existence of a systematic policy or practice of eliminating employees over age 40 or of Mr. Forehand's age or older, or those who might be disabled or suffering from physical or medical impairments.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent discriminated unlawfully against the Petitioner by discharging him because of a handicap contrary to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the nature and extent of financial loss suffered by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Shannon M. Spence, was employed from March 1993 until May 1, 1993 by the Respondent. The Respondent is an employer as defined by Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, who earned on average $125/week, was employed by the Respondent as a bouncer and "bar backer", a person who assisted the bartender. On or about April 29, 1993, the Petitioner suffered an on the job injury which was duly reported to the employer and for which the Petitioner was treated at a local hospital pursuant to arrangements made by the employer. The Petitioner's injury was determined to be a right inguinal hernia, and the Petitioner was cautioned against lifting more than 25 pounds and standing for long periods of time. The Petitioner reported for work the following day, and communicated to his supervisor his inability to lift and to stand for long periods of time. His supervisor, Jess Wall or J.W., placed the Petitioner on security detail for the parking lot and entrance. There were additional light duties available for security personnel within the employer's business in which the employee could have been placed. The Petitioner's employment was terminated later that evening. The testimony is conflicting regarding whether the Petitioner was discharged because he was dating another employee, or because he was injured, or quit in sympathy with Jess Wall, who was also terminated on that evening. The most credible evidence is that the Petitioner was discharged because of his injury, but was told it was because he was dating another employee. The prohibition against dating was a new rule, it was applied against the Petitioner without any prior warning, the female employee was not discharged, and the Petitioner was the only person discharged for this activity although there were others who dated employees. The alternative theory that Petitioner quit in sympathy with the head bouncer, Mr. Wall, is specifically rejected for lack of credibility of the various witnesses. The Petitioner subsequently settled his workman's compensation claim arising from this injury with the Respondent for $15,000. No details were received regarding the allocation of moneys for medical and wages. The Petitioner is entitled to back wages from his discharge until the hearing on April 27, 1995, less any mitigation, including any portion of the settlement of his workman's compensation claim attributable to lost wages, occurring after surgical repair of the hernia when the Petitioner was reemployed. The Petitioner is entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission find that the Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against by the Respondent, and that the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner his lost wages from May 1, 1993 until April 27, 1995 less any amounts the Petitioner earned during this period and any amounts included in the workman's compensation settlement specifically provided for wages; that the Commission retain jurisdiction for the award of damages and attorney's fees and costs; and the Commission remand the matter for a determination of the attorney's fees and costs and to permit the Respondent to present any evidence in mitigation of its damages. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 20th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of their findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1 and 2. Paragraph 3-5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 3-5. Paragraph 6-8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 6-9. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in 3 and 11. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraph 4 Rejected because the date was April 29, 1993. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 6,7 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 8,9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10,11. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Tarquin, Esquire Michael B. Staley, Esquire P.O. Box 906190 Ocala, FL 34478 John Daley, Esquire 201 E. Pine Street 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner Employee.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 17, 2006, Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination (formerly known as a "Charge of Discrimination") on the basis of disability/handicap and national origin with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. On June 15, 2007, the Commission entered a Determination: No Cause. On or about July 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission. On or about July 5, 2007, this case was referred by the Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On July 18, 2007, a telephonic conference was held to schedule a final disputed-fact hearing date. The hearing date agreed upon was October 1, 2007, and a Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued on July 18, 2007. Neither party complied with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. At the time noticed for October 1, 2007, Respondent appeared for hearing. In the Joint Response to Initial Order, filed July 16, 2007, and in a subsequent Motion filed September 26, 2007, Respondent referred to itself as "Wal-Mart Stores, East L.P. (incorrectly referred-to in the caption as Wal-Mart Stores)," but made no motion to correct the style of this cause. Respondent acknowledged in its pleadings, and its counsel acknowledged orally at hearing, that it was the appropriate Respondent in this cause, regardless of the case's style. After waiting 30 minutes, Petitioner still had not appeared for hearing. The undersigned made diligent inquiry to ensure that Respondent had done nothing to discourage Petitioner from appearing, and closed the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and a Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Harrison, Esquire Lindsay A. Connor, Esquire Ford & Harrison 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Catrina Soriano 1826 Nekoma Court Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of an unlawful employment practice by the alleged failure to re-hire him by the Respondent because of his alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed as a machinist operating a "pega" machine for the Respondent at times pertinent hereto, in 1992 and 1993. On or about February 24, 1992, while he was home for lunch, the Petitioner apparently suffered a stroke. He was hospitalized and his wife and a nurse informed his employer of his medical condition. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is a manufacturer of commercial laundry equipment and employs more than 15 employees. Because of the medical condition related to his stroke, the Petitioner applied for and was granted a medical leave of absence on or about February 24, 1992 or shortly thereafter. There is apparently some question whether the Petitioner's supervisor actually signed the leave request, but the employer does not dispute that he was legitimately on a medical leave of absence until August 13, 1992. There is also some dispute concerning whether the Respondent employer knew that the Petitioner had suffered a stroke or not. The complainant's personnel file, however, contained two notes dated March 12, 1992 and August 17, 1992 from Dr. Watts, his treating and attending physician. The March 12, 1992 note confirmed that the Petitioner had been hospitalized and had had an abnormal cerebral imaging result, also suffered from hypertension and, at that time, was unable to return to work. The August 17, 1992 note from Dr. Watts stated that the Petitioner could return to work and stated that there were no restrictions on his activities. Thus, the evidence of record indicates that there was a basis for the Respondent to know that the Petitioner had a stroke or some type of disability between February 24, 1992 and August 17, 1992. Upon his release by his attending physician on August 17, 1992, without medical restriction of his activities, so that he could return to employment, there was no basis for the Respondent to believe from that point forward that the Petitioner had any disability. This is borne out by the Petitioner's own testimony revealing that he repeatedly sought re-employment with the Respondent during the period from August 1992 through February 1993 without advising the Respondent of any employment restrictions due to his medical condition or any purported disability. When the Petitioner returned to the Respondent's place of business on August 17, 1992 and sought to come back to work after his medical leave, the plant manager informed him that he had no openings for him at that time. There were two positions being filled at that time, but they were not positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. One was a position requiring skill at electrical schematic reading, which was an electrical assembly position. The Petitioner was not qualified for this position. The other position was as a "tig welder", a highly-skilled type of welding process. The Petitioner was not qualified to perform this, as well, because of his lack of knowledge of welding. The position, and similar positions, operating "pega" machines (machine tools), which the Petitioner had filled and performed prior to his illness, were all filled and unavailable at the time the Petitioner sought to return to work in August of 1992. Neither the Petitioner nor his physician had given any indication of when the Petitioner could return to work, prior to August 13, 1992, nor was there any communication with the Petitioner or his physician for six months during his leave of absence, other than the provision to the company of the physician's note in March 1992 concerning the brief description of his medical condition. Consequently, on August 13, 1992, when Mr. Rieff, the plant manager, received a note from the Petitioner's physician stating that he could return to work without restriction, there were no positions available for his type of skill and training. Therefore, the company recorded the Petitioner's status, as of August 1992, as being discharged due to the conclusion of his medical leave with no open positions suitable for him being available. The Petitioner testified that he sought employment several times during the period of August 1992 through January 1993 by attempting to contact or contacting Mr. Rieff. He stated that Mr. Rieff told him to check with him every two or three weeks because each time he spoke with him, Mr. Rieff informed him that no openings were available at that time. The Petitioner, however, filed no application for employment until he learned, from a visit to the state employment service office in February of 1993, that the Respondent was looking for a "pega machine operator". The Petitioner filed an application with the company at that time. Upon receiving the application or learning of it, Mr. Horton, Human Resources Director of the company, reviewed it and noted that the Petitioner had had previous experience with the company performing this same job. Mr. Horton had not been with the company at the time the Petitioner had left for his medical leave and, therefore, had no knowledge of his medical history, skills, abilities, and other past history with the company. Consequently, he consulted with Mr. Rieff concerning the advisability of re-hiring the Petitioner. Mr. Rieff advised against re-hiring the Petitioner because the Petitioner had had an attendance problem while he was employed by the company. In fact, although his other job skill and performance ratings were the highest, his attendance rating was the poorest in the company's system and means of rating performance. Consequently, because of Mr. Rieff's negative recommendation, on the basis of the Petitioner's past poor attendance record, which is substantiated by the evidence, Mr. Horton elected not to re-hire him. Mr. Horton did not know at that time of the medical history of the Petitioner because the medical records were housed in a different department of the company. Mr. Horton was the decision-maker for that employment decision. The employment action which resulted in the Petitioner filing the charge of discrimination at issue occurred when the Respondent failed to hire the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that it was on account of his medical condition or disability. The Petitioner verbally sought employment by contacting Mr. Rieff periodically from August 1992 through January 1993. On approximately January 7, 1993, Mr. Rieff effectively told the Petitioner that he would not hire him in the foreseeable future and that if he needed the Petitioner, he could call him. In February 1993, the application was actually filed by the Petitioner for employment, and Mr. Horton took the above negative action with regard to it. It is undisputed that the Respondent granted the Petitioner six months of medical leave. Whether or not the Respondent knew of the precise nature of the medical problem for which the Petitioner was given medical leave, the fact is established that upon the Petitioner being released by his treating physician with no restrictions and able to return to work, the Petitioner had no disability in terms of any impediment to his full employment, performing the full range of duties he had performed before the medical incident occurred in February 1992. Consequently, the Petitioner was not disabled from August 13, 1992 forward. The established reason that the Petitioner was not hired again by the Respondent company was because of his poor attendance record and not because of any perceived disability suffered by the Petitioner. In fact, at the times pertinent hereto when the decision at issue was made not to re-hire the Petitioner, the Petitioner suffered from no disability, and the Respondent had no perception that he did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, Dennis W. Thomas, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2126 The parties were accorded the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders. The Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact, which are accepted (Nos. 1-6) to the extent they do not conflict with or are inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. The Petitioner submitted a post-hearing pleading, in letter form, which really amounts to an argument as to the quantity, quality and weight to be ascribed to the evidence and included citation to the relevant statute, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and a court case which merely is cited for the purpose of pointing out that employment cannot be denied a person on account of illness and disability. That principle is not in dispute in this proceeding. The Petitioner did not separately state proposed findings of fact which can be specifically ruled upon by the Hearing Officer. Nevertheless, all legal and factual issues alluded to in the Petitioner's pleading have been addressed and ruled upon in the body of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis W. Thomas 4396 Clyde Lane Post Office Box 56 Marianna, Florida 32447 Roger W. Horton, III Human Resources Director Unimac Company, Inc. 3595 Industrial Park Drive Marianna, FL 32446-9458 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the denial of an application for employment constitutes unlawful discrimination against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer for the purposes of this proceeding. Respondent's principal place of business is 1800 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33406. Respondent employs approximately 167 employees. A substantial number of Respondent's employees are certified nursing assistants ("CNA"). Petitioner was denied employment as a CNA by Respondent on July 18, 1991. Petitioner was not denied employment due to his disability of alcohol addiction. Petitioner received an average rating on 11 of 12 interview categories. Petitioner received a below average rating on his personality evaluation. He displayed loud and inappropriate behavior during the interview. He gave his "business card" to two female employees and asked them to call him. A background investigation indicated that Petitioner had been arrested for driving while intoxicated and had a bad credit history. Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner in denying Petitioner's application for employment. Respondent did not act with any bias or animus against Petitioner. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application for employment was based upon Petitioner's failure to satisfy Respondent of Petitioner's competence to satisfy his job requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued denying Petitioner's claim of unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY 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 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1021 Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in finding 1. 2. Accepted in finding 2. 3. Accepted in finding 10 4. Rejected as conclusion of law. 5. Accepted in finding 4. 6. Accepted in finding 5. 7. Accepted in finding 7. 8. Accepted in finding 9. 9.-10. Accepted in finding 10. 11. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 12. Accepted in finding 11 13. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Phipps, Esquire McKeown, Gamot & Phipps, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1603 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Richard Denton 729 N. Ridge Road, Apt. 6 Lantana, Florida 33461
