The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes (1997), by not securing workers' compensation insurance for its Florida employees; and if so, whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order and assessed civil penalties pursuant to Sections 440.107(5) and 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the statutory requirements for employers to provide their employees with workers' compensation coverage. Respondent is a business, located in Savannah, Georgia, that supplies workers on a temporary basis to client businesses. The services that Respondent provides to its client businesses include the payment of payroll, taxes, and workers' compensation insurance for the temporary employees. American Interstate Insurance Company (AIIC) provided Eastern Personnel Services II, Federal Employers Identification Number (FEIN) 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance from November 18, 1997, through November 18, 1998, in the state of Georgia. AIIC's policy number 97WAGA1109996 did not provide coverage for any of Respondent's workers in Florida. AIIC is not authorized in Florida to write insurance for an employer with Respondent's assigned risk classification. Safeco Insurance Company of America (SICA) provided Respondent, FEIN 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance from December 29, 1998, through December 29, 1999, in the states of Georgia and South Carolina only. SICA's policy number WC7260735 as originally drafted, and as it existed on March 2, 1999, did not provide coverage for any workers in Florida. Paul Day is Respondent's president and sole officer and shareholder. He is also the owner of Eastern Personnel Services II, a sole proprietorship. According to AIIC's and SICA's insurance policies, both entities have the same FEIN. The record here indicates that there is no substantive difference between Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II. Respondent's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. 1/ For all practical purposes, Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II were under the exclusive management and control of Mr. Day at all relevant times. Beginning as early as August 28, 1997 and continuing through March 2, 1999, Respondent provided employees to Foley & Associates Construction Co., Inc. (Foley) at one or more work sites on Amelia Island, Florida. Respondent did not secure workers' compensation insurance for these workers. Stanley Benner was one of the first of Respondent's employees to begin working at Foley's Amelia Island job site. On November 9, 1998, Mr. Benner was injured while working for Respondent. Mr. Benner filed a workers' compensation claim against Respondent and AIIC seeking compensation for his injuries. He subsequently learned that AIIC did not provide workers' compensation insurance for Respondent in Florida. Mr. Benner has received no compensation from Respondent or any insurance carrier for his work-related injury. On March 2, 1999, Mr. Benner's attorney filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding Respondent's lack of workers' compensation coverage. Robert Lambert, Petitioner's investigator immediately went to Foley's job site to investigate the complaint. Upon his arrival at the construction site, Mr. Lambert learned that Respondent had 21 employees performing general contract labor for Foley that day. Foley's office manager informed Mr. Lambert that Respondent had provided Foley with between 15 and 20 laborers per day for one year. Next, Mr. Lambert called Mr. Day who provided a certificate of insurance from SICA by facsimile transmission. However, the certificate listed Saxon and Associates, a business located in Georgia, as the certificate holder. It did not reference coverage for employees provided to Foley in Florida. Mr. Lambert then called Linda Burtchett of HGI, Inc. She is an insurance agent and the authorized representative of SICA. HGI, Inc. is the producer of SICA's policy number WC7260735. Ms. Burtchett informed Mr. Lambert that SICA's policy number WC7260735 did not cover Respondent's employees in the state of Florida. To her knowledge, Respondent had never reported any wages on a Florida payroll. Mr. Lambert issued a Stop Work Order dated March 2, 1999. The Stop Work Order required Respondent to immediately cease all work at the Foley construction site. It advised Respondent that a civil penalty in the amount of $100 would be assessed for each day that it failed to provide the required workers' compensation coverage. Later on March 2, 1999, Respondent requested HGI, Inc. to provide coverage for its Florida employees working at the Foley job site under SICA's policy number WC7260735. HGI, Inc. complied with Respondent's request. Accordingly, Petitioner correctly assessed Respondent with a civil penalty in the amount of $100 in conjunction with the Stop Work Order. Mr. Day testified that the endorsement to the SICA policy provided coverage for Respondent's Florida employees retroactive to September 29, 1998. He also testified that another of Respondent's Florida employees was injured at the Foley construction site on January 18, 1999, and received compensation under the SICA policy. Mr. Day's testimony is not credited in light of Ms. Burtchett's testimony. On March 2, 1999, Petitioner informally requested Respondent to provide business records to establish the value of its Florida payroll during the three years before Petitioner issued the Stop Work Order. Respondent refused to provide Petitioner with any payroll records. Petitioner obtained records maintained by Foley regarding Respondent's employment activities at the Amelia Island job site. Foley's records showed the number of employees that Respondent employed, the number of hours worked by each employee, and their hourly rate of pay. Respondent admitted and Foley's records confirmed that Respondent's payroll at the Foley construction site was $209,249.86 between January 5, 1998 and March 1, 1999. The National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) classifies Respondent as a temporary labor service. According to the NCCI, the employment activities conducted by Respondent's employees at the Foley construction site have an assigned insurance premium rate in the conservative amount of $22.34 for each $100 of payroll. Therefore, Respondent's evaded insurance premium on a payroll of $209,249.86 is $46,746. The administrative penalty is twice the evaded premium of $46,746 or $93,492. On March 31, Petitioner properly issued a Notice and Penalty Assessment Order requiring Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $93,492. Respondent's untimely discovery responses indicated that its Florida payroll was $196,701.62 in 1998 and $65,165.36 in 1999. Petitioner could have assessed Respondent with an administrative penalty in the amount of $115,743.26.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Notice and Penalty Assessment Order with their associated penalties, plus any lawful interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 12th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether The Department of Financial Services properly imposed a Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. Respondent AFS, LLC. (AFS), is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is involved in the construction industry, primarily framing houses. Braman Avery is the owner and manager of AFS. Lee Arsenault is a general contractor whose business is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Arsenault contracted with AFS to perform framing services at a construction site located at 1944 Copperstone Drive in Orange Park, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, AFS maintained workers' compensation coverage for its employees through a licensed employee leasing company. AFS contracted with Greenleads Carpentry, Inc. (Greenleads) to perform work at the job site in question. Prior to subcontracting with Greenleads, Mr. Avery requested from Greenleads, among other things, a certificate of insurance showing that Greenleads had general liability coverage and workers' compensation insurance. Greenleads provided a certificate of insurance to Mr. Avery showing that Greenleads had workers' compensation coverage. The certificate of insurance contains a policy number, dollar limits, and effective and expiration dates of June 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005. Debra Cochran is office manager of Labor Finders, an employee leasing company. According to Ms. Cochran, Labor Finders' corporate office issued the certificate of insurance to Greenleads. At the time of issuance, the certificate of insurance was valid. Greenleads did not follow through on its obligations to Labor Finders in that Green Leads did not "run its workers through" Labor Finders. Consequently, Greenleads' workers were not covered by workers' compensation as indicated on the certificate of insurance. Labor Finders did not issue any document showing cancellation or voiding of the certificate of insurance previously issued. Mr. Avery relied upon the face of the certificate of insurance believing AFS to be in total compliance with statutory requirements regarding workers' compensation for subcontractors. That is, he believed that the Greenleads' workers were covered for workers' compensation as indicated on the face of the certificate of insurance. Mr. Avery was not informed by Labor Finders or Greenleads that Greenleads did not, after all, have workers' compensation coverage in place on the workers performing work under the contract between AFS and Greenleads on the worksite in question. Bobby Walton is president of Insure America and has been in the insurance business for 35 years. His company provides general liability insurance to AFS. According to Mr. Walton, Mr. Avery's reliance on Greenleads' presentation to him of a purportedly valid certificate of insurance is the industry standard. Further, Mr. Walton is of the opinion that there was no obligation on behalf of Mr. Avery to confirm coverage beyond receipt of the certificate of insurance provided by the subcontractor. That is, there is no duty on behalf of the contractor to confirm coverage beyond receipt of the certificate of insurance. Allen DiMaria is an investigator employed by the Division. His duties include investigating businesses to ensure that the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the workers' compensation law and related rules. On January 5, 2005, Mr. DiMaria visited the job site in question and observed 13 workers engaged in construction activities. This visit was a random site check. Mr. DiMaria interviewed the owner of Greenleads and checked the Division's database. Mr. DiMaria determined that Greenleads did not have workers' compensation coverage. After conferring with his supervisor, Mr. DiMaria issued a stop-work order to Greenleads, along with a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for Greenleads. In response to the business records request, Greenleads submitted its check ledger along with an employee cash payment ledger, both of which were utilized in calculating a penalty for Greenleads. On January 11, 2005, Mr. DiMaria issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Greenleads for $45,623.34. Attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Greenleads is a penalty worksheet with a list of names under the heading, "Employee Name", listing the names of the employees and amounts paid to each employee. During the investigation of Greenleads, Mr. DiMaria determined that Greenleads was performing subcontracting work for Respondent. This led to the Division's investigation of AFS. Mr. DiMaria spoke to Mr. Avery and determined that AFS paid remuneration to Greenleads for work performed at the worksite. He checked the Division's data base system and found no workers' compensation coverage for AFS. He determined that AFS had secured workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel Services, Inc. (SPLI), also a licensed employee leasing company. However, the policy with SPLI did not cover the employees of Greenleads performing work at the job site. Mr. DiMaria requested business records from Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery fully complied with this request. He examined AFS' check registry and certificates of insurance from AFS. Other than the situation involving Greenleads on this worksite, Mr. DiMaria found AFS to be in complete compliance. On January 10, 2005, after consulting with his supervisor, Robert Lambert, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order to AFS. A Stop Work Order issued by the Division requires the recipient to cease operations on a job site because the recipient is believed to be not in compliance with the workers' compensation law. The Stop Work Order issued by Mr. DiMaria was site specific to the work site in question. Based upon the records provided by Mr. Avery, Mr. DiMaria calculated a fine. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. Mr. DiMaria's calculation of the fine imposed on AFS was based solely on the Greenleads' employees not having workers' compensation coverage. On February 16, 2005, Mr. DiMaria issued an Amended Order of Penalty in the amount of $45,643.87, the identical amount imposed upon Greenleads. A penalty worksheet was attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The penalty worksheet is identical to the penalty worksheet attached to Greenleads' penalty assessment, with the exception of the business name at the top of the worksheet and the Division's case number. Greenleads partially paid the penalty by entering into a penalty payment agreement with the Division. Greenleads then received an Order of Conditional Release. Similarly, AFS entered into a penalty payment agreement with the Division and received an Order of Conditional Release on February 16, 2005. Moreover, AFS terminated its contract with Greenleads. Lee Arsenault is the general contractor involved in the work site in question. AFS was the sole framing contractor on this project, which Mr. Arsenault described as a "pretty significant project." He has hired AFS to perform framing services over the years. However, because the Stop Work Order was issued to AFS, Mr. Arsenault had to hire another company to complete the framing work on the project. Mr. Avery estimates economic losses to AFS as a result of losing this job to be approximately $150,000, in addition to the fine. Mr. Arsenault, Ms. Cochran, as well as the Division's investigator, Mr. DiMaria, all agree with Mr. Walton's opinion, that it is customary practice in the construction industry for a contractor who is subcontracting work to rely on the face of an insurance certificate provided by a subcontractor. Robert Lambert is a workers' compensation district supervisor for the Division. When asked under what authority the Division may impose a penalty on both Greenleads and AFS for the same infraction, he replied that it was based on the Division's policy and its interpretation of Sections 440.02, 440.10, and 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation rescind the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued February 16, 2005, and the Stop Work Order issued to Petitioner on January 10, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 26th day of August, 2005. Endnote 1/ While this Recommended Order does not rely upon the case cited by Respondent in its Notice of Supplemental Authority, Respondent was entitled to file it. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Douglas D. Dolin, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mark K. Eckels, ESquire Boyd & Jenerette, P.A. North Hogan Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice (discrimination under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes) against Petitioner on the basis of his race (Black/African-American), handicap, or retaliation, and if so, what is the remedy? Although cases arising under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may be instructive for interpreting and applying the handicap provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's claim under ADA and any allegations of libel and slander are not within the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lawrence James, Jr., is a Black/African- American. Respondent, The Alachua County Department of Criminal Justice Service, is an "employer" within the definition in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent operates the Alachua County Jail. Respondent maintains a paramilitary command, advancement, and ranking system for its employees. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Sergeant. On March 2, 1994, an inmate escaped from the Alachua County Jail during the evening shift. As a result of the inmate's escape, several correctional officers were disciplined. Petitioner was disciplined by a reduction in rank April 26, 1994. (P-37) There were allegations that harsher discipline had been meted out to the Black/African-American officers, and the matter was arbitrated, pursuant to the union collective bargaining contract. As a result of the arbitration, in the summer of 1994, it was recommended that Petitioner be returned to his position at the Jail with restoration of rank, but without any back pay. However, at the time of that recommendation, Petitioner already had been terminated for "a non-related infraction of county policy." (P-37) The "non-related infraction of county policy" reason for Petitioner's 1994 termination was not established on this record, but neither was any discriminatory reason proven.2 After Petitioner's 1994 termination, further proceedings ensued, and Petitioner was ultimately restored to his rank and position at the Jail. As part of this restoration, it was agreed the Respondent employer would conduct training and re-orientation sessions for Petitioner, since he had not actively been performing his duties at the Jail for approximately two years. The present case only addresses the discrimination Petitioner allegedly suffered due to race, handicap, or retaliation concerning his leave requests in 1996, and his 1997 termination for unauthorized absence. After his second successful arbitration(s) and/or grievance procedure, Petitioner was eligible to return to work on February 19, 1996. He did not return on that date. Respondent ordered Petitioner back to work on March 13, 1996, at which time Petitioner requested, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It is not clear if Petitioner ever made Respondent aware that he suffered from high blood pressure, but from the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner notified Respondent in March 1996, that he was suffering from a prior on- the-job injury to his back, diabetes, and depression. Diabetes, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Clinical depression, as experienced by Petitioner, is a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contended at hearing that his clinical depression in 1996 was due to his 1994 demotion and termination and the procedures to get his job back and also due to the hostile work environment he anticipated he would face if he returned to work daily in 1996 with people whom he perceived as having lied about him and who had tried to terminate him. It should be noted that Petitioner did not clearly include "hostile work environment" in either his 1998, Charge of Discrimination or his 2000, Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations only considered and referred the instant case upon allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, handicap, and retaliation. From Petitioner's description of his back ailment, it is found that condition also constituted a "handicap" within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. From Petitioner's description of how his back injury affected his daily life and job performance, it is very doubtful that Petitioner was able to physically fulfill the requirements of being a jailor at any time in 1996 until he was terminated in 1997. No evidence was presented with regard to the workers' compensation consequences of this situation. By an April 1, 1996, letter, Respondent's Interim Director of Criminal Justice Service, Richard Tarbox, informed Petitioner that he had exhausted his sick leave credits as of the pay period ending March 31, 1996; that based on Respondent's records, Petitioner would exhaust the balance of his accrued sick leave at the rate of forty hours per week during the pay period ending May 12, 1996; that he was expected to know his available accrued leave credits and to contact his immediate supervisor at least one week prior to the expiration of the current leave period to request leave without pay if he anticipated not returning to work; and that he had been placed on FMLA leave for an indefinite period, not to exceed twelve weeks, which would expire on June 6, 1996. (R-30) The April 1, 1996, letter specifically informed Petitioner that failure to come to work or contact Respondent could be considered abandonment of his position. (R-30) The foregoing instructions concerning "abandonment of position" parallel Alachua County's Personnel Regulations and Disciplinary Policy, hereafter sometimes referred to collectively as "personnel regulations." (P-1). Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; c. Group III Offenses No. 8, at pages 5-6, of the personnel regulations had existed prior to Petitioner's 1994 termination, and was in effect at all times material. It provided, Absence of three consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ. The personnel regulations also provided in Chapter XIX. 3. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES; a. Group I Offenses No. 8, at pages 3-4, that the following offense would subject an employee to progressive discipline: Absence without authorization or failure to notify appropriate supervisory personnel on the first day of absence. (Emphasis supplied). This regulation also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994, and was in effect at all times material. Progressive discipline for the first such offense was written instruction, counseling and/or one-day suspension. For the second occurrence, one to five days' suspension was specified. For the third occurrence, up to five days' suspension or discharge was specified. These provisions also had remained unchanged since Petitioner's last employment with Respondent in 1994 and were in effect at all times material. Petitioner was also familiar with the long-standing progressive discipline system of Respondent's personnel regulations. Basically, this system required that discipline first be proposed in writing by a superior. The proposed discipline would go into effect and become actual discipline if the employee did not appear at a hearing to dispute the charges or the proposed discipline. If the employee prevailed at the hearing, the proposed discipline would be rescinded or altered. If the employee did not prevail, the proposed discipline would be reduced to writing in another document, and the employee then had the option of filing a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement or of appealing through the personnel system to a citizens' board. While Petitioner had been absent in 1994-1996, a new requirement had been added to the personnel regulations, under Chapter A-299, which required that employees who planned to be absent, must notify their immediate supervisor no later than 30 minutes from the time they are scheduled to report for work. (Emphasis supplied) The "immediate supervisor" or "appropriate supervisory personnel" in Petitioner's situation would have been the lieutenant on his shift. However, Petitioner and Lt. Little, who became his supervisor, concurred that the custom at the Jail always had been to require that employees contact the shift sergeant on the shift preceding an emergency absence, or if that were not possible, to contact the employee's own shift sergeant or anyone else on that shift. Jail custom also provided that the employee who was going to be absent could rely on any person on his shift to deliver his oral message to the employee's supervising lieutenant and that approval or disapproval paperwork would be handled by that lieutenant after notification. On June 6, 1996, Petitioner still had not returned to work. Instead, he requested leave without pay until June 15, 1996. Respondent granted Petitioner's request. This constituted an accommodation of Petitioner's handicap(s) in that he had no remaining earned leave or entitlement to FMLA leave, yet his employer held his position open for his return. On or about June 10, 1996, Anthony F. Greene, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Vista Pavilion, a free-standing psychiatric facility, released Petitioner to return to work. He wrote to Respondent's Risk Manager that Petitioner continued to have problems with depression, which might prove "volatile" in a work environment with superiors Petitioner believed had harassed him by terminating and blaming him for the 1994 escape. At approximately the same time, Richard Greer, M.D., medical specialty unexplained, also released Petitioner to return to work, upon the conditions that Petitioner continue to see Dr. Greene on a weekly basis and continue to take his prescriptive medications. By a July 17, 1996, letter (P-4), Interim Director Richard Tarbox notified Petitioner to report for work at the Jail on the evening shift of July 22, 1996. The letter required Petitioner to continue his sessions with Dr. Greene; to continue to take his prescriptive medications; and to take the re- training and re-orientation specified as a result of the resolution of his 1994 termination and return to work. (See Finding of Fact 7.) The July 17, 1996, letter also included the sentence, We are in the process of contacting Dr. Greene to establish a procedure to verify that you continue your sessions with him. Petitioner interpreted this sentence as the employer's promise "[T]o get all my leave slips, find out when I was going to the doctor, my mental condition, and also my medical condition." (TR-Vol.II, pages 175-176) Petitioner's interpretation of this sentence was unreasonable in light of its express language, the context of the remainder of the July 17, 1996, letter, the instructions of the April 1, 1996, letter (See Findings of Fact 16-17), and what Petitioner already knew of the County's personnel regulations and/or the Jail custom requiring him to call in and/or apply for leave to be subsequently approved or disapproved by his supervisor. Nothing in the July 17, 1996, letter altered the requirements of the personnel regulations or the April 1, 1996, letter. Petitioner bore the responsibility to ask for medical leave sufficiently in advance of his absences. On July 22, 1996, Petitioner reported for work at the Jail as instructed and was assigned to an evening shift supervised by Lt. Stover. According to Sgt. Babula, Petitioner also worked under Shift Sgt. Withey at some point in July 1996. However, by July 1996, Petitioner was an insulin- dependent diabetic. He needed to self-administer a shot of insulin each morning and night. To ensure ideal spacing of these two shots, Petitioner almost immediately requested to work the day shift. Respondent accommodated this request concerning Petitioner's handicaps and assigned him to the day shift under Lt. Little and Sgt. Babula, as shift sergeant. Petitioner claimed his handicaps were not accommodated by Respondent, but in addition to approving leave for him from February 19, 1996, to July 22, 1996, not replacing him during that period, and the change of shift made in July 1996, at Petitioner's request, Sgt. Babula testified to approving special shoes for Petitioner due to his diabetes. By September 1996, Petitioner again had used up all of his accrued leave. Accordingly, he had to ask for leave without pay to visit his various doctors, including Dr. Greene. On September 9, 1996, during a therapy session, Petitioner told Dr. Greene that he had been threatened on the job and that he was pursuing resolution of the incident through appropriate channels. The same day, Dr. Greene wrote to Lt. Little, telling him of the threat. The nature of this alleged threat or who made it was not stated in Dr. Greene's letter or at hearing. The letter cleared Petitioner to return to work September 12, 1996. This out-of-court statement to his psychotherapist at that time does not establish the truth of the statement or that Petitioner's superiors made the alleged threat. Also, the threat, if one existed, could not have related to Petitioner's written leave requests, because Petitioner's earliest dispute about leave did not occur until September 13, 1996. (See Finding of Fact 41). The September 9, 1996, date was not related by testimony to any oral or written request for leave or any disciplinary matter in evidence. Petitioner testified to having been threatened on the job sometime prior to September 9, 1996, but he never testified what the threat was, why the threat was made, or by whom the threat was made. Petitioner's witness, Alfred Dickerson, also is African-American. He testified generally that it was "pure hell" at the Jail for anyone who, like himself and Petitioner, had been disciplined due to the 1994 escape and who had prevailed in the resultant grievance activities, but he could not remember any specific incidents involving Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Dickerson was out of the Jail, on workers' compensation leave, from May 1996 to October 1997, the whole of the material time frame for this case.3 On September 16, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay to Lt. Little, his supervisor, for the previous dates of September 13 and 15, stating thereon that he had been ill those days and that the request was being made because his request to work his days off to make up for the 16 hours of leave he had used on September 13 and 15 had been denied. The request does not specifically mention "flex time." (P-6) "Flex time," as described by both Petitioner and Lt. Little, would have permitted Petitioner to work his days off, instead of taking time off without pay to make up time used to go to his doctors on days he was scheduled to work. However, if an employee asked to use flex time in this way, another employee had to trade days with him, and the exchange would be worked out by the supervising lieutenant. On October 1, 1996, Petitioner was given a "Letter of Warning" by Lt. Little. The Warning reflected that Petitioner's advising a sergeant other than his immediate supervisor, Lt. Little, on September 24, 1996, that he was not coming to work until some personal matters were taken care of, was insufficient notice and was being treated as "absence without authorization" in violation of the personnel regulations. It also stated, It has been standard practice and understood that you must notify your immediate supervisor . . . please be advised that any further violations of this nature may result in docked pay and progressive disciplinary action . . . Attached to this document was a Notice of Disciplinary Action, also prepared October 1, 1996, stating, Disciplinary action taken as a result of the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action dated blank not filled in. (Except for WARNING) WARNING (Reasons for warning): Violation of Alachua County Personnnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, a., Group I, Offense No. 8 'Absence without authorization'. (P-8) The same document notified Petitioner that he had a right to appeal the Warning pursuant to either the personnel regulations or the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt of this latter document until October 7, 1996. (P-8/R-19) Also on October 1, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for leave without pay for September 23- 26 and for September 29-30, to Captain King. The reason for Petitioner's absence September 23-26 was not stated on the formal request, but Petitioner did again state thereon that his request to "flex" his days off had been denied, presumably by Lt. Little. The time for September 29-30 was requested for "personal business and emergency family leave without pay" due to his mother's seeing a doctor about her detached retinas. (P-7) Respondent is not obligated under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to accommodate Petitioner's family's handicaps.4 On October 21, 1996, a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action" was issued by Lt. Little, apparently covering the same date, September 24, 1996, as his October 1, Warning, and adding other dates. The reasons for the proposed discipline given in this October 21, 1996, Notice differ slightly from the content of the October 1, Warning. The October 21, 1996, Notice related that on September 23, Petitioner had spoken to Captain King and Lt. Little, and because his request for leave had been made in advance, Petitioner had been granted the day off; that on September 24, Petitioner had failed to report to work and failed to request an extension of leave, and he was therefore considered to be "absent without authorization" for September 24, 1996. The October 21, Notice further stated that on September 25, Petitioner had called Captain King, requesting leave without pay for September 25 and 26, and because Petitioner had requested leave in advance, Captain King had granted the request covering those two days, but that on his October 1, leave request (see Finding of Fact 44) Petitioner had included two more days, September 29 and 30, which had not been previously authorized. Finally, the October 21, Notice indicated that on September 30, Petitioner had called Lt. Stover to say that he would be reporting to work as soon as he was through testifying to the Grand Jury that afternoon, and that his failure to request leave in advance was being treated as "absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." As of this October 21, 1996, Notice, the proposed disciplinary action became suspending Petitioner without pay. Petitioner was offered an opportunity to contest the proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on November 19, 1996. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this document on October 24, 1996. (R-21) On October 22, 1996, Petitioner wrote to the Interim Director of the Jail, Richard Tarbox. In his letter, Petitioner complained that he had not yet received the agreed re- orientation and re-training. He also discussed his medical problems, including problems with recent changes in his medications and his five-year-old back injury. He requested flex time and related that his life had been threatened by employees on the job (see Findings of Fact 37-40), and that Lt. Little had been informed of the threats and flex time request, but the letter again did not indicate by whom Petitioner was threatened or why. (P-10) Despite Petitioner's after-the-fact written requests for flex time, Lt. Little had no recollection of Respondent ever asking him for flex time. There is no evidence that Lt. Little, Mr. Tarbox, or any other representative of Respondent contacted Petitioner concerning the alleged threat against him or specifically addressed the issues of re-orientation/re-training or flex time. On October 25, 1996, Dr. Greene also wrote Mr. Tarbox. He described Petitioner as cooperative and not evidencing any inappropriate behavior. He reported that Petitioner had voiced no homicidal or vengeance ideation to him. He felt that Petitioner's supervisors' requirement that Petitioner use leave to attend the mandatory therapy sessions with him constituted a paradox and a stressor for Petitioner. He felt that other stressors were the employer's failure to offer re-orientation/ re-training to Petitioner and the employer's failure to contact him, Dr. Greene, to verify treatment purposes and schedules. Dr. Greene requested that Mr. Tarbox clarify Petitioner's treatment and work status to both him and to Petitioner in a timely manner because not doing so was exacerbating Petitioner's physical condition, headaches, and diabetes. He further stated that he could release Petitioner for work without further psychological treatment and that further psychological treatment was not necessary to ensure Petitioner's fitness for work or to prevent his being a risk to others, but that Petitioner would continue in therapy for other purposes. (P-11) Neither Mr. Tarbox nor any other representative of Respondent specifically replied to Dr. Greene's October 25, 1996, letter. However, all leave disputes pending on that date were addressed in a November 22, 1996, letter to Petitioner from Captain King. (See Findings of Fact 57-59.) On October 31, 1996, Petitioner submitted an "after the fact" request for eight hours leave without pay for leave he had taken on October 30, 1996, for "emergency dr. app't for work related injury, and lab work for diebetic [sic] condition." (P-14) At some point, a leave form for eight hours leave without pay on November 9, 1996, was prepared. It indicates that Petitoner was "unavailable to sign." This form was disapproved by Lt. Little and by Mr. Tarbox on November 12, 1996. Apparently Petitioner only signed the request on November 26, 1996. (P-21) On November 14, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 15, 1996, for "work related condition, Dr. Greene." (P-15) On November 19, 1996, Petitioner submitted a request for two hours leave without pay for November 22, 1996. The request was approved by a supervisor on November 19, 1996. (P-17) On November 22, 1996, Captain King issued a "Letter of Warning" to Petitioner. It stated that on November 19, 1996, a disciplinary hearing had been held (see Finding of Fact 47) regarding the October 21, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, addressing Petitioner's absences on September 29-30, 1996, and that because Petitioner had proven that he had attempted to contact his supervisor in advance of his absence, the September 29 violation was being withdrawn. With regard to the September 30 violation charged, it was found that Petitioner had contacted Lt. Stover and informed him that Petitioner would return to work after testifying before The Grand Jury, and since Petitioner had not returned to work on that day after testifying, he was being found guilty as charged for violation of Alachua County Personnel Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3. a. Group I, Offense No. 8, "Absence without authorization and failure to request leave without pay in advance." The November 22, 1996, letter went on to warn Petitioner that future violations would be more carefully scrutinized for strict adherence to the policy of notification and that failures on Petitioner's part might result in progressive disciplinary action being taken. (P-20) Because prior discipline had been overturned or rescinded, the November 22, 1996, Letter of Warning was technically Petitioner's first violation/discipline. Also on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted to Lt. Little a leave request form, dated the same day, labelled "FOR INFO.," with supporting documentation, including Dr. Hunt's certificate showing Petitioner had been treated on November 4, and November 22, 1996, had office management of HTN/NIDDM hematuria, a pending IVP and urology consult, and would need to be seen again by Dr. Hunt in 4-6 weeks. The language of one attachment showed Petitioner "is under Dr. Hunt's continual care," but nothing specified any period of time Petitioner intended to take off from work for the pending consultation or any other purpose. (P-19) Petitioner testified that his November 22, 1996, leave request was not intended to request any leave at all when he submitted it, but that it should have alerted his supervisors that Petitioner had a growth between his legs that was potentially malignant and that he needed an operation sometime in the future. A reasonable person would not have concluded this from the four corners of the November 22, 1996, written request with attachments dated for past medical appointments. Petitioner also testified that by submitting the November 22, 1996, leave request "in blank" and explaining orally to Lt. Little what he intended to do was his effort to comply with the requirement that he ask for leave in advance of taking it. This testimony shows that Petitioner at this point understood the employer's prior instructions to request leave in advance. Apparently, Petitioner envisioned only having to phone in to get any member of his shift to fill in the blanks on his November 22, 1996, request form, but he admitted he had never before used a blank leave request in this way. Petitioner further testified that he had told Mr. Tarbox and other supervisors at a meeting (probably one of his disciplinary hearings) before Christmas 1996, that he "did not know how long he could work." While this representation of Petitioner is credible and it may be reasonably inferred that Mr. Tarbox understood Petitioner was debilitated to some degree by the growth and might need an operation sometime in the near future, it does not logically follow that all those hearing Petitioner at that time understood that his oral statement related to the November 22 blank leave request which had attached to it only information about past doctors' appointments and potential, undated, future consultations. Petitioner's vague statement at the meeting/hearing did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail for requesting leave. The blank November 22, 1996, leave request marked "FOR INFO" also did not comply with the letter of the personnel regulations nor the custom at the Jail. There is no requirement that Respondent grant Petitioner an open-ended request for leave or one that specifies no time period at all. Petitioner's November 22, 1996, blank leave request was never approved. On November 26, 1996, Petitioner also acknowledged receipt of a "Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action," by which Lt. Little and Mr. Tarbox recommended that Petitioner be suspended without pay.5 Petitioner was again offered an opportunity to contest this proposed disciplinary action at a hearing on December 3, 1996. (P-18) The record is silent as to whether a disciplinary hearing was actually held on December 3, 1996. Petitioner submitted a leave form on December 6, 1996, for 2.5 hours "vacation" leave without pay on December 3, 1996, for a "Conference with doctor to try an [sic] stop continued disciplinary action because of illness doctor approved." (P-23) On December 3, 1996, Petitioner had telephoned Lt. Little to ask if his message had been received. He then reported to work at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's business records (P-22) show the following: Petitioner worked December 4-5, some of December 6, and all of December 7, 1996. He was not required to be at work on December 8-9. He called in sick on December 10-11. On December 12, he reported for work and attended five hours of drug policy training. Then he left for medical reasons and later called in to say he was too sick to return to work. On Friday, December 13, Petitioner called in sick, saying he was going to the doctor for a cut foot. He later called in again and was told that he needed to do his timesheet and it was agreed he would do it and have it in the following Monday. Petitioner was absent on Saturday, December 14. He was not required to be at work on December 15-16, 1996. On Monday, December 17, Petitioner did not phone or appear for work. On December 18, Petitioner phoned in, saying he had to wear bedroom slippers and had domestic problems. On December 19, Petitioner called in late and left a voice message on the Jail phone. On Friday, December 20, Petitioner called in on time but said he would not be in until Tuesday of the following week. He gave no reason. He was not required to be at work on December 22-23. On December 24, 1996, Petitioner did not come to work or call in. On Christmas Day, Petitioner called in before shift and stated he would not be in that day or the following day, December 26, 1996, until 10:00 a.m. On December 26, December 27, and December 28, Petitioner did not report for work or call in. Petitioner was not required to work December 29 or 30, 1996. On December 31, Petitioner called and said that he would not be in that day but would call back to talk to the shift lieutenant. He did not do so. Also, Petitioner did not report for work or call in for January 1 through 4, 1997. Most of this business record was substantiated by the direct testimony of Sgt. Babula and Lt. Little who observed the events and wrote most of the business record. The matters that were not confirmed in their direct testimony were supported by the type of hearsay that explains or supplements direct evidence and is admissible in this type of proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that the business record was essentially correct as to days he was absent in December 1996, and January 1997. Petitioner's testimony only varies the foregoing business record to the effect that on December 10, 1996, not December 13, 1996, Petitioner called and spoke with Sgt. Withey, stating that he would not "be back [to work] until [he had] seen and heard from [his] doctors," and related to Withey that he had some problem with his foot. Petitioner assumed that his superiors would get this message and would understand that he meant he was exercising the blank November 22, 1996, leave request. (See Findings of Fact 60-66). His superiors did not infer from this message what Petitioner had hoped they would. A reasonable person would not infer all that from the information Petitioner says he provided Sgt. Withey. It is uncontested that Petitioner did have an injury to his foot at this time and that such injuries can be particularly hazardous to persons who, like Petitioner, suffer from diabetes. From December 4, 1996, onward, Petitioner did not speak directly with his lieutenant, although he had been repeatedly instructed to do so in order to request advance leave. Petitioner did not return to work after December 7, 1996. Despite the personnel rules, custom at the Jail, and prior direct orders by warning and disciplinary action letters, Petitioner submitted no leave slips directly to his superiors after December 6, 1996. Instead, he submitted them to his union shop steward and to a County Commissioner, although he had no reason to believe the Commissioner had any authority over Jail personnel matters. Respondent never authorized leave for Petitioner after December 13, 1996. Petitioner's extended absence without authorization was in violation of Respondent employer's long-standing "three day abandonment rule." There had been no word from Petitioner since December 31, 1996, so between January 17 and January 24, 1997, a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" was issued against Petitioner for [V]iolation of Alachua County Personnel Rules and Regulations, Chapter XIX, Section 3, c., Group III, Offense No. 8 'Absence of three (3) consecutive work days without proper authorization at which time the employee is considered to have abandoned the position and resigned from the County's employ.' The proposed discipline was termination, and again, Petitioner was offered the opportunity to contest the proposed final agency action at a hearing to be convened on February 18, 1997. (P-25) Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner saw a Master of Social Work, because Dr. Greene was on educational leave. Petitioner was so upset that the social worker advised him to focus on his medical problems. Apparently, Petitioner leapt to the conclusion that meant his doctors would handle all his leave-related problems. Sometime in January 1997, Petitioner had successful surgery on the growth between his legs. On January 27, 1997, Dr. Greene saw Petitioner in therapy and notified Mr. Tarbox in writing that, Mr. Lawrence James was seen for an appointment today in my office. He is apparently unable to continue working in what is perceived to be a hostile work environment at the jail. Compounded by his medical problems and what seems to be a lack of responsivity and accommodation by the administration, Mr. James' level of emotional distress has considerably increased since our last communication. It is strongly recommended that he take a leave of absence from the workplace until his condition is improved. He is scheduled to return next week for continued intervention. Thank you for your time and attention. (Emphasis supplied) (P-26) Dr. Greene testified that it was Petitioner's combined mental and physical circumstances which caused him to recommend the leave of absence. The January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action was mailed to the last address Petitioner had given Respondent. On January 30, 1997, Petitioner's mother signed the certified mail receipt for the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. Sometime thereafter, she delivered the Notice to Petitioner, who no longer lived with her. He refused to deal with it. Dr. Brient removed a suture from Petitioner's leg on February 4, 1997. This seems to have related to Petitioner's post-surgery release after removal of the growth between his legs. Petitioner did not then return to work. Because Respondent's principals had not recognized Petitioner's mother's name on the certified mail receipt, they caused the January 24, 1997, Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to be served on Petitioner by a Deputy Sheriff. Petitioner received this personal service on February 5, 1997, and told the Deputy that he would not deal with the Notice of Disciplinary Action, but his doctors would. Having been released as a result of his operation, there was no physical reason Petitioner could not have appeared for the February 18, 1997, hearing to present any opposition to his proposed termination based on "the three day abandonment rule." He did not appear. On February 21, 1997, Petitioner was mailed a "Notice of Dismissal," effective that date and signed by Harry Sands, a new Interim Director, for abandoning his position, in violation of the personnel regulations. The Notice of Dismissal gave Petitioner the option of appealing his termination through the employee appeal system or the collective bargaining grievance procedure. Petitioner did not take either appeal route. However, Petitioner did suggest to another Jail officer that those who had done this to him might need to get a pine box, i.e. coffin. The threat was not deemed worthy of prosecution by the State Attorney's Office. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that he never received the promised re-orientation or re-training associated with re-instatement to his job. No witness gave any clear indication of what the re- orientation and re-training, as contemplated by the re- instatement agreement (see Finding of Fact 7) or as contemplated by Mr. Tarbox's July 17, 1996, letter (see Finding of Fact 29), was supposed to include. Lt. Stover did not remember any specific training he gave Petitioner, nor did Lt. Little, but Lt. Little testified that he was present when, before Petitioner first arrived on Lt. Stover's shift in July 1996, the Captain had ordered them both to "bring [Petitioner] up to speed." Petitioner suggested that failure to re-orient and retrain him evidenced Respondent's discrimination against him. His post-hearing proposal also asserts that due to Respondent's failure to train him in "new" personnel regulations, combined with Respondent's requirement that he adhere to those regulations which Jail custom did not normally follow, constituted disparate treatment and/or discrimination against him on the basis of his race or due to retaliation, and/or failure to accommodate his handicap. This perception is unpersuasive in light of the employer's repeated correspondence urging him to take the training, whatever that training might have been. Despite Mr. Tarbox's failure to reply to Petitioner's October 22, 1996, inquiry about training (See Finding of Fact 48), Petitioner's perception of discrimination was not established as fact. From the evidence as a whole, it is more probable that any failure to train Petitioner was the result of his request to change shifts, and thus, lieutenant-supervisors in July or his frequent absences. The record does not make clear whether the re-orientation/re-training requirement was unique to Respondent, who returned in 1996, or applied to all four of the returning African-American officers restored in 1994, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than he did. He did not establish that any White/Caucasian or non-handicapped employee ever got any more re-orientation/re-training than the other restored African-American officers, handicapped or otherwise. He also did not establish that any other restored African-American officer, handicapped or otherwise, received more re- orientation/re-training than he did. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Sergeant Babula testified credibly that he had at least instructed Petitioner with regard to the new payroll forms when Petitioner changed shifts in July 1996. Payroll forms include calculating hours worked and monies owed. Testimony and business records also show Petitioner had five hours of drug policy training. (See Finding of fact 72). Also, Respondent did not discipline Petitioner for his failure to request leave of specific personnel as required by the only new personnel regulation, until after Petitioner had been instructed in writing to do so. These written instructions may not have constituted complete "re-orientation" or "re- training," but they were direct orders sufficient to instruct Petitioner what was expected of him. (See Findings of Fact 16, 29, 43, 46-47, 57-59). Lastly, based on Petitioner's testimony that even if he had known he was required by a new regulation to request leave from his lieutenant-supervisor he would not have followed that regulation but instead would have considered himself bound by his union contract and by the custom of asking for leave of anyone on his shift at the Jail, it appears that any failure of Respondent to specifically "train" Petitioner concerning new personnel regulations had no effect on his subsequent failure to comply with the employer's expectations concerning its leave policy. Petitioner had admitted in evidence a certified copy of a "Second Superceding Indictment" issued by a federal Grand Jury on February 27, 2001. It was not established that this was the same Grand Jury before which Petitioner testified in 1996. (See Finding of Fact 47). The indictment (which is only a charging document, not a conviction) named Nate Caldwell, Respondent's former Director; Samuel Krider, Respondent's former Assistant Director; Garry M. Brown, a former Captain with Respondent; and Charles Scott Simmons, a former Lieutenant with Respondent, for conspiracy to obstruct justice by violating 18 USC Section 1503, by hindering the court and jury in a federal civil rights action brought by Mr. Dickerson against the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dickerson's federal case arose out of Mr. Dickerson's demotion in rank with Petitioner in connection with the 1994 escape. It was not established that any of the indicted officials held office during the time material to Petitioner's instant case, 1996- 1997, or that any of them had anything to do with Petitioner's 1996 leave disputes or 1997 termination. Indeed, it was established that Sands or Tarbox was Interim Director at all times material. The indictment mentions Petitioner and Captain King, a superior of Petitioner at all times material, but neither Petitioner nor Captain King were indicted. Despite the lack of clarity of Petitioner's and Mr. Dickerson's testimony, the undersigned infers from their testimony and the indictment that Petitioner testified concerning the same matters before the Grand Jury in 1996 and that prior to 1996 Petitioner had been a witness in Mr. Dickerson's federal discrimination case against the County Commissioners. However, Petitioner testified that his retaliation allegation herein is not based on his 1996 testimony before the Grand Jury. Rather, Petitioner asserted at hearing that he believed he had been retaliated against by his superiors in 1996-1997 for speaking at 1993 meetings of the County Commission concerning structural and staffing problems at the Jail, and otherwise he did not know why he had been retaliated against. (TR-Vol. I pp. 229-233).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner has not proven discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. operated a meat packing plant in Plant City, Florida. Hennis Washington, III was employed by Respondent at that plant as a utility worker. Petitioner, Hillsborough County, through its Human Resources and Equal Opportunity Department, had the authority to investigate and administratively enforce County Ordinances relative to unlawful discrimination in employment. Respondent is 5'1/2" tall and weighs about 114 pounds, much the same as at the time in issue. He is a power lifter and claims to be able to lift 405 pounds in a dead lift. He was employed at the Respondent's plant from July, 1991 to May, 1993, when he was terminated in the action which is the subject of this hearing. On May 24, 1993, while in the performance of his duties, Mr. Washington was carrying a stack of empty boxes from one place to another through the plant's bacon curing department. The stack of boxes he was carrying extended above his head and as a result he was unable to see in front of him. As he proceeded down the aisle, he ran into some resistance which prevented him from going further. He changed direction to the side where he could see, and which, he believed, was clear, and again ran into resistance which, this time, caused him to drop the boxes. After the boxes fell, and he could see in front of him, he observed Mr. Romero, a sanitation worker, in front of him, smiling. There is some question whether or not Mr. Romero took a step toward Mr. Washington. At hearing, Mr. Washington said he did and that he felt threatened by Mr. Romero's advance, though at his grievance hearing he did not indicate that. In response, howevever, Mr. Washington moved toward Mr. Romero, a man approximately 5'8" tall and weighing approximately 175 pounds, picked him up, and dropped him on the floor. As a result of that, Mr. Romero claimed to have injured his back and reported to the medical office by which he was released from duty for the evening. After this action, Mr. Washington was terminated from employment with the company. He is of the opinion it was because of his race, but admits he was advised by his supervisor, Mr. Freeman, it was because it was felt he had over- reacted to the situation with Mr. Romero. Nonetheless, an employee action request initiated by Mr. Freeman, dated May 24, 1993 reflected that Mr. Washington was administratively terminated. Administrative termination deals with unauthorized absences, according to the company's Employee Handbook. Mr. Freeman, himself African-American, was not present at the time of the incident, but was informed of it shortly thereafter, and called Mr. Washington to his office. Mr. Washington admitting picking up Mr. Romero, whom he did not previously know, and thereafter dropping him to the floor. Mr. Freeman, after finding out what happened, referred the matter to Mr. Harris, the employee relations manager, who is also African-American. Mr. Freeman did not interview Mr. Romero. He prepared the administrative termination notice upon direction of his supervisors. He claims the termination was based on Mr. Washington's fighting and not on the basis of his race. Mr. Harris, over a period of the next several days, conducted his independent investigation into the incident which investigation included speaking with Mr. Washington, Mr. Romero, and several other witnesses. During this period, both Mr. Washington and Mr. Romero were suspended. Mr. Harris' investigation confirmed there had been an incident, but he could find no evidence that Mr. Romero had pushed the boxes Mr. Washington was carrying. It was for that reason that Mr. Romero was not disciplined. The termination of Mr. Washington was predicated upon the fact that he had been engaged in a fight with another employee. The Respondent's personnel rules indicate that fighting, as opposed to mere horseplay, is a Class I infraction, the punishment for which can include dismissal. It includes the throwing of punches, the use of weapons, and the threat of injury. Horseplay, on the other hand, usually amounts to no more than pushing, tugging, and actions which are not likely to result in injury. In the instant case, Mr. Washington's actions constituted a direct battery of Mr. Romero which resulted in injury. It was, therefore, properly considered fighting. Mr. Harris concluded that Mr. Washington had reacted to the situation improperly. If, as he claimed, Mr. Washington felt he was being harrassed by Mr. Romero and Mr. Barbosa, who was with Mr. Romero at the time of the incident, he should have reported the matter to his supervisor rather than taking matters into his own hands. Employees are given an Employee Handbook when they begin employment with the company, and they are taught, in a four hour orientation course given to all employees, to back off from incidents of this nature - not to fight. Because he felt Mr. Washington had overreacted, Mr. Harris recommended termination, even though a check of both employees' personnel records indicated neither had any previous incidents. At the time of the incident, Lykes had approximtely 750 production maintenance employees, (Mr. Washington's category). Of this number, between 30 and 35 percent were African-American, 15 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were other minorities, and between 45 and 50 percent white. Mr. Hampton, Lykes' Vice-President for Employee Relations, was made aware of the situation involving Mr. Washington by Mr. Harris, who recommended termination. Mr. Hampton agreed with this recommendation because Mr Washington had thrown Mr. Romero down and injured him. The recommendation for termination was not based on race and was consistent with discipline taken in prior incidents. Specifically, Mr. Hampton referred to a situation occuring not long before the instant case in which two white employees were initially terminated for an altercation they had. In that case, the investigation showed the employees had been fighting and both initially were fired. However, the union filed a grievance. A hearing was held and the decision to terminate was upheld. Thereupon, the union indicated its intent to take the matter to arbitration, and as a result of a meeting held on that issue, it was determined that the incident was more horseplay than fighting and there was little likelihood the company could prevail at arbitration. That conclusion was based on the fact there were no blows struck, there was no injury, and the incident stopped immediately upon the arrival of the supervisor. The employees thereafter were disciplined and reinstated. Mr. Washington also filed a grievance regarding his case. A hearing was held persuant to the union contract. Based on the information presented at the hearing, the grievance committee, made up of two African-American employees and one white employee, concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the issue to arbitration. This committee included the same individuals who heard the previously noted grievance, regarding the white employees. Mr. Washington asserts that because he had been assigned to a position previously held by Mr. Romero, who, he claimed, was demoted from utility to sanitation, Mr. Romero was angry with him and was looking for trouble. The evidence of record indicates that in March, 1993, Mr. Romero was transferred to another position on a different shift from that he was then occupying. The evidence also indicates the position to which Mr. Washington was assigned cannot be considered to be Mr. Romero's old position. Utility and sanitation jobs are, purportedly, on a par. Mr. Washington was assigned to a job identical to that which Mr. Romero had vacated, but on a different shift. Mr. Romero would have had no reason to think Mr. Washington took his job any more than any other utility employee. Further, there is no evidence, save the claim by Mr. Washington, that Mr. Romero acted in a threatening manner. Mr. Glisson, a witness to the incident, indicated the two "tangled". but there was no indication of aggressiveness by Mr. Romero. Taken together, while Washington may have believed Mr. Romero was threatening him, there was insufficient provocation for him to react in the way he did. Under the terms of the Employee Handbook, he should have retreated, and his actions constituted fighting which is grounds for discipline. It is impossible to conclude, from the evidence of record, that the termination of Mr. Washington resulted from anything other than a reaction to his demonstrated misconduct. Only one question remains unanswered. On June 1, 1993, an Employee Action Request was prepared, purporting to administratively terminate Mr. Washington because of fighting on the job and threats of violence. Counsel for the County claims this is an alteration of that action form prepared on May 24, 1993. Both exhibits were photo copies and it is impossible to tell, with certainty, that an alteration occurred. However, a close comparison of the copies leads to the conclusion that the latter dated form is, in reality, an alteration of the former with the dates changed, and an addition of fighting and threats with a direction to remove Mr. Washington from the payroll. No evidence was presented regarding a reason for the alteration, and nothing improper can be legitimately inferred therefrom. Counsel representing Mr. Washington makes reference to the opinion of an Appeals Referee of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, dated July 30, 1993, which, in reversing the determination of the claims examiner in Mr. Washington's unemployment compensation claim, determines that he was not the aggressor in the incident that led to his discharge, and that his involvment was merely for self-protection. The Referee also finds that Mr. Washington's actions could not be viewed as misconduct connected with his work, and he is, therefore, not disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The Referee concludes, as a matter of law, that inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, and/or good faith errors in judgement or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct" "within the meaning of the statute, (Chapter 443, Florida Statutes). The finding of the Appeals Referee is not binding on the undersigned in this action. Mr. Washington was deemed by his employers to have, by fighting, overreacted in the confrontation with Mr. Romero. Overreaction can be equated with poor judgement which, in an industry as hazardous as is meat packing, may well serve as appropriate grounds for discharge even if not classified as misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Determination of No Cause be entered by the Hillsborough Human Relations Board concerning the termination from employment of Hennis Washington, III by the Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorported herein. Second sentence rejected as a being more a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. - 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. 2. & 3. 4. 5. & 6. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted and and and and incorporated incorporated incorporated incorporated herein. herein. herein. herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine P. Teti, Esquire Office of the County Attorney Hillsborough County P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael D. Malfitano, Esquire Malfitano & Campbell, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1080 P.O. Box 1840 Tampa, Florida 33601-1840 Daniel A. Kleman County Administrator Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue Did Petitioner suffer an adverse employment action as a result of an unlawful discrimination by the Department of Corrections (Department) in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed at Brevard Correctional Institution and was considered by the Department to be qualified for the position for which he was employed. Petitioner is a male, African-American. On October 24 1994, Petitioner received a Written Reprimand for the abuse of the Department's sick leave policy, which had occurred on October 21, 1994, in that Petitioner, while on authorized sick leave on October 21, 1994, attended the Dorothy Lewis trial, without authorization from the Department. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the Written Reprimand issued on October 24, 1994, was issued because of Petitioner's race or gender; rather it was issued based on a reasonable belief that Petitioner had abused the Department's sick leave policy by attending the Dorothy Lewis trial while out on official sick leave. Petitioner presented no evidence to support the remaining allegations contained in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh F. Brockington, II 19715 Eagles View Circle Umatilla, Florida 32784 Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Katelyn Ashley-Rose Newton, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact As observed in the preliminary statement, neither Petitioners nor anyone on their behalf appeared at hearing, and no proof was offered to support their claim. Respondent, in light of such failure, declined the opportunity to offer any evidence. Consequently, there being no proof, it cannot be factually resolved whether Katelyn Ashley-Rose Newton, a minor, suffered a "birth-related neurological injury" as alleged in the claim for benefits.
