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 Whether Petitioner (“Holly Mathis” or “Ms. Mathis”), in contravention of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01 through 760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ experienced sexual harassment and/or disparate treatment during her employment at Respondent, O’Reilly Auto Parts (“O’Reilly”).
Findings Of Fact O’Reilly is a retail distributor of automobile parts headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. On approximately August 11, 2014, Ms. Mathis began working at an O’Reilly’s store in Panama City Beach, Florida (“store no. 4564”). Her duties included pulling automobile parts from the store’s inventory and using an O’Reilly’s-owned vehicle to deliver automobile parts to mechanics in the surrounding area. Ms. Mathis was the only female employee at store no. 4564. Upon beginning her employment with O’Reilly, Ms. Mathis received a copy of the O’Reilly Auto Parts Team Member Handbook (“the Handbook”) detailing policies, benefits, and the responsibilities of O’Reilly’s employees. One portion of the Handbook specifies that O’Reilly’s employees “are not discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, military obligation, disability, or other protected class as defined by federal, state or local laws.” Another portion of the Handbook addressed harassment and stated that “[a]buse of other team members through ethnic, racist, or sexist slurs or other derogatory or objectionable conduct is unacceptable behavior and will be subject to progressive discipline.” This portion of the Handbook continued by describing sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment is a specific form of harassment that undermines the integrity of the employment relationship – it will not be tolerated. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual’s employment. Submission to or rejection of the conduct is the basis for an employment decision affecting the harassed team member. The harassment substantially interferes with a team member’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. This portion of the Handbook also instructed employees how to report harassment: If you feel you have been discriminated against or have observed another team member being discriminated against due to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sex, age or veteran status, you should immediately report such incidents to your supervisor/manager, local Human Resources representative, the corporate Human Resources Department, or anonymously via the company’s T.I.P.S. Hotline at 1-800-473-8470 without fear of reprisal. A prompt, thorough investigation will be made as confidentially as possible. Appropriate action, up to and including termination, will be taken to ensure that neither discrimination nor harassment persists . . . . The Handbook instructs an O’Reilly’s employee with work-related concerns to bring them to the attention of his or her supervisor. If the work-related concern involves that employee’s supervisor, then the Handbook instructs the employee to “speak directly with the next level of supervision.” Store no. 4564 had a poster notifying employees that sexual harassment is illegal. The poster stated that: If you experience or witness sexual harassment, report it immediately to your supervisor or the Human Resources Department without fear of retaliation. The company will promptly investigate all complaints as confidentially as possible. If the company concludes that sexual harassment did occur, disciplinary action will be taken with the offender(s) up to and including termination. The poster listed two “hotline” phone numbers that O’Reilly’s employees could utilize to report sexual harassment. Also, the Handbook states that “[s]moking, eating, and drinking are not allowed in company vehicles, and team members are not permitted to possess food or beverages, including water, within the cab of a store delivery vehicle.” As noted above, Ms. Mathis began working for O’Reilly on approximately August 11, 2014. She typically worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Ms. Mathis’ hiring by O’Reilly was probably facilitated by the fact that she had previously worked with the store’s general manager (Paul Stephenson) at an Advance Auto Parts store. Ms. Mathis considered Mr. Stephenson to be a “big brother.” However, in September of 2014, Mr. Stephenson began directing sexual comments toward Ms. Mathis, and inappropriate conduct by Mr. Stephenson continued through April of 2015.2/ During Ms. Mathis’ employment with O’Reilly, Mr. Stephenson was the highest-ranking employee at the Panama City Beach store. Therefore, Mr. Stephenson had supervisory authority over Ms. Mathis. On April 4, 2015, Ms. Mathis and Mr. Stephenson were working at store no. 4564. When Ms. Mathis asked to leave early so that she could spend time with her newborn, Mr. Stephenson repeatedly asked her to expose her breasts to him. Ms. Mathis refused Mr. Stephenson’s requests but was eventually allowed to leave work early. However, Ms. Mathis had been under the impression that she would not be allowed to leave early unless she complied with Mr. Stephenson’s request. On approximately April 13, 2015, Ms. Mathis applied for a position at an Autozone store approximately five minutes from store no. 4564. By April 14, 2015, Ms. Mathis had secured a new position at that Autozone store and submitted a letter of resignation to O’Reilly on April 14, 2015. Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct did not stop after Ms. Mathis submitted her letter of resignation. As discussed in her Petition for Relief, Mr. Stephenson attempted to touch her in an inappropriate manner many times on April 15, 2015, and succeeded in doing so on April 16, 2015. Ms. Mathis reaffirmed that statement during her testimony at the final hearing. The undersigned finds Ms. Mathis’ testimony regarding Mr. Stephenson’s conduct in April of 2015 to be credible. April 16, 2015, was Ms. Mathis’ last day of work at store no. 4564, and she began working for Autozone on April 17, 2015. In addition to Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct, Ms. Mathis asserts that she was subjected to disparate treatment by her direct supervisor, William Yohe. Specifically, Ms. Mathis testified that Mr. Yohe would belittle her by calling her “stupid” in front of co-workers and customers. Male employees did not experience such verbal abuse. In addition, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to decline deliveries without giving Ms. Mathis the same option. When a male driver declined a particular delivery, then Ms. Mathis was required to handle it. Also, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to have food and beverages in the O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. However, Mr. Yohe sent Ms. Mathis home early on April 10, 2015, for having a Gatorade in a delivery vehicle. With the exception of family and friends, Ms. Mathis told no one (including no one with authority over Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Yohe in O’Reilly’s chain-of-command) of the sexual harassment and disparate treatment she experienced at store no. 4564. Ms. Mathis did not report the sexual harassment and disparate treatment to anyone associated with O’Reilly because she was worried that Mr. Stephenson or Mr. Yohe would learn of her complaints and fire her. As a single mother of a newborn, she could ill afford to be out of work. As for the anonymous T.I.P.S. Hotline in the Handbook, Ms. Mathis was concerned that her anonymity could not be maintained because she was the only female employee at store no. 4564. The undersigned finds that Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stephenson sexually harassed her in April of 2015 as described above. There was no reliable evidence to rebut Ms. Mathis’ allegations regarding Mr. Stephenson. For example, another driver at store no. 4564 testified that he never observed any behavior towards Ms. Mathis that amounted to a violation of O’Reilly’s policies. However, that testimony and his written statement were of little use because the other driver worked Mondays and Tuesdays while Ms. Mathis usually worked Wednesday through Friday. Mr. Stephenson did not testify during the final hearing. He did give a written statement to O’Reilly in which he denied any inappropriate conduct of the nature described by Ms. Mathis. However, and as explained in the Conclusions of Law below, Mr. Stephenson’s written statement was hearsay, and it did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. In addition, several other O’Reilly’s employees submitted written statements explaining that they had never seen any discrimination at their workplace and/or that they were unaware of any discrimination occurring at their workplace. However, those employees did not testify, and their written statements did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. Mr. Yohe gave a written statement in which he noted that no one had complained to him about being sexually harassed. However, and as noted above, Ms. Mathis told no one other than friends and family about her experiences at store no. 4564. While Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Stephenson during her employment at O’Reilly, she did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to other types of disparate treatment. Mr. Yohe denied verbally abusing Ms. Mathis, and O’Reilly’s witnesses persuasively testified that male and female drivers were treated equally with regard to having prohibited items in O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. As for Ms. Mathis’ assertion that she was forced to make deliveries that male drivers declined, Mr. Yohe rebutted that assertion by testifying that Ms. Mathis was unable to successfully work the front counter at store no. 4564 because she had yet to accumulate sufficient knowledge of automobile parts. Therefore, if the front counter was short-staffed at certain times, then a male driver would be asked to work the front counter and Ms. Mathis would have to handle all of the deliveries during that time period. The undersigned also finds O’Reilly had reasonable measures in place to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior. It is also found that Ms. Mathis failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities offered by O’Reilly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Holly Mathis’ claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2016.
The Issue Is the Respondent unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness or as a result of any mental or physical condition? If yes, what is the appropriate disciplinary response to that impediment?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, in accordance with Chapters 20, 455, and 458, Florida Statutes, regulates the practice of physician's assistants in Florida. The Respondent practices as a physician's assistant in Florida. His license number is PA002355. PRESENT EMPLOYMENT At present, the Respondent works as a physician's assistant for Michael Dulaney, M.D. Dr. Dulaney is a board- certified family practitioner. The Respondent has worked for Dr. Dulaney for approximately one year. Dr. Dulaney has been satisfied with the Respondent's work. Dr. Dulaney has had no reports of problems with the Respondent's conduct reported by patients or other office staff. In particular, Dr. Dulaney does not have any specific knowledge concerning complaints made about Respondent related to sexual misconduct from the period February, 1992 forward. At present, the Respondent's practice in Dr. Dulaney's office is limited to treatment of adults; however, Dr. Dulaney would not be opposed to having the Respondent treat minors and adults. Dr. Dulaney is aware of the reasons for the present restrictions on the Respondent's practice, limited to care of adults. These limits are as had been imposed by the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN) based upon the Respondent's mental health status. The controls that are in place by Dr. Dulaney to limit the Respondent's present practice to adults include an inquiry by office staff when an appointment is made by a patient as to the age of the patient and another check when the patient arrives for the appointment as to the patient's age. The Respondent is also required to check the patient's age before rendering care. The protocol followed by Dr. Dulaney in his practice is to the effect that no female patient is examined by a doctor or a physician's assistant without a second staff member being in attendance. The second staff member would be a female. Should the Respondent not be allowed to provide care to minors in the future, Dr. Dulaney would allow the Respondent to remain as a physician's assistant and treat adults only. HISTORY On or about June 18, 1992, following allegations regarding custodial sexual battery of his 14-year-old stepdaughter, K.B., the Respondent entered into a monitoring contract with the PRN. The Respondent had also sexually abused his six or seven-year-old daughter from his first marriage. The Respondent was sexually abused by male and female siblings as a child. Raymond Pomm, M.D. specializes in general psychiatry, as well as addiction psychiatry. Among other duties, Dr. Pomm is a staff psychiatrist for the PRN. While under the terms of the monitoring contract in connection with the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Impaired Practitioner's Program, Dr. Pomm consulted the Respondent's physician employers on occasion to determine the Respondent's conduct as a physician's assistant. Dr. Pomm never received a report from the employers that the Respondent was acting inappropriately. On these occasions, the employers would indicate that they were satisfied with the Respondent' s work. When the Respondent signed the monitoring contract with the PRN, he agreed not to see patients under 18 years of age; to have a supervising physician report to the PRN on a quarterly basis regarding his behavior. The Respondent's supervising physician was responsible to make sure that patient information forms were handed out to patients to allow the patients to give immediate feedback concerning their perception of the Respondent's behavior. The supervising physician was to review 10 percent of the Respondent's charts on a quarterly basis. The Respondent was to receive ongoing therapy from John Vallely, Ph.D., a psychologist. On December 28, 1993, Dr. Goetz, the Director of the PRN, wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to advise the Secretary that Dr. Goetz was convinced that the Respondent's impairment seriously effected the public health, safety and welfare. This was followed by action by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, to bring the Administrative Complaint, under Case No. 93-07340, charging the Respondent with being unable to practice his profession as a physician's assistant with reasonable skill and safety to patients based upon his illness and mental status. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to the opinion of Dr. Vallely. The opinion of Dr. Vallely which promoted the complaint was that the Respondent carried an Axis II Diagnosis of Mixed Personality Disorder with Obsessive- Compulsive, Anti-Social and Paranoid Features, and that the Respondent would need long-term therapy. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to a recommendation by Dr. Vallely that the Respondent's practice be limited to patients 18 years of age and older. Dr. Vallely did not testify in this proceeding to render his opinion concerning the Respondent's fitness to practice. Testimony on this subject was presented by Barbara A. Stein, M.D., testifying for the Petitioner. She is board-certified in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. In opposition to that testimony, the Respondent presented the testimony of Keith R. D'Amato, Ph.D., who is a clinical and forensic psychologist, who treated the Respondent. The Respondent also presented the testimony of Gini Fort, M.A., in counseling psychology, who worked with Dr. D'Amato in treating the Respondent. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to findings by George Bernard, M.D., who examined the Respondent and diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from pedophilia, opposite sex, non-exclusive type. Dr. Bernard did not testify in this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to a determination on July 8, 1993, when the Respondent was evaluated by Gene Abel, M.D., of the Behavioral Medicine Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, in which Dr. Abel recommended that the Respondent not be in a medical setting, where the Respondent had proximity to girls under 18 years of age, nor in proximity to his former victim, taken to mean the Respondent's stepdaughter, until the Respondent had further treatment. Dr. Abel did not testify in this proceeding. Finally, the Administrative Complaint makes reference to the reference by Dr. Vallely, on December 16, 1993, in which Dr. Vallely described the Respondent as "a highly dangerous sex offender with pedophilic desires and attractions". The Respondent was also seen by Michael J. Herkov, Ph.D. at the time the Respondent was seen by Dr. Bernard. Dr. Herkov is a psychologist. Dr. Herkov did not testify in this proceeding. The treatment and evaluations performed by Drs. Vallely, Bernard, Herkov and Abel were all in association with the monitoring performed by the PRN. Although the health care providers associated with the Respondent that have been mentioned in the prior paragraph did not testify in this proceeding, their insights assisted Drs. Stein and D'Amato and Ms. Fort in arriving at their opinions concerning the Respondent's condition. Consequently, it is to some advantage to describe the history of treatment and evaluation by those health care providers, notwithstanding the inability to rely upon their independent judgment in determining the Respondent's present ability to render care with reasonable skill and safety. The Respondent began seeing Dr. Vallely in June, 1992 and received treatment off and on until December, 1993. For the benefit of the PRN, Dr. Vallely indicated that the Respondent carried a diagnosis of pedophilia and mixed personality disorder with obsessive- compulsive, antisocial and paranoid features. Dr. Vallely tried to address these conditions. Other attempts were made by the PRN to assist the Respondent. On December 9, 1992, the Respondent saw Drs. Bernard and Herkov. They diagnosed the Respondent as having pedophilia, opposite sex, non-exclusive type. At that time, according to a report by these health care providers, there was no information indicating that the Respondent was being presently sexually inappropriate with patients or any indication that he would engage in that behavior in the future. The recommendation by Drs. Bernard and Herkov was that the Respondent continue to be restricted in seeing children under the age of 18, be they male or female, until such time as the Respondent's treating therapist felt that the restriction was no longer necessary. The Respondent was initially treated by Dr. Vallely through June 18, 1993, at which time, Dr. Vallely suspended the Respondent's care. At that juncture, Dr. Vallely expressed the view to the PRN that the Respondent was manipulating therapy in attempting to gain closer contact with his stepdaughter. At that time, the Respondent expressed the view to the PRN that he did not believe that he was being heard by Dr. Vallely and that Dr. Vallely was overreacting. The Respondent requested another therapist to resolve this conflict. The PRN recommended that another evaluation be performed by a professional. This led to an evaluation by Dr. Abel in Atlanta, Georgia. The evaluation by Dr. Abel took place on July 8, 1993. Dr. Abel is recognized as an expert in the treatment of child sexual abusers. Although Dr. Abel did not arrive at a formal diagnosis, he summarized his belief of the continuing existence of pedophilia on the Respondent's part and a concern about the Respondent's manifest symptoms of arousal in relation to minor females. That concern was addressed through a penile plethysmophgraphy performed on the Respondent, in which the Respondent evidenced arousal to young girls. In his conclusions, Dr. Abel recommended that the Respondent should not be allowed to treat girls under 18 years of age. The Respondent then returned to receive therapy from Dr. Vallely. The Respondent and Dr. Vallely continued to have conflict concerning the Respondent's relationship with his stepdaughter and the Respondent's intention to remarry his ex-wife. Eventually, the Respondent was expelled from the program administered by Dr. Vallely. This expulsion took place on December 16, 1993 and was followed by the correspondence of December 28, 1993 by Dr. Goetz recommending that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation find that the Respondent's condition seriously effected the public's health, safety and welfare. The Respondent was referred to Dr. D'Amato from the State Attorney's Office. This was in association with the case of State of Florida v. Stephen Allan Newbern, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 92-3347CF CR-C, as agreed to by the Respondent's counsel. The day Dr. D'Amato first saw the Respondent was February 10, 1994. The case described was the case in which the Respondent was accused of custodial sexual battery directed to his stepdaughter, K.B. Following the Respondent's decision to remarry his ex-wife, the Respondent was arrested in association with the aforementioned Circuit Court case, in which he had previously been allowed probation to participate in the program conducted by Dr. Vallely. The reason for the Respondent's arrest was premised upon a report by Dr. Vallely concerning the Respondent's decision to remarry his ex-wife. The Circuit Court case was then disposed of on June 24, 1994, in which an order was entered by the court following the Respondent's plea of guilty to a lesser included offense in Count I, lewd and lascivious act. For that plea, the Respondent had his guilt withheld; the Respondent was placed on community control for a period of two years, followed by eight years probation; and the Respondent was ordered not to have contact with his stepdaughter, directly or indirectly, without consent from his counselor or the Community Control Officer. The Respondent was ordered to pay for his stepdaughter's counseling or treatment through a treatment facility or counselor to which the stepdaughter had been referred, as directed by the Community Control Officer. The Respondent was ordered to continue his psychosexual counseling through Dr. D'Amato, who had substituted for Dr. Vallely. In this connection, the Respondent, in February of 1992, had voluntarily hospitalized himself based upon panic attacks and depression. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the INS of the Navy; and the Respondent was arrested and incarcerated for 21 days for sexually abusing his stepdaughter. As a consequence, he was referred to the KIDS Sexual Offender Program, in Jacksonville, Florida, and directed to receive treatment from Dr. Vallely. In March or April of 1992, the Respondent was advised by his Naval Preceptor, Dr. Carrierre, to refer himself to the PRN. The Respondent accepted that advice and took the referral in May, 1992 and signed a contract in June, 1992 to monitor his mental health status. The Navy found him guilty of the sex offense and allowed him to remain in the service on active duty until his retirement on October 31, 1992. During this time, he served as a physician's assistant but was limited in his practice to adults only. When the Respondent attempted to reunite with his ex-wife in February, 1993, Dr. Vallely suspended him from the KIDS Program. In June, 1994, the Respondent was accused of violating his probation associated with the case in which he was a participant in the KIDS Program. The allegation of violation of probation was in relation to the Respondent's decision to stay with his ex-wife and stepdaughter in January, 1994. The Respondent was not prosecuted for this violation because he agreed to enter Dr. D'Amato's sexual offender program. In turn, he entered a nolo contendere plea to lewd and lascivious act and had the order entered on June 24, 1994 setting the terms of continued probation. The Respondent received treatment from Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort for approximately two years. In his practice, Dr. D'Amato specializes in the treatment of sexual offenders and has treated 500-700 persons with those conditions. Of those persons, two to three percent have been referred for a jail sentence and another two to three percent have been terminated from the treatment program. To deal with the Respondent's pedophilia, Dr. D'Amato conducted an initial clinical interview. Dr. D'Amato performed a number of tests to gain an impression of the Respondent's condition, to include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Columbia Sexual Screening Questionnaire, the Jackson Incest Blame Questionnaire, the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire, the Sexual History Questionnaire, and the Sexual Interest Card Sort. Following the initial assessment, Dr. D'Amato entered the Respondent into a treatment program, which had four levels. Level I was designed to insure safety of the community by restricting movement and by insuring that the Respondent owned up to and took responsibility for the sexual offense that had been committed against his stepdaughter. Levels II and III were devoted to psycho-educational activities, where the Respondent was expected to learn to identify antecedents to the sexual misconduct that had been committed. Level IV was a relapse-prevention process to allow the Respondent to develop a comprehensive plan that could "offshoot" any problems, stresses or arousals that would lead the Respondent to re-offend in the future. During the first phase of the treatment received by the Respondent, an abuse letter was written, a meeting was held with the victim to confront the abuse, history of the abuse was taken, and an apology letter was written. During the second and third phases, the Respondent learned to identify stresses that may lead to problems and to develop empathy for the victim. The emphasis of Dr. D'Amato's program that he administered to the Respondent was cognitive in nature. The program was anticipated to last between two and five years, depending on the person receiving the therapy. Patients in the program are seen in group treatment and, in some instances, receive marital or family therapy individually. The Respondent had polygraphs administered to him to attempt to determine if there was ongoing sexual abuse and to determine if the types of fantasies that the Respondent was entertaining when he entered the treatment program were still in evidence. In treating the Respondent, Dr. D'Amato did not use behavioral therapy to any large extent. This choice was made because having the Respondent undergo polygraphs and looking at the Respondent's psychological assessments which were done over the years, led Dr. D'Amato to believe that the primary problem that the Respondent had was in distorting information. It was observed, through the polygraph examinations, that the Respondent was not showing deviant sexual arousal. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to offer treatment to deal with that form of problem. It was deemed more important to deal with cognitive restructuring of the Respondent and his view of life and people and interpersonal relationships. The Respondent did receive some behavioral training in his treatment by Dr. D'Amato, referred to as covert desensitization and role playing. Dr. D'Amato believes that cognitive therapy is the best approach to treating pedophilia, non-exclusive type, which the Respondent evidenced. Non-exclusive pedophiles, as defined in DSM-IV, have age-appropriate relationships, whereas fixated pedophiles focus exclusively on children. The Respondent was last seen by Dr. D'Amato in March, 1996. At that time, Dr. D'Amato diagnosed the Respondent as having a mixed personality disorder, NOS., with slight depression, not of a clinical nature, that the Respondent still suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and pedophilia, non-exclusive type in remission. Dr. D'Amato does not believe that the Respondent needs to undergo further treatment to address the Respondent's condition, in that the Respondent is not showing any active symptoms, has acted in a responsible manner in his work and life, and has integrated back into his family. To require therapy when it is not needed would cause the Respondent to be more resistant, and the Respondent would not grow from the experience, according to Dr. D'Amato. Dr. D'Amato believes that the Respondent has good relapse prevention skills and has shown that he is implementing those skills in his life. Dr. D'Amato relied upon the polygraph examinations to determine whether the cognitive therapy received by the Respondent was successful. In doing so, Dr. D'Amato recognizes that the polygraph measures physiological responses following the subject's answer to a question. Dr. D'Amato did not refer to the prior penile plethysmophgraphy testing to confirm the Respondent's status and did not administer that test. He sees the latter test as being a measurement of sexual response to pictures, which is less important to Dr. D'Amato than the question of whether the Respondent is having sexual fantasies or acting out in a sexually-inappropriate way, which Dr. D'Amato believes the polygraph examination would uncover. Dr. D'Amato has experienced 95 percent success in the treatment of sexual offenders. Nonetheless, he recognizes that this success does not establish that persons who are pedophiles, who have not been known to re-offend, are cured. Dr. D'Amato is not aware of any reports concerning misconduct by the Respondent in treating patients. Dr. D'Amato does not believe that the Respondent should have his practice restricted to adults only. Dr. D'Amato was impressed with the Respondent's ability to deal with stress in relation to a death within the Respondent's family, various legal problems associated with the Respondent's sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, his work load, and the re-unification of the Respondent's family, without committing further sexual abuse based upon the stress. Dr. D'Amato saw the experience which the Respondent had in re-unifying his family as being helpful to his treatment by giving the Respondent the opportunity to deal with the realities of those relationships and to reconstruct those relationships in a positive manner. Dr. D'Amato observed that the Respondent's religious convictions assisted the Respondent in his rehabilitation by sharing the experience with his family and providing a code of conduct to follow. Dr. D'Amato recognized that the Respondent's character structure would not change over time but believed that the Respondent would change his behavior based upon new strategies and coping lessons that he had learned in the treatment. Dr. D'Amato expressed the opinion that if the Petitioner automatically revoked or suspended the Respondent's license to practice as a physician's assistant, the Respondent would not come forward and seek treatment in the future if he experienced a problem, and the result would be more sexual abuse. Ms. Fort expressed the opinion that the Respondent was a low or no- risk candidate for recidivism. Further, she indicated that the Respondent had successfully handled stress related to his older son coming home and financial difficulties. Ms. Fort expressed the belief that given the Respondent's successful completion of therapy, the Respondent could be in close contact with children in private. In performing her evaluation of the Respondent, Dr. Stein spoke to Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort concerning the care they rendered to the Respondent. Dr. Stein saw the Respondent on referral from the Physicians Resource Network, formerly known as the Physicians Recovery Network. Dr. Stein examined the Respondent in February, 1996. Dr. Stein's evaluation included an interview with the Respondent and preparation of a history. Dr. Stein also had access to collateral information from other treatment professionals who had seen the Respondent. Dr. Stein contacted individuals who were familiar with the Respondent's professional and private life. Dr. Stein arranged for Flora Zaken- Greenberg, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, to perform a clinical interview, record review, and psychological testing by use of a WAIS-R, Beck anxiety inventory, Beck depression inventory, MMPI-2, MCMI-III, and Roschach. Dr. Stein took all of these matters into account in preparing a report of her forensic psychiatric examination. That report was rendered on March 9, 1996. Dr. Stein, in her report, and at hearing, expressed the opinion that the Respondent suffers from pedophilia, non-exclusive type, DSM-IV 302.2, and personality disorder, not otherwise specified, which includes narcissistic, antisocial and dependent personality traits. Dr. Stein pointed out that pedophilia is a type of sexual deviant disorder, which lasts for at least six months, in which setting, the individual has strong urges, behaviors or fantasies of having sex with a prepubescent child, and this impairs the life of the pedophile. In a non-exclusive type of pedophilia, the individual may also have relationships with adults. Dr. Stein described the Respondent's personality disorder as being a circumstance in which the Respondent has difficulty viewing and interacting with the world. The Respondent sees the world through a distorted view, thinking in a distorted way, interacting in a distorted way, being impulsive and having a tendency to have mood problems from time to time. Those traits endure and impair him. That disorder does not necessarily mean that the Respondent could not work. In Dr. Stein's opinion, pedophilia cannot be cured and is a disease that has a very high relapse rate, notwithstanding that there are periods in which the pedophile does not have urges or behaviors or fantasies directed to prepubescent children. Dr. Stein holds the opinion that the Respondent will, given his condition of pedophilia, be at greater risk of sexually acting out inappropriately regardless of whether it is in the workplace or elsewhere. Dr. Stein expresses this opinion with the knowledge that the Respondent has learned a great deal from his sexual offender treatment and that the experience that he has had in participating in the treatment has lowered the risk for him to re- offend. Nonetheless, according to Dr. Stein, his psychological testing shows an underlying character structure that creates a potential for sexual deviance, impulsivity, antisocial acts, and impaired interpersonal relations, particularly so when under stress; and that set of circumstances has not changed overtime. Dr. Stein believes that the Respondent should have his practice as a physician's assistant restricted to adults only and the practice monitored. Dr. Stein believes that the monitoring should include biannual polygraph examinations, in which the following questions are asked: (1) have you had sexual feelings towards children under the age of 18 accompanied by your adult patients?; (2) have you concealed any relevant sexual history from your therapist?; (3) have you attempted to access those or other children under the age of 18?. Finally, Dr. Stein believes that the Respondent should participate in a relapse prevention group for the next 12 months and at least at quarterly intervals beyond that point for an indefinite period. She believes that this would assist the Respondent in relapse prevention, to build a repertoire to decrease his risk for re-offending and to protect society from a professional in his position of trust who has a disorder which cannot be cured. Dr. Stein believes that the additional 12-month therapy, followed by quarterly therapy for an indefinite period, is necessary to preserve a degree of continuity and to reinforce the skills achieved by the Respondent in addressing his condition and promotes the further recognition by the Respondent that he knows that he has to answer to people, and that there are external controls in a setting in which his internal controls are not as good as they need to be. The use of a polygraph on a biannual basis would be a means to aid in the process of exerting controls over the Respondent's conduct. Dr. Stein does not believe that it is necessary to revoke or suspend the Respondent's license completely to address his condition and protect the public. From the views held by Drs. Stein and D'Amato and Ms. Fort, it is clear and convincing that the Respondent has a mental condition which effects his practice as a physician's assistant and the ability to render care with reasonable skill and safety to his patients. According to the evidence, the Respondent has performed his practice in an acceptable manner when limited to treating adults only. Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort believe that the Respondent could practice as a physician's assistant in contact with children. Dr. Stein disagrees with that opinion. The experts also disagree concerning recidivism rates for pedophiles. Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort believe that the rate is low for their program. Dr. Stein does not generally hold that opinion. Given the seriousness of the Respondent's illness and the risk it presents to children, the lack of ability to cure his condition, and the possibility of relapse, however slight, there is a real concern about patient safety should the Respondent be allowed to practice as a physician's assistant treating children. To that end, Dr. Stein's opinion is more compelling when she urges restrictions on the Respondent's practice. Although Dr. D'Amato does not believe that a relapse prevention program is needed for the Respondent, if determined to be needed, he is persuaded that a program should only extend for six months. Having considered the views held by Drs. Stein and D'Amato, a further relapse prevention program of six months provided by Dr. D'Amato, together with quarterly therapy for an indefinite period beyond that point, with biannual polygraph tests of the sort recommended by Dr. Stein, is appropriate to insure that children, who are treated in the office where the Respondent practices, remain safe. No evidence was produced which would suggest that the Respondent should be completely denied the privilege to practice as a physician's assistant based upon concern that he would not proceed with reasonable skill and safety by reason of his mental illness. The restrictions that are discussed above adequately protect the public without depriving the Respondent of his livelihood.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Thaw, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes, restricting his practice as a physician s assistant to adults only, requiring the Respondent to undergo an additional six months of relapse prevention therapy, followed by quarterly therapy sessions for an indefinite period and biannual polygraph examinations. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. Garwood, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Terry D. Bork, Esquire 200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 1100 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4308 Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Respondent West Pensacola Baptist Wee Canter (Wee Center) holds license No. DC 1075 E, issued by petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) under Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. M. C. On April 18, 1986, and for the two months next preceding, Sheila Ward and other Wee Center staff observed M. C., who was born on February 9, 1981, "sexually acting out." M. C. had attended Wee Center for several years, before he began behaving in ways which, in two months' retrospect, seemed to evince more than "normal curiosity." On April 18, 1986, a teacher at Wee Center listed the specific behavior in question, and Mrs. Ward made a report to HRS. The list read: Telling another child (boy) to kiss a child's penis. Kissing anothor child on the rectum. Telling a girl to pull down her panties and kissing her on the vaginal area. As a girl was climbing up on a bar putting his hands in her vaginal area. Pulling 2 girls down and kissing them in their vaginal area. Asking girls to kiss him. Talking other boys into doing some of the same things named above. No competent evidence that M. C. had been "sexually acting out" for more than two months before Wee Center reported it to HRS was adduced, although there was hearsay to that effect and such an allegation reached HRS' Sue Brown, whose duties included inspecting day care centers. When Ms. Brown visited Wee Center on May 5, 1986, for a routine inspection antecedent to renewal of Wee Center's license, she told Ruby Taylor, Wee Center's assistant director, that all suspected child abuse had to be reported. On an "Inspection Supplement Sheet," she wrote 7. Please make all staff aware that any suspected cases of abuse or neglect must be reported to the agency immediately. This is a state law. Perhaps everyone should read the child abuse and neglect pamphlets again. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 Ms. Brown made no reference to M. C. or to any other child either on her inspection report or when she spoke to Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Taylor did not make the connection. D. M. On March 9, 1987, D. M.'s mother spanked D. M., then two years old, with a belt, leaving bruises and welts that were visible the next day. Mrs. Norton, a teacher at Wee Center, noticed "these places on his bottom," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, when she helped him pull his pants up at 11:25 a.m. on March 9, 1987, and asked him what had happened. When he told her that his mother had spanked him with a belt for not listening, she made a written report by filling out a form at Wee Center. Mrs. Ward spoke to D. M.'s mother when she came for him on the 10th. After his mother admitted spanking D. M. with a belt, according to Mrs. Ward's Contemporaneous account, she told her that punishment was too severe for a 2 year old and I as well as staff were legally Obligated to report bruising. She agreed this was not SOP but needed some new direction for discipline. She understood that any indication of this accident happening again would be reported. I agreed to offer alternate methods for discipline. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Even though, by her own admission, Mrs. Ward knew she was under a legal obligation to report the incident to HRS, she decided against doing so. D. M.'s mother was a fellow member of the congregation, in whose home she had visited. Also on March 10, 1987, for apparently unrelated reasons, D. M. was seen at Navy Hospital, where Beth Blair, a social worker, took pictures of bruises on D. M.'s left buttock and right thigh, and made a report to HRS. Karen Louden, the HRS intake counselor who investigated, spoke to D. M.'s parents on March 10, 1987. They told her both of their children often had marks, including, in one instanco, a black eye. D. M.'s mother said she had no control and could not stop it. When it came to light that Mrs. Ward had known of the incident on March 9, 1987, but had failed to report it, Merrie Calhoun, another HRS intake counselor, went to the Wee Center and Spoke to Mrs. Ward, who told her she had not reported it "because she felt it was a one time incident." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. When Ms. Calhoun reminded her "of [the] child abuse reporting law . . . she state[d] that this will not be a problem in the future." Id.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of sex, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"), section 760.10, Florida Statutes; and, if so, the remedy to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Ileene C. McDonald, is a female, and, thus, is a member of a class protected under the FCRA. At the time of the alleged discriminatory conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Kelly Services ("Kelly") as a temporary employee and was assigned to work at Respondent's facility located in Riviera Beach, Florida. Respondent is a limited liability company registered to do business in Florida. It owns and operates a beverage bottling facility in Riviera Beach, Florida. It is owned by PepsiCo, Inc. ("PepsiCo"). Respondent is an "employer," as that term is defined in section 760.02(7).4/ Evidence Adduced at Hearing As noted above, Petitioner was employed by Kelly as a temporary worker. Pursuant to a national contract between Respondent and Kelly, Petitioner began working at Respondent's facility as a temporary worker in early to mid-May 2016.5/ She was assigned to work in a warehouse, sorting and preparing cardboard sheets for use and reuse in Respondent's processes. Her work hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Petitioner credibly testified that as soon as she started working at Respondent's facility, she was constantly subjected to verbal and physical harassment of a sexual nature from one of Respondent's hourly-paid employees, Brandon Owens. The credible evidence establishes that on an essentially daily basis, Owens made suggestive and overt comments of a sexual nature to Petitioner. These included remarks about her "nice small frame" and, among other things, suggestions that they "spend time together" and engage in acts involving "whipped cream, strawberries, and chocolate sauce." Additionally, on one occasion, Owens grabbed Petitioner's arm and told her "you need a real man." These actions by Owens made Petitioner uncomfortable, nervous, and frightened for her personal safety. Petitioner credibly testified that she repeatedly verbally rebuffed Owens' advances and that on the occasion when he grabbed her arm, she hit him and told him if he didn't leave her alone, she was going to hurt him. Petitioner testified, credibly, that some of Respondent's workers observed Owens talking to Petitioner on numerous occasions. Petitioner identified these workers as "Eugene Johnson" and "Willie Tate." She testified, credibly, that she told Johnson and Tate about being harassed and bothered by Owens. She testified that they told her to contact "Reggie," and that she had tried to do so, but was unable to reach him. The evidence does not establish how many times Petitioner attempted to reach him. Although Petitioner thought Johnson was a supervisor at Respondent's facility, the evidence establishes that neither Johnson nor Tate was in a supervisory or management position at Respondent's facility. As such, neither was under any employment-imposed duty to report Owens' conduct to Respondent's management. The evidence establishes that the "Reggie" whom Petitioner had attempted to contact was Reggie Tribble, a warehouse supervisor for Respondent's first shift at its Riviera Beach facility. Tribble was Petitioner's direct supervisor. However, the credible evidence establishes that Petitioner did not contact Tribble, and that he did not observe, was not informed of, and did not otherwise know about Owens' conduct toward Petitioner. Petitioner testified that another employee, Robert Gary Walker, frequently saw Owens near her at work. She testified: He [Walker] noticed that he was constantly over by me. And he asked, 'is he bothering you,' and he was looking at me and he turned his head. I started shaking my head 'yes' and he left. And a little while after that, Gary came back and he said —— 'Gary tried to get me in trouble, but Reggie didn't do anything.' I don't know what was said after they went over that way, but that's what Brandon told me when he came back. I don't know if it was true or not, but that's what Brandon told me.[6/] Petitioner testified that based on this discussion with Walker, she thought he would report Owens' behavior to the appropriate authority at Respondent's facility. The evidence establishes that Walker was a supervisor on Petitioner's shift.7/ Petitioner also credibly testified that while she worked at Respondent's facility, other male workers who drove forklift trucks often would come around to where she was working to talk to her, and that some had asked for her telephone number and had asked her out on dates. She credibly testified that she consistently rebuffed their advances. On or about the morning of June 17, 2016, as Petitioner arrived at work, Owens drove a semi-trailer truck in front of her, cutting her off as she approached the warehouse in which she worked. This badly frightened her. Petitioner credibly testified that as a result of Owens' action in cutting her off by driving a truck in front of her, she was afraid for her personal safety, and that as result, she left Respondent's facility and did not return. Petitioner's last day of work at Respondent's facility was June 17, 2016. On June 20, 2016, Petitioner reported Owens' behavior to Christie Finnerty, her supervisor at Kelly. This was the first time Petitioner had reported Owens' conduct to Kelly. She also testified that she "may" have verbally reported to Finnerty at that time that a man on a forklift truck came over to talk to her while she was working at Respondent's facility. Finnerty completed a Harassment Complainant Interview ("Harassment Form") memorializing Petitioner's statements regarding the alleged harassment. Attached to the form were four handwritten pages prepared by Petitioner, describing Owens' conduct toward her. Petitioner signed the form and handwritten pages. On cross-examination, Petitioner acknowledged that she did not report Owens' behavior or that of Respondent's other male employees who had talked to her, asked her out, or asked for her phone number, to Respondent's management. The competent, credible evidence establishes that on one occasion, in response to a question from Walker, she confirmed that Owens was "bothering" her. However, there is no evidence showing that Petitioner specifically told Walker that Owens had made physical and verbal advances of a sexual nature toward her, and there is no evidence showing that Walker was otherwise aware of the sexual nature of Owens' conduct toward Petitioner. Petitioner testified that the incident in which Owens drove a truck in front of her "rattled her nerves a little bit," affected her sleep and appetite, and bothered her "a lot," but that she can "get over it."8/ On June 21, 2016, Finnerty contacted Respondent's production supervisor, Norman Medina, by electronic mail ("e-mail") to inform Respondent of Petitioner's harassment complaint that was filed with Kelly on June 20, 2016. Attached to the e-mail were the Harassment Form and a video depicting an individual identified as Brandon Owens. Medina immediately notified Respondent's Riviera Beach plant director, Armando Velez, of Petitioner's harassment complaint. By e-mail sent on June 21, 2016, Velez notified Jacer Collins, Respondent's senior human resources manager for the south and southwest Florida markets, of Petitioner's complaint. Collins was at Respondent's Miami location when she was informed of Petitioner's complaint. On June 22, 2016, Finnerty forwarded to Collins and Velez a copy of the video showing Brandon Owens talking to Petitioner. Also attached to the e-mail was a photograph that appeared to be a still shot of Owens taken from the video. The video, taken by Petitioner and depicting her vantage point, shows Owens approaching Petitioner in the warehouse where she was working. Owens and Petitioner are the only individuals that appeared in the video. Owens followed Petitioner and stood in close proximity to her as the video was recorded. Parts of the conversation between Petitioner and Owens are unintelligible due to the background noise of the vacuum Petitioner was using. However, Petitioner can be heard telling Owens "I can't stand you," Owens asking why, and Petitioner responding "you know why" and admonishing Owens for grabbing her. Owens responded that he was just playing with Petitioner, apologized, and said he would not come over to talk to her anymore. The evidence does not definitively establish the date on which the video was taken. PepsiCo has adopted a global equal employment opportunity policy that applies to, and is enforced by, Respondent in the operation of its Riviera Beach facility. Among other things, this policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Additionally, PepsiCo has adopted a global anti- harassment policy, also applicable to and enforced by Respondent, that prohibits any type of harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin, disability, veteran status or any other category protected by law. The policy states in pertinent part: Sexual Harassment According to PepsiCo policy, sexual harassment is any verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwanted and that a reasonable person, on account of his or her gender, would find offensive. * * * Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature when: * * * Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Sexual harassment can occur in many different forms. It can be physical, verbal, visual or in a written form. Examples of sexual harassment include but are not limited to: unnecessary and unwelcome touching; unwelcome sexual flirtation; direct or subtle pressure for sexual activity; coercion to date or unwelcome demands for dates; unwelcome or offensive sexual jokes, innuendo, lewd language or obscenities; explicit or degrading remarks about another person or his/her appearance or body; e-mails, posters, graffiti, calendars or other sexually suggestive pictures or objects displayed in the work place; demands for sexual favors accompanied by implied or overt threats concerning pay or other aspects of employment; the taking of or refusal to take any personnel action based on an employee's submission to or refusal to submit to sexual overtures or behavior. * * * Reporting Procedure If you are being subjected to conduct that you believe violates this policy, you should: Step 1: Tell or notify the offending person that such conduct is not welcome and to stop. Step 2: In addition to Step 1, immediately report the incident or your complaints to your supervisor. However, if you believe it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter with your supervisor or you are uncomfortable discussing the matter with your supervisor, report the matter to your Human Resources Representative. You may also contact the PepsiCo Speak Up Line. In the U.S., call 1-866-729-4888 . . . . You may file a complaint via the Speak Up Webline by visiting https://speakup.eawebline.com[.] Step 3: If additional incidents occur, you should immediately report them to the above individuals. Any reported incident will be investigated by the Company. Complaints and actions taken to resolve complaints of harassment or discrimination will be handled as confidentially as possible. Retaliation against an employee who makes a claim of harassment or discrimination is prohibited. Violation of this policy, including retaliation against a person who brings a claim and/or who participates in an investigation pursuant to this policy, may result in discipline up to and including termination on the first offense. Further, any manager/supervisor who receives a complaint of harassment, discrimination or retaliation and fails to notify Human Resources will also be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, it initiated an investigation of the matter. Specifically, on June 23, 2016, Collins interviewed employees, including Johnson and Owens, at the Riviera Beach facility. Owens was not scheduled to work on June 21 or 22, so June 23 was his first day available to be interviewed. Owens denied having spoken to Petitioner and denied all of her allegations regarding his conduct toward her. Respondent suspended Owens from his employment on June 23, 2016. Owens was escorted from Respondent's facility that day and not allowed to return pending completion of the investigation into Petitioners' complaint. Respondent's investigation confirmed that Owens had engaged in the conduct that Petitioner had alleged. Specifically, the video that Petitioner provided, as well Owens' inconsistent answers to questions Collins asked him based on the information provided by Petitioner in the Harassment Form, established that Owens had engaged in the sexually harassing conduct that Petitioner had alleged in the Harassment Form. This conduct violated Respondent's Global Anti-Harassment Policy. On July 12, 2016, Respondent terminated Owens' employment.9/ As part of its investigation into Petitioner's complaint, Respondent also attempted to identify the forklift drivers, including a "Hispanic male" driver to which Petitioner had referred in the handwritten pages attached to the Harassment Form. However, due to the non-specific description provided in the Harassment Form, Respondent was unable to identify the forklift drivers, including the "Hispanic male" driver, who Petitioner claimed made unwelcome advances toward her.10/ It is undisputed that while she was employed at Respondent's Riviera Beach facility, Petitioner did not report to Respondent's management or to her supervisors that forklift drivers had engaged in unwelcome advances toward her. Additionally, in the handwritten pages attached to the Harassment Form, Petitioner acknowledged that the "Hispanic male" forklift driver had approached her only once and that at the time, she "didn't think it was something to report." The credible evidence establishes that once Respondent concluded its investigation, verified Petitioner's allegations regarding Owens' conduct, and terminated Owens, Respondent contacted Finnerty at Kelly Services to let her know that Petitioner was welcome to return to her temporary position at Respondent's facility. Petitioner declined to do so. Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that while she was employed at Respondent's Riviera Beach facility, Petitioner suffered severe, pervasive harassment as a result of Owens' frequent verbal and physical advances of a sexual nature toward her. However, the competent, persuasive evidence does not establish that Respondent received, during Petitioner's employment at Respondent's facility, either constructive or actual notice of the sexual nature of Owens' conduct toward Petitioner. The evidence shows that Petitioner indicated, by nodding her head in response to a question from Walker, that Owens was "bothering" her. However, there is no competent, credible evidence in the record showing that Petitioner specifically informed Walker of the sexual nature of Owens' conduct toward her, or that Walker otherwise had knowledge of such conduct. Thus, at most, the evidence shows only that Walker was informed that Owens was "bothering" Petitioner. Further, there is no competent evidence establishing that any other supervisors or managers of Respondent's Riviera Beach facility were aware, or should have been aware, of the sexual nature of Owens' conduct toward Petitioner. The evidence shows that Respondent only received notice of Owens' sexual conduct toward Petitioner when she complained to Kelly after she had left her employment with Respondent, and Kelly then forwarded that complaint to Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that as soon as Respondent received notice of Owens' conduct, it immediately initiated an investigation and interviewed persons identified by Petitioner as witnesses, including Johnson and Owens. As a result of Respondent's investigation, Owens was suspended from employment on the day he was interviewed, and was terminated from employment once Respondent completed its investigation——approximately 21 days after Respondent received notice of Owens' harassing behavior toward Petitioner. Additionally, the evidence shows that Respondent diligently attempted to identify and investigate the forklift drivers who were mentioned in the Harassment Form and accompanying pages, but due to the non-specific description provided therein, were unable to do so.11/ Finally, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that once Owens was discharged, Respondent contacted Kelly to let them know that Owens was no longer employed at the Riviera Beach facility, and that Petitioner was welcome to return to her previous position. Notwithstanding that Owens no longer worked there, Petitioner refused to return.
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 dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issues presented by this case concern the question of whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has exhausted all treatment for the Petitioner, Lewis J. McLean, through sex offender programs administered by the Respondent. See Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted a "Petition for Administrative Determination" to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petition was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 18, 1982, as transmitted by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Department has requested the Division to conduct a formal hearing in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Final hearing in this case was conducted on April 2, 1982, following a continuance of the originally scheduled hearing date of February 25, 1982, which continuance was granted to the Petitioner to allow him to attempt the employment of counsel to represent him in this action. In the course of the final hearing, the Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Respondent offered as witnesses: Robert Alcorn, Clinical Director, Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program at Florida State Hospital, and Charles Schaefer, Clinical Psychologist. Respondent submitted two (2) items of evidence which were received. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been in the custody of Respondent, in keeping with the court order. His commitment has been on the basis of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977), involving Lewd and Lascivious and Indecent Assault or Act upon a child under the age of fourteen (14) related to the handling, fondling or making an assault upon that child, without the intent to commit sexual battery, by committing fellatio on the victim. The commitment order to the program dates from May 23, 1979, and the Petitioner was placed in the Forensic Service, Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Unit at Florida State Hospital on July 30, 1979. During his stay at Florida State Hospital, the Petitioner has undergone treatment in the program for the benefit of sex offenders. Although the Petitioner has been subjected to a full range of treatment opportunities, his progress in dealing with the underlying disorder, Pedophelia, has reached a place where improvement is no longer expected by the patient. In the face of these circumstances, Respondent has made a preliminary determination that it has exhausted treatment for the Petitioner, through the program in which he is enrolled. Additionally, it has been concluded that similar programs within the State of Florida do not offer opportunities for progress. Those opinions having been made known to the Petitioner, Petitioner requested and was granted the hearing which lead to the entry of the Recommended Order. The program at Florida State Hospital has as its main focus the utilization of group therapy with adjunctive programs in recreation and occupational therapy, and this treatment regimen relies heavily on a patient's self-motivation. Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, is constituted of a series of clinical summaries related to the patient's performance during the course of his treatment at Florida State Hospital. The most recent of these summary statements was prepared from the session of November 18, 1981. In brief, the opinions stated in the clinical summaries accurately indicate that the Florida State Hospital has exhausted all available treatment for the Petitioner's Pedophilia. Moreover, the presentation of Petitioner's case to the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee, which is constituted of administrative personnel of the various sex offender programs in the State of Florida, correctly concluded that the Respondent has exhausted all available treatment for the Petitioner in any program in the State of Florida. Finally, testimony given in the course of the hearing was in keeping with the opinions expressed in the clinical summaries and the opinions held by the members of the Intra- Departmental Screening Committee. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Respondent, Petitioner continues to meet the definition of sex offender as set forth in Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, to include the propensity to commit further sexual offenses of the nature for which he was placed in the Sex Offender Program. Charles Schaefer became the Petitioner's primary therapist in August, 1981, and has continued to perform that function. Schaefer's testimony establishes that Petitioner's stay in the program, in terms of duration, has been average. Schaefer continues to meet with the Petitioner in group therapy sessions, which sessions are the primary focus of the treatment modality. These sessions occur four (4) times a week and the patients within those sessions, through discussion, are primarily responsible for bringing about an understanding of the underlying disorder which caused their placement in the program. In addition, McLean has participated in individual therapy sessions with Schaefer and in adjunctive therapy, in particular small engine repair. At the time that Schaefer undertook the care of Petitioner as primary therapist, he reviewed the past clinical reports and matters of record on file at Florida State Hospital and noted that those reports indicated that Petitioner was superficial in his understanding of his sexual deviation and had little or no insight into why he had committed the offense which caused his placement. These recorded observations were accurate in outlining Petitioner's condition. Over the period of time of his attendance in group sessions with Schaefer, Petitioner has ceased bringing his problems to the group therapy sessions to discuss them with others and his problems were only discussed in group, based upon other members within the group learning of those problems by conversations held with Petitioner while on the ward and carrying forward the topics at group sessions. This form of ward discussion is not designed and will not achieve improvement in Petitioner's understanding of his sexual deviation. Moreover, Petitioner tends, in the course of the group sessions, to minimize the severity of his problems and is more motivated toward being relieved of the responsibility of dealing with the problem and being removed from those sessions, as opposed to attempting to understand and deal with his aberrant life style. Schaefer, in his attempts to assist the Petitioner, tried an approach which gave the Petitioner great latitude to find a way to discuss the patient's problem. This method was followed by a more confrontive style of working with Petitioner. Neither of these choices was successful and the Petitioner has continued to be evasive, silent in group therapy sessions and has only talked in those sessions when confronted with a direct question. On those occasions, McLean gives answers which are short and uninformative. Schaefer has taken McLean out of the patient volunteer work program as a means to achieve better performance in group therapy sessions. This form of motivation has not borne a better result in terms of participation. Neither has the attempt to have individual therapy sessions once a week lead to any better result. In those individual therapy sessions with Schaefer, Petitioner has not talked. Recently, McLean has been dealt with only through the group therapy sessions and no progress has been made in dealing with his condition. It is only on a couple of occasions within the last nine (9) months that McLean has been forthright in his discussion of his condition. As can be seen in the Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, in the November, 1981, staffing conference, to consider the question of his retention in the program, Petitioner stated that he knew that he needed more help and felt that he could benefit from another six (6) months' stay in the hospital so that he could become a former sex offender and not be felt to meet the criteria related to sex offenders. At present, McLean seems satisfied with his personality as it now exists. That personality allows him to perform in an acceptable fashion on the hospital ward and in the adjunctive therapy involvement; however, he would not be appropriate in a social circumstance which gave the Petitioner opportunity to commit a further sexual offense. Robert Alcorn, the Unit Director at Florida State Hospital, in charge of the Sex Offender Program, indicated that the McLean case had been presented to the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee described herein. This was done on December 31, 1981, and as indicated in Respondent's Exhibit 2, it was the opinion of all administrative officials in the various programs that Respondent had exhausted treatment for McLean's condition. McLean, through his testimony in the course of the hearing, indicated that he feels that he has done his best and that he tries to express himself on the subject of his Pedophilic condition. Nonetheless, he feels that he has a problem discussing those matters in a group setting and that he is uncomfortable talking to members of the group. He does feel that he has brought some problems to the group discussion. In his mind, the reason that he committed the crime for which he was placed in the program, was based upon his tendency to "keep everything in" and his difficulty communicating with his wives. He does not feel that he will commit a sex offense in the future and that he could address his problems by talking to a marriage counselor or someone of that nature. He feels that he is well, but he would like to stay in the program if it is determined that he is not ready to be released. In summary, the Respondent has exhausted all appropriate treatment for this Petitioner's sexual disorder, but that treatment has not been successful and the patient continues to suffer from that condition and continues to pose a danger to commit another sex offense.
The Issue Does the Department of Corrections' Sexual Harassment Policy, as contained in the Pamphlet "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities", in a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy", and Chapter 7 of the Department's Personnel Procedures Manual, constitute umpromulgated rules, pursuant to Section 120.535 F.S.? Are existing Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4), and 33-4.003(22) and (24), F.A.C. invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority due to vagueness, pursuant to Section 120.56 F.S.?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a career-service employee working as a Parole Officer I for DOC. He has earned a master's degree in criminology. At all times material, DOC has had in effect a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy" (P-5), a Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities" (P-3), and a Personnel Procedures Manual. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual is entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaints" (P-6). DOC has not adopted these documents as rules, and Petitioner here challenges them as unpromulgated rules. On February 22, 1996, Petitioner received written notice that he would be suspended without pay for ten days as a result of his violation of DOC Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4) and 33- 4.003(23)(25), F.A.C., (since renumbered) and the DOC's Policy on Sexual Harassment. The letter did not rely on Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual or its Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities". Petitioner appealed this action to PERC, which subsequently entered a recommended order upholding DOC's disciplinary action. Language from PERC's recommended order, which is pertinent to this instant rule challenge is: Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.001(4)(a) states, in pertinent part, that 'No . . . employee shall knowingly . . . commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any state statute, rule, directive or policy statement.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.002(4) states, in pertinent part, that 'Each employee . . . shall perform his duties fairly and impartially and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4,.003(23) states that a first offense of conduct unbecoming a public employee is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.003(25) states that a first offense of willful violation of rules, regulations, directives or policy statements is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. The DOC pamphlet entitled 'Florida Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment: Your Rights and Responsibilities,' provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual Harassment requires two elements: The alleged conduct must be of a sexual nature, must be unwelcome and unwanted. Sexual harassment may be any of, but not limited to, the following: * * * continued suggestions regarding invi- tations to social events outside the work place, after being told such suggestions are unwelcome; * * * prolonged staring or leering to [sic] a person; * * * 32. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Personnel Procedures Manual, Chapter 7, Sexual Harassment, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * O. Sexual Harassment - Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature from or involving an employee's supervisors, peers, subordinates or any other persons in contact with an employee or applicant during the course of the conduct of the employee's or applicant's business when: Submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment; or Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. 33. The DOC Sexual Harassment Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual harassment may result from unwelcome sexual advances or a hostile environment created by conduct offensive to the victim such as suggestive or lewd comments, dirty jokes, offensive pictures or physical touching. Accordingly, all employees are being placed on notice that any employee found guilty of having engaged in sexual harassment will be severely disciplined, up to and including dismissal. * * * The charge of conduct unbecoming a public employee is a general charge that is subsumed if the Agency has a more specific charge that fully describes the alleged misconduct. Ford v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FCSR Para. 148 (1993); Mathis v. Department of Corrections, 6 FCSR Para. 122 (1991). In this case, I conclude that the charge of unbecoming conduct is subsumed within the charge of sexual harassment and should be dismissed. PERC's recommended order also applied the foregoing provisions. At the date of formal hearing in the instant rule challenge, PERC had issued no final order. Before this instant Division of Administrative Hearings final order could be entered, PERC had extended the time for the parties to file exceptions to its hearing officer's recommended order, and ultimately, on August 13, 1996, PERC adopted its hearing officer's recommended order, thereby rendering Petitioner subject to future disciplinary action at the second occurrence level under Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C. The final order of PERC is now under appeal by Petitioner. These facts are officially recognized, sua sponte. Petitioner received copies of the Pamphlet, the Sexual Harassment Policy, and a copy of Chapter 33-4, F.A.C., on July 16, 1993, when he began employment with the agency. He did not receive a copy of Chapter 7 of the Personnel Manual and was unaware of it until his PERC proceeding. DOC imposes disciplinary action against its employees for conduct which constitutes sexual harassment. Petitioner received periodic training in agency seminars on the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, including annual film presentations. He did not receive similar training regarding "conduct unbecoming a public employee", which is a term utilized in Section 110.227(1), F.S., and for which an employee may be disciplined. Section 110.227(1), F.S., also permits discipline of employees for "willful violation of the provisions of law or agency rules". Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., provides, in pertinent part: Responsibility for Conduct of Employees, Inmates and Others. No Administrator, Superintendent, Officer-In-Charge, Supervisor, or other employee shall knowingly permit any subordinate, inmate or other person to, nor shall he, commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any statute, rule, directive or policy statement . . . . Petitioner claims that Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., is vague as applied to him because he is not an administrator, superintendent, officer-in-charge, or a supervisor. According to Petitioner, this rule in only applicable to those who supervise subordinates. Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: (4) Each employee shall keep himself physically fit, mentally alert, personally neat and clean and shall perform his duties fairly and impartially, and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public . . . . Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., is entitled "Range of Disciplinary Actions" and lists a number of violations. Item (22) is "Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee"; Item (24) is "Willful Violation of Rules, Regulations, Directives, or Policy Statements". The range of disciplinary penalties is increased at the second occurrence level under the rule. The agency Policy Statement, Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the agency Personnel Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming a public employee and contain definitions of sexual harassment, including hostile work place sexual harassment. The first sentence of the Pamphlet states that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is conduct unbecoming a public employee, as provided in Sections 110.105, 110.227 and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. (Rules of the Department). The first page of the Pamphlet states EEOC guidelines defining sexual harassment, as recognized by the agency: Unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's employment, or Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by [sic] decisions affecting an individual, or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a person's work [sic] hostile or offensive working environment. The Pamphlet goes on to advise that sexual harassment requires two elements: conduct of a sexual nature/that is unwelcome and unwanted. It lists examples of harassing behavior, advises of the need to report such behavior, and explains the agency's internal complaint procedure and the procedure's protections against retaliation. It gives references for legal remedies outside the agency. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual states basically the same information as the Pamphlet, lists the same legal authorities and details the internal complaint procedure. It specifically provides, If there is a determination that there is cause to believe sexual harassment occurred, disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 33-4 Department of Corrections Rules. Chapter 7 was first effective on January 25, 1989 and last amended on March 5, 1993. It derives its authority from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sections 110.105, 110.227, and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. Both the agency Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming an employee. Petitioner's position with regard to whether or not the Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual constitute unpromulgated rules appears to center on his belief that without them, employees are not on notice as to exactly what behavior constitutes sexual harassment, that they contain a subtext of what types of sexual harassment, i.e. hostile work environment, will be disciplined, or that they alone reveal that sexual harassment constitutes "conduct unbecoming". Petitioner testified that he understood blatant sexual harassment, such as unconsented physical contact, to be conduct unbecoming a public employee, but he did not have a clear understanding about the "gray areas", such as complimenting co- workers, socializing outside work, or what acts constituted hostile work place sexual harassment. However, Petitioner testified that he was on notice that the agency had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy and that at all times material, he knew that if he committed sexual harassment, he would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner admitted that if any employee engaged in actual sexual harassment against another employee, the offending employee would not command the respect of fellow employees, as described in Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C. He also was on notice through Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., that he could be disciplined for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violations of law or policy statements". He is charged at law with knowledge of Section 110.227(1) requiring discipline for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violation" and Chapter 760 F.S., which implements Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The agency routinely disciplines its employees for sexual harassment and has a long history of application of its Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy. Petitioner did not submit any evidence as to how Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual, the Pamphlet, or the one- page Policy Statement had any affect on him, beyond the discipline described, supra. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, the Pamphlet, or Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual have any affect on any person not employed by Respondent. There was no evidence that any of the provisions in these documents were self-executing.
The Issue The issues presented by this case concern the question of whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has exhausted all treatment for the Petitioner, Gerald R. Straw, through sex offender programs administered by the Respondent. See Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted a "Petition for Administrative Determination" to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petition was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 30, 1981, as transmitted by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Department had requested the Division to conduct a formal hearing in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Final hearing in this cause was conducted on February 25, 1982. In the course of the final hearing, the Petitioner testified and offered as witnesses: Lois Turner, his mother; Alva Martin, R.N.; Larry Annis, Clinical Psychologist, and Kenneth Edwards, Vocational Education Instructor. The Respondent offered as witnesses: Robert Alcorn, Clinical Director for the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program at Florida State Hospital, and Larry Annis, Clinical Psychologist. The Respondent presented one (1) composite exhibit which was received into evidence. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been in the custody of Respondent, in keeping with orders of court. His commitment has been on the basis of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977), involving a breaking and entering criminal offense with related assault charges. In addition, the Petitioner has a past history in New York State for the criminal offense of sexual mischief. The arrest for the offenses in Florida occurred on July 22, 1977, and the Petitioner was committed to the Sexual Offender Program at North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center on March 9, 1978. On August 3, 1978, a recommendation was made by staff of that facility to return the Petitioner to court for further disposition, based upon the belief that treatment had been exhausted. On September 13, 1978, he was released from that hospital program. That facility had not contacted other sex offender programs in the State of Florida prior to the release of the Petitioner and as a consequence, the Petitioner was recommitted to the Respondent by order of court dated October 31, 1978. He was placed in the sex offender program at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, on January 27, 1979, and has resided in that program since that time. During his stay at Florida State Hospital, the Petitioner has undergone treatment in the program for the benefit of sex offenders. Although the Petitioner has been subjected to a full range of treatment opportunities, his progress in dealing with the underlying disorder which caused his placement has reached a juncture where improvement is no longer expected in the patient. In the face of these circumstances, the Respondent has made a preliminary determination that it has exhausted treatment for the Petitioner, through the program in which he is enrolled. Additionally, it has been concluded that similar programs within the State of Florida do not offer other opportunities for progress. These opinions were made known to the Petitioner and when confronted with this information, the Petitioner requested the formal hearing which is the subject of this Recommended Order. The program at Florida State Hospital has as its main focus the utilization of group therapy with adjunctive programs in recreation and occupational therapy, and this treatment regimen relies heavily on a patient's self-motivation. Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, is constituted of a series of clinical summaries related to the patient's performance during the course of his treatment at Florida State Hospital. In sum, the opinions stated in the clinical summaries accurately indicate that the Florida State Hospital has exhausted all available treatment for the Petitioner's underlying condition. Moreover, the presentation of the Petitioner's case to the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee, which is constituted of the administrative personnel of the various sex offender programs in the State of Florida, brought a correct perception that the Respondent has exhausted all available treatment for the Petitioner. Finally, the testimony given in the course of the hearing was in accord with those opinions expressed in the clinical summaries and the attitude of the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee. Petitioner's primary therapist, beginning in August, 1981, and continuing until the time of hearing, gave testimony in the course of the hearing. The therapist is Larry Annis, Clinical Psychologist. Annis shared the responsibility with a co-therapist until November, 1981, when he became the sole therapist for the Petitioner. Annis' testimony established that the Petitioner has been given a full and complete opportunity for participation in group therapy and in addition has been exposed to individual therapy sessions, and adjunctive therapy; to include, school, occupation and vocational training, ward government and participation in the ward milieu. The observed pattern of the Petitioner's participation in group therapy, on the part of Annis, is one of noting that the Petitioner talked to other persons in the group about their problems, but avoided talking about himself. In the group therapy sessions, Straw has denied having sexual problems and denied any guilt in connection with the underlying criminal offenses for which he stands convicted. (This was a similar attitude during the course of his stay at North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center.) Annis indicated that the Petitioner has done well in adjunctive therapy, in particular, electrical wiring in which his performance has been exemplary. The Petitioner has not been found to be a management problem in terms of his conduct, according to Annis. The comments by Annis are correct. From Annis' observations, the Petitioner presents himself as attentative and having the ability to verbalize his feelings; however, his progress in the group therapy sessions has not been significant. In the therapy sessions, Annis has correctly identified that Straw is not interested in emotional discussions involving topics such as personal feelings, likes and dislikes, depression and anger. Petitioner is more interested in data collection and inquiring about why something is required, which is a more superficial concern. In the group sessions, Annis has found Petitioner to be truthful, if unwilling to explore personal areas such as those mentioned above, and in addition, sexual concerns. In the latter course of treatment, Annis has indicated that the matters of concern on the subject of the Petitioner's progress in the program relate to the Petitioner's ability to admit to negative feelings, anger and to explore antecedents to this type of emotion in order to arrive at alternative responses to he made to those emotions. Other specific concerns are as outlined in the fourteen (14) problem areas discussed in the August 13, 1981, clinical summary which is part of Respondent's Exhibit 1. Annis further indicated at the point where the determination was made that the treatment had been exhausted, that he, as therapist, has nonetheless continued to treat the Petitioner's condition and has undertaken a new method of dealing with the problem, to include the removal of bimonthly reports in trying to see how Petitioner would perform in a less structured environment. This technique has not been one leading to progress on the part of the Petitioner. In summary, Annis has correctly concluded that the Petitioner has reached maximum benefits from the program at Chattahoochee, and having exhausted available treatment, there would be no benefit to be derived by the Petitioner's continued participation in the program. The Unit Director at Florida State, Robert H. Alcorn, testified that the Petitioner's stay in the program was about average in terms of duration. Alcorn has observed no significant progress in the Petitioner in dealing with the underlying sexual problem. Alcorn finds the Petitioner to be socially isolated, and a person who refuses to discuss emotional matters and issues central to himself. Alcorn notes that the Petitioner deals in universal terms when dealing with the matters of daily life, to include other members of the sex offender program. Alcorn's observations are valid, and in the face of these observations, Alcorn presented the Petitioner's case to the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee and no further placement could be found for the Petitioner. In other words, it was correctly concluded that the Department, as well as Florida State Hospital had exhausted all appropriate treatment for the Petitioner. Petitioner's mother, Lois Turner, gave testimony. She has seen progress in the Petitioner's emotional demeanor and that opinion is borne out by observations of persons in the treatment program. In particular, HRS. Turner notes that her son does not now have periods in which his thinking seems to be disassociative. This is as contrasted with her observations of her son five (5) years ago when she found him to be very disoriented. HRS. Turner also observed that the Petitioner has been truthful with her in her discussions with him. Alva Martin, R.N. and therapist in the Sex Offender Program at Chattahoochee, indicated that she had treated the Petitioner from November, 1979, through May, 1980. During the course of her treatment, she observed that the Petitioner had improved in that he did not appear as withdrawn and became more involved in activities with other persons within the program. The goals in this entry level into the Sex Offender Program, which were set out by Martin for the benefit of the Petitioner, were to try to get Straw to converse more with other people about his problems and to have general conversations with individuals in the ward milieu. It was not the intention of this element of the therapy to question the Petitioner about the underlying charges for which he was placed in the program. Martin noted some progress on the part of the Petitioner in his dealing with his angry feelings and improvement in his ability to verbalize. Again, from her observations, the Petitioner was always truthful in his discussions. Kenneth Edwards, a Vocational Instructor at Florida State Hospital, first met the Petitioner in April of 1980. At that time, Edwards noted that the Petitioner lacked self-confidence and an ability to relate to others. Petitioner tended to stay by himself. There has been a dramatic improvement in this circumstance to the extent that the Petitioner now serves as an instructor for other program participants, in the field of television repair. Edwards feels that he has a good relationship with Straw and feels that Straw has improved in his relationship with other persons. Petitioner, in his testimony, indicated that he feels that he is not guilty of the offenses as charged. In addition, he feels that he has progressed while being treated in the program at Florida State Hospital, and although he feels that he still has an underlying problem with sexual acting out, he feels that he has completed the program successfully and could control any temptations of a sexual nature. He also feels that he has discussed his underlying sexual problems in the past and would be willing to in the future. He feels that he is being removed from the program because he refuses to admit that he is guilty of committing the offenses which caused him to be placed in the program. He also takes issue with the fourteen (14) problem areas set forth in the August 13, 1981, clinical summary. He thinks that any human being would have problems similar to that nature and that those are problems which are not unique to Gerald Straw. In summary, the Respondent has exhausted all appropriate treatment for the Petitioner's sexual deviance, but that treatment has not been totally successful and the patient continues to suffer with an underlying sexual disorder.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates the Best Western Admiral’s Inn and Conference Center in Winter Haven. Petitioner worked as a waitress in the hotel’s first floor restaurant from March 8, 2005, through March 18, 2006. Petitioner testified that she was sexually harassed “for months” by Marcus Owens, a cook who worked with her in the restaurant. According to Petitioner, Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually-explicit comments to her on a number of occasions while they were working together. Petitioner could not recall precisely when the harassment started, but she estimated that it started approximately two weeks after Mr. Owens started working at the restaurant. Mr. Owens started working in the restaurant on July 28, 2005, which means that the harassment would have started in mid- August 2005. Petitioner did not complain about the harassment until November 9, 2005, when she reported it to her supervisor, Cory Meeks. This was the first notice that Respondent had about the alleged harassment. Petitioner’s testimony that she complained to the hotel’s general manager, Jeffrey Vandiver, about the harassment several weeks prior to her complaint to Mr. Meeks was not persuasive. Petitioner and Mr. Meeks met with the hotel’s human resources manager, Lin Whitaker, on the same day that the complaint was made, November 9, 2005. Ms. Whitaker told Petitioner that she needed to put her complaint in writing for the hotel to take formal action. Petitioner refused to do so because she was scared of retribution by Mr. Owens, even though Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whittaker assured her that she would be protected from Mr. Owens. Petitioner asked Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker to address the situation with Mr. Owens without using her name, which they did. Mr. Owens denied sexually harassing anyone when confronted by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner again complained to Mr. Meeks about Mr. Owens. She told Mr. Meeks that the harassment had not stopped and that it had gotten worse through even more vulgar comments. Petitioner again did not want a formal investigation into the allegations, but Ms. Whitaker told her that an investigation was required by company policy since this was the second complaint. Mr. Owens was immediately suspended without pay pending the completion of the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Whitaker on December 7, 2005. They first met with Petitioner to get her side of the story. Then, they met separately with Mr. Owens to get his side of the story. Finally, they interviewed all of the employees who worked with Petitioner and Mr. Owens. This was the first time that Petitioner went into detail about what Mr. Owens had said and done. She stated that, among other things, Mr. Owens asked her whether she had “ever had a black man” and whether her boyfriend “is able to get it up or does he require Viagra.” She also stated that there were no witnesses to the harassment because Mr. Owens was "discreet" about making the comments to her when no one else was around. Mr. Owens again denied sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledged asking Petitioner whether she had ever dated a black man, but he stated that the question was in response to Petitioner asking him whether he had ever dated a white woman. (Mr. Owens is black, and Petitioner is white.) The other employees who were interviewed as part of the investigation stated that they had not witnessed any sexual harassment or overheard any sexually explicit conversations in the restaurant. Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Owens concluded based upon their investigation that “there is not enough evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Marcus Owens.” They decided to let Mr. Owens continue working at the hotel, provided that he agreed to be moved to the hotel’s second floor restaurant and that he agreed to attend a sexual harassment training program. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed the results of their investigation and their proposed solution to Petitioner. She was “fine” with the decision to move Mr. Owens to the second floor restaurant where she would not have contact with him. On that same day, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed their proposed solution to Mr. Owens. He too was “fine” with the decision, and he agreed that he would not go near Petitioner. Mr. Owens came back to work the following day, on December 9, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Owens was involved in an altercation with Stephen Zulinski, a dishwasher at the hotel and a close friend of Petitioner’s. The altercation occurred at the hotel during working hours. Mr. Zulinski testified that the incident started when Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually explicit comments and gestures about Mr. Zulinski’s relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Zulinski was offended and angered by the comments, and he cursed and yelled at Mr. Owens. Mr. Zulinski denied pushing Mr. Owens (as reflected on Mr. Zulinski’s Notice of Termination), but he admitted to putting his finger on Mr. Owens’ shoulder during the altercation. Mr. Owens and Mr. Zulinski were immediately fired as a result of the altercation. Petitioner continued to work as a waitress at the hotel’s first floor restaurant after Mr. Owens was fired. Petitioner received awards from Respondent for having the most positive customer comment cards for the months of October and November 2005, even though according to her testimony she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Owens during those months. She testified that her problems with Mr. Owens affected her job performance only to a “very small degree.” Petitioner had no major problems with her job performance prior to December 2005, notwithstanding the sexual harassment by Mr. Owens that had been occurring “for months” according to Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner was “written up” on a number of occasions between December 2005 and February 2006 because of problems with her job performance. The problems included Petitioner being rude to the on-duty manager in front of hotel guests; taking too many breaks and not having the restaurant ready for service when her shift started; failing to check the messages left for room service orders; and generating a guest complaint to the hotel’s corporate headquarters. Petitioner was fired after an incident on March 11, 2006, when she left the restaurant unattended on several occasions and the manager-on-duty received complaints from several hotel guests about the quality of service that they received from Petitioner that night. Petitioner ended up being sent home from work that night because, according to her supervisor, “she was in a crying state,” unable to work, and running off the restaurant’s business. Petitioner’s employment with Respondent was formally terminated on March 18, 2006. The stated reason for the termination was “unsatisfactory work performance” and “too many customer complaints.” None of the supervisors who wrote up Petitioner were aware of her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Owens. Petitioner claimed that the allegations of customer complaints and poor job performance detailed in the write-ups were “ludicrous,” “insane,” “almost a complete fabrication,” and “a joke.” The evidence does not support Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner admitted to having “severe” bi-polar disorder, and she acknowledged at the hearing and to her supervisor that she was having trouble with her medications over the period that she was having problems with her job performance. For example, the comment written by Petitioner on the January 27, 2006, write-up stated that she was “at a loss” to explain her job performance and that she “hope[d] to have [her] mental stability restored to what everyone else but [her] seems normalcy.” Petitioner worked 25 to 30 hours per week while employed by Respondent. She was paid $5.15 per hour, plus tips, and she testified that her biweekly take-home pay was between $200 and $250. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after she was fired. Respondent did not dispute the claim, and Petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation of $106 per week, which she received for a period of six months ending in September 2006. Petitioner has not worked since she was fired by Respondent in March 2006. She has not even attempted to find another job since that time. Petitioner does not believe that she is capable of working because of her bi-polar disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits based upon that condition, but her application was denied. Petitioner’s appeal of the denial is pending. Petitioner testified that one of the reasons that she has not looked for another job is her concern that doing so would undermine her efforts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Respondent has a general “non-harassment” policy, which prohibits “harassment of one employee by another employee . . . for any reason.” Respondent also has a specific sexual harassment policy, which states that “sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include verbal sexual conduct that “has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” The general non-harassment policy and the specific sexual harassment policy require the employee to immediately report the harassment to his or her supervisor or a member of the management staff. The Standards of Conduct and the Work Rules adopted by Respondent authorize immediate dismissal of an employee who is disrespectful or discourteous to guests of the hotel. The Standards of Conduct also authorize discipline ranging from a written reprimand to dismissal for an employee’s “[f]ailure to perform work or job assignments satisfactorily and efficiently.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald T. Ryce, Esquire 908 Coquina Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Nora E. Bartolone 119 Alachua Drive Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33884
The Issue Is the Petitioner qualified for licensure?
Findings Of Fact On October 4, 1989, Petitioner filed his application for licensure as a real estate salesman. Question #7 of the application asked whether the applicant (Petitioner) had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere even if adjudication was withheld (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1). The Petitioner admitted to having been arrested on July 3, 1984 and to pleading nolo contendere on October 17, 1985 to committing a sex offense against a child and the commission of lewd and lascivious acts. The Petitioner was placed on probation for ten (10) years for the first offense and was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the second offense with thirty-five (35) days credited for time served. A condition of his probation is that he cannot reside or stay overnight with a child under the age of 18. At the formal hearing in this case, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and admitted that he had molested his oldest daughter, age 11, and pleaded nolo contendere to said offense in 1984 and three (3) months later molested both his oldest daughter, then age 12, and his youngest daughter, then age 9, and pleaded guilty to said offenses. Petitioner further testified that the initial offense had been committed over a period of approximately two weeks and that the second offense had been committed over a period of approximately two months. The offenses occurred while he was undergoing rehabilitation therapy for the traumatic amputation of his leg. Since his release from jail, Petitioner has received treatment for his behavior at the Florida Mental Health Institute, North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center and Community Behavioral Services. Petitioner's brother testified concerning his brother's life. The Petitioner had been an Eagle Scout; had been a scoutmaster; had been a member of the Navy Reserve and had had no problems prior to loosing his leg in an accident. Since his release from jail, the Petitioner has provided child support to his ex-wife and daughters. Petitioner had resided with and been employed by his brother until his brother adopted a child. The condition of the Petitioner's probation that the Petitioner can not reside with a child under the age of 18 required the Petitioner to change his residence and employment with his brother. He was employed by Kelly Temporary Services at the time of hearing and was working in a bank in customer service. The Petitioner has remained in therapy as required by his probation. The Petitioner has been in the presence of children when other adults were present since his release from jail and the Petitioner's behavior was exemplary. The Petitioner's brother opined that the Petitioner had "rehabilitated himself," and pointed out that very severe consequences would result to Petitioner for a third offense. The Petitioner admitted that the offenses had occurred in isolated settings when no other adults were present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application to take the state examination for licensure as a real estate salesman be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1844 The Petitioner wrote a letter to the Hearing Officer, which was read and considered. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-6. Adopted. 7. Rejected, as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joselyn M. Price, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, FL 32801 Grady William Aplin, Jr. 905 South Kings Avenue Brandon, FL 33511 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
