Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Anna Cline (Ms. Cline), is a fifty-two year old female who was employed by USBI Company (USBI) from 1985 until November 15, 1994. USBI refurbishes the solid rocket boosters for the space shuttle program at the Kennedy Space Center, Brevard County, Florida. It employs substantially more than fifteen full-time employees. Ms. Cline was hired for the position of technical illustrator, which position is responsible for drawing mechanical components, doing illustration and charts, and preparing manuals and documents that apply to the day-to-day work of the company. She was a good employee and had excellent technical skills, as reflected in her performance evaluations and numerous commendations. At the time that she left the company, she was in a position titled "senior technical illustrator." In early 1992 the company had some internal reorganization, and Ms. Cline and a group of employees were transferred from Management Services to Documentation Support. The job duties remained substantially the same, but the new group also had responsibility for the Routing of Documents (RODS) program, which involved the tracing of detailed technical drawings, to be used on a computer mainframe by the "techs" (engineers). Documentation Support generated technical documentation for the rockets, all technical manuals, standard procedures, testing, fliers and presentations - generally all of the paperwork used by the company, including verbiage and graphics. The supervisor of Documentation Support, then and now, is a woman, Monica Teran. Approximately seventy-five percent of Ms. Cline's work group were women. In June 1992, Richard Bowen was hired by USBI as a technical illustrator and was assigned to Documentation Support. He became a coworker of Ms. Cline and their assigned work stations were side-by-side without a partition. Richard Bowen's two main hobbies are photography and computers. He was generally accepted as the computer expert in the work group; when there were problems with the computers, Richard Bowen could often work them out. Bowen's interest in photography is also more than a casual avocation. He attended photography school in Chicago when he was younger and worked with a modeling agency. He holds an occupational license to conduct a photography business and performs commercial photography services that do not conflict with his 9-5 job: weddings, portraits, some modeling photographs and some work with a theme park in Orlando. He is a member of the Audubon Society and takes wildlife photographs and does computer work for the organization. The Photograph Incident Staff in the work group were interested in Bowen's photographs. He brought samples of his pictures to work to show off. He usually left the pictures on his desk, face up, so that people could come to his work area and look at them. Some time in the latter months of 1992, Bowen purchased an expensive special soft-focus lens that gives the subject a soft, romantic, mystical look and deletes the wrinkles or blemishes. He discussed the lens with a fellow photographer at work and brought in a sample of photographs he had taken with the lens. Most of the pictures among the twelve to fifteen which he brought on this occasion were wildlife; there also were a few photographs of a model. She was bare-breasted, but was not exposed from the waist down. While there is no clear description of her pose in the record, she was described by some as nude and others as partially nude. None described the photographs as sexually suggestive or pornographic. In the early morning before work started, some female staff members were shuffling through the photographs. Ms. Cline was part of the group looking on. Bowen said something semi-jokingly like, "You might not want to look at these; there's a bare-breasted model." One of the women replied that it was nothing that she had not seen before, and continued shuffling through the photographs. Ms. Cline saw the model's photograph, remarked that the girl had pretty eyes, and returned to her own work station. Several months later, after a workshop that management had initiated to deal with problems in the workplace, Ms. Cline reported the photographs to Carol DuBray, Director of Human Resources and Darryl LeCanne, the immediate supervisor of Monica Teran. Ms. Cline was embarrassed by the photographs. Management's Response As soon as Ms. Cline left Darryl LaCanne's office, he called Monica Teran, and the two supervisors met with Richard Bowen. They informed him that USBI had a policy of not tolerating nude photography or pin-up calendars in the workplace and that his bringing the photographs to work was unacceptable behavior. Darryl LaCanne told Richard Bowen that the next time severe disciplinary action would be taken. Richard Bowen was also called in to speak with USBI's director of security, Barry Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki informed him that nude pictures were prohibited by USBI's regulations. Mr. Bowen received the message in clear terms that the matter was very serious. Bowen never again brought nude or semi-nude photographs to work and Ms. Cline never again saw such photographs at work. Offensive Shop Talk Work stations in the Documentation Support unit were divided into cubicles, some separated by dividers, some (Richard Bowen's and Ms. Cline's) were side by side, facing a partition with two other workers on the opposite side. Workers interacted within a small space and moved about to use different computer equipment, printers, files, and similar work tools. Among some of the workers there was occasional bawdy banter and comment about boyfriends, weekends and vacations, and the like. It was sexually oriented in a sophomoric, adolescent schoolyard manner. It included terms like "shit" and "fuck" and included conversation about "blow jobs" or "hard-ons," and other slang words involving male genitalia. With one exception, the language was not directed to Ms. Cline. That exception was one occasion when Richard Bowen responded to her criticism of some work with the expletive "fuck." Both male and female workers engaged in the banter, which was overheard by Ms. Cline and others. Ms. Cline was particularly offended by banter between Bowen and a female worker, Anna Silvestri, who occupied a workstation on the other side of the partition in front of Ms. Cline and Mr. Bowen. Ms. Silvestri sometimes initiated this banter. In May or June of 1993 Ms. Cline reported to her supervisor, Monica Teran, that Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri used the word "fuck" and engaged in sexually explicit conversations. Ms. Teran went to her supervisor to see what to do about the complaint and Carol DuBray requested that Barry Wysocki conduct an investigation. Barry Wysocki interviewed and took statements from employees in the Document Support Unit, including Ms. Cline. She complained that Richard Bowen created a hostile environment; that she heard him say "fuck" on one occasion in the past two months and that she heard Anna Silvestri say the word on two occasions. Ms. Cline said that Bowen and Silvestri discussed Ms. Silvestri's sex life and that on one occasion Ms. Silvestri tried to discuss her sex life with Ms. Cline, but she cut her off with a comment that it was improper. Ms. Cline reported hearing Monica Teran and Beth Seaman use the word "fuck" in the work area. Bowen and Silvestri did not deny mild profanity and mildly sexual conversations. Other employees reported hearing some profanity, primarily "shit," "damn" and "bullshit." Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri were seriously reprimanded by Barry Wysocki, by Barry Smoyer, by Darryl LaCanne and by Monica Teran. Each supervisor impressed on the two employees that the use of foul language was not tolerated and was against company policy. Barry Smoyer gave the two employees a letter "for the record," documenting the counselling session and reprimand. Monica Teran moved Ms. Cline to Anna Silvestri's workstation on the other side of the partition from Richard Bowen. She moved Anna Silvestri two cubicles away, with several partitions between her and Mr. Bowen. And George Roberts was placed next to Richard Bowen in Ms. Cline's former workstation. The intent by the supervisor was to accommodate Ms. Cline's concerns and to separate the two prime offenders. In the two years that he worked for USBI, including the time that he worked next to Richard Bowen, George Roberts heard nothing more than "hell" or "damn" from Bowen. Nevertheless, around August 1994, during her performance review, Ms. Cline informed Monica Teran that the sexual conversations were continuing. Ms. Teran informed her supervisors and another investigation commenced, this time by USBI's new security director, Al Eastlack. Mr. Eastlack conducted an interview with Ms. Cline, among others, and took her formal statement in September 1994. Barry Smoyer reviewed a draft report of Mr. Eastlack's investigation and although he understood the results were "inconclusive," Mr. Smoyer renewed his admonishments to Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri in separate memoranda to the two, reminding them of USBI's intolerance of sexual harassment in any form and warning them that inappropriate language would result in disciplinary action. Alleged Threats After the photograph incident, but before she complained, Richard Bowen and Mary Anna Cline had a conflict over the use of some computer graphics software. Bowen was advocating one type of software that Ms. Cline opposed. Monica Teran had to intervene and instructed Ms. Cline to install the program and learn how to use it. After she complained about the photographs, Ms. Cline became convinced that Richard Bowen was going to retaliate. She complained to Monica Teran that she was afraid of Bowen but her complaints were non-specific. She began to complain of stress and sleep problems. Ms. Teran recommended that she go to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counsellor or to see her own counsellor or doctor. This was around the same time that Ms. Cline complained about the offensive language and conversations, and Ms. Cline took the recommendation to mean that Ms. Teran did not believe her, or that Ms. Teran felt Ms. Cline was at fault. Ms. Teran also commented to Ms. Cline that she should simply tell Bowen to stop talking like that. Another employee, Dorothy Stokey, who was offended by Bowen's use of "fuck" had told him to stop. Ms. Cline was too intimidated by him to confront him directly. Some time in the latter months of 1993, Monica Teran found Ms. Cline in the ladies' room crying and upset to the point of incoherence. Ms. Cline had overheard a conversation between Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri involving a gun and made a connection between that and incidents of violence in the workplace and coworkers being shot. With the help of Barry Smoyer, Ms. Teran was able to get Ms. Cline out of the ladies' room and calmed down. Then, at Mr. Smoyer's direction, Ms. Teran called Ms. Silvestri and Mr. Bowen into her office to find out what had happened. Mr. Bowen did not have a gun at work and he had been discussing a gun show early that morning. Ms. Teran was satisfied that the discussion had been innocuous and reported her findings to Barry Smoyer. No other employee reported that Bowen had a gun or saw him with a gun. None, including Ms. Cline, ever complained that Bowen had threatened them with a gun. Alleged Retaliation Ms. Cline contends that USBI retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment. Specifically she claims that her job duties were shifted from work on RODS, which she liked, to word processing, which she disliked and with which she had difficulty, due to some dyslexia. It is undisputed that Ms. Cline was a very competent graphics illustrator. She and Mr. Bowen and a couple of other employees in the unit were considered the core of the illustration function, and other employees in the unit preferred and were more skilled in the word processing and language component of the unit's responsibilities. However, the work assignments were not so clearly divided between "illustration" and "word processing." The production and modification of company manuals required both types of work. Monica Teran was interested in cross-training her staff to do a variety of tasks. There was a time, after mid-1993, when Ms. Cline's assignments involved word processing. She also continued to do a substantial amount of RODS work, as evidenced by handwritten logs maintained by the employees. Monica Teran never instructed the staffperson responsible for making assignments to remove Ms. Cline from RODS or other graphics work. RODS was not considered high profile or creative work since it primarily involved tracing technical components repetitively. There was a period when RODS work was put on hold. There was another period when temporary employees, such as George Roberts, were taken in to work exclusively on RODS. At no time during her employment with USBI was Ms. Cline demoted in job title or pay. In 1993 and 1994 her employment evaluations reflected a need to improve communications and attendance, but she was still rated "excellent," "good" and "acceptable" in all categories, and overall "excellent" and "good." There is no evidence to indicate that anyone tampered with Ms. Cline's computer or sabotaged her computer, as she claimed. On occasion it was necessary for Monica Teran or other staff to work at Ms. Cline's and other stations, to see if programs were loaded or the machine was set up properly. Although certain equipment, such as a printer, was located at an individual workstation, other staff needed access to that equipment. Job-Related Stress Ms. Cline's attendance did suffer and she did experience job-related stress. She went to an EAP counsellor and to a psychiatrist. She was on medication and there were problems with adjusting the type and amount of medication. Ms. Cline experienced sleep disorders; she reported falling asleep at the wheel of her car and had a minor accident. She also experienced other physical phenomena such as pains in her chest and arms, or numbness. Her psychiatrist diagnosed her medical condition as "adjustment reaction of adult life with mixed emotions, basically depression and anxiety." (T-415) Accommodation and Resignation Monica Teran's staff was located in two buildings: the modular unit occupied by Ms. Cline, Mr. Bowen, Ms. Silvestri and others; and another separate building which also included other USBI employees. Ms. Teran's staff was moved around routinely, as new employees were added or other work space needs arose. In Fall 1993 USBI offered to move Ms. Cline to the other building, allowing her to retain her same position and duties; she declined, and the company did not insist that she move. Later, Ms. Cline was offered a lateral position at the same pay and position level. Carol DuBray met with Ms. Cline to discuss this attempt to accommodate her. Ms. Cline also rejected that offer. She explained at hearing that she was afraid she would have been in line for a layoff, if she transferred. However, there is no competent evidence to support that fear. Ms. DuBray explained to Ms. Cline in their meeting that she would retain all benefits, including seniority. In fact, USBI has no departmental seniority policy. Seniority is based on the date an individual is hired by the company, rather than time within a department in the company. On November 15, 1994, Ms. Cline voluntarily resigned, citing "continuing stress brought on by sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation and the flagrant disregard by USBI and its management in the handling of this problem. . . ." (Petitioner's exhibit no. 31) The Formal Complaints At the time she resigned Ms. Cline had already filed her complaint of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That charge is dated December 6, 1993. The charge of discrimination alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, by sexual harassment and retaliation. It does not cite the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to a worksharing agreement between EEOC and FCHR, the charge was sent to the Florida agency for initial investigation. That workshare agreement, which refers to the FCHR as the "FEPA," provides, in pertinent part: FILING OF CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION In order to facilitate the filing of charges of employment discrimination, the EEOC and the FEPA each designate the other as its agent for the purpose of receiving and drafting charges. The FEPA shall take all charges alleging a violation of Title VII, ADEA, EPA, or the ADA where the parties have mutual juris- diction and refer them to the EEOC for dual filing, so long as the allegations meet the minimum requirements of those Acts. Each Agency will inform individuals of their rights to file charges with the other Agency and to assist any person alleging employment discrimination to draft a charge in a manner which will satisfy the require- ments of both agencies to the extent of their common jurisdiction. As part of the intake duties, investigators are to verify with the charging parties if they have filed a charge of discrimination with other agencies prior to filing the charge. For charges that are to be dual-filed, each Agency will use EEOC Charge Form 5 (or alternatively, an employment discrim- ination charge form which within statutory limitations, is acceptable in form and content to EEOC and the FEPA) to draft charges. When a charge is taken based on disability, the nature of the disability shall not be disclosed on the face of the charge. * * * H. The delegation of authority to receive charges contained in Paragraph II. a. does not include the right of one Agency to determine the jurisdiction of the other Agency over a charge. * * * DIVISION OF INITIAL CHARGE-PROCESSING RESPONSIBILITIES * * * D. EEOC will not defer or refer any charge for the FEPA to process that is not jurisdictional on its face with both Agencies. If it is apparent that one Agency might have jurisdiction when another does not, then the Charging Party will be referred to the appropriate Agency. * * * (Petitioner's exhibit no. 41) (emphasis added) A notice dated December 20, 1993, on EEOC form 212, states that the FCHR has received the charge and will initially investigate the charge. The FCHR did investigate the charge and the FCHR investigator's report is dated July 13, 1994. A document styled "Determination: No Cause" is dated August 25, 1994 and has the apparent signature of FCHR's Executive Director. An accompanying document, with the same date, is styled "Notice of Determination: No Cause" and informs Ms. Cline as complainant of her right to file her petition for relief within 35 days. The petition for relief dated September 27, 1994, was filed with FCHR, and cites the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as well as Title VII. The petition alleges sexual harassment and retaliation. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 6, 1994. The amended petition for relief, filed on April 10, 1995, and referenced in the order and notice of hearing dated May 16, 1995 deletes any reference to Title VII and recites instead that the claims for relief are based on Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The amended petition does not claim constructive discharge nor does it mention that Ms. Cline left the company approximately five months earlier. Sexual Harassment Policy and Summary of Findings USBI has, and during the relevant period had a sexual harassment policy which provides: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's amended "Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex" include a section prohibiting sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is either an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment, or submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for an employment decision affecting the person rejecting or submitting the conduct, or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an affected person's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment is unacceptable behavior by any USBI employee or outside vendor. Any form of harassment, like any conduct contrary to common decency or morality, cannot and will not be tolerated. The company will take whatever corrective action necessary to prevent or deal with acts of sexual harassment in the work place. (Respondent's exhibit no. 61) The policy provides names and phone numbers for persons to report sexual harassment and states that reports at that point will be confidential. Employees are informed of the policy through annual letters from the company head, through posters on the facility walls and through mandatory workshops for managers and their staff. USBI responded appropriately to Ms. Cline's complaints. Its response as to the photographs was effective; the sexually-themed banter, however, continued. The banter did not constitute sexual harassment of Ms. Cline, nor did it create a sexually hostile work environment. No one at USBI ever made a sexual advance towards Ms. Cline; no one suggested or requested sex from her or asked her for a date. No one touched her inappropriately. The sexual banter was never directed to or about her. The banter overheard by Ms. Cline, and the use of the "f word," were occasional, not daily or even weekly. The banter was not directed solely to, or about women; it was engaged in, and was overheard, by men and women, alike. The work quarters were close; the unit which included Ms. Cline was in a small "modular" building with work stations divided by movable partitions. By necessity, workers moved around the office to use various equipment. Coworkers of Ms. Cline did not find the environment sexually hostile, offensive or intimidating. No one else of the primarily female group complained about a sexually hostile or intimidating work environment. According to both a friend and her psychiatrist, Ms. Cline was more sensitive than most to profanity and off-color language. Without question, Ms. Cline suffered from stress at work. The stress was manifest in the myriad physical symptoms which caused absenteeism and loss of performance. USBI appropriately offered to Ms. Cline accommodations which would have allowed her to continue working at the same job level and salary but outside of the environment she found intolerable. She rejected the offers and voluntarily resigned. The resignation was not urged, directly or indirectly, by the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Ms. Cline's complaint and petitions for relief in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 25th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5634 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 33; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 60. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted by implication in paragraph 60. Adopted in substance in paragraph 48. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 50. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 53. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Subparagraphs are addressed as follows: Adopted in substance: a (but not the date), b, c, h, i, m, n. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial or misleading: d, e, f, g, j, k, l. Rejected, as to the "escalation," as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence; adopted generally in summary in paragraph 17; but some of the specifics alleged were not established (for example, the "sucking" statement). Rejected as a mischaracterization of the incident, although use of the word, "fuck," was proven. 19.-22. Rejected as not credible. 23.-24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 25.-28. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraphs 39-41, but it was not proven that the stress was the result of a "hostile work environment," within the scope of gender-based discrimination. Rejected as unnecessary. 31.-32. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Accepted that she complained, but the dates and frequency were not established with competent evidence 35. Conclusion that the steps were "inadequate" is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 36.-41. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial, or misleading. 42. Rejected (as to characterization of "retaliation") as contrary to the weight of evidence and the law. 43.-46. Rejected as unnecessary, given the recommended disposition. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 48 and 49. 5.-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 54. 7. Adopted in paragraph 1. 8. Adopted in paragraph 55. 9. Adopted in paragraph 3. 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. Adopted in paragraph 5. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 4. 14.-15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 6. 18.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 8. 22. Adopted in paragraph 9. 23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 59. 24. Adopted in paragraph 61. 25. Adopted in paragraph 10. 26. Adopted in paragraph 12. 27.-28. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 11 and 12. 29. Adopted in paragraph 13. 30. Adopted in paragraph 27. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-35. Adopted in paragraphs 14 and 15. 36.-38. Adopted in paragraph 19. 39.-43. Adopted in paragraphs 20 and 21. 44. Adopted in paragraph 22. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46. Adopted in paragraph 23. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary. 49. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 50. Adopted in paragraph 24. 51. Adopted in paragraph 26. 52. Adopted in paragraph 28. 53. Adopted in paragraph 29. 54. Adopted in paragraph 31. 55. Adopted in paragraph 30. 56. Rejected as unnecessary. 57.-62. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 43 through 46. 63.-64. Adopted in part in paragraph 47; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 65.-72. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 32 through 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia E. Lowrey, Esquire Mark B. Roberts, Esquire STEEL HECTOR and DAVIS 1900 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Wayne L. Allen, Esquire 700 North Wickham Road, Suite 107 Melbourne, Florida 32935 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioner, Kenneth Davis, made sexually harassing statements and made body contact with a female counselor so as to constitute sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, in violation of Pinellas County Sheriff Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying in person and the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: Respondent, Sheriff Everett S. Rice (Sheriff), is a constitutional officer of the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within the geographic boundaries of Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner, Detention Deputy Kenneth Davis (Deputy Davis), is a 23-year employee with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, having spent his entire career as a detention officer. As a result of years of training and experience, Deputy Davis is intimately familiar with the Sheriff's policy regarding sexual harassment, detention policies, operations, procedures, and the priority of security applicable to detention deputies. The evidence demonstrates that in the collective opinions of those detention deputies who worked longest with Deputy Davis, all agreed that his personality was that of one who "[was] loud and obnoxious--to pretty much everybody," "play[ed] around a lot," "never insulted anybody," and "[didn't] mean any harm." At all times pertinent to this cause, Deputy Davis held the rank of detention corporal until the Sheriff reduced his rank to Deputy and removed him from his position of detention corporal on March 10, 2003. Deputy Davis' chain-of-command consisted of Major Kirk Brunner, Detention and Correction Bureau commander; Captain Nesbitt; Lieutenant Keith George; and Sergeant Buckingham. Deputy Davis did not have authority over Lori Atwater (Ms. Atwater), the complainant in this cause. He was not in her chain-of-command nor was he one of her bosses in the sense that he could assign her tasks. At all times pertinent to this cause, Deputy Davis worked in detention barrack C, North Division. Barrack C is a two-storied structure divided into B block and C block, with each cellblock divided into an upper level and lower level. Deputy Davis had four deputies under his supervision in cellblock C. At all times pertinent to this cause, Control Deputy Salazar worked the control center at barrack C. The control deputy is stationed in a glassed enclosure with clear view of individuals desiring entrance into the waiting room of barrack C and with clear view of inmates desiring to leave the cellblock and enter the waiting room. On or about March 4, 2002, Ms. Atwater, an African- American and a long-time resident of St. Petersburg, Florida, commenced employment with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as an inmate-counselor. Ms. Atwater has an Associate of Science degree in Computer Technology Engineering and a Bachelor of Science degree in Management Information Systems. Her inmate- counselor duties consisted of identifying inmates who had family, legal, and personal issues requiring her intervention. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) employed Ms. Atwater for ten years before she began employment with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. While employed with DCFS, she worked in food stamps, Medicaid, protective services, adoptions, and several community recruitment programs. DCFS also has a policy against sexual harassment. The Sheriff has adopted Pinellas County Sheriff's Office General Order 3-4, which defines and prohibits sexual harassment. Pursuant to General Order 3-4, sexual harassment is defined as: All unwelcome or unwanted advances; including sexual advances or unwanted sexual attention, whether between person(s) of the opposite or same sex. This includes, but is not limited to, leering, touching, patting, brushing against, hugging, kissing, fondling, any other similar physical contact, or quid pro quo arrangements (i.e., a situation in which an employee is forced to engage in unwelcomed sexual conduct in order to protect or advance his/her job.) Unwelcome requests or demands for favors, including sexual favors. This consists of subtle or blatant expectations, pressures, or request for any type of favor, including sexual favor, including unwelcome requests for dates, whether or not the request is accompanied by an implied or stated promise of preferential treatment or negative consequences. Inappropriate third party comments or one time comments made which do not constitute a hostile work environment, language not directed at the offended member, jokes (spoken, printed or drawn) that are not directed at the offended member or joint banter of a sexual or offensive nature in which the offended member may or may not be a party. All employees of the Sheriff, including Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater, received instructions regarding the Sheriff's Sexual Harassment Policy. The evidence demonstrates that beginning in March of 2002 and continuing through the months of April and May 2002, Ms. Atwater noticed, without telling him to stop and without reporting her resulting complaint to her supervisor, that Lieutenant George would call her "Ms. Ashwood." At some unspecified time prior to March of 2002, Ms. Atwater concluded that the name "Ms. Ashwood" was offensive. Ms. Atwater based her conclusion on her interpretation and knowledge of the general reputation of a Ms. Ashwood (no first name given) within the African-American community of St. Petersburg. According to Ms. Atwater, Ms. Ashwood was known throughout the African- American community for engaging in sexual encounters with multiple partners. As a direct result of her superior, Lieutenant George, continuously calling her Ms. Ashwood, a name she considered to be sexually offensive, Ms. Atwater chose not to report her sexual harassment complaint against Lieutenant George through the proper protocol. The record contains no evidence that Ms. Atwater asked Lieutenant George what was his intended meaning by calling her Ms. Ashwood. The evidence demonstrates that Lieutenant George, having been involved in both the hiring of Ms. Atwater as well as involved in her performance evaluation, knew her name to be Ms. Atwater. Alleged statements made by Deputy Davis to Ms. Atwater in the cafeteria during a lunch period. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Atwater and Deputy Davis initially enjoyed a rather cordial relationship at work during the period of March through May 2002, at least by outward appearances. Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater both attended read- off sessions; on occasions, they walked together from the read- off sessions back to barrack A; and on two separate occasions, they were seated at the same table in the compound's buffet- styled cafeteria. They did not have contact with each other beyond what was necessary in the performance of their respective duties. They did not have contact with each other outside the workplace. On some unspecified date during lunch in the compound cafeteria, Ms. Atwater chose to ask Deputy Davis why Lieutenant George kept calling her Ms. Ashwood. According to Ms. Atwater, Deputy Davis came over to the table where she sat and she allegedly initiated the following conversation: Atwater: I really don't appreciate that, him [Lieutenant George] calling me Ms. Ashwood. Davis: He's probably P-U-S-S-Y whipped and you probably remind him of her. Atwater: He just alluded to--and used the term inside whore. Atwater: What's an inside whore? Davis: That's when you sleep with someone that makes Decisions for your career. Atwater: If I ever get promoted around here it will not be because I've slept with anybody, but based on my own merits. At the final hearing, Deputy Davis denied the allegations regarding the above statements attributed to him by Ms. Atwater. Thus, the evidence is irreconcilably in conflict as to whether Deputy Davis made those statements attributed to him with the intent of sexually harassing Ms. Atwater, and if the statements were, in fact, made, whether his answers were truthful responses to her question. The compound cafeteria has several long tables seating six to eight persons and several shorter tables seating four to six persons. It is significant that not a single witness, from among others who were seated at the same table with Ms. Atwater and Deputy Davis in the cafeteria on that unspecified day, was called to corroborate the statements allegedly made by Deputy Davis to Ms. Atwater. With knowledge of the Sheriff's sexual harassment policy coupled with her prior knowledge of DCFS's similar sexual harassment policy, and having been highly offended by Deputy Davis' conversation, it is significant that Ms. Atwater, whose counseling job included accurate record keeping, made no attempt to record this first incident with Deputy Davis resulting from repeated incidents with Lieutenant George. Additionally, Ms. Atwater chose not to follow protocol and report to her immediate supervisor her complaint of sexual harassment by a relatively new co-worker. Having carefully weighed and evaluated all the relevant, persuasive, and credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Atwater's testimony is superior in weight and quantity, thus proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Davis made unwelcome or unwanted sexual comments or advances and/or unwelcome unwanted sexual demands, nor created a hostile work environment as Ms. Atwater has accused him. This determination reflects the fact finder's judgment concerning the weight of the evidence and nothing more; it is not a finding regarding what was said or not said by Ms. Atwater or by Deputy Davis during the alleged conversation that took place on some unspecified date in the compound cafeteria. Alleged intentional body contact by Deputy Davis with Ms. Atwater in the cafeteria buffet serving line. Ms. Atwater further testified that on another unspecified day while she was in the cafeteria buffet serving line fixing her salad, she felt "a brazen--it felt maybe like his [Deputy Davis] radio or something-it was hard--and then he went in my ear 'boo.' It made me jumpy and I made a squealing noise-because I didn't expect anything to braze in the back on my----." Continuing, Ms. Atwater testified that Lieutenant George came in the cafeteria at that time, and she asked him "why don't you tell your friend to just cut it out?" The Sheriff did not call Lieutenant George to testify. No other witness testified to corroborate Ms. Atwater's statements. Deputy Davis denied this second allegation of intentionally making body contact with Ms. Atwater and speaking in her ear. Having carefully weighed and evaluated all the relevant, persuasive, and credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Atwater's testimony is superior in weight and quantity and that Deputy Davis engaged in the conduct of which Ms. Atwater has accused him. This determination reflects the fact finder's judgment concerning the weight of the evidence and nothing more; it is not a finding regarding what occurred or did not occur on that unspecified date between Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater in the buffet serving line in the compound cafeteria. It is significant that Ms. Atwater, whose counseling job required accurate and detailed daily record keeping, made no record of Deputy Davis' second alleged sexual harassment of her person. With firsthand knowledge of the Sheriff's sexual harassment policy plus her ten-year experience with a similar sexual harassment policy during her employment with DCFS, Ms. Atwater chose again not to follow proper protocol. She chose not to properly report this second incident to her immediate supervisor. Her second decided refusal to report what she considered sexual harassment by the same co-worker is not a defense, if Deputy Davis was guilty of such conduct, and does not absolve him from liability. Having chosen for the second consecutive occasion not to report the alleged sexual harassment by Deputy Davis does present a significant impediment regarding Ms. Atwater's memory, recall, and credibility. Alleged repeated harassing comments by Deputy Davis resulting from Ms. Atwater's frightened squealing. Concluding, Ms. Atwater testified that "for months" after the undated cafeteria serving line incident, "every time" she would see Deputy Davis (minimum twice a week in barrack C) he would repeatedly come behind her and say--"Ewwww, counselor," and "Counselor, I want to see you." According to her, these statements allegedly resulted from the cafeteria serving line incident and from a subsequent work related discussion and disagreement between Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater regarding the form "62" (a form used by inmates requesting to see the counselor). Ms. Atwater, when confronted with what she considered a third but continuing sexual harassment by Deputy Davis, again chose not to follow protocol and report this third incident to her supervisor. It is significant that according to Ms. Atwater, she was initially and had been continuously sexually offended by Lieutenant George calling her Ms. Ashwood. When she inquired of Deputy Davis why Lieutenant George called her Ms. Ashwood, she was again sexually offended by his alleged answer to her question. She turns then to Lieutenant George, who was continually sexual harassing her and (did not ask him to stop calling her Ms. Ashwood) asks his assistance (not to file a proper complaint) but to have Deputy Davis (whose answer to her question about Lieutenant George she considered sexual harassment) to "just knock it off." Regarding her third alleged sexual harassment complaint against Deputy Davis (Ms. Atwater with knowledge that Lieutenant George and Deputy Davis were friends and she admittedly intended to take advantage of their friendship), she went to Lieutenant George, who (1) had continuously called her Ms. Ashwood; (2) was in her chain-of-command; and (3) was also in Deputy Davis' chain-of-command (but not file a complaint against Deputy Davis) and asked if he would "talk to his friend [Deputy Davis]--I don't want to make waves over this-I don't want to make a big to do-if you could talk to him--just have him knock it off." At the final hearing, Deputy Davis denied her third allegation that he would repeatedly come behind her and say--"Ewwww, counselor," and "Counselor, I want to see you." It is significant that after months and three separate allegations of sexual harassment by Deputy Davis, Ms. Atwater chose not to follow protocol and make a sexual harassment complaint against Deputy Davis to Lieutenant George, who would have been obligated to initiate a formal investigation. She chose instead to ask a favor from one who had continuously called her the sexually harassing name of Ms. Ashwood. The evidence is irreconcilably in conflict as to whether Deputy Davis continually made the alleged sexual and harassing comments to Ms. Atwater during an unspecified number of months. The Sheriff presented no witness to corroborate Ms. Atwater's allegations on this issue. Lieutenant George was not called to testify, leaving Ms. Atwater's hearsay testimony regarding this particular issue without corroboration. For the third time, Ms. Atwater chose to not follow protocol and report her third sexual harassment incident. The fact finder acknowledges that her third decided refusal to report sexual harassment by the same co-worker is not a defense, if he were guilty of such conduct, and does not absolve Deputy Davis from liability. Her choosing a third time not to report the alleged sexual harassment by Deputy Davis to her immediate supervisor does present a significant obstacle in the evaluation of Ms. Atwater's credibility. Having carefully weighed and evaluated all the relevant, persuasive, and credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Atwater's testimony is superior in weight and quantity that Deputy Davis for months engaged in the conduct of which Ms. Atwater has accused him. This determination reflects the fact finder's judgment concerning the weight of the evidence and nothing more; it is not a finding regarding what occurred or did not occur during unspecified months when Deputy Davis may have been in the presence of Ms. Atwater. Allegations that Deputy Davis intentionally delayed or caused delay of inmates desiring conference with Ms. Atwater. Regarding her final allegation of sexual harassment by retaliation against Deputy Davis, Ms. Atwater recalled that on one occasion, Deputy Davis intentionally caused a "two-hour" delay in getting inmates on her list from their cells to the conference area where she awaited them. The purported intent of this alleged two-hour delay was to threaten or to produce a negative consequence regarding Ms. Atwater's performance of her duties. I find that Ms. Atwater's August 9, 2002, memo to her supervisor, Deputy Armsheimer, purporting to be a chronology of events that occurred on August 8, 2002, conclusively demonstrates that Deputy Davis was not the cause, directly or indirectly, for Ms. Atwater's two-hour delay in getting the two inmates she had requested. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Atwater gave her form "62" list (inmates to be pulled who had requested a conference with her) to the control deputy, Deputy Salazar, in barrack C and waited 40 minutes. Returning to the holding area and inquiring as to the whereabouts of her inmates, Deputy Davis and not Deputy Salazar informed Ms. Atwater that the top three inmates on her list were not there. Ms. Atwater asked Deputy Davis of the inmates' whereabouts, but he gave her no further explanation. Ms. Atwater thereafter called Deputy Hartfield, who is in her chain-of-command, to ask if he would look into the matter and Deputy Hartfield promised to get back to her. Ms. Atwater waited for Deputy Hartfield's return call. After waiting an unspecified period of time and not receiving Deputy Hartfield's returned message, she called Deputy Hartfield a second time and was told that he had relayed his message to control (Deputy Salazar) about one and one-half hours ago. In that message, Deputy Hartfield explained that her first requested inmate (no name given) had been moved to maximum security and her second inmate (Brandon) was written up earlier that morning by him. In her August 9, 2002, memo to Deputy Armsheimer, Ms. Atwater wrote, "the conversation concluded with me stating [to Deputy Hartfield] if I had known 1 1/2 hours ago, I would have just left out of here and could have eaten lunch." It is significant that Ms. Atwater authored her August 9, 2002, memorandum to Deputy Armsheimer, for the singular purpose of explaining the exact cause (and persons involved) of her two-hour plus wait for inmates who were not pulled for her. At the final hearing in May 2003, she contradicts her August 9, 2002, written statements by testifying that Deputy Davis caused her a "two-hour" delay in pulling her inmates. This obvious contradiction is a severe detriment upon her credibility. Ms. Atwater's memorandum to Sergeant Groff, dated October 30, 2002, was written to give a recount of her experiences with Deputy Davis during all times pertinent to this case. She began her memorandum with the statement: "[S]o for the whole story to be clear, I must tell you how we ended up here and start from the beginning." In her first sentence of the second paragraph appears the first conflict in the evidence of record. In that sentence, Ms. Atwater writes, "Shortly after starting to work here, I began to experience unpleasantness from Cpl. Kenneth Davis. His obnoxious gestures, comments and disposition could not be tolerated any longer." (This conclusion consisted of the three separate allegations against Deputy Davis made herein above.) With this opportunity to formally complain of sexual harassment in the work place, Ms. Atwater failed to include the fact that it was she who initially asked Deputy Davis why Lieutenant George called her the sexually offensive name of "Ms. Ashwood." Intentionally choosing to allege that Deputy Davis' answer to her question why Lieutenant George kept calling her "Ms. Ashwood" was the initial sexual harassment that created a hostile work place is contradictory to her testimony. Continuing, Ms. Atwater wrote--"I did tell him that I felt he 'played too much,' and need[ed] to stop moaning and groaning behind me." Even though she recounted moaning and groaning, she specifically omitted her alleged verbatim statements made by Deputy Davis (Finding of Fact 12 hereinabove) when he answered her question "why Lieutenant George calls me Ms. Ashwood." This is significant in that Ms. Atwater's testimony was that Deputy Davis' alleged verbatim statements when he answered her question were so "sexually harassing" that she was "immediately" offended the moment she heard them. Yet, she omits any mention that it was Lieutenant George continuously calling her "Ms. Ashwood" that initially and repeatedly offended her. The name Ashwood she considered had such a negative sexual reputation in the community that she was immediately offended and sexually harassed when Lieutenant George first called her Ms. Ashwood and each time thereafter. She omits any mention that it was her inquiry of Deputy Davis, "why Lieutenant George [sexually harassing her] was calling her the offensive name of Ms. Ashwood" that produced the alleged response. Based upon Ms. Atwater's acknowledgement contained in her October 30, 2002, memorandum to Sergeant Groff, I find that her allegations that Deputy Davis caused a delayed wait of two hours to get inmates pulled and, thus, "creat[ed] a hostile work environment" to be contrary to her August 9, 2002, memorandum to Sergeant Armsheimer, admitting that had she known her inmates were not in barrack C, she would have left and had lunch "one and one-half" hours prior. Ms. Atwater further admits in writing that from May of 2002 forward, she and Deputy Davis "barely" spoke to one another. If Ms. Atwater's memory is presumed to be accurate and she and Deputy Davis discontinued speaking to one another during the March through May 2002 period, it was not logical to conclude that Deputy Davis repeatedly and continually moaned and groaned in her ear for "months" thereafter (i.e. June, July, August, and October). For the fourth time, Ms. Atwater chose not to and did not report this fourth incident to her immediate supervisor at or near the time it occurred. Her sexual harassment complaint against Deputy Davis was filed after her October 2002 complaint was filed against Lieutenant George. Her fourth decided refusal to immediately report sexual harassment by the same co-worker is not a defense, if he were guilty of such conduct, and does not absolve Deputy Davis from liability. Her choosing a fourth time not to report the initial alleged sexual harassment by Deputy Davis during the March through May period, when coupled with the contradiction between her testimony that Deputy Davis was the cause of a two-hour delay in pulling her inmates, and her memorandum wherein she acknowledges that her inmates had been written up by Sergeant Hartfield, presents a credibility obstacle. Ms. Atwater makes no further mention of Deputy Davis in her October 30, 2002, memoranda, devoting the remainder to Lieutenant George. She recounts in detail their initial friendly relationship, turning to a cold and unfriendly relationship, the keeping-your-distance treatment, their many phone conversations at work, their lunch dates away from the work place, and their private phone calls when at home, ending on October 24, 2002, with an incident of kissing and Lieutenant George rubbing his groin against her buttocks and her resisting his advances. (See Joint Exhibit J-1.) In her final paragraph, Ms. Atwater relates how, unbeknownst to Lieutenant George, she arranged for a three-way call between herself, Lieutenant George, and her uncle, a City of St. Petersburg employee. She arranged the three-way call for the purpose of securing a witness to corroborate her statements regarding the Lieutenant George sexual harassment encounter. Though her alleged initial sexual harassment was initiated by Deputy Davis and continued for months, Ms. Atwater made no similar attempt to corroborate her claims of sexual harassment against Deputy Davis. Knowing that Deputy Davis was not within her chain-of-command and not in a supervisory position over her, there was no logical reason for Ms. Atwater to fear promotions and job security. Ms. Atwater knew that filing a complaint against a lieutenant within her chain-of- command presented a greater risk than filing a complaint against Deputy Davis who was not in her chain-of-command. Her choosing not to record (or procure corroboration) the Deputy Davis incidents, when coupled with her delay of many months in reporting her compliant through proper channels because of fear of reprisal, rings hollow. It was after the Administrative Review Board had begun an investigation of Ms. Atwater's October 2002 complaint of sexual harassment against Lieutenant George that the Sheriff initiated an investigation of Deputy Davis. Only after her egregious October 24, 2002, incident involving Lieutenant George did she file a subsequent and separate sexual harassment compliant against Deputy Davis. In the absence of corroboration, Ms. Atwater's testimony of a single incident of intentional touching and her testimony of alleged verbatim statements made by Deputy Davis and his unequivocal denial presents a "she said-he said" dilemma. Neither party's testimony is inherently more credible than the other party's testimony. Contrary to the opinion of Major Brunner, who sat on the Administrative Review Board, that when the Administrative Review Board questioned Deputy Davis regarding those allegations, Deputy Davis was "in denial." This assumption and by implication presumed guilt, thereby lending credibility to Ms. Atwater's allegations, is a conclusion not based on fact and is contrary to the evidence adduced during the de novo proceeding. Ms. Atwater's testimony of incidents having occurred over a four-month or more period and the lack of time or specific dates coupled with the contradictions between her testimony during the final hearing and her August 9, 2002, memorandum to her supervisor, creates an unfathomable chasm in the evaluation of her credibility. The Inspection Bureau of the Administrative Inspection Division investigated Ms. Atwater's complaint and submitted their investigative results to the Administrative Review Board, made up of various employees with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board determined that Petitioner, Deputy Davis, had violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4: violation of provisions of the law or rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board determined that Deputy Davis' conduct was a violation of the rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Rules 3-1.1 (level five violation) and 5.16, relating to sexual harassment and discrimination as defined in the Sheriff's General Order 3-4. The Administrative Review Board determined that Deputy Davis' available range of discipline was calculated in conformance with the matrix contained within General Order 10-2 of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office that allocates a point scale to various violations. The matrix provides that a level five offense, which includes sexual harassment, results in a 50- point assessment. Deputy Davis scored a total of 50 cumulative points with a discipline range of five-day suspension up to and including termination. Demotion is also authorized under the applicable General Order. After considering the evidence and available sanctions, the Sheriff notified Deputy Davis on March 10, 2003, that he was imposing a ten-day suspension without pay and demoting him from the rank of corporal to the rank of detention deputy. After weighing all the evidence, including the Sheriff's evidentiary presentation of Ms. Atwater's testimony of verbal comments made and intentional body conduct allegedly engaged in by Deputy Davis, this fact finder finds the uncorroborated hearsay evidence insufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations that Deputy Davis made sexually harassing verbal comments to Ms. Atwater, and that he made intentional sexually harassing body contact with her, so as to create a hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order finding that: Petitioner did not commit the verbal and physical conduct alleged in the charging document and that there was no violation of the rules, regulations, and policies of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as alleged. Petitioner's ten-day suspension from his employment as a detention corporal with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office was therefore inappropriate. Petitioner's demotion from his previous rank of detention corporal to the rank of detention deputy was therefore inappropriate. Petitioner's ten-day suspension from his employment as a detention corporal with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office be restored with full detention corporal's pay and benefits. Petitioner be restored to the rank of detention corporal2 and given full duties and responsibilities as previously held. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 20th day of August, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 8, 1988, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination based upon sexual harassment with the City of Clearwater, Office of Community Relations, involving Respondent. Petitioner had been employed at Respondent from approximately April, 1987 until she resigned in November, 1987. This case was duly noticed for hearing on August 24, 1988, by Notice of Hearing dated June 6, 1988. Petitioner received this Notice of Hearing, and did appear at the hearing. Petitioner testified, under oath, at the hearing that she did not want to pursue her claim of sexual harassment, and would offer no evidence in support of her claim. In fact, she did not offer any evidence in support of her claim.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner's claim of discrimination based upon sexual harassment against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1988 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Moore 1411 Illinois Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida 34663 Scott McGregor, Owner Heavenly Bodies II 3323 U.S. 19 North Clearwater, Florida 34619 Ronald M. McElrath Office of Community Relations Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Miles Lance, Esquire Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Mojo Old City BBQ ("Mojo"), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his gender.
Findings Of Fact Mojo is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Mojo owns and operates a restaurant at 5 Cordova Street in St. Augustine. Mojo has put in place written policies and procedures that prohibit, among other things, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or any other categories of persons protected by state or federal anti- discrimination laws. The policies also provide a specific complaint procedure for any employee who believes that he or she is being discriminated against or harassed. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner received an orientation that thoroughly explained the anti-discrimination and reporting policies. Testimony at the hearing established that Petitioner was again informed of these policies at an employee insurance meeting held in October 2013. Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Mojo on August 2, 2013, as a dishwasher. Petitioner testified that “from day one” he was called names and harassed by everyone at Mojo, employees and managers alike. He stated that an employee named Linwood Finley would yell that he didn’t want to work with a man who looked like a girl, or a “he/she.” Mr. Finley said, “I don’t want to work with a man that can't have kids.” Petitioner testified that the managers and staff would accuse him of looking between their legs. Employees would walk up to him and try to kiss him. He was told that he had to go along with these antics or find somewhere else to wash dishes. Petitioner testified that he believed he was fired for refusing to kiss other male employees. He had seen Mr. Finley and another male employee kissing behind the restaurant. He stated that two male employees had tried to kiss him and he refused their advances. Petitioner testified that he complained about the kissing to anyone who would listen. He said, “I’m not a woman, I’m a man. I got to come in here every day to the same stuff over and over. Y’all act like little kids.” Petitioner stated that when he complained, the harassment would stop for the rest of that day but would resume on the following day. Petitioner testified that there is a conspiracy against him in St. Augustine. For the last five years, he has been harassed in the same way at every place he has worked. Petitioner specifically cited Flagler College, the Columbia Restaurant, and Winn-Dixie as places where he worked and suffered name calling and harassment. Petitioner testified that he wanted to call several employees from Mojo as witnesses but that he was unable to subpoena them because Mojo refused to provide him with their addresses. Petitioner could provide no tangible evidence of having made any discovery requests on Mojo. Petitioner was terminated on November 29, 2013, pursuant to a “Disciplinary Action Form” that provided as follows: Roderick closed Wednesday night2/ in the dish pit. Again we have come to the problem with Roderick not working well with others causing a hostile work environment. This has been an ongoing issue. This issue has not resolved itself, and has been tolerated long enough. Roderick has been talked [to] about this plenty of times and written up previously for the same behavior. The documentary evidence established that Petitioner had received another Disciplinary Action Form on October 2, 2013, providing a written warning for insubordination for his hostile reaction when a manager asked him to pick up the pace in the evening. Laura Jenkins, the front-house supervisor at Mojo, was present at Mojo on the night of November 27, 2013. She testified that Petitioner had a history of getting into arguments with other kitchen employees that escalated into screaming matches during which Petitioner would commence calling the other employees “nigger.” Ms. Jenkins stated that on more than one occasion she had asked Petitioner to cease using “the ‘N’ word.” On the night of November 27, Petitioner was running behind on the dishes, so Ms. Jenkins asked another kitchen employee, Colin Griffin, to pitch in and help him. Petitioner did not want the help and argued with Mr. Griffin. Ms. Jenkins testified that Petitioner was screaming and cursing. The situation was so volatile that Ms. Jenkins felt physically threatened by Petitioner. She was afraid to discipline him that evening while she was the sole manager in the restaurant. On November 29, Ms. Jenkins met with kitchen manager Billy Ambrose and general manager Linda Prescott. They decided that Petitioner’s actions could not be tolerated anymore and that his employment would be terminated. Mr. Ambrose testified that on several occasions he sent people to help Petitioner in the dish pit and Petitioner refused their help. Petitioner would get into arguments with other employees over such things as the proper way to stack dishes. Mr. Ambrose named four different employees, including Mr. Finley, whom he sent to help Petitioner. Each one of them reported that Petitioner started an argument. Mr. Ambrose stated he went in to help Petitioner himself on one occasion and that Petitioner “kind of gave me attitude” despite the fact that Mr. Ambrose was his supervisor. Mr. Ambrose testified that Petitioner had an argument with Mr. Finley one morning that resulted in Mr. Ambrose having a cautionary talk with both employees. Mr. Ambrose sent Mr. Finley to help Petitioner in the dish pit. Petitioner stated, “Nigger, I don’t need your help.” Mr. Ambrose asked if there was a problem. Petitioner said, “No, we’re fine.” Mr. Ambrose asked Mr. Finley if everything was all right. Mr. Finley replied, “Yeah, I guess he’s just having a bad day.” Mr. Ambrose returned to his work only to find, five minutes later, that the two men were nose to nose arguing about the fact that Mr. Finley wasn’t washing dishes the way Petitioner liked. Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Ambrose, and Ms. Prescott all testified that they had never seen another employee harass Petitioner and had never heard of such a thing occurring. Petitioner never complained to any of these supervisors about discrimination or harassment of any kind. All three testified that they had never seen male employees kissing one another on the job nor seen any male employee attempt to kiss Petitioner. The three supervisors never heard any employee make comments about Petitioner’s appearing to be a girl. Ms. Jenkins testified that as a gay woman she would absolutely not allow any discrimination based on Petitioner’s gender orientation. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Mojo for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Mojo's stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s gender. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Mojo discriminated against him because of his gender in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that his dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that he made while an employee of Mojo. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner ever complained to a superior about the alleged harassment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Mojo Old City BBQ did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009),1 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her gender and by allowing her to be sexually harassed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a for-profit Florida corporation owned by Robert J. Morrisseau, Sr. Even though he was Respondent's president, Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., was not usually involved in the company's day-to-day operations. Robert J. Morrisseau, Jr., is Respondent's vice- president. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., was primarily responsible for the company's operation. He also served as crew supervisor. Most of Respondent's work, which involved installing carpeting and tile in commercial facilities, was performed in locations that required the work crew to travel. Respondent's crew often had to stay in motels. Respondent contracted with an employee leasing company to handle Respondent's payroll and workers' compensation administration. All employees filled out an application provided by the employee leasing company, but Respondent made all hiring and firing decisions. Respondent did not give its employees information regarding Respondent's human resource policies and procedures. Employees were not told what to do when they believed someone in the company was discriminating against them. Petitioner is a female who dated Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., in the fall of 2008. While they were dating, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., told Petitioner he would give her a job and teach her to lay tile. Petitioner and Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., stopped dating in December 2008. However, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., made good on his promise to Petitioner, hiring her as a laborer on January 26, 2009. In January 2009, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., wanted to reestablish a personal relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., hoped giving Petitioner a job would facilitate that goal. Petitioner was thankful for the job, but she did not want to date Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., again. At all times material here, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., was Petitioner's supervisor. He also employed and supervised Petitioner's sister and her boyfriend and Petitioner's daughter and her boyfriend. Off and on in January 2009 through March 2009, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., supervised a crew laying carpet and tile in Spanish Fort, Alabama. Petitioner and Petitioner's daughter and sister and their boyfriends were also part of the crew on at least two trips to Alabama. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., rented three motel rooms for the Alabama job. He took one room with one bed. The other two rooms had two beds. On one occasion, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., told Petitioner she could sleep in the room with him or with her sister and the sister's boyfriend or the other male employees. On another occasion, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., told Petitioner she could sleep with her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend or the other male employees. On both occasions, Petitioner chose to sleep on the extra bed in a room with one of the couples. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., never threatened Petitioner, directly or indirectly, with consequences if she did not choose to stay in his room. There is no evidence that Petitioner felt Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., was giving her a quid pro quo choice. Petitioner's job responsibilities included driving company vehicles, preparing floors for tile, and learning to lay tile. She was not expected to carry 40-foot rolls of carpet or to carry heavy loads of tile up three flights of stairs. However, Petitioner was willing to help any way she could. One time in Alabama, Petitioner and her daughter were on their knees, preparing a floor for tile. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., took pictures of the women from the back and made a comment about the daughter's backside, stating it was as big as a man's. Respondent also had a job in Daytona Beach, Florida. Petitioner was part of the crew that worked in Daytona Beach, along with Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., and several male employees during the weeks of February 27, 2009, and March 2, 2009. Once again, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., rented three motel rooms. He gave Petitioner the option of staying in the room with him or with the other men. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., did not think anything of asking Petitioner if she wanted to stay in the room with him because he and Petitioner had stayed in the same hotel room previously on other occasions. During the weeks of February 27, 2009, and March 2, 2009, Petitioner elected to stay in the room with her co-workers rather than in the room with Mr. Morrisseau, Jr. There is no evidence that Petitioner believed Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., was giving her a quid pro quo choice. On one trip to Daytona Beach, Florida, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., and another male employee bought cocaine and brought it back to the motel. Petitioner does not deny that she used some of the cocaine that night. The next morning, the crew, including Petitioner, went back to work at 7:30 a.m. On March 11, 2009, Respondent fired Petitioner. During the hearing, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., testified that he did not fire Petitioner because she used drugs in Daytona Beach. This testimony is contrary to a statement made by Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., in an e-mail dated December 7, 2009. During the hearing, Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., testified that Petitioner was not fired because she was a woman and inadequate to perform the work. However, Petitioner and other employees heard Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., and Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., state that Petitioner and her daughter, as females, were inadequate for the job and/or that women did not need to work out of town. According to Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., he fired Petitioner because, after returning from Daytona Beach, Petitioner's work was not satisfactory. He claims that she failed to report for work because she was using illegal drugs with her boyfriend. He also claims that Petitioner was fighting with other employees, referring to an alleged altercation between Petitioner and her daughter. Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., admitted during the hearing that he had no first-hand knowledge that Petitioner continued to use drugs after returning from Daytona Beach. He did not see Petitioner fighting with other employees. Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., testified at hearing that he had no issue with Petitioner's work the one weekend he went to the Alabama job. According to Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., Petitioner "worked her little tail off" that weekend. The reason Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., gave for terminating Petitioner's employment is not credible. The most persuasive evidence indicates that Mr. Morrisseau, Jr., terminated Petitioner's employment because she was a woman and, in his opinion, inadequate to do the job. Respondent also fired Petitioner's daughter on March 11, 2009. However, Respondent rehired the daughter on March 20, 2009. The daughter worked for Respondent until the company went out of business in June 2009. The jobs in Alabama and Florida were not done properly. Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., had to bring in another company to redo and complete at least five jobs. Mr. Morrisseau, Sr., closed down the business and let all employees go in June 2009. Petitioner was unemployed from March 11, 2009, through January 1, 2010. She is entitled to lost wages for that period of time. However, Petitioner failed to present any evidence regarding the amount of lost wages during the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order, directing Respondent to cease violating Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County Park and Recreation Department (Department) is a department of County government. At all times material to the instant case, Carolyn Gibson was a Region Manager with the Department, having ultimate supervisory authority over the operations at the County parks in her region (Region 2), including Arcola Park and West Little River Park. At all times material to the instant case, Rhonda Ham was a Recreational Specialist 2/Service Area Manager with the Department, who was based at Arcola Park and worked under the immediate supervision of Ms. Gibson. Ms. Ham has been married to her husband Earl for the last 13 or 14 years. Although Ms. Gibson considers Ms. Ham to be a friend,4 her friendship with Ms. Ham has not prevented her from taking disciplinary action against Ms. Ham when the "facts" have warranted. Petitioner is a single, custodial father of three children (two daughters and son) aged three, five, and seven. He is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, "the sole support of these children." Unlike Ms. Ham, Petitioner is college educated. He attended the University of Miami and Clarksdale Community College in Clarksdale, Mississippi, before receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Virginia State University (VSU) in 1993. After finishing his undergraduate studies, he spent a year in graduate school at VSU. Petitioner played football in college, and he went on to play the sport professionally after being selected in the National Football League (NFL) draft. One of Petitioner's teammates on the University of Miami football team was James Stewart.5 As teammates, Petitioner and Mr. Stewart "got along with one another and communicated from time to time," but they were not "close friends" and did not "hang out" together. Mr. Stewart also went on to play in the NFL. Following his playing career, he was convicted of a felony, and, in 2001, began serving a five-year prison sentence. He was released from prison in 2006 and is currently on probation. From March 20, 2006, until December 14, 2006, Petitioner was employed by the County as a Park and Recreation Manager 1 at West Little River Park. In that capacity, he had supervisory authority over the other Department employees assigned to work at the park. At all times during his employment with the County, he was a probationary employee with no entitlement to continuing employment.6 Ms. Ham was Petitioner's immediate supervisor for the duration of Petitioner's employment with the County except for a three-week period in April and/or May 2006.7 Her office (at Arcola Park) was located approximately two miles from Petitioner's office (at West Little River Park). Ms. Ham had the authority to monitor and evaluate Petitioner's job performance and to counsel and reprimand Petitioner, both verbally and in writing. The authority to terminate Petitioner's employment resided, not with Ms. Ham, but with Ms. Gibson. It was Ms. Gibson who hired Petitioner. She did so after reviewing Petitioner's application and interviewing him. Petitioner had applied for the position on or about March 2, 2006, by submitting a filled out and signed County employment application form. By signing the application, he "certified," among other things, the following: I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the statements contained herein, and any attachments, are correct, complete and made in good faith. I understand that a background check will be conducted and that should an investigation disclose any misrepresentation, I may be subject to dismissal. The application form had an "Employment History" section, which contained the following instructions: List previous employment history, starting with your current or most recent employment. If you have held more than one position within the same organization, list each position as a separate period of employment. Be sure to indicate where employment may be verified. Please include job-related volunteer, temporary, part-time work and military experience. On his application, Petitioner knowingly failed to disclose that he had been employed from May 30, 2005, to September 17, 2005 as a Recreation Aide V with the City of Miami Parks and Recreation Department, working under the supervision of Lewis Mahoney, who was the Park Manager at Gibson Park. As a City of Miami Parks and Recreation Department employee, Petitioner had had a poor work record and had not gotten along with Mr. Mahoney. He undoubtedly knew, at the time he filled out the County employment application form in March 2006, that Mr. Mahoney, if contacted by the County, would not have good things to say about him. Ms. Gibson did not find out about Petitioner's failure to disclose his employment with the City of Miami on the County employment application form until after she had terminated Petitioner. Had she known about this non-disclosure, she would have never hired Petitioner and allowed him to work for the County. As part of the application and hiring process, Petitioner signed various forms in addition to the County application form. One of these forms was an Oath on Outside Employment for Full-Time Employees form that Petitioner signed on March 2, 2006. It read as follows: I, Damacio Green, a full-time employee of Miami-Dade Park and Recreation Department, certify that I am not engaged in any type of outside employment. I certify that I am not paid by, nor do I receive any equivalent gratuities from, any employer for any of my services except as performed during the normal course of my employment with the Miami-Dade Park and Recreation Department. I certify that before accepting outside employment, I will submit a complete record of intended outside employment to my Department Director for approval. I will abide by the Department Director's decision on the matter. I further certify that I fully understand the County policy on outside employment outlined below. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY POLICY ON OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT (SEC. 2-11 OF THE CODE OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA) No full-time County employee shall accept outside employment, either incidental, occasional or otherwise, where County time, equipment or material is to be used or where such employment or any part thereof is to be performed on County time. A full-time County employee may accept incidental or occasional outside employment so long as such employment is not contrary, detrimental or adverse to the interest of the County or any of the department and the approval required in subsection (C) is obtained. Any outside employment by any full-time County employee must first be approved in writing by the employee's department head who shall maintain a complete record of such employment. Any employee convicted of violating any provision of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1-5, and, in addition thereto, shall be subjected to dismissal by his Department. (Ord. No. 58-5, Sec. 25.01, 2-18-58) When Petitioner "first started working" for the County, he asked Ms. Gibson if, under the County's Policy on Outside Employment, he would be able to operate his mobile food service business, Damacio's Mr. Tasty, LLC, while employed with the County. Ms. Gibson responded to Petitioner's inquiry by telling him, "You can't do it." On at least two occasions during his employment with the County, Petitioner operated his mobile food service business without Departmental approval, despite knowing that doing so was in violation of the County's Policy on Outside Employment. It was not until after Petitioner had been terminated that Ms. Gibson discovered that Petitioner had committed this violation of the County's Policy on Outside Employment. Ms. Gibson would have terminated Petitioner's employment had he still been employed with the County at the time she learned of the violation. Among the other forms that Petitioner signed during the application and hiring process was an Acknowledgment of Receipt of the County's Unlawful Harassment Policy (Administrative Order No. 7-37). He signed this form on March 2, 2006. By doing so, he acknowledged the following: I have received a copy of this Unlawful Harassment Policy and understand that it contains important information on filing a complaint of harassment with my department or the Office of Fair Employment Practices. I will familiarize myself with the Unlawful Harassment Policy and understand that I am governed by its contents. If I have questions about the policy I can contact my Department Affirmative Action Officers Yolanda Fuentes-Johns or William Lindley at (305)755-7866 or the Office of Fair Employment Practices at (305)375-2784. The County's Unlawful Harassment Policy (which was printed on the form) provided, in pertinent part, as follows: POLICY The policy of Miami-Dade County is to ensure that all employees are able to enjoy a work environment free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, retaliation, age, disability, ancestry, marital status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or the exercise of their constitutional or statutory rights. Administrative Order 7-28 was adopted in 1987 specifically to protect County employees from sexual harassment. Administrative Order 7-28 and Administrative Order 7-6, Personnel Policy on Equal Employment Opportunity, have since been interpreted to extend similar protection to employees who believe they have been harassed for unlawful reasons other than sex. This Administrative Order is intended to make clear that all County employees who believe they have been unlawfully harassed must notify the County's Office of Fair Employment Practices or their Departmental Affirmative Action Officer and may file a complaint for prompt and proper investigation. Employees who are found guilty of unlawfully harassing other employees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, depending on the circumstances. These may range from counseling up to and including termination. Miami-Dade County will not tolerate adverse treatment of employees because they report harassment or provide information related to such complaints. The County, in exercising reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment or retaliation for reporting harassment, will protect victims from further unlawful harassment and retaliation. * * * COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Employees who believe they have been the subject of harassment prohibited by this Administrative Order, must notify the County's Office of Fair Employment Practices or their Departmental Affirmative Action Officer and, if they choose, may file a formal complaint with the County's Office of Fair Employment Practices. Employees may, if they desire, also report such incidents of unlawful harassment to their supervisor but are under no obligation to do so. Employees are encouraged to report harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive. This will facilitate early mediation and effective resolution of potential unlawful harassment complaints. All complaints of harassment, subsequent investigations and corrective actions shall be handled on a confidential basis to the extent possible under the law. Protective measures will be instituted to protect the complainant. Miami-Dade County has established procedures for resolving, filing and processing complaints of unlawful harassment. If the investigation confirms the existence of unlawful harassment, the Fair Employment Practices Office will pursue prompt corrective action, including remedial relief for the victim, and appropriate disciplinary action against the offender. * * * At no time during his employment with the County did Petitioner complain, in accordance with the "complaint procedure" described in the County's Unlawful Harassment Policy, that he was being, or had been, sexually harassed by Ms. Ham. During much of the time that Petitioner worked under Ms. Ham's immediate supervision, the two had an amicable relationship--so amicable that on one occasion, without being asked by Ms. Ham, Petitioner gave her a check in the amount $125.00 to help her purchase a dance outfit for her daughter. What started out as a friendly, non-physical relationship evolved into a sexual one, in which both Petitioner and Ms. Ham freely and willingly participated. They engaged in sexual activity on three separate occasions--once in Petitioner's office at West Little River Park and twice in Ms. Ham's office at Arcola Park. The first of these consensual sexual encounters occurred in August 2006. The third and final encounter was in October 2006. On each occasion, Petitioner was the one who initiated the physical contact. "[A]shamed and embarrassed" by her conduct, Ms. Ham decided to put an end to her adulterous affair with Petitioner. There was no further sexual activity between Ms. Ham and Petitioner after October 2006. Ms. Ham oversaw a Children's Trust-funded after-school program at Arcola Park in which Petitioner's daughter, DK, was registered. It was Ms. Ham's responsibility to make sure that children in the program were picked up from their respective schools at the end of the school day and transported to Arcola Park. After the end of the school day on November 6, 2006, Petitioner received word from DK's school that DK had not been picked up and was still at school. Petitioner ultimately telephoned Ms. Gibson on her cell phone and, in a "very loud" tone of voice, said, "Ms. Ham left my daughter, she didn't pick my daughter up from school, what are you going to do about it?" Ms. Gibson later met with Petitioner and Ms. Ham to discuss the matter and try to sort things out. During the meeting, Petitioner was, in Ms. Gibson's eyes, "irate" and "out of control." He told Ms. Gibson that she "couldn't tell him anything" because she did not "have any kids" and she "kn[e]w nothing about parenting." Ms. Gibson sensed from Petitioner's and Ms. Ham's "body language" and the way that they were "glaring at each other" at the meeting that they might be involved in a non-work- related relationship. She therefore asked them, before they left, whether they had "crossed the line." They both denied that there was anything going on between them. A few days later, Petitioner came into Ms. Gibson's office and asked her, rhetorically, "Do you think I'm interested in Ms. Ham?" He then told her, "Well, Ms. Gibson, I'm not interested in Ms. Ham, I'm interested in you." Ms. Gibson's response to this come-on was to direct Petitioner to "get out of [her] office." Petitioner was due to be evaluated on or about September 24, 2006, but it was not until November 17, 2006, that he received his first Management Performance Evaluation. This November 17, 2006, evaluation was prepared by Ms. Ham (who signed the evaluation as the "rater") with input from Ms. Gibson (who signed the evaluation as the "reviewer"). The overall rating was unsatisfactory. The evaluation contained the following narrative: ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES: RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, you entered this department on March 28, 2006 as a Park & Recreation Manager 1 at West Little River Park. From your inception there has been an increase in participant enrollment in spring and summer camp, and [the] after school program. However, there has been a decrease in registration/attendance in your sports development program, which is the region's primary program. DECISION MAKING AND JUDGMENT: RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, over the past 6 months I have had the opportunity to observ[e] your decision- making skills and often times your decisions are hasty. At your level you should take the opportunity to first identify the problem, gather the facts and make decisions based on facts and not what you are feeling at the time, i.e. sending part-timers home and then call[ing] them back to work within the hour.[8] Also, it is important that you understand parents are our customers, they might not always be right in their actions. However, as professionals we must always maintain our composure by allowing them to vent and then by explaining the circumstances rather than trying to talk over them and suggesting they bring a spouse to deal with the situation instead, as you have done.[9] PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT RATING: Satisfactory Mr. Green, you have a solid educational foundation and you have taken the initiative to enroll in PAR training to aid you in better understanding the payroll attendance record. You are currently involved in the recreation modular training. However, being new to the department it is extremely important that you make a concentrated effort to enroll in trainings in the following areas[:] time management and dealing with conflict in the workplace, progressive discipline and a host of other trainings relative to your professional development. You need to encourage your subordinate staff to enroll in training to improve their knowledge and skills. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, during your first six months in the department you have not taken the initiative to plan, organize or implement any special events, activities or sporting events.[10] You have not shown any creativity or enthusiasm. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, your relationship with your subordinate staff has been less than cohesive. There have been instances of verbal conflict and derision between you and Mr. Morgan and Ms. Johnson,[11] a seasonal employee[,][12] and several parents of patrons that you were not able to resolve satisfactorily as the leader. Although we have discussed strategies on how you can improve in this area improvement is still needed to foster the teamwork ethic at West Little River Park. You have not made an effort to understand[] how the chain of command works. It is very important that you understand your first point of contact is your Service Area Manager. If we cannot resolve the situation at my level and if you're not satisfied with the resolution, you can then request a meeting with the next level in the chain of command. COMMUNICATIONS RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, your very limited knowledge of the computer has been a hindrance for you as a Park & Recreation Manager 1. It is very important for you to have a basic working knowledge of the computer. The computer is an essential tool that is used everyday. Our reliance on them is an ever increasing fact. Mr. Green, you are not taking the initiative to learn what you need to know in order to function in your capacity as a manager. During our regional staff meetings you are not attentive and you do not take notes, yet you come back to me with questions that were covered during the staff meetings.[13] I have been supportive by consistently aiding you with your assignments. However, in many instances you have not comprehended the information well and have looked to me for more than just support. You are now faced with spreading your part- time budget and coming up with goals and objectives. You have missed every deadline given. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, an improvement is needed in the area. You have been encouraged to avail yourself of all the resources available to educate yourself on the subject of the department's policies and procedures via the use of our various manuals and through counsel with your supervisors and peers. However, you have been challenged in your role as a leader in applying them in the daily operations of the park and rapport with your staff and patrons. ADDITIONAL FACTORS RATING: Not Applicable RATER'S OVERALL EVALUATION: Unsatisfactory Is employee eligible for merit increase? Deferred. Re-evaluate in 1 1/2 months/ Is employee eligible for permanent status? N/A IN WHAT WAYS CAN OR MUST THE EMPLOYEE IMPROVE PERFORMANCE? Mr. Green, to improve your overall performance, concentrate on the following: Increase participant registration/ attendance in the Sports Development Program which has declined under your supervision. Demonstrate more leadership before subordinate staff. Enroll in department management courses. They will help in your professional growth. Enroll for "Service Excellence" training to enhance you customer service skills with patrons. Plan, organize and market at least 2 annual special events at West Little River Park. Enroll [in] computer courses to be more proficient in the use of the personal computer. Follow the chain of command as mandated by our Regional Manager and your immediate supervisor. You will be re-evaluated in the next 1 1/2 months. If there has been no substantial improvement stronger measures will be made. Petitioner prepared a written rebuttal to his November 17, 2006, evaluation, which he provided to Ms. Ham and Ms. Gibson on or about November 27, 2006. It read as follows: SECTION 2: DECISION MAKING AND JUDGMENT: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT In the subject of decision-making and judgment, I received a rating of need[s] improvement. I totally feel that this rating is unfair because of one incident that happened in a six-month period. However, the situation with the parent being treated unprofessionally is completely wrong. The parent made the statement to me of having her husband deal with the issue rather than herself. I simply responded, "If you feel that this is necessary for your spouse to speak with me rather than you, then I have no problem with it. I will be here in my office whenever he ha[s] time to speak with me." The entire ordeal was handled totally in a professional manner. SECTION 4: PLANNING AND ORGANIZING: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT In the area of planning and organizing, I received a rating of need[s] improvement, which I feel is totally unfair and incorrect. During the entire six month[] period, I never once received a memo or any corresponden[ce] to the effect that my planning and organizing skills was not up to par.[14] When I received this position on March 21st, 2006, I was given a brief overview pre-training of my duties and responsibilities i.e., administrative paper work, sports development participation, seasonal camp programming, after school daily programming and maintenance responsibilities. Special events were never mentioned. My facility participated in spring break and summer camps in which we increase[d] the numbers a great deal from past history. We also participated in every sport development cycle. According to the directions I was given, I felt as if I was totally within my responsibilities. Now to receive an impromptu surprise that I am not on task is not only incorrect but also absolutely unprofessional. SECTION 5: INTERPERSONAL SKILLS: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT I feel that this rating, needs improvement, is unfair and incorrect. During my first six months, I've had two situations with parents that are sisters, which was a misunderstanding about the kids coming into the facility unsupervised. After explaining the danger of that to the parents, they both agreed with me. The second situation had already been explained in section 2 when a parent felt she would like for her husband to address the issue rather than herself. At that time the situation was resolved without further discussion. The issues that I had with Mr. Morgan, I feel personally w[ere] created by Mrs. Ham by allowing him to break the chain of command by calling you without discussing anything with me first was wrong. When I give Mr. Morgan an assignment that he does not like, he feels that he could call you to change it. Must I remind you that Ms. Gibson warned you about this behavior during summer camp. Ms. Gibson also stated to you, "Rhonda, this is wrong! You wouldn't want Mr. Green to do this to you with me." This is not the support I expected from my immediate supervisor. I feel sabotaged, betrayed and set up for failure. In my evaluation, you mentioned me breaking the chain of command and asked me to call my immediate supervisor about any issue before contacting the regional manager. If I remained unsatisfied, what did I violate if you were contacted twice, you were told that I was unhappy with your answer and I needed immediate attention? This would mean that I followed the chain of command to the letter. SECTION 6: COMMUNICATIONS: RATING: UNSATISFACTORY The rating that I received in section 6 communication: Unsatisfactory, I feel that it is unfair and incorrect. I have basic knowledge of the computer and can perform all of my duties as a Park and Recreation Manager 1. During our regional staff meetings, I did not always take written notes because at times I recorded the meetings. However, I feel my immediate supervisor should be someone I can go to for clarity which is not outside of her responsibilities. On top of this, I was faced with spreading a part-time budget in this department for the very first time and was left hanging out to dry by Mrs. Ham. I received very little directions and had to look toward other colleagues for help. Mrs. Ham set meeting dates when I asked for help and never met them. When she finally did show, she took the work that I had already done and said, "I'll handle it from this point." Mrs. Ham may have her method of assisting her staff but I feel the more hands on involvement I have with the new work and assignments will make me effective in learning the process and being more self- sufficient with the budget assignments as well as other paper work. However, I received no correspondence or memos of any type reflecting how off the mark I was in the area of communication during the entire six months. As a matter of fact, I felt the communication between Mrs. Ham and I was great. It was so great that I had no problem doing financial favors for her when she needed it. Now for everything to turn so bad so fast, I have no choice but to feel it is retaliation [for] the call made to Ms. Gibson on the day my daughter was an hour and a half late being picked up from her school which was supposed to be done by one of Mrs. Ham's staff workers which I had to do myself because of the number of calls I received from her school. This is pertaining to the issue of the broken chain of command. SECTION 7: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE: RATING: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT I received a rating of need[s] improvement, which I feel it is only natural that a new employee to need improvement in this area if it is based on the knowledge of the manual instead of knowing where to go in the manual to retrieve the information. However, I will continue to read through my operation manual and my personal handbook in my sp[are] and down time. Overall, I feel this evaluation was a personal attack for some personal reason, i.e. contacting Ms. Gibson after trying to resolve the issue with Mrs. Ham to no satisfaction. This is when I first found out I was doing such a poor job as a manager and feel th[ere] will be more retaliation. While Petitioner's written rebuttal contained various accusations against Ms. Ham of supervisory wrongdoing, it was devoid of any allegation that Ms. Ham had subjected Petitioner to any type of sexual harassment.15 On November 30, 2006, after it had been brought to her attention that Petitioner was having his subordinates complete for him written assignments that Petitioner was supposed to be doing himself for a Department-sponsored management training class he was taking, Ms. Ham sent the following memorandum to Petitioner: I was informed by your PSA Jerome Jamison that you have been delegating your Recreation Module Training assignments to him and PSA Tremaine Morgan to complete. If this is correct, please stop this immediately. The training series that you have been recommended to participate [in] requires you to complete these assignments. These exercises [are] a part of your development and training as a manager. On December 5, 2006, Ms. Ham sent another memorandum to Petitioner. This memorandum was about an incident that had occurred the previous day. It read as follows: On Monday, December 4, at approximately 2:18 p.m. you called to let me know that the key for the West Little River Park's van was misplaced and that you could not find the key. I asked you why you were just now reporting this when your driver is scheduled to be at your first scheduled pickup point at 2:00 p.m. You began to yell in a loud voice at me, "You were the one that told me to schedule my driver to report at 2 p.m." I responded that you needed to lower your voice and that you were being insubordinate and that this is my last warning. Your statement was untrue as well. I directed you to schedule your staff to report at least one half hour prior to the first pick up anticipating travel time and to inspect the van. This is not the first instance of offensive conduct to me and I am aware that you acted similarly toward our Region Manager. I have discussed your conduct with you before. Mr. Green, there must be an immediate and sustained improvement in your performance or more serious disciplinary action will result. I need the Unusual Incident Report detailing the details on the missing van keys today. On December 5, 2006, in response to the November 30, 2006, and December 5, 2006, memoranda he had received from Ms. Ham, Petitioner sent a memorandum of his own to Ms. Ham. He provided a copy of this memorandum to Ms. Gibson. The memorandum read as follows: Ms. Ham, pertaining to the memo I received on Nov. 30, 2006, stating you were told by Mr. Jamison that I was delegating my module training to him and Mr. Morgan. That alleged statement you claimed Mr. Jamison made after speaking with Mr. Jamison, he stated that it was not true. Mr. Jamison stated that he was only inquiring more about the module. Now, let me tell you what really happened. What I simply did was shared the information that was in the module training with my staff because of their daily hands on with the participants. I felt as the Park Manager that I was well within my rights to discuss the information with my staff and ask for feedback w[hether] it was verbal or written. The reason I did this was because the questions in the training w[ere] not only rel[evant] to me but to them as well because of their dealings with the participants on a daily basis. When I told them why I was doing this, they both agreed. Mr. Jamison and Mr. Morgan also told me that the few questions they went over [were] not only intriguing but also very helpful in dealing with some of the issues they encounter with some of the participants. By the way Mrs. Ham, I was told in a discussion with Mr. Jamison that the question about the module was asked three weeks ago prior to [the] Nov 30, 2006 memo I received from you. My question to you is why give me a memo pertaining to this now. Pertaining to the memo I received today on my alleged conduct on December 4, 2006 is not only unfair but also untrue that I was yelling at you when I called about the missing key. I deplore that statement. What is true that I did do the right thing by notifying and informing you about the missing key. What is also true is that contrary to popular opinion, you were the one that became angry with me because I was asking you what else could I do in terms of getting my after school participants picked up. I also asked you should I go in my personal van to make sure that they were all picked up in a timely manner. You then started . . . yelling at me in sequence, "when did you first notice that the key was missing, Mr. Jamison must be just getting to work, what time do[es] he come in and why is he coming in at 2 p.m. when he has a 2 o'clock pick-up.["] I simply stated to you that "you were the one that made me change his scheduled time to come in from 1 o'clock to 1:30 p.m. to now 2:00 p.m." which was all I said in return with my regular tone of voice. Then you replied "you better watch [your] tone of voice with me. This is your last warning about that tone of voice." When in fact, you were the one that was doing all of the yelling and I have a witness to prove it. As I stated in my rebuttal to my regretful performance evaluation which came a week later after my call to our Regional Manager when I was doing so well before then. "I feel that th[ere] will be more retaliation to come" and it is now clear that I was right. You are doing just that because of my phone call to our Regional Manger about my daughter being an hour and a half late picked up by one of [your] subordinates which I had to do myself. In his memorandum, Petitioner alleged retaliation only for his having complained to Ms. Gibson about Ms. Ham's not having picked up his daughter on time. He made no allegations of sexual harassment. On December 5, 2006, Petitioner attended a Department- sponsored training class, the title of which was "How to Maintain a Harassment Free Work Environment." The class was lead by Beatriz Lee, the Department's Human Resources Manager and its Affirmative Action Officer. In her introductory remarks, Ms. Lee told the class "what [her] role [was with] the [D]epartment." The class lasted approximately three hours, during which Ms. Lee discussed, among other things, the County's Unlawful Harassment Policy, including how to file an unlawful harassment complaint. After the class ended Petitioner walked up to Ms. Lee and indicated that he wanted to talk to her. Ms. Lee took Petitioner into her office so that they could converse in private. Petitioner told Ms. Lee that he was "having problems with his supervisor," Ms. Ham, and then showed Ms. Lee the November 17, 2006, evaluation he had received. Ms. Lee asked Petitioner why he thought these "problems" existed. Petitioner replied that he and Ms. Ham were "tight" and were "good friends" and that he "didn't understand why [Ms. Ham] was being so demanding with him, because he had even helped her out financially." During their conversation, Petitioner told Ms. Lee about Ms. Gibson's having asked him and Ms. Ham if they had "crossed the line." Ms. Lee then inquired why Ms. Gibson would ask such a question. Petitioner responded, "I guess because we were so close. Because we-–you've got to understand me and Rhonda [Ham] are very tight . . . ." Petitioner crossed his middle finger over his index finger to show Ms. Lee how "tight" he and Ms. Ham were. At no time during his talk with Ms. Lee did Petitioner claim he had been sexually harassed by Ms. Ham. On Thursday, December 14, 2006, less than one and a half months after receiving his first Management Performance Evaluation, Petitioner received his second (and last) Management Performance Evaluation. This December 14, 2006, evaluation was prepared by Ms. Ham (who signed the evaluation as the "rater"). Ms. Gibson was on vacation, so Bobby Johnson signed the evaluation as the "reviewer" in her stead. Ms. Gibson, however, "concur[ed] with the statements contained in this performance evaluation" and had already decided that Petitioner's "probation [would] be failed." The evaluation contained the following narrative: ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES: RATING: Satisfactory Mr. Green, the sports development program registration increased by 4, however you need to continue this effort by better utilizing your present staff and by developing a recruitment strategy. DECISION MAKING AND JUDGMENT: RATING: Needs Improvement Mr. Green, your continued effort is still needed for your improvement in this area. Please follow the recommendations given to you in your last performance evaluation. PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, you completed the recreation module training, although I had to advise you that you are not allowed to delegate any of the related assignments to your subordinate staff.[16] You have enrolled for department training as I recommended. Remember, you need to encourage your subordinate staff to enroll in training likewise to improve their knowledge and skills. Your effort to recruit satisfactory seasonal and year round part-time staff has been a challenge for you. I recommended that you visit the local colleges for satisfactory applicants, however, thus far you have resisted my suggestions.[17] PLANNING AND ORGANIZING RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, there have no special events, activities or sporting events implemented by you for West Little River Park or as a regional event. On December 6 during the trial budget reviews with the Region Manager it was noted that you had set a goal of forming a basketball league to operate from January-May 2007. However in your planning you failed to include adequate time for publicizing the event in the community. You should have routed all your budget related items through your Service Area Manager. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, improvement is still needed to foster teamwork at West Little River Park. During this rating period you were verbally reprimanded for your unprofessional conduct when speaking to me and our Region Manager, during presentation of your 6 month performance evaluation for a merit increase, during a phone conversation with me about a missing van key and during a phone conversation with Ms. Gibson. You have also reacted defensively when receiving constructive criticism from your supervisor. COMMUNICATIONS RATING: Unsatisfactory Mr. Green, use of the computer and related programs has been a challenge for you. Your registration paper work was not organized as I had directed and as a result the input of West Little [River Park] Program registrants into the CITRIX system has not been completed.[18] As I stated in your earlier evaluation, the computer is an essential tool and our reliance on them is an ever increasing fact. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE RATING: Satisfactory Mr. Green, I encourage you to avail yourself of all the resources available to educate yourself on the subject of the department's policies and procedures via the use of our various manuals and through counsel with your supervisors and peers. ADDITIONAL FACTORS RATING: Not Applicable RATER'S OVERALL EVALUATION: Unsatisfactory Is employee eligible for merit increase? Deferred. Not Granted. Is employee eligible for permanent status? Not Granted. Because she considered Petitioner to be a "substandard employee" who had performed poorly during his probationary period (and for this reason alone), Ms. Gibson decided to "fail [Petitioner's] probation" and terminate his employment with the County. Ms. Gibson's decision was based on: (1) Ms. Ham's evaluation of Petitioner's performance; (2) information provided to Ms. Gibson by other employees about Petitioner's performance19; and (3) Ms. Gibson's "independent observations of [Petitioner's] performance." On the evening of December 14, 2006, after having been presented with his second Management Performance Evaluation, Petitioner was advised that he was being terminated. Later that evening, Petitioner telephoned a friend of his, Jennifer Williams. (Ms. Williams taught reading to Petitioner's daughter DK and to the other children in the Children's Trust-funded after-school program at Arcola Park.) Petitioner began his conversation with Ms. Williams by telling her, "That bitch fired me," referring to Ms. Ham. He then asked if he could come by Ms. Williams' home. Ms. Williams told him that he could. Petitioner arrived at Ms. Williams' home shortly thereafter, and Ms. Williams invited him in. They went to the den, sat down, and talked. Petitioner again explained to Ms. Williams that "Ms. Ham had terminated him." He then told Ms. Williams that Ms. Ham had been "harassing him sexually." When Ms. Williams heard this she "just started laughing." Having seen Petitioner and Ms. Ham and "their interactions," she "could not believe" that Ms. Ham had sexually harassed Petitioner. Petitioner then asked Ms. Williams "to help him type up a letter" (on Ms. Williams' computer) describing "exactly what [had] happened between [Petitioner] and Ms. Ham." Ms. Williams agreed to provide such help. Following Petitioner's directions, Ms. Williams typed a letter addressed to Ms. Gibson, which read as follows: Subject: Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor This letter is in reference to the meeting that took place yesterday on December 7, 2006 around 3:00 p.m. at the region office.[20] You stated to me that you have a problem with me not being truthful about things that have happened between Mrs. Ham and I. As I indicated to you "yes, you are right! I have not told you everything that has happened." I feared that if I had told you Ms. Gibson about the constant request for money as well as the constant request for sexual favors that I would be terminated. Mrs. Ham has explained to me on several occasions that I can be terminated anytime she felt like it and it would be nothing I could do about it, each time before financial and sexual favors were requested. Mrs. Ham and I have been sexually involved over 10 times. These sexual acts have taken place at West Little River and Arcola Park. Also, at times when Mrs. Ham has told me to take her [to] lunch she has then pulled into a nearby motel and again requested sexual favors. Many times I wanted to tell you about these issues between Mrs. Ham and me, however, I feared for my job and I wanted to pass probation so that I could then start denying Mrs. Ham of these favors. Sincerely Damacio Green Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to "backdate the letter" to December 8, 2006, and Ms. Williams complied. The following day, Friday, December 15, 2006, Petitioner (or someone acting on his behalf) went to the Region 2 office to return his Department uniforms and, while there, surreptitiously placed in Ms. Gibson's desk an envelope containing the backdated "Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor" letter Jennifer Williams had typed the evening before. Ms. Gibson was not in the office that day, and her administrative secretary, Debbie Williams,21 was on break when the envelope was placed in Ms. Gibson's desk. Later that day, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Lee, complaining that Ms. Ham had sexually harassed him and had "fired" him because he had refused to "put up with it any more." Ms. Lee asked Petitioner why he had not said anything to her previously about Ms. Ham's sexually harassing him. Petitioner responded that he "had been afraid" and thought he might "lose [his] job." During his conversation with Ms. Lee, Petitioner falsely told her that, prior to his termination, he had "provided a letter to Ms. Gibson telling her that [Ms. Ham] had been forcing him to engage in sex." Ms. Lee asked Petitioner to send her a copy of that letter. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on December 15, 2006, Petitioner faxed to Ms. Lee a copy of the backdated "Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor" letter that Jennifer Williams had typed for Petitioner the evening of December 14, 2006. Ms. Lee showed the letter to her supervisor, Yolanda Johns, who subsequently telephoned Ms. Gibson to inquire about the matter. Ms. Gibson informed Ms. Johns that she did not know anything about a "Wrongful Conduct from Immediate Supervisor" letter addressed to her from Petitioner. Ms. Johns then faxed a copy of the letter to Ms. Gibson, who was at Martin Luther King Park attending a Christmas party. After reviewing the letter, Ms. Gibson confirmed that she had never seen it before. On Monday, December 18, 2006, Ms. Gibson (who was on leave) came by her office and discovered the letter inside an envelope in her desk drawer (where it had been placed on December 15, 2006, the day after Petitioner's termination). Ms. Lee conducted an investigation of Petitioner's allegations of sexual harassment. As part of her investigation, she interviewed Petitioner and numerous other individuals. Based on the information she obtained, Ms. Lee determined (correctly, as it turns out) "that Mr. Green and Mrs. Ham not only engaged in a consensual sexual relationship, but . . . Mr. Green was persistent in pursuing Mrs. Ham to engage in such activity." Consequently, Ms. Lee concluded that Petitioner's allegations of sexual harassment were unfounded. Ms. Lee issued her investigative report in February 2007. In her report, Ms. Lee recommended that Ms. Ham be suspended 30 days without pay for her "lack of judgment in succumbing to the pursuit of a subordinate." By letter dated March 15, 2007, Ms. Ham was given "formal notification" that she was being "suspended without pay for four (4) weeks to be served beginning Monday, April 9, 2007 through Sunday May 6, 2007," for having "engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate employee, Mr. Damacio Green, former Park and Recreation Manager 1, which affected [her] ability to properly supervise this employee."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding the County not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 May, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has been the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on gender or handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed Registered Nurse. He was hired by Respondent on April 4, 1997, in its medical facility at Gulf Coast Correctional facility. In 2000, Petitioner's supervisor was Pamela Spears, R.N. At some point, Nurse Spears became friends with Chris Miles, a Licensed Practical Nurse, who worked on Petitioner's shift. Nurse Spears would sometimes talk with this L.P.N. in her office. Somehow, Petitioner felt his authority as the shift nurse was undermined by this relationship. It was not clear from the record what the basis of Petitioner's belief was, but his belief seemed to be related to the fact that Petitioner had to wait to speak with Nurse Spears. On May 5, 2000, Petitioner complained to Nurse Miles that he felt she was being treated with favoritism by Nurse Spears. Apparently, the discussion caused an uproar at the shift change and there was some agreement to swap shifts among the nurses to allow things to cool off. Around May 10, 2000, Nurse Odom filed sexual harassment charges against Petitioner for alleged comments and jokes of a sexual nature ("spanking the monkey", "choking the chicken", cross-dressing inuendos, use of handcuffs during sex, going to naked bars). In addition Nurse Miles filed a hostile work environment complaint against Petitioner because he allegedly threatened to spread rumors about her. Nurse Miles’ complaint did not involve sexual harassment. Nurse Nowak filed a sexual harassment complaint against Petitioner, but withdrew her complaint, indicating that she did not have a complaint with Petitioner and that she felt pressure to file her complaint. Nurse Spears did not file any complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner testified these nurses had been pressured into filing their complaints. However, he had no independent personal knowledge of such pressure and other than hearsay, offered no evidence of such pressure. Respondent, also did not offer any evidence demonstrating that such behavior was sexually harassing, as opposed to simply vengeful and petty behavior by a supervisor. On August 15, 2001, Dr. Gilo in front of co-workers and staff, called Petitioner, who is obese, a “fat lazy bum.” Petitioner filed a hostile work environment complaint against Dr. Gilo and an incident report was filed. The evidence demonstrated that Dr. Gilo was known for demeaning or belittling everyone and having a harsh manner. The comment was not related to any of the earlier complaints of the nurses, but to Dr. Gilo's irritation towards Petitioner for calling him at home. There was no evidence that demonstrated this comment constituted discrimination or harassment based on Petitioner's obesity. Likewise, there was no evidence that Petitioner's obesity was a handicap or viewed as a handicap by his employer. Respondent pursuant to its policy on sexual harassment complaints investigated the complaints. Several witness/co- worker statements were taken during the investigation that indicated Mr. Clardy, along with other employees, had made some statements or jokes of a sexual nature. The investigation took a considerable period of time. Again the record was not clear as to what caused the length of the investigation or whether the length of the investigation was unusual. However, on February 8, 2002, as a result of the investigation, Petitioner received a written reprimand for unspecified sexual jokes or comments. Petitioner filed a grievance regarding the reprimand. The grievance was denied in both Step 1 and Step 2 of the grievance process. There was no evidence that demonstrated either the undertaking of this investigation or the investigation itself constituted sexual harassment. However, on June 10, 2002, Petitioner filed a sexual harassment complaint against Respondent, the complaining nurses and Dr. Gilo for gender and disability discrimination. As with the nurses' complaints, the Respondent, pursuant to its policy, investigated Petitioner's complaints.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order affirming its decision that Petitioner is not eligible for services. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 7th day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald J. Clardy 115 Sioux Trail Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Joshua E. Laws, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment based on Petitioner's pregnancy and sexual harassment, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a family-owned business engaged in the retail sales of wine, spirits, cigars, specialty gourmet foods, and party favors. Respondent operates about 28 stores, mostly in south Florida. Respondent employs at least 225 employees. Its chief executive officer is Paul (Bubba) Kassal. Other executive officers, superior to Bubba Kassal, are his brother Michael, who also serves as vice-president of personnel, and their father, who, with his father, started the company in 1955. Respondent hired Petitioner on October 13, 2003, as a human resources manager. As such, Petitioner reported to the human resources director. At the time of hiring Petitioner, Bubba Kassal informed her, presumably secretly, of his intent to fire the existing human resources director. Six months later, after the termination of the human resources director, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position. As human resources director, Petitioner's primary duties were to ensure that all of Respondent's employees were paid, file all reports with the appropriate agencies, prepare internal employment policies, train managers in good hiring practices, run background checks, ensure compliance with all safety, workers' compensation and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) issues, terminate employees, counsel employees, file unemployment compensation reports, and participate in the strategic planning for new stores. The Kassals were satisfied with Petitioner's work performance during her entire employment with Respondent. Respondent's main offices are located in Ft. Lauderdale. While working for Respondent, Petitioner commuted over one hour each day from her home in Port St. Lucie to her office in the corporate headquarters. The issues in this case divide neatly into the claims of a hostile work environment and sex discrimination due to pregnancy. The claim of a hostile work environment pertains to Petitioner's first two years with Respondent, which were from late 2003 through late 2005. The claim of discrimination due to pregnancy pertains to Petitioner's last months with Respondent, which were from spring 2008 through fall 2008. As noted below, there is evidence supportive of a claim of a hostile work environment, although this evidence fails to establish such a claim for the reasons explained below. However, the limited evidence of a hostile work environment is in no way linked to the termination of Petitioner's employment in 2008 while she was pregnant. This termination, which was due to complications associated with her pregnancy, was essentially by mutual agreement and in no way was due to some form of quid pro quo sex discrimination or retaliation for her failure to reciprocate Michael Kassal's flirtation or infatuation. Petitioner's version of events for 2003-05 is credited because Michael Kassal did not testify. Petitioner's version of events for 2008 is largely uncredited due to some inconsistencies in her testimony where she implies, for instance, that she understood that Respondent might not keep open her existing job until after she delivered. Petitioner's version of events for 2008 is less than the more plausible testimony of Bubba Kassal and Respondent's outside counsel, Amy Galloway. Shortly after starting work, Petitioner began receiving unwelcome attention from Michael Kassal, whose office was near Petitioner's office. Michael Kassal, who was married at all material times, routinely complimented Petitioner's hairstyle, teeth, shoes, and clothes. When Respondent sponsored a wine tasting at its Port St. Lucie store, Michael Kassal invited Petitioner to attend. Michael Kassal repeatedly asked Petitioner to lunch or dinner. Petitioner went to lunch with Michael Kassal only a couple of times because she was uncomfortable with the level of attention that she was receiving. During her first year of employment, Petitioner was preoccupied with the demands of her job and largely ignored the uninvited attention that Michael Kassal directed toward her. During her second year of employment, Petitioner initiated corporate-wide training sessions in sexual harassment. She used these occasions to remind Michael Kassal, when he made her uncomfortable with his comments or behavior, that he knew better and he needed to stop such inappropriate behavior. Undeterred, Michael Kassal instead confided in Petitioner that he felt trapped in his marriage, could not leave his wife due to their two children, and believed that he would have been much happier if he had met Petitioner a couple of years earlier because they would have been so good together. Michael Kassal said that his wife, who was, at times, an employee of Respondent, was an alcoholic. Petitioner suggested that Michael Kassal or his wife take advantage of Respondent's employee assistance program. Michael Kassal rejected this advice and instead stated that, if Petitioner would not go out with him, he would go out with a woman at the gym where he worked out. On Petitioner's birthday, Michael Kassal routinely gave her a card. Petitioner kept only two of the cards and could not identify the years that they were received. One card contains a handwritten note: "And I need you more than want you[,] and I want you til the end of all time." Michael Kassal printed his name at the bottom of the note, adding a heart- shaped symbol in place of the dot over the "i." The other birthday card states: Dear Angella, It[']s presently July 10th and you are in India and I am wishing I were with you riding on Elephants and protecting you from the dangers so far from home. I must tell you we all miss you and only have kind thoughts about how professionally you have with us with Cami and Johanna. You have always blessed us with organization and administrative magic. I sit here and count the days before I can smell Victor[i]a's Secret Rapture perfume. Thank you for your intervention. You have been a breath of fresh air. I know it[']s been a whirlwind to some of us to catch up but it[']s worth the effort. I always have your back. I hope this year[']s birthday brings happiness and fills your heart with songs and sunshine. I hope you get a new pair of shoes and a toothbrush. Thanks again for all your loyalty and dedication. Sincerely, Michael Kassal. The "i" in "Michael" bears no dot or other symbol. Bubba Kassal testified that Michael sent birthday cards to all of the employees of the company and that this was part of the family atmosphere that characterizes the company, which continues a tradition of family picnics, employee fitness programs, and comprehensive fringe benefits. Bubba Kassal also testified that he and his brother kiss each morning. However, Bubba Kassal did not testify that the contents of the birthday cards quoted above resemble the contents of the birthday cards that Michael Kassal sends to, say, the company truck drivers or warehouse workers. The thoughtfulness that Michael Kassal extends daily to his brother and annually to his employees is distinct from the intimacies inherent in the shorter birthday card and the reference to smelling Petitioner's perfume again. These intimacies corroborate the portion of Petitioner's testimony that describes an inappropriate level of emotional attachment from Michael Kassal toward Petitioner; the inference easily follows that this level of emotional attachment is atypical of the conventional employer-employee relationship at Respondent. Three omissions loom large in Petitioner's proof of her claim of a hostile work environment. These omissions are considered in ascending order of significance. First, at no time during her employment with Respondent did Petitioner complain to anyone about Michael Kassal's behavior. She testified that she believed a complaint would be futile because Michael Kassal was the boss. Respondent countered with evidence that complaints about Michael Kassal's wife led to her termination and argument that Petitioner's complaints would likewise have received a fair hearing. Respondent's contention overlooks the fact that Michael's wife was convicted of driving under the influence, and her continued operation of a company vehicle presented an insurance problem for Respondent that could not be ignored. Petitioner is right on this point--her complaint would have been futile. Bubba Kassal was not in a position to control his brother, and, on this record, their father does not seem to have been playing a prominent role in the business during the time in question. Factually, the failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection to unwelcome sexual behavior in the workplace may sometimes undermine the credibility of the complainant. This is not the situation here, though, because, as noted above, Petitioner's version of events from 2003-05 is unrebutted and confirmed by two birthday cards. Legally, the failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection to unwelcome sexual behavior in the workplace may sometimes preclude a finding of notice to the employer, so as to preclude a conclusion of vicarious liability. This is not the situation here, though, because, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Michael Kassal was Respondent for purpose of establishing notice and concluding vicarious liability for his behavior. The second omission is that nothing in the record establishes that the behavior of Michael Kassal impeded Petitioner's work performance. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, this omission is not outcome-determinative, but, as noted above, Petitioner's work was always satisfactory, at least until her health deteriorated during her pregnancy, which is discussed below. The third omission is that the evidence fails to establish that Michael Kassal continued to lavish inappropriate attention on Petitioner after the end of 2005. The record is silent as to the nature of the relationship between Michael Kassal and Petitioner for the two and one-half years from the end of 2005 until the disclosure of her pregnancy in the spring of 2008. It is at least as plausible that, unfueled by any encouragement from Petitioner, Michael Kassal's infatuation with her tapered off after a couple of years, rather than burned with the same intensity for four and one-half years. The behavior of Michael Kassal from late 2003 through late 2005 suggests nothing more than an infatuation with Petitioner, which, however inappropriate, excludes the sexually charged actions of offensive touching or sexually explicit invitations or comments. The behavior in this case is limited to unaccepted invitations to lunch, dinner, and dates, inappropriate revelations about Michael Kassal's personal life, and transparent attempts at flattery that, at their best, suggest a failure to recognize boundaries and, at their worst, wander between the narcissistic and infantile. The record is not especially rich in detailing Petitioner's response to the inappropriate attention lavished on her by Michael Kassal, except that there is no indication whatsoever that Petitioner welcomed the attention, reciprocated in any fashion, or was in any way flattered by Michael Kassal's two-year infatuation. There is some evidence that the attention made Petitioner embarrassed and somewhat uncomfortable, but this evidence is insufficient to establish that Petitioner's subjective reaction took the form of a feeling that she was physically threatened or personally humiliated or that she was laboring under an alteration of her working conditions. Such reactions, if they had occurred, would have been disproportionate to the level of attention that Michael Kassal directed toward Petitioner. Except for the frequency of comments about attire or appearance, which may have occurred on a daily basis, the record fails to establish the frequency of the invitations to lunch, dinner, and dates or the inappropriate revelations about Michael Kassal's personal life, but these occurrences were probably infrequent. Objectively considered, none of Michael Kassal's behavior was physically threatening or humiliating, none of his behavior was so pervasive or severe as to alter the conditions of Petitioner's employment, and none of his behavior could reasonably have adversely affected Petitioner's work performance. Based on these findings and the Conclusions of Law below, Petitioner has failed to prove a hostile work environment from 2003-05. The inception of the claims arising out of Respondent's treatment of her pregnancy is March or April 2008, when Petitioner learned that she was pregnant and due to deliver in November. In June, Petitioner decided to reveal her pregnancy to family, friends, and Respondent. On the morning that Petitioner had decided to inform Respondent of her pregnancy, the first person who came to her office was Bubba Kassal. He congratulated Petitioner, laughingly saying, in a manner that did not offend Petitioner, that he did not know that she had a boyfriend. Bubba Kassal then spoke of his two boys and added that he was sorry that Petitioner's mother was no longer alive to support her at this time. Bubba Kassal called his mother and told her, and she called Petitioner the next day and congratulated her. The record does not disclose whether Petitioner told Michael Kassal at this time, or, if she did, the nature of his response. A short while later, on June 13, Petitioner had an office visit with her physician, who became concerned about her high blood pressure. The physician asked if Petitioner could work at home, and Petitioner assured him that she could. The physician wrote a note to this effect. Driving back to the office, Petitioner called Ms. Galloway, with whom Petitioner had worked on human-resource issues. Petitioner told Ms. Galloway about her pregnancy, the health risks, and the support that she had already received from "the Kassals." Ms. Galloway advised Petitioner just to go in and tell them that she needed to work at home. Toward this end, Petitioner arranged a meeting with Michael and Bubba Kassal on June 18. At the meeting, Petitioner gave the Kassals a copy of her physician's note. Petitioner acknowledged that she had been with Respondent a long time, and she thanked them for the work that she had been allowed to do. She mentioned her pregnancy complications, which included blacking out and falling--these made the long drive between work and home especially dangerous. Petitioner offered to recruit someone to replace her, but she wanted to be kept on the payroll in return for performing various human resource duties as best as she could, mostly from home. Michael Kassal reacted to the request poorly. He replied that it had not been his idea to purchase a house so far from the office in Port St. Lucie, and the human resources director needed to be onsite. Notwithstanding Michael Kassal's reaction, Respondent accepted Petitioner's request, as Bubba Kassal and Petitioner generally agreed to an arrangement in which Petitioner would continue to be paid her normal salary through delivery in return for working on human resources matters on a limited basis. An important component of the understanding reached at the June 18 meeting was its term, which was through the birth of the baby. Bubba Kassal asked what would happen if, after baby was born, Petitioner decided not to return to work. Petitioner was unable to promise that she would return to work, but replied that she needed to work, and she could bring her aunt from Jamaica to watch the baby. Bubba Kassal asked when the work-at- home arrangement would go into effect, and Petitioner replied it was intended to go into effect right away, but she would try to work with them and offered to help find someone to perform her duties in her absence. Bubba Kassal replied that he had someone in mind. Petitioner herself testified that Bubba Kassal asked what would happen if they liked the replacement, and Petitioner replied that she understood that they had a business to run, implying that, consistent with this understanding, they might not have a position for her after the baby were born, just as she might not want to return to work with Respondent. Bubba Kassal promised to memorialize the understandings reached at the meeting. Despite the doctor's orders, Petitioner continued to report to the office until the July 4 weekend. At that time, she asked Bubba Kassal about the document to memorialize their understandings, and he said that Amy Galloway was working on it. On July 7, Ms. Galloway emailed to Bubba Kassal a draft letter agreement, which, among other things, confirmed that neither party was committing to Petitioner's ongoing employment after the birth of the baby. On July 8, Petitioner sent an email to Bubba and Michael Kassal and Ms. Galloway advising them that she was on bed rest and would submit FMLA paperwork as soon as possible. For some reason, the recipients did not receive this email, so they were unaware in early July of the status of Petitioner, who, understandably, did not undertake any unnecessary communications during her period of bed rest in order to save the baby. On July 11, Petitioner visited the doctor, who found that her blood pressure had soared to 200/100. Petitioner talked him out of ordering an ambulance to take her to the hospital, but the doctor ordered bed rest for Petitioner. By this time, Petitioner realized that, for the remainder of her pregnancy, she would not be able to perform even at the limited level that she had said she would work at the June 18 meeting. From this point forward, the June 18 understanding was superseded by Petitioner's medical issues. On July 11, Petitioner returned to the office briefly to advise her staff that she would be going home for the time being. While at the office, she saw an invoice from Ms. Galloway's law firm that reflected legal research conducted a couple of days after the June 18 meeting and concerned the Title VII ramifications of Petitioner's situations. Petitioner assumed that Respondent was terminating her and began to cry. On the same day, Petitioner returned to the doctor's office and had him complete the FMLA paperwork, which Petitioner had previously thought was unnecessary. The necessity for FMLA paperwork was as much Petitioner's realization, on July 11, that she could not perform even the limited duties contemplated by the June 18 understanding as her discovery, also on July 11, that Respondent had ordered its counsel to research Title VII. Later on July 11, Petitioner returned to the office with the completed FMLA paperwork and left it for Bubba Kassal. Pursuant to this paperwork, the FMLA period, during which Respondent would have to keep open her job, expired before the projected delivery date. On July 14, Petitioner returned a telephone call of Ms. Galloway and updated her on her condition. As Ms. Galloway confirmed in an email of the same date to Bubba Kassal, Petitioner wanted to take her FMLA time and understood that she would not be able to perform the transitioning tasks contemplated in the June 18 understanding. Ms. Galloway promised Petitioner that she would discuss with Bubba Kassal a reworking of her benefits, including maintaining present health benefits and obtaining disability benefits. On August 5, Petitioner sent an email to Bubba and Michael Kassal advising that she had not received her paycheck on August 2 and stating that she "continued" to be available to perform her end of the June 18 understanding. This is an attempt to document a fact that was untrue: Petitioner had not been able to perform her responsibilities under the June 18 understanding at any time after July 11. Ten minutes after receiving the email, Bubba Kassal emailed Ms. Galloway stating that they would proceed by paying Petitioner disability benefits through the birth, paying the company's portion of the health insurance until the birth, and giving Petitioner access to her company laptop computer and cellphone until October 1 in return for a release, presumably from any employment-related liability claims. It is impossible to infer that Bubba Kassal was miffed at Petitioner's misstatement, but it is likely that the misstatement motivated Bubba Kassal to define the status of Petitioner's employment relationship. By letter dated August 5 from a human relations employee to Ms. Galloway, the position of Respondent was documented, at least internally. This letter states that Petitioner's FMLA start date is July 11, 2008, and end date is October 4, 2008. This letter restates the undertakings that Bubba Kassal detailed in his August 5 email and notes that Petitioner has exhausted all of her sick and vacation time. The letter notes that the June 18 understanding was superseded by Petitioner's subsequent incapacitation. On August 14, Ms. Galloway emailed a letter to Petitioner reiterating much of the contents of the August 5 email and noting that, due to Petitioner's emergent health needs, Respondent had hired an acting human resources director on July 28. Ms. Galloway's letter restates the conditions set forth in Bubba Kassal's email of August 5, adding only that there is no expectation that Petitioner can perform any human resource duties and omitting the request for a release. A couple of weeks later, Petitioner emailed a brief message to Ms. Galloway acknowledging receipt of the letter and thanking her for all that she "does," but not otherwise responding to the letter. On October 8, Ms. Galloway sent another letter to Petitioner noting that the FMLA period had expired and that Respondent continued to perform the conditions detailed in the August 14 letter. The letter asks for the return of the laptop computer and cellphone. On November 5, Petitioner delivered her baby. One month later, she spoke with Ms. Galloway exploring, in Ms. Galloway's opinion, the possibility of returning, if her replacement were not working out, or obtaining additional severance pay. Ms. Galloway explained the company's view that the termination was voluntary, not involuntary. Eventually, Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner another week's salary, through July 18, and extended her insurance through December 31, so that Petitioner would have another chance to exercise her COBRA rights. Respondent advised that it was treating Petitioner's termination date as October 4, which was when the FMLA period had expired. There is no evidence of discrimination in Respondent's handling of Petitioner's pregnancy. Respondent assigned no role of substance in the 2008 events to Michael Kassal, whose objections to the June 18 understanding were completely ignored. There is no evidence that the company's actions in 2008 were influenced in any way by Michael Kassal's 2003-05 infatuation. Petitioner testified to a 4-6 week period during which she had previously worked at home. However, this earlier period of working at home was when Petitioner was engaged in the solitary task of converting payroll systems on the computer, and she needed a quiet place to work. Working at home under these conditions is entirely appropriate. During this period, Petitioner was working exclusively on this task, leaving her other human resources duties to others or deferring them until the conversion was finished. Any insistence by Respondent in 2008 that Petitioner work in the office is justified because Petitioner's duties generally required her to be in the office, where she would be available for, among other things, drop-in visits by corporate management needing assistance in the wide range of personnel matters that arise daily in a business of this size. However, Petitioner's claim of discriminatory treatment regarding working at home misses the larger point that, in the June 18 understanding, Respondent allowed her to work at home for the duration of her pregnancy. This understanding was defeated, not by Respondent's insistence that she work in the office, but by Petitioner's deteriorating medical condition. Petitioner also testified that Respondent allowed other managers to work at home. Again, this proof overlooks the fact that Respondent also allowed Petitioner to work at home under the June 18 understanding, and her subsequent inability to do so was due to her deteriorating health, not the demands of Respondent. Also, the other situations are distinguishable, even if Respondent had prohibited Petitioner from working at home. While one district manager's wife recovered from a broken leg and another district manager recovered from a heart attack and stroke, they worked in some fashion, either with reduced hours in the office or reduced hours from home. Petitioner's situation was different in the nature of her duties, which were corporate-wide, not district-wide; the fact that she was completely unavailable for an extended period of time; and probably for the fact that, for a substantial period of time, she failed or was unable timely to communicate her situation to Respondent. Based on these findings, Petitioner has failed to prove any form of sex discrimination in Respondent's handling of her pregnancy in 2008.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2010 . COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Bogdan, Esquire Robert Anthony Bogdan, P.A. 410 Southeast 1st Terrace Pompano Beach, Florida 33060-7108 Salvatore H. Fasulo, Esquire Trip Scott, P.A. 110 Southeast Sixth Street, 15th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was sexually harassed and constructively discharged contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013), and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing HPC was a rehabilitation and long-term care facility with 180 beds.1/ Petitioner is a female who was employed at HCP as a certified nursing assistant (“CNA”). Petitioner was working at HCP during the evening of Friday, March 21, 2014. She had finished assisting with the transfer of residents from the dining area and was standing at a nurses’ station. Three other HCP employees (Derrick Hahn, Atrice Jones, and Erica Russell) were engaged in a conversation about seven feet from Petitioner. Mr. Hahn was a nurse supervisor. While he was in a position in which he could have supervised Petitioner, there was no testimony that he ever did so. Petitioner was standing with her back against a computer, and she was not participating in the conversation. Mr. Hahn turned to leave Ms. Jones and Ms. Russell. As he was doing so, he collided with Petitioner, and his chest made contact with her chest. At the final hearing, Mr. Hahn and Ms. Jones testified that the collision resulted from Mr. Hahn tripping over a wheelchair and losing his balance. Petitioner testified that there was no wheelchair, thus implying that Mr. Hahn intentionally collided with her. An unidentified person who witnessed the collision immediately asked aloud if Mr. Hahn was trying to run over the CNAs. Mr. Hahn replied by stating that the collision was a “love bug” or a “love bump” and walked away. Petitioner was disturbed by this incident went outside to compose herself. At some point, Petitioner continued with her duties. However, after 15 to 20 minutes, she decided to report the incident to her direct supervisor, Carrie Harper. Ms. Harper immediately called HCP’s facility supervisor, Tonya McAteer. After Petitioner described the incident to her, Ms. McAteer called the Director of Nursing, Holly Henry. Mr. Hahn did not return to work until Monday, March 24, 2014. When he did so, Ms. Henry and Joseph Ballay (the lead administrator of HCP) met with him to discuss the incident. Mr. Hahn told them that he had tripped over a wheelchair and that the collision with Petitioner was accidental. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry also met with Petitioner on March 24, 2014. Petitioner reported to them that Mr. Hahn intentionally collided with her. Mr. Ballay told Petitioner that an investigation would be initiated and that Petitioner would not be required to have any additional contact with Mr. Hahn. In order to maintain separation between Mr. Hahn and Petitioner, Ms. McAteer assumed full responsibility for supervising Petitioner. During their investigation, Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry talked to Atrice Jones, one of the nurses who were present when the incident occurred. Ms. Jones stated that the incident was accidental and that Mr. Hahn was embarrassed that he had collided with Petitioner. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry also conferred with other HCP employees but found no evidence that this incident was part of a continuing pattern of inappropriate conduct by Mr. Hahn. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry completed their investigation by Friday, March 28, 2014, and concluded that Mr. Hahn unintentionally collided with Petitioner. At the conclusion of their investigation, Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry admonished Mr. Hahn for describing the incident as a “love bug” or “love bump” after a bystander asked him if he was trying to run over the CNAs. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry also advised Mr. Hahn that an apology to Petitioner immediately after the incident would have been appropriate. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry spoke to Petitioner about the outcome of their investigation, but Petitioner did not agree with their conclusion. Over the next three months, there were no further incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Hahn. During her testimony, Petitioner cited no other instances of alleged misconduct by co-workers or supervisors. Petitioner’s employment with HCP ended in late July or early August of 2014. Petitioner testified that she voluntarily separated from HCP after concluding she could no longer work for an organization that did not care about her feelings. In contrast, Mr. Ballay testified that Petitioner was dismissed after she failed to report to work on July 30 and July 31, 2014. During the final hearing, the testimony differed as to what HCP’s management did immediately after the incident. Petitioner testified that three weeks passed before HCP’s management initiated its investigation. In contrast, Mr. Ballay testified that he and Ms. Henry completed their investigation within one week following the incident. As a matter of ultimate fact, the undersigned finds that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry completed their investigation by Friday, March 28, 2014. As noted above, the testimony also differed as to whether Mr. Hahn tripped over a wheelchair prior to colliding with Petitioner. In light of what Mr. Hahn said immediately after he collided with Petitioner and his failure to apologize, it is not surprising that Petitioner concluded that Mr. Hahn intentionally collided with her. However, even if Petitioner’s recollection were to be found more credible than that of the other witnesses, Petitioner’s allegations do not demonstrate that she was subjected to a hostile work environment or that she was constructively discharged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a very well-credentialed, internationally-recognized cancer researcher who is black and a native of Cameroon. He has been granted lawful permanent residence status in the United States (with an EB-1 classification, signifying that he is an alien with "extraordinary ability"). Petitioner received his Doctor of Medicine degree in 1999 from the University of Yaounde I in Cameroon. He spent the next five years as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York.3 He worked in the Department of Orthopaedics (under the supervision of Randy N. Rosier, M.D., Ph.D.) for the first two of these five years and the James P. Wilmont Cancer Center (under the supervision of Dr. Rosier and Joseph D. Rosenblatt, M.D.) for the remaining three years. Petitioner enjoyed a considerable amount of independence, and was "very productive," during his time at the University of Rochester Medical Center. In June 2005, Petitioner began working as a post- doctoral associate assigned to the Viral Oncology (VO) program at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (Sylvester) in Miami, Florida. He remained in this position until his termination (which he claims was discriminatorily motivated) in September 2006. Sylvester "serves as the hub for cancer-related research, diagnosis, and treatment at [UM's] Miller School of Medicine" (Miller). The VO program is administratively housed in the Division of Hematology/Oncology of Miller's Department of Medicine. Dr. Rosenblatt, Petitioner's former supervisor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the Chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology. According to the Sylvester website, the goals of the VO program include: Investigating the mechanisms of oncogenesis and innate immune subversion in viral associated cancers including those that arise in immunocompromised patients. Devising novel and targeted therapeutic and preventive strategies for viral associated malignancies. Implementing basic and clinical international collaborative studies in developing nations that have a high incidence of these tumors. William Harrington, Jr., M.D., is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, "in charge" of the VO program. Dr. Harrington, who is white, is a 1984 Miller graduate. He has been working for UM since his graduation 24 years ago. For the past 17 or 18 of these years, he has held positions having supervisory authority over other UM employees. As the head of the VO program, Dr. Harrington runs a "small" laboratory (Dr. Harrington's lab) staffed by a post- doctoral associate, lab technicians, and a research nurse (all of whom he directly supervises). Dr. Harrington's lab is a "hundred percent funded by [competitive] peer review grants": four from the National Institutes of Health (NIH); one from the Leukemia Society; and one from the State of Florida. It is "one of the best-funded labs" at UM. In addition to running his lab, Dr. Harrington also sees and treats patients at UM's Jackson Memorial Medical Center (Jackson Memorial). Approximately 95% of his patients are indigent, with a large number of them being of African descent (black). Dr. Harrington "specializes" in viral lymphomas, with a strong emphasis on diseases that occur predominantly in persons of African descent (certain AIDS-related lymphomas, HTLV-related lymphomas, and Burkitt lymphoma). Over the years, Dr. Harrington has had occasion to do work outside the United States, in areas where these diseases are prevalent, including the Afro-Brazilian state of Bahia, where, approximately 12 years ago, he met his wife Tanya, who is of African descent. Dr. Harrington has also "worked with colleagues in Zambia . . . on AIDS-related lymphomas and pediatric Burkitt lymphomas." Approximately seven or eight years ago, Dr. Harrington "sponsored post-doc[toral] trainees from Zambia in his lab." Dr. Harrington was introduced to Petitioner by Dr. Rosenthal. After reviewing Petitioner's "bio-sketch," Dr Harrington interviewed Petitioner and was sufficiently impressed to offer Petitioner an unadvertised post-doctoral position in his lab. Dr. Harrington hired Petitioner because Petitioner had the "skillset" Dr. Harrington was looking for. Dr. Harrington was particularly influenced by Petitioner's background, including publications, in NF-kappaB signaling, which was an "area[] of [Dr. Harrington's] interest." Moreover, Dr. Harrington thought Petitioner was a "smart capable man." At the time he hired Petitioner, Dr. Harrington was aware Petitioner was black and from Cameroon. Neither Petitioner's race, nor his national origin, played any role in Dr. Harrington's hiring decision. As a post-doctoral associate, Petitioner was the "senior lab person" working under Dr. Harrington's supervision. He was expected to assume a "higher level [of responsibility] than other staff personnel in [the] lab . . . in terms of doing a given set of experiments or [other] work." Dr. Harrington and Petitioner initially enjoyed a cordial working relationship. They had "excellent rapport" and even socialized after work hours. At Dr. Harrington's invitation, Petitioner came over to Dr. Harrington's house approximately "every other Friday" and for the Thanksgiving holiday. Although Dr. Harrington did not hire Petitioner specifically to "build[] international research programs," once Petitioner was hired, Dr. Harrington did discuss the matter with Petitioner, and he authorized Petitioner to initiate contact with cancer investigators in Cameroon to explore the possibility of their collaborating with Dr. Harrington on a project involving NF-kappaB signaling and Burkitt lymphoma. After having received Dr. Harrington's authorization, Petitioner "made contact with some of [his] mentors back in Cameroon, all [of whom were] involved in [Cameroon's] national cancer control program." On July 13, 2005, Dr. Harrington himself sent an e- mail to these Cameroonian investigators, which read as follows: Thank you Dr. Mouelsone for your response. I was considering putting together a project on Burkitt lymphomas that would principally be a study on the biology of the tumor in endemic and HIV associated cases. We would collaborate with investigators in Brazil and Africa. The study would be focused on targets that could be exploited in novel therapies as well the role of ebv [Epstein Barr virus] in different types of tumors. We already have IRB approval for collection of residual lymphoma specimens as well as protocols for the processing that would be required. A challenge in any grant is keeping the project focused and attractive scientifically for the reviewers. The participating center would have to have the capability to identify and consent patients as well as processing and storage . . . . Therefore one would need reagents, a research nurse (maybe 50%) salary and liquid nitrogen dewar as well as some support for a PI. Maybe I could send everyone the aims of a recently submitted grant to see if it would be possible. I could send our informed consent document since it broadly covers all viral associated tumors. I am attaching a recent article and I sincerely appreciate your help. I also am a fan of the Cameroon's football team the "indomitable lions." Dr. Harrington ultimately determined to collaborate exclusively with the Brazilian investigators, with whom he had a longstanding professional relationship, and not with the Cameroonian investigators, on this particular project. During the first several months of Petitioner's employment, he engaged in research involving NF-kappaB signaling. He also helped write an article (entitled, "Zidovudine: A Potential Targeted Therapy for Endemic Burkitt Lymphoma") that was published in the East African Medical Journal. When presented with the draft of the article that Petitioner had prepared, Dr. Harrington commented to Petitioner (by e-mail dated July 28, 2005), "[T]his is better than the one I wrote." Petitioner also contributed to the preparation of a successful NIH grant application submitted on September 1, 2005, by Dr. Harrington (as Principal Investigator/Program Director) seeking funding for his lab, as well as for collaborators in Brazil and at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to "investigate in primary BLs [Burkitt lymphomas] the form of EBV [Epstein Barr virus] latency and its relationship to NF- k[appa]B"; to "determine the susceptibility of primary tumor cell lines to antiviral apoptosis"; and to "investigate commonly available, inexpensive agents that are known to induce the EBV lytic cycle and potentiate phosphorylation of AZT [azidothymidine, also known as Zidovudine]." The grant application was "based on . . . work that had been done [prior] to [Petitioner's coming to work in Dr. Harrington's lab]." The following individuals were listed as the "key personnel" on the grant application: Dr. Harrington; Iguaracyra Araujo, M.D., of Brazil; Jose Barreto, M.D., of Brazil; Carlos Brites, M.D., Ph.D., of Brazil; Dirk Dittmer, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Isildinha Reis, Ph.D., of UM. The following statements were made on the grant application concerning Dr. Reis' and Petitioner's anticipated roles in the proposed project: Isidinha Reis, Ph.D. (Biostatistician) will be in charge of the statistical component of this project including periodic analysis of data pertaining to this grant. She will participate in phone conferences with Ms. Shank and Luz. She will be particularly important for the conduct of this study since she is Brazilian by birth and fluent in Portuguese. 7.5% support is requested. Valentine Andela (Post Doctoral Fellow) will be in charge of all the day-to-day laboratory aspects of Dr. Harrington's component of the project. This includes receipt of isolates shipped from Brazil and then forwarding them to Dr. Dittmer, cell culture, DNA and RNA preparation and hybridization, EMSA and immunoblot analysis, cryopreservation of samples, etc. 50% support is requested. In the fall of 2005, Dr. Harrington discussed with Petitioner an article published in a "science magazine" that reported on Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) microRNAs, which, at the time, was a relatively unexplored area of research and one in which Dr. Harrington "definitely [did] not" have any "expertise." During the discussion, Petitioner expressed an interest in studying EBV microRNAs. Dr. Harrington "agreed [this] would be an interesting project to pursue," and he "thought [Petitioner] could do a good job" on it. With Dr. Harrington's approval, Petitioner thereafter started his research of EBV microRNAs, a project that consumed most of his work time during the remainder of his employment with UM. The project included helping draft a manuscript detailing the findings of the research. The experiments that Petitioner did as part of the project were on tumor samples that had been "collect[ed]" and "intial[ly] analy[zed]" by Brazilian investigators with whom Dr. Harrington had collaborated with in the past. In November 2005, Petitioner advised Dr. Harrington that he was considering participating in a clinical residency program, and Dr. Harrington "agreed to help [Petitioner] out" in any efforts he might make to seek a residency position. At Petitioner's request, Dr. Harrington wrote a letter of reference (dated November 16, 2005), "highly recommending" Petitioner for such a position. Dr. Harrington indicated in his letter, among other things, that in the "relatively brief time" that Petitioner had worked for him, Petitioner had "exceeded [Dr. Harrington's] expectations and made novel findings in the area of lymphoma and Epstein Barr virus." In addition to writing this letter of reference, Dr. Harrington, on Petitioner's behalf, contacted Stephen Symes, M.D., who at the time was the "head of the [Jackson Memorial medical] house staff program." Dr. Symes told Dr. Harrington that the "logical thing for [Petitioner] to [first] do [was] . . . a clinical rotation" at a teaching hospital, such as Jackson Memorial (during which he would act as either an observer or as an actual member of a medical team). Petitioner had planned to participate in a two-week clinical rotation at Jackson Memorial in December 2005, but had to change his plans because, when December came, he was still immersed in the EBV microRNA research project he had undertaken and had no time to do the rotation. Dr. Harrington was pleased with the quality of the work that Petitioner was doing on the project. In an e-mail he sent Petitioner on March 6, 2006, Dr. Harrington stated that he was "really excited about [Petitioner's] work," which he described as "novel and probably the best thing to come out of [his] little lab." On or about March 20, 2006, Dr. Harrington provided Petitioner with his written annual performance evaluation. He gave Petitioner an overall rating of "exceeds standards," with Petitioner receiving an "exceeds" rating in the categories of "Job Knowledge," "Supervision Required," "Quality of Work," "Adaptability," "Customer Service," and "Safety," and a "meets" rating in the category of "Time Management." Dr. Harrington made the following handwritten comment on the evaluation with respect to the latter category: I would like him to maintain more regular hours but his work is outstanding. Dr. Harrington felt compelled to make this comment because, although he "liked the work [Petitioner] was doing," "there were issues [regarding Petitioner's] disappearing for long periods of time [from Dr. Harrington's lab without telling Dr. Harrington where he was] and [Dr. Harrington] thought that this was becoming problematic." These "unexplained absences" from the lab were becoming more frequent and Dr. Harrington felt like Petitioner was "pushing the envelope." The improvements that Dr. Harrington had hoped to see in Petitioner's attendance did not materialize, and the relationship between the two deteriorated precipitously. On March 29, 2006, following a confrontation he had with Dr. Harrington, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Dr. Harrington, in which he advised: I did not mean to be rude this afternoon and you are absolutely right in pointing out that I am tense and consequently reactive. All things considered, I am putting undue pressure on myself. I am pretty much accepted in the Master of Arts in International Administration (MAIA) program at the UM. It is a professional degree program that puts a lot of weight on a practicum of the degree candidate[']s choice. I had proposed to implement the strategy articulated in the attached manuscript, which was previously funded in 2003 by an NCI-UICC grant for international cancer research and technology transfer. I am going to commit[] to the MAIA program, get it done in a year, and then reassess. I can go on to work in international developmental aid or go on to do a residency. If I was pushing for a tenure track faculty position, it is in part because I wanted to pursue the first option, but do it gradually over 3 years under your wing. Of course, I was counting on that plan being in line with your grand scheme, i.e. developing international programs. Dr. Harrington responded that same day by sending Petitioner the following e-mail: Ok I can help you with letters etc. I understand and that sounds like a good program. I want to expand these studies to Africa and hopefully in the future we can work together. I need your help on this paper. I think you have done very nice work. Things are pretty tough in the academic arena these days. A few days later, on April 1, 2006, Dr. Harrington, upset with what he felt was Petitioner's continuing lack of respect for his supervisory authority over the operation of the lab, sent Petitioner an e-mail, in which he stated the following: I have given this some thought and I don't think that this is working out with you. I am tired to see that you have simply disappeared without even a word to me and although you do very nice work it isn't worth it to me at this point. I also did not like the way you simply dismissed the fact that I had to do the work as outlined in the grant. I have tried very hard to go out of my way to accommodate you but at this point I feel that I have no authority at all. I want you to sit down on Monday and give me all the data for this paper, raw and otherwise. I also received all the pictures from Iguarcyra and the tumors are on the way. If you don't want to finish this then I will send everything to [D]irk. It is too bad because there is a lot we could have accomplished. Later that month, on April 28, 2006, reacting to another instance of Petitioner's being away from the lab when he was expecting Petitioner to be there, Dr. Harrington sent the following e-mail to Petitioner: I have been waiting around here to look at the figures. If you don't come in you should call, or if you leave for the majority of the day, you should call. I have spoken to you about this to no avail. You are a smart guy but am sick of this. Finish your paper and find another job. You will have to leave the computer here too. I will not ask for a raise for you nor a faculty position. Dr. Harrington sent Petitioner a follow-up e-mail the next day, which read as follows: I really am disgusted. You have thrown away everything this year, both for you and me. Your unstable behavior makes me question everything you have done also and so I will have to cancel submitting this paper until Lan[4] or JC can repeat some of the work. You are throwing away your tuition benefits also and have adversely affected everyone, most of all yourself. I have contacted the appropriate ones about this. I strongly urge you to do all I have outlined below.[5] I will not consider anything else. In an April 30, 2006, e-mail to Dr. Harrington, Petitioner responded: I will let the facts speak for themselves. Prior to joining your lab, I spent over five years working in a highly interactive and competitive environment. My record is infallible. You have in fact benefited tremendously from my intellect, my experience and especially my poise. I trust you would assemble an ethics committee to probe my work. I expect a letter of termination in due form and I would transfer all of the research material accordingly. This e-mail generated the following response from Dr. Harrington, which was communicated to Petitioner later that day by e-mail: Poise, what a joke. If you walk off with the data and th[]e computer I will call security. The morning of May 2, 2006, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Dr. Harrington: Dear Dr. Harrington: Per your request, I will transfer everything to Lan no later than next week, Monday the 8th. This was all a set up anyway, to bog me down in the lab. So I would not make a fuss about any of this. I will put this all behind me. Nonetheless, I have backed up every relevant document that exonerates me from any denigration. In a way, I should thank you for throwing me out to the world and bringing me to face my fears. So thank you. Valentine Dr. Harrington replied a little more than a hour later, stating in an e-mail to Petitioner: I have always t[h]ought that you were the smartest person that has worked for me. Your work is really beautiful and I certainly could not have done it. I am very disturbed over this and I don't see why you could not level with me. Your behavior at times was just too much, not your demeanor but the fact that you simply went on mental walkabouts and disappeared. You have to get a grip on your ego and not wear it on your sleeve. I had really thought we could have basically kicked ass in this area but I don't think that you realize the precarious nature of this business and that you have to be careful about straying into something or somebody that will leave you []no[] grant money. Valentine you can ask Joe. I spent most of my time bragging about your work to everyone. If you are smart, which you obviously are, then you don't have to go around telling that to people, they know. The most important thing is that you get along with people and when you would just not show up without even calling it really pissed me off. It was telling me that I am not even worth a phone call. I can be a real asshole, again ask Joe, and I have done myself harm from being so. But like it or not I am a lot older and more senior than you. You will far surpass me in research if you get a grip on your ego. If not there will be an ever shrinking number of people that care. I would like for you to call me on my beeper or cell. Petitioner defended himself in the following manner in an e-mail he sent to Harrington later that morning: You cannot say that I [am] an egomaniac. I give of myself and I give very generously. That is the record I left in Rochester and that is the record I have left in your lab. To say people there will be an ever shrinking number of people who care is again not true. You should know that whenever I call[ed] on a favor from Rochester, for example getting into the . . . MA in Intl Admin [program], the response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. I never thought I was smart and never said it. This much I know, I work very hard and I have a generous heart and I will not l[]ose my way. Those are all the values I ever had and I will stick to it. God promised the path would be rough, but the landing would be safe. Again, thank you. Valentine. The final e-mail of the morning was sent by Dr. Harrington to Petitioner. In it, Dr. Harrington informed Petitioner: I am trying to get in contact with the [B]razilians and check on the id of the sa[m]ples one final time and I will try to submit the paper this week. The "paper" to which Dr. Harrington was referring in his e-mail was the manuscript (written by both Petitioner and Dr. Harrington) of the EBV microRNA research project Petitioner was spearheading (EBV microRNA Manuscript). On or about May 12, 2006, following an instance of Petitioner's not "com[ing] in [to the lab] nor call[ing] to advise [Dr. Harrington] of [his absence]," Dr. Harrington spoke with Petitioner about his "unexcused absences" and provided him with specific verbal instructions regarding his attendance and use of his work time. In a May 12, 2006, e-mail, Dr. Harrington informed Desiree Uptgrow of Sylvester's human resources office of the talk he had had with Petitioner and the directives he had given him. The e-mail read as follows: I spoke to Mr. Andela regarding his unexcused absences from work. I referred to the recent time on Friday, when he did not come in nor call to advise me of this. I also spoke to him about concentrating on work and not other activities while in the lab. I will not excuse this or any further incidents. He is expected to comply with the following: 1) arrival at work at a reasonable hour, by this I mean between the hours of 9 to 10 am and cessation of work at a reasonable hour by this I mean 5-6 pm. 2) Weekly goals will be outlined by me in terms of expected experiments to be performed (of course results may vary since the nature of research may not be predictable). 3) an attitude of collegiality in that if there is down time for whatever reason help would be offered by him to other lab personnel. 4) no unexplained long absences from the lab during the day. An expected lunch break of an hour is acceptable. Further deviations from the above will result in a second and third entry into his file whereupon he will be subject to dismissal. William Harrington MD As he put it in his testimony at the final hearing, Dr. Harrington "had no problem with [Petitioner's] going somewhere for an hour or going somewhere for a couple of hours and doing something, but [he] had problems with [Petitioner's] simply disappearing and not giving [him] . . . the courtesy of letting [him] know what was going on." On June 1, 2006, Dr. Harrington (as the corresponding author) submitted the EBV microRNA Manuscript (which was entitled, "Targeted Suppression of CXCL11/I-TAC by EBV encoded BHRF1-3 microRNA in EBV related B-Cell Lymphomas" and is hereinafter referred to as the "First Manuscript") to Blood, a medical journal published by the American Society of Hematology. Petitioner was listed as the first author in the manuscript. Among the other individuals given authorship credit were the Brazilian investigators. It was Dr. Harrington's decision to include them. He felt that "they clearly deserved to be co- authors" and that "it would have been unethical to not have included them." Petitioner disagreed with Dr. Harrington's assessment of the Brazilian investigators' entitlement to authorship credit. In a July 17, 2006, decision letter, Blood's associate editor advised Dr. Harrington that the First Manuscript had been evaluated and deemed "not acceptable for publication in Blood." On July 20, 2006, after what he considered to be further instances of insubordinate conduct on Petitioner's part, Dr. Harrington sent an e-mail to Ms. Uptgrow (as a follow-up to the May 12, 2006, e-mail he had previously sent her), in which he stated the following: There have been a couple of recent incidents which I want to submit in writing. Last week Mr. Andela called me and said that his flight from DC was cancelled or overbooked and he would be late. I replied that this was OK but he never called, emailed or showed up to work. Yesterday he came in past 11 am and also did not call. More concerning is that I had asked him to set up an experiment and later asked my lab tech to assist. When I spoke to my tech this morning he told me that Mr. Andela was not doing the experiment because he saw no reason to. I consider this to be insubordination. Later that same day (July 20, 2006), Ms. Uptgrow sent an e-mail to Nicole Lergier and Lynetta Jackson of Miller's human resources office advising of Dr. Harrington's desire for "assist[ance] in the termination of [Petitioner] based on [Petitioner's] continue[d] lack of following instructions " The afternoon of July 24, 2006, Dr. Harrington and Petitioner engaged in the following argumentative e-mail exchange, evidencing the further decline of their relationship: 1:51 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner I asked you to do the bl-8 line and Peterson line. I don't care to hear that you chose not to do them. 2:05 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about - and it is very disconcerting. I told you we had done the BL8 line and you told Lan to send the Peterson line to Dittmer for profiling. That's where we left off on that - this was reiterated at the meeting you convened with Lisa, Lan, Julio and I. 2:10 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner No that is not true. Lan said that you did not want to do another primary and I said repeatedly that I wanted it done. Your problem [V]alentine is that you think that you are in charge, ie I want a tenured position, I don't want to do old things etc. while I have to keep the grant money coming in. I respect your ability to do certain things and you are a s[m]art guy but clearly you would prefer to be autonomous. The question is how do you attain that. 2:44 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington Dr. Harrington- that is hearsay - you and I had this conversation over the BL8 and the P[e]terson and I said the BL8 had been done and I would run the P[e]terson line in parallel with the dicer exp[erimen]t, once I had gotten the conditions right. I don't think I am in charge - and just how could I, when day in and day out you seek to undermine every "independent" effort I make, that's what[']s expected of a post-doctoral fellow... Every independent effort I have led has panned out - not because I am smart but because I put the time and effort to think it through. When I joined your lab, it was on a 1 year stint - and now I am starting on my second year because you[] wanted it that way. I joined your lab to work on NFkappB, which is what you are funded for and what I had some expertise in, but then you had me work on something totally novel - miRNAs - and the work is done. If I asked for a tenure track position - it is because I recognized (or I thought I did) that you needed someone permanent in the lab - furthermore I was investing too much time and effort on the miRNA work... despite my best efforts (which you do not acknowledge) this is not working out. So I am going right back to the drawing board by doing a residency - we had agreed on this back in May that I was taking a month off in August to do a rotation. I am taking off to Europe for a short vacation on the 6th of August to prepare for my 2 week clinical rotation. So to answer your question - I am giving up on any autonomy and I am going right back to doing a residency. 3:02 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner You never told me about vacation time but ok... you said you would be out for aug (without pay) so am I to presume that aug 6th will be your last day? We don't seem to get along and that's that, no hard feelings. 3:09 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington August 5th would be my last day. 3:17 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner And I will try my best to make sure that happens[.] [Up] until the 5th I would appreciate it if you did run Peterson and bl-8 since they will be cleaner than the primaries. Although not obligated to do so, Dr. Harrington agreed to make sure that Petitioner was paid for the two weeks that, according to his July 24, 2006, 2:44 p.m. e-mail to Dr. Harrington, he was going to be spending doing his clinical rotation (after his trip to Europe). Petitioner left Miami on August 5, 2006, and went to Russia to participate in a two-week "short course" for which he received three credits towards his MAIA degree at UM. (He had enrolled in the MAIA degree program earlier that year.) On August 10, 2006, while he was still in Russia, Petitioner sent the following reply to an e-mail he had received from Dr. Harrington "regarding when [his] return date from the 2 week clinical rotation would be": Sorry I missed that - the 8th of September. Thanks. Petitioner returned to Miami from Russia on August 18 or 19, 2006, "exhausted" and "burned out." He stayed home to rest until returning to work on September 8, 2006. He never did the clinical rotation he told Dr. Harrington he was going to do, but he nonetheless was paid by UM (as Dr. Harrington said he would be) for the two weeks he represented he was going to be engaged in this activity. At no time during his absence from work did Petitioner tell Dr. Harrington he was, in fact, not doing a clinical rotation. He concealed this information because he "wanted to avoid a confrontation" with Dr. Harrington. Dr. Harrington, however, was not entirely in the dark about the matter. On August 22, 2006, through e-mail correspondence, he had checked with Dr. Symes to see if Petitioner had "ever showed up for a clinical rotation" at Jackson Memorial and had been told by Dr. Symes that he had "not heard from [Petitioner] at all." When Petitioner returned to work on September 8, 2006, Dr. Harrington asked him for documentation showing that he had done a clinical rotation at Jackson Memorial during the time he had been away. Petitioner told Dr. Harrington that he did not have any such documentation. Dr. Harrington understood Petitioner to "follow[] that up by saying he had done a clinical rotation in Rochester." Dr. Harrington then "asked [Petitioner] for documentation of that clinical rotation," which Petitioner was unable to produce. The conversation ended with Dr. Harrington telling Petitioner to leave the lab and go home, explaining that he would be bringing the matter to the attention of the human resources office. At this point, Dr. Harrington had decided that it was "just impossible to continue the working relationship" he had with Petitioner and that Petitioner had to be terminated. He was convinced that Petitioner had lied to him about doing a clinical rotation and that, by having been absent from work for the two weeks he was supposed to have been doing such a rotation, Petitioner had effectively abandoned his job. Moreover, Dr. Harrington felt that Petitioner had "exploited" him and was continuing to disregard his supervisory authority. Later in the morning on September 8, 2006, Petitioner sent Dr. Harrington the following e-mail: Hi Dr. Harrington This is just written confirmation that you asked me not to resume work today and to stay away until you had convened a meeting with human resources. Thanks Valentine Petitioner never returned to Dr. Harrington's lab. September 8, 2006, was his last day in the "work environment" of the lab. As he had promised he would, Dr. Harrington made contact (by e-mail) with the human resources office. He concluded the e-mail by stating: At this point, under no circumstances will I allow Mr. Andela back into my lab and he is dismissed. Lynetta Jackson of the human resources office responded to Dr. Harrington by sending him, on September 11, 2006, the following e-mail: Dr. Harrington, We're required to follow a process when terminating employees. As we discussed a few weeks ago, all terminations must be approved by Paul Hudgins.[6] I'm still out of the office for medical reasons. This matter is being referred to Nicole Lergier/Karen Stimmel for follow-up. Nicole Lergier was the human resources employee who handled the matter. Ms. Lergier met with just Petitioner on September 14, 2006. At the outset of the meeting, she informed Petitioner that there was a "request for [his] termination" made by Dr. Harrington. She explained that Dr. Harrington "was concerned that [Petitioner] had taken several weeks off to complete a clinical rotation for which [Petitioner] had been paid but [for] which [he] had never registered," and that Dr. Harrington considered Petitioner's conduct to be "job abandonment and . . . grounds for immediate termination." She then went on to tell Petitioner that the purpose of the meeting was to give Petitioner the opportunity, without Dr. Harrington's being present, to give his side of the story and "to bring forward any issues." Petitioner took advantage of this opportunity. He defended himself against the charges Dr. Harrington had made against him and countercharged that Dr. Harrington had been abusive, "manipulative[,] and unprofessional." At no time did Petitioner complain to Ms. Lergier that Dr. Harrington was "prejudiced against [him] because [he was] black or because [he was] from Cameroon." Petitioner indicated to Ms. Lergier that he "had no interest in going back to Dr. Harrington's lab," but that, among other things, he wanted the EBV microRNA Manuscript to be published. On the same day that the meeting took place, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Ms. Lergier: This is in response to Dr. William J. Harrington's complaint that I abandoned my job functions. The attached e-mails dated Monday 7/24/2006 indicate that I was gone on leave, without pay. What[']s more, there [is] evidence of professional misconduct, manipulation and negative inputs on Dr. Harrington's part. This is not the first instance. The e-mails dated Tuesday 5/2/2006 to 4/28/2006 document another one of many such instances. The time I took off in August was not nearly enough to recover from a tremendously negative work environment where I nonetheless made many positive contributions, in ideas, manuscripts and grants. The facts speak for themselves. At this point, I do not intend to return to work with Dr. Harrington and I trust Human Resources would find a constructive solution to this problem. Approximately an hour later, Petitioner received an e- mail from Dr. Harrington, which read as follows: Your paper will be submitted with you as first author. I have 9 tumor blocks corresponding to the patients in [B]razil and a couple of new ones here that we will assay for eber, cxcl-11 (we got a new ab.) and LMP-1. Lan has repeated the rpa's on the lines (BL-5, R) and several new primaries and they look very good, cleaner than the previous ones. Once I get this done I will send you a draft prior to submission. Dr. Harrington subsequently submitted a revised version of the First Manuscript (Revised Manuscript) to Blood. The Revised Manuscript was "shorter," but not "substantially different from the [First] [M]anuscript." Petitioner was still listed as the first author, which Dr. Harrington "thought was [only] fair since . . . [Petitioner] had done most of the lab work on that article." Dr. Harrington did not believe that, in submitting an "abbreviated" manuscript with Petitioner's name on it as first author, he was doing anything that was contrary to Petitioner's interests or desires. Notwithstanding Dr. Harrington's best efforts, the Revised Manuscript, like the First Manuscript, was rejected for publication in Blood. Although listed as the first author, Petitioner had not "sign[ed] off" on, or even seen, the Revised Manuscript before its submission to Blood. He ultimately received an e- mailed copy from Dr. Harrington. The next day, upon running into Dr. Harrington on the UM campus, Petitioner told him: [Y]ou cannot put my name on a paper that I didn't write. You can't have me as a first author on a manuscript that I didn't sign off on. Take my name off that paper. I have moved on. Dr. Harrington complied with Petitioner's request. Petitioner's name was not on the version of the EBV microRNA Manuscript Dr. Harrington submitted to another medical journal, Cancer Research, "sometime in late 2007," which was accepted for publication and published in March 2008. On or about September 20, 2006, Petitioner was contacted by Ms. Uptgrow and given the option of resigning his position or being terminated. Petitioner told Ms. Uptgrow that he "wasn't going to resign." On September 25, 2006, Dr. Harrington sent Petitioner the following letter, advising Petitioner that his employment was being terminated "effective immediately": As you know, you have been counseled many times regarding your unsatisfactory performance and attendance issues. Unfortunately, these problems persist despite our counseling efforts. There have been several emails and conversations that have taken place, which you were advised that any further incidents would result in additional disciplinary action. Specifically, we had agreed you would take the weeks of August 5, 2006 - August 18, 2006- off for vacation and this would [be] followed by a 2 week clinical rotation[.] [Y]ou notified your supervisor that you would return on September 8, 2006, 3 weeks after completing your vacation. Despite all of the previous warning and effort to work with you on the problems that concerned your supervisor, it has continued. Due to your failure to adhere to University policies and procedures and ongoing problems, you have left us no alternative but to terminate you effective immediately. Any accrued vacation will be paid to you in your final paycheck. You are to return all University property issued to you upon employment to Desiree Uptgrow to expedite the processing of your final check. Please contact Benefit Administration, (305)284-6837, regarding continuation of benefits you may be entitled to. You should receive information regarding COBRA benefits from the Office of Benefits Administration in a separate letter. If you do not receive this letter, please contact the Office of Benefits Administration at (305)243-6835. Dr. Harrington's termination of Petitioner's employment was based solely on what Dr. Harrington perceived to be Petitioner's deficiencies as an employee. Neither Petitioner's race, nor his national origin, played any role in this or any other action Dr. Harrington took affecting Petitioner. On September 29, 2006, four days after his termination, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Dr. Harrington: Hi Dr. Harrington: Dr. Symes urged me to do a 2 week clinical rotation/observership with Hem/Onc as the department of internal medicine no longer offers this. Would it be possible to do it with you, starting next week, Wednesday the 3rd of October. Thanks for your consideration. On the advice of UM legal counsel, Dr. Harrington did not respond to this e-mail. Instead of seeking other employment following his termination, Petitioner "focused" on completing the requirements to obtain his MAIA degree at UM. In accordance with UM policy, he continued to receive tuition remission benefits for the 2006 fall semester (the semester in which he was terminated), but after that semester, the benefits ceased. Petitioner believes that he has completed the requirements for his MAIA degree and is entitled to receive his diploma and final transcript, which UM has withheld. UM's records, however, reflect otherwise. They reveal that he has not yet received any credit for the Practicum in International Administration (INS 517) course that he needs to obtain his degree. This course involved Petitioner's writing and defending a thesis. In the spring of 2007, while Petitioner was working on his thesis, his car, which was parked on the UM campus, was ticketed by the City of Coral Gables police and subsequently towed by Downtown Towing Company for "safekeeping." After unsuccessfully attempting to retrieve his vehicle, he demanded that UM compensate him for his loss. UM (acting through its Assistant General Counsel, Judd Goldberg, Esquire) and Petitioner engaged in settlement negotiations. At least as early as August 8, 2007, UM insisted, as a condition of its agreement to any settlement, that Petitioner sign a full and general release reading, in pertinent part, as follows: In exchange for the promises which the University makes in this Agreement, Andela agrees to waive voluntarily and knowingly certain rights and claims against the University. . . . . The rights and claims which Andela waives and releases in this Agreement include, to every extent allowed by law, those arising under . . . the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, and 1964, . . . the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 . . . and any amendments to said laws. This is not a complete list, and Andela waives and releases all similar rights and claims under all other federal, state and local discrimination provisions and all other statutory and common law causes of action relating in any way to: (a) Andela's employment or separation from employment with the University which accrued or may have accrued up to the date of execution of this Agreement; and/or (b) Andela's status as a student at the University which accrued or may have accrued up to the date of execution of this Agreement. . . . On September 13, 2007, Petitioner filed his employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR (complaining, for the first time to anyone, that he had been a victim of race and national origin-based discrimination by UM, acting through Dr. Harrington). On September 22, 2007, Petitioner sent the following letter to Mr. Goldberg: I will not surrender my civil rights by signing the full and general release agreement, in order to receive a settlement for my above referenced car that was swindled. Compelling me to surrender my civil rights is an act of retaliation, based on your knowledge of an employment discrimination complaint filed against the University of Miami. As specified on page two-paragraph two- of the attached letter from the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), "the law prohibits retaliation against any person making a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing on an alleged unlawful employment practice." Unless you correct this unlawful act by the end of business day - Monday 24th of October - I will notify the FCHR. Mr. Goldberg responded by sending Petitioner the following letter, dated September 24, 2007: This letter acknowledges receipt of your correspondence of September 22, 2007 addressed to myself and President Shalala. The University does not believe that the settlement and general release agreement is retaliatory. Indeed, the settlement and general release agreement was provided to you before you filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. At this juncture, the University will respond to the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations when it is formally advised of the charge by the Commission.[7] If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call my office directly as it is my office that handles all legal matters for the University. Thank you for your attention to this matter. This letter constitutes communication regarding settlement and cannot be used for any other purpose. At no time has Petitioner filed any employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR alleging that he was retaliated against for having engaged in activity protected by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (although he did make such allegations in the Petition for Relief he filed in the instant case).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding UM not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of July, 2008.
