The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner when her employment assignment with Respondent was terminated in November 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 48-year-old African-American female. On or about September 10, 2004, Petitioner was placed with AT&T Wireless as a customer service specialist by a staffing agency, AppleOne. Petitioner's job duties as a customer service specialist included answering phone calls from AT&T Wireless' customers about their bills and assisting them with problems that they were having with their accounts. For the most part, Petitioner received positive feedback regarding her job performance as a customer service specialist. That feedback, which is reflected on the Advisor Evaluation Detail forms received into evidence as Exhibit P7, came from her supervisors as well as from quality assurance specialists. Petitioner testified that she generally got along well with her co-workers,2 but that she preferred getting assistance and taking instruction from men rather than women. After AT&T Wireless was taken over by Cingular, Petitioner and the other customer service specialists working for AT&T Wireless were required to attend a two-week training class regarding Cingular’s policies and procedures. The training class attended by Petitioner was also attended by her supervisor, Wendy Miller. Ms. Miller is a white female. On the first day of the class, Petitioner was having trouble logging into the computer system that was being used in the training class. Ms. Miller, who was sitting directly behind Petitioner, attempted to ask Petitioner a question about the problems that she was having and/or provide her assistance, but Petitioner simply ignored Ms. Miller. According to Petitioner, she ignored Ms. Miller because she was trying to pay attention to the teacher. As a result of this incident, Ms. Miller sent an e-mail to AppleOne dated November 30, 2004, which stated in pertinent part: It has been decided by Sandy Camp and myself to end [Petitioner’s] temporary assignment due to insubordination. She has been coached on her attitude for which she is not receptive to and several other people have mentioned that they do not want to help her due to her not wanting to listen. The last incident was today during our CSE class where she demonstrated insubordination and disrespect to me. In a later e-mail, dated March 7, 2005, Ms. Miller described the incident in the training class as follows: [Petitioner] was one of the reps not able to get into [the computer] system so I was attempting to assist her because she was sitting directly in front of me. I attempted to ask her a question and she turned her back to me & put up her hand as to say “don’t speak to me” and she completely ignored me even as I kept speaking to her. . . . . The descriptions of the incident in Ms. Miller’s e- mails are materially the same as Petitioner’s description of the incident in her testimony at the hearing. On the evening of November 30, 2004, Petitioner was called by someone at AppleOne and told that her assignment with Cingular had been terminated. Petitioner was paid by AppleOne during her entire tenure with AT&T Wireless and Cingular. Petitioner’s salary while she was working at AT&T Wireless and Cingular remained constant at $10 per hour. Petitioner’s entire tenure with AT&T Wireless and Cingular was approximately two months. Petitioner testified that she did not receive any other assignments through AppleOne after her assignment with Cingular was terminated. She attributed her inability to get other assignments through AppleOne to the fact that AppleOne "sided with" Cingular, who was its client, but there is insufficient evidence to make such a finding. In January 2005, Petitioner filed separate charges of discrimination with the Commission against AppleOne and Cingular. According to Petitioner, she was paid $400 by AppleOne to settle her claim against that company. Petitioner testified that she sold vacation plans and did other “odd jobs” between November 2004 and mid-February 2005 when she was hired by Sears as a home delivery specialist. Her job duties in that position include contacting customers to coordinate the delivery of appliances purchased from Sears. Petitioner testified that her initial salary with Sears was $9 per hour and that as of the date of the hearing her salary was $10 per hour. Petitioner testified that other customer service specialists had “problems” or “personality conflicts” with Ms. Miller, but she was unable to identify any other employee (of any race or age) who was similarly insubordinate or disrespectful towards Ms. Miller (or any other supervisor) and who received discipline less severe than termination. Petitioner’s actions toward Ms. Miller during the training class were disrespectful, at a minimum. Petitioner testified that Ms. Miller acted like a white supremacist, but there is no credible evidence in the record to support that claim. Petitioner also testified that AT&T Wireless and Cingular did not have any permanent customer service specialists that were as old as she, but there is no credible evidence in the record to support that claim. Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding the race, age, or other characteristics of the person who filled her position at Cingular after her assignment was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s discrimination claim against Cingular. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2005, 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 25th day of October, 2005.
The Issue application from Sydney McCray on the basis of race or national
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Mr. McCray is a male African-American, and he is a member of a protected class. In his complaint, Mr. McCray claims that on April 4, 1994, the City discriminated against him by failing to hire him for the position of laborer (maintenance worker). Specifically, Mr. McCray alleged that in response to a newspaper advertisement for a laborer’s position, he and his sister, Alice Larkins, contacted the City Manager’s office for the purpose of submitting their employment applications. Both Mr. McCray and Ms. Larkins asserted that they arrived at the office of Mr. Whitson, the City Manager, at the appointed time, and that they waited over an hour to see Mr. Whitson. After waiting an hour, both Mr. McCray and Ms. Larkins left without ever meeting Mr. Whitson. Mr. McCray asserts that Mr. Whitson failed to meet with him or receive his employment application because of his race. The City disputes Mr. McCray’s claims for several reasons. First, the City provided evidence to contradict Mr. McCray’s position that he first learned of the laborer position through an advertisement. Several city employees testified that the City only advertises skilled positions and that the unskilled positions, such as maintenance positions, are handled through the Public Works Department without advertisement. With regard to the Public Works Department, testimony was also received that indicated the process for receiving applications for laborer positions. In particular, it was stated that applications for laborer positions are processed by the Public Works Department and that once the applicant has been interviewed, all qualified applicants are placed on a list for future vacancies. The record is clear that Mr. McCray never applied for a laborer position through the established procedure. Second, even if the position was advertised as stated by Mr. McCray, the City disputes that Mr. Whitson’s office would have ever made an appointment for Mr. McCray. As indicated above, the prospective laborers are processed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Whitson testified that he plays no role in screening laborer applicants and that he is purposefully insulated from the hiring process. Therefore, it makes no sense that his office would have arranged an interview as asserted by Mr. McCray. Third, in addition to Mr. Whitson’s lack of involvement in the employment process for prospective laborers, all the testimony received at the hearing supports a finding that Mr. McCray did not have an appointment with the City manager. Specifically, several City employees, including Mr. Whitson’s personal secretary, testified that neither Mr. McCray nor his sister ever had an appointment with Mr. Whitson. They also testified that neither person appeared at Mr. Whitson’s office on April 4, 1994. When pressed on the date and time of the alleged appointment with Mr. Whitson, Mr. McCray was unable to articulate consistently when the meeting was to take place. Mr. McCray appeared confused and his answers varied from his earlier deposition testimony and the testimony of his sister. Furthermore, based on the records maintained by the City of Milton, Mr. McCray never submitted an application for the position of “Laborer” with the Public Works Department of the City of Milton. Mr. McCray attempts to supplement his claim of discrimination by establishing that the City of Milton has systematically discriminated against him by failing on more than one occasion to hire him. Specifically, Mr. McCray stated that prior to April 4, 1994, he applied for other positions with the City of Milton, and he was denied such positions. In particular, Mr. McCray stated that he applied for the position of mechanic and technician. In both instances raised by Mr. McCray, however, it appears, based on the record, that he either failed to adequately complete his job application or he failed to possess the minimum qualifications for the positions sought. As further evidence supporting his claim, Mr. McCray offered the testimony of his sister, Alicia Larkin. Ms. Larkin testified that she, like her brother, was the subject of discrimination by the City. The undersigned dismissed her testimony as lacking relevancy and more importantly lacking credibility. First, Ms. Larkin has a claim pending against the City alleging similar discriminatory practices and she appears to have a bias against the City. Second, Ms. Larkin’s testimony lacked consistency and lacked credibility. No evidence was presented to indicate that the City of Milton discriminated in its employment practices. Furthermore, the City presented testimony that it has and continues to develop fair employment practices relating to minorities. Specifically, the City of Milton, through Mr. Whitson, has met with the NAACP for the purpose of continuing to improve race relations between the City and the African-American community in Milton. In summary, the City has effectively rebutted the allegations raised by Mr. McCray. The City offered a series of witnesses that had personal knowledge of the employment policies and hiring practices of the City and each corroborated the other. Those witnesses collectively support a finding that the City did not discriminate against Mr. McCray.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this claim with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committee, Esquire 8870 Thunderbird Drive Pensacola, FL 32514-5661 Post Office Box 586 Milton, FL 32572 Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road
The Issue Has Respondent committed an "unlawful employment practice" against Petitioner, pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon a Petition for Relief dated October 13, 1997, referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Florida Commission on Human Relations?
Findings Of Fact Respondent stipulated to jurisdiction, and the evidence demonstrates that by number of employees, Respondent is an "employer" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a freight company which ships and receives living nursery stock by truck through a depot/warehouse. Petitioner was employed there from 1993 until June 16, 1995. In the course of formal hearing, Petitioner waived his Charge of Discrimination on the basis of his national origin (United States citizen). (TR-116). There is no evidence the Respondent employs anyone other than United States citizens. The remainder of Petitioner's allegations were that Respondent failed to accommodate one or more handicaps and subjected Petitioner to disparate treatment from similarly situated black employees. Petitioner also related a series of remarks and one personnel action that he considered to be harassing and abusive due to his handicaps. The "handicaps" that Petitioner testified to were high blood pressure, an undefined heart condition requiring medication, "bad knees," and problems with his back. At formal hearing, no medical physician or health care professional corroborated the foregoing conditions. However, it is undisputed that on or about January 9, 1995, Petitioner presented a physician's excuse to Respondent's Warehouse Supervisor, Jeff Bradner. That physician's excuse stated that Petitioner could return to work on that date, working 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, doing medium lifting, that is, "lifting 30 pounds and frequently lifting and/or carrying objects weighing 25 pounds." The excuse further stated that Petitioner was to avoid squatting, kneeling, and climbing. Mr. Bradner informed Eddie Payne, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, that the foregoing January 9, 1995, medical restrictions were to be observed for Petitioner. Attached to both Petitioner's initial Charge of Discrimination and his later Petition for Review was another physician's letter dated January 29, 1993. It stated, in pertinent part: [Petitioner], patient of record, suffers from high blood pressure, anxiety, and arterial coronary disease. These conditions are aggravated by the stress caused by problems he has with his teenage son. Also attached was a March 3, 1994, doctor's letter stating that Petitioner had a spine and knee injury. It contains the same restrictions as the January 9, 1995, letter. Because the 1993 and 1994 letters are part of the record herein, (attached to the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief), I have taken official recognition thereof and find that they supplement or explain Petitioner's oral testimony at formal hearing to the effect that Petitioner was suffering from high blood pressure, anxiety, and arterial coronary disease in 1993, and from a knee injury in 1994. However, these letters were not introduced in evidence at formal hearing, and Petitioner did not testify that he ever presented any such written medical confirmations of these conditions to any of Respondent Employer's supervisory personnel. Mr. Payne and Mr. Bradner denied that any oral or written requests for accommodation had been received from Petitioner other than the January 9, 1995, doctor's excuse listing specific restrictions. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Mr. Payne denied knowing of Petitioner's heart condition. There also is no corroboration of Petitioner's testimony that he orally requested any accommodation specifically because of his high blood pressure or heart condition at any material time. Furthermore, and most importantly, the 1993 letter places no restrictions on Petitioner in the workplace, and the 1994 letter imposes the same restrictions as the 1995 letter, which is in evidence. The only medical condition any of his co-workers ever heard Petitioner complain about was his "bad knees." Upon the record as a whole, it is inferred that Eddie Payne also knew Petitioner complained of "bad knees." At all times material, both before January 9, 1995, and afterwards, Petitioner worked for Respondent as a "checker." Checkers have the most physically non-taxing job in Respondent's operation. They make sure that "wheelers" or "loaders" place unloaded freight on pallets in the correct location in the warehouse and that "loaders" load the correct freight from the warehouse or warehouse dock into the correct truck. In this capacity, the bulk of Petitioner's work was carrying a clipboard, making notations thereon, and orally directing others where to put boxes. Petitioner testified that due to his blood pressure and back condition, he "needed" to sit down for 15 minutes' rest every 20 minutes after January 9, 1995. The evidence as a whole does not indicate that Petitioner clearly enunciated this "need" to any supervisor. Moreover, the credible evidence supports the inference that no one could work effectively as a checker while taking 15 minute breaks as frequently as every 20 minutes, because each truck needed to be loaded or unloaded as a component, so as to avoid shipping errors. Therefore, substituting other checkers every 20 minutes would have adversely affected Respondent's business and would constitute an unreasonable accommodation for Petitioner and undue hardship for the Employer. Either substituting another checker or waiting on Petitioner to rest every 20 minutes would have been unduly costly, burdensome, or substantially disruptive and would have altered the nature of Respondent's business. Prior to January 9, 1995, Petitioner worked at least a 40-50 hour week and was paid by the number of hours he worked. Due to the nature of Respondent's business and the hours when freight was received, Petitioner's usual hours before January 9, 1995, were from approximately 4:00-4:30 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. (17- 18 hours) three days a week, mostly Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. At all times material, both before and after January 9, 1995, only twenty-five percent as much freight came in on Wednesdays and Fridays as came in on the other three work days of each week. Therefore, all employees were not needed for a 17-18 hour day on those days, and employees had the option of working at whatever was available on those days to "make their hours" for pay purposes. At all times material, on Wednesdays and Fridays, all employees who wanted to work took turns digging weeds out of the cracks in the Respondent's paved parking lot with a claw on a broom handle or the edge of a shovel; picking the weeds up with a shovel; and throwing them away. Sometimes a blower was used. In accord with the January 9, 1995, physician's written restrictions, Eddie Payne accommodated Petitioner by assigning him to work from 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m., so that Petitioner would only be working 10 hours per day. This assignment had Petitioner working the hours during which the employer needed the most men because those were the hours when the workload was the heaviest. Petitioner complained because Mr. Payne would not let him work his 10 hours from 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., a less busy time, but he complained only because those hours were more convenient for him. Petitioner related that after January 9, 1995, he was made to lift more than 30 pounds of parking lot weeds at a time, with the shovel, after getting on his hands and knees to dig the weeds out, and always in the hot sun, which aggravated his undisclosed heart condition. He also related that he never got to use the blower like other employees. His testimony on this issue is not credible in light of the contrary testimony of all the other witnesses. Even if credible, Petitioner was not forced to do this work. He was permitted to do this "make work" during slow days so that he would earn at least 40 hours per week. Witnesses confirmed that another "make work" project on a single occasion was digging muck out of a ditch. Petitioner testified that he was required to dig more than 30 pounds of muck in each shovelful that he lifted out of the ditch. His description was neither corroborated or refuted, but again, Petitioner was the one who controlled the content of each shovel, and he could have declined to work at that "make work" project. According to Petitioner's time cards, from which information Petitioner received his pay, Petitioner usually worked only 10 hours or less per day after January 9, 1995. Occasionally, he worked more than 10 hours, but less than 11 hours per day. Petitioner and Eddie Payne were fishing buddies outside of work, and on at least one occasion, Eddie Payne treated his subordinates, including Petitioner, to a night-clubbing expedition. Petitioner asserted that on the job, Eddie Payne had used derogatory and profane language to him, on account of his handicaps. Once, when Petitioner wanted to punch-out early, Mr. Payne supposedly said, "Go home if you need to, you crippled old pussy." Once, Mr. Payne allegedly called Petitioner "a crippled old Mother F-----." Mr. Payne denied ever using such language either socially or on the job. Mr. Bradner testified that he had instructed his subordinates against profanity on the job, and related that Mr. Payne had a reputation for not using profanity. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's testimony that any such language had ever been addressed to Petitioner. Petitioner called Matthew Hickox, a co-employee, as a witness. Mr. Hickox related that Petitioner would often "act goofy," by doing a "Quasimodo imitation," twisting his arm, making a face, and dragging one leg behind him. When Petitioner did this, other employees would "make cracks." Petitioner claimed that dragging his leg behind him was evidence of his handicap. Mr. Hickox's opinion was that "disabled don't give you the right to act like a nut and then people not make some comment." Petitioner testified that he had only become entirely disabled since leaving Respondent's employ June 16, 1995. Although Petitioner moved slowly and evidenced pain on rising and sitting, he was able to move around and approach the witness stand at formal hearing. The undersigned observed no twisted arm, facial contortions, or dragging leg. It is inferred from observing the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses, including Petitioner, and from the whole of the evidence, but particularly from Mr. Hickox's testimony, that on such occasions as Petitioner performed his imitation on the job, Mr. Payne or Mr. Bradner may have vehemently ordered Petitioner back to work and warned him to cut out the horseplay. Petitioner claimed to have received only a fifteen-cent per hour raise when other employees received more. According to Petitioner, the other employees, including Mr. Gonzalez, were raised by twenty-five cents per quarter hour for a $1.00 per hour raise. What anyone was being paid before this raise is not in evidence. Since no evidence indicates whether this raise occurred before or after January 9, 1995, when Respondent's management clearly knew of any of Petitioner's restrictions, there was no nexus between the lack of raise and handicap discrimination.2 Petitioner also developed no nexus between this raise and racial discrimination. According to Eddie Payne, Petitioner was a sub-average worker. According to Eddie Payne and Jeff Bradner, they frequently had to instruct Petitioner to resume work. Mr. Bradner related an incident when Petitioner was leaning on a shovel in the parking lot, so Mr. Bradner sarcastically commented, "You're not getting much work done leaning on that shovel," but this motivational comment was not directed at a handicap. No employee testified that any supervisor's instructions to Petitioner, which they observed or overheard, were offensive or otherwise inappropriate. On one occasion, Petitioner was told by Mr. Bradner to stop kicking a "basketball of tape" around; throw it away; and get back to work. No employee other than Petitioner found this instruction offensive. On another occasion, Petitioner was given a written reprimand when a truckload of freight was sent to the wrong location. Petitioner attributed the error to a black "loader" named James Oliver and perceived the reprimand as discriminatory because Mr. Oliver was not reprimanded. Petitioner's superiors reprimanded Petitioner as a formal personnel action instead of Mr. Oliver because they considered Petitioner responsible for the error and resultant costs since Petitioner was in the superior position of checker. Petitioner suffered no loss of pay, hours, or seniority as a result of the reprimand. Petitioner's assertions that he was required to climb tall ladders to change light bulbs in the warehouse, to squat to lift boxes, and to kneel to pull weeds were denied by management witnesses and uncorroborated by Petitioner's witnesses. On one occasion, Petitioner had just come on duty and was having a coke and a cigarette, when Mr. Bradner told him to get to work helping a black loader named "Willie T." unload a truck. On this single occasion, Petitioner may have been asked to lift boxes in excess of 30 pounds, but the boxes also may have weighed as little as 20 pounds. This incident may have occurred before Mr. Bradner knew of Petitioner's medical restrictions on January 9, 1995, but it was probably afterwards. If so, this single incident was contrary to Petitioner's doctor's instructions, but Petitioner admittedly never complained to Mr. Bradner about this one-time incident in terms of "lack of accommodation" for his physical limitations. On the same occasion, Willie T., who already had been loading the truck for three hours, took a coke and cigarette break a half an hour after Petitioner began to help him unload the truck. Willie T. asked Petitioner to join him on his break, which Petitioner did. Mr. Bradner spotted them and instructed Petitioner to return to loading the truck because he felt Petitioner was not entitled to a break after only a half an hour of work, but did feel that Willie T. was entitled to a break after three full hours of work. This was a bona fide business consideration of Respondent. Petitioner failed to establish a nexus of racially discriminatory intent on the basis of this incident. On June 16, 1995, Petitioner was sweeping the warehouse floor, leaving trails of residue behind. Petitioner intended to go back and sweep up the residue, but before he could do so, Mr. Bradner told him that he was leaving trails and that he should do a better job. Petitioner considered this instruction to be demeaning and discriminatory, but he did not reply to Mr. Bradner. Mr. Bradner noted that Petitioner began to do a better job of sweeping, and Mr. Bradner left the area. Petitioner perceived that his co-workers were laughing at the incident and became upset. Petitioner finished sweeping one section of the warehouse and asked Eddie Payne if he could clock-out. He assumed that Eddie Payne knew he was upset because of Mr. Bradner's comment but did not tell him so. Eddie Payne authorized Petitioner to clock-out. Petitioner clocked-out and never returned to work for Respondent
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Human Relations Commission enter a Final Order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief on all issues. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowes”)1 committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008),2/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her gender or national origin (Hispanic) in its allowance of a hostile work environment, or by discharging Petitioner from her employment in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct.
Findings Of Fact Lowes is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. In November 2004, Petitioner, a Mexican-American female, was hired by Lowes to work at store number 2365 in Gainesville as a Commercial Sales Associate (“CSA”) in the Commercial Sales department, which serves contractors and large institutional customers. Petitioner’s primary duty was to assist customers in the selection, demonstration and purchase of products. At the time she was hired, Petitioner received from Lowes copies of the following documents: Lowes' Code of Ethics, Lowes' Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, Lowes' No Harassment Policy, and Lowes' Performance Management Policy 315 setting forth the company’s standards of conduct and discipline. These policies were in effect during the entirety of Petitioner’s employment at Lowes. Lowes' Code of Ethics specifically provides that employees “must maintain the confidentiality of information entrusted to them by Lowes or its suppliers or customers,” unless such disclosure is authorized by the company’s lawyers or is required by law. Lowes' Equal Employment Opportunity Policy provides that all reports and investigations of harassment “will be treated confidentially to the extent possible, and with the utmost discretion.” Lowes' Performance Management Policy 315 provides that unauthorized disclosure of company information is a “Class A violation,” which will normally subject an employee to immediate termination on the first occurrence. Petitioner’s allegations of harassment and hostile work environment center on a single Lowes co-worker, John Wayne Edwards. Mr. Edwards was another CSA in Commercial Sales. He had no supervisory authority over Petitioner and exercised no control over the terms and conditions of Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner has not alleged that Mr. Edwards subjected her to any unwanted sexual comments, sexual touching, or sexual advances. Petitioner’s factual allegations against Mr. Edwards involve three incidents. The first incident, in September 2007, was an argument between Petitioner and Mr. Edwards at work. Petitioner accused Mr. Edwards of taking a customer file from her. Mr. Edwards denied taking the file, pointing out to Petitioner that he had no reason to take her file. If Mr. Edwards wanted the information contained in Petitioner’s customer file, he could simply take it from the Commercial Sales department’s computer. Petitioner called Mr. Edwards a liar. Mr. Edwards denied being a liar. Petitioner said, “I’m going to get you.” Mr. Edwards asked Petitioner what she meant by that statement, and Petitioner called him coward. Mr. Edwards then said to Petitioner, “If you were a man, me and you’d go across the street right now and settle this.” Petitioner reported the incident to Lynette White, the Human Relations (“HR”) manager for Lowes store number 2365, alleging that Mr. Edwards had threatened to beat her up in the parking lot.4/ Ms. White investigated the matter, interviewing Petitioner, Mr. Edwards and two or three other CSAs who witnessed the incident. Ms. White concluded that Mr. Edwards had not threatened any physical harm to Petitioner, but that Mr. Edwards’ statement was nonetheless inappropriate. She counseled Mr. Edwards to take care in his workplace conversations so that no one could construe anything he said as a threat, and to avoid contact with Petitioner whenever possible. The second of the three incidents occurred on or about October 2, 2007. According to Petitioner, she was standing near a filing cabinet in Commercial Sales. Mr. Edwards was “talking and talking and talking,” “bragging about all sorts of stuff.” Petitioner told Mr. Edwards not to talk to her, but he continued in a very loud voice. Then, when he was finished bragging and talking, Mr. Edwards rushed toward the filing cabinet “like a football player” and hit the cabinet hard. Petitioner testified that Mr. Edwards hurt himself and ran and told management. Store managers came running to make sure that Petitioner was not hurt in the incident. Mr. Edwards had no recollection of such an incident. He stated that there are three CSAs and an assistant in an area that is 12 feet long and 42 inches wide, with a filing cabinet that is in use directly behind the computer work stations. It is unavoidable that people moving through such a space will touch or bump one another. Mr. Edwards was positive he would have excused himself if he inadvertently bumped Petitioner, and denied ever doing anything that could be construed as “charging” at the filing cabinet with the intention of hurting or frightening Petitioner. Ms. White investigated this incident, interviewing Petitioner, Mr. Edwards, and other persons who were in the area when the incident allegedly occurred. During her interview with Ms. White, Petitioner conceded that neither Mr. Edwards nor the file cabinet touched her. Ms. White asked Petitioner to show her how the incident occurred, using a file cabinet in Ms. White’s office. Petitioner was unable to show a scenario that, in Ms. White's words, “added up to someone coming towards you to attack you.” The two other employees who had been in the area saw nothing to indicate that Mr. Edwards made contact with or sought to harm Petitioner. Ms. White concluded that, at most, Mr. Edwards accidentally bumped the file cabinet while Petitioner was nearby. As to the third incident, Petitioner alleged that on three or four occasions in early 2008, Mr. Edwards approached her and, apropos of nothing, announced, “We need to build a fence around the Mexican border.” Petitioner testified that these bigoted comments were clearly intended to intimidate her and cast aspersions on her heritage. Petitioner took this complaint to Karla Daubney, then Lowes' HR district manager. Ms. Daubney investigated Petitioner’s complaint by interviewing Petitioner, Mr. Edwards, and other employees in Commercial Sales. Mr. Edwards denied making a comment about “building a fence around the Mexican border.” He testified that the only possible source for Petitioner’s allegation (aside from sheer invention) was a conversation he had with a male co-worker about the Iraq War. Mr. Edwards had stated his opinion that the United States would be better off bringing its soldiers home from Iraq and using the savings to shore up our borders with Mexico and Canada.5/ He had no idea whether Petitioner was within earshot during this conversation, and denied ever making anti-Mexican comments, whether or not they were aimed at Petitioner. Mr. Edwards testified that this allegation was particularly hurtful because he is the adoptive father of two Mexican children, a brother and sister. At the time Mr. Edwards adopted them, the girl was three years old and the boy was nine months old. The children are now adults. Mr. Edwards’ daughter is a surgeon, and his son is in the air-conditioning business. After her investigation, Ms. Daubney concluded that Petitioner’s allegations were unsupported by the evidence. Mr. Edwards was not disciplined for this incident. At the final hearing in this matter, Petitioner and Mr. Edwards testified about all three incidents. Petitioner produced two witnesses, neither of whom witnessed any of these events first-hand or had any clear recollection of the incidents as related by Petitioner. No witness other than Petitioner characterized Mr. Edwards as anything other than a good Lowes employee and a solid citizen. Far from allowing a hostile work environment, Lowes diligently investigated every accusation made by Petitioner. Mr. Edwards was by far the more credible witness, and was genuinely puzzled as to why Petitioner had selected him as the continuing focus of her ire. The evidence indicated that Petitioner had job performance issues that predated her odd vendetta against Mr. Edwards. She received an “Initial Notice” on November 6, 2006, for failure to follow up on various customer orders. On May 2, 2008, Petitioner received a “Final Notice,” the last step in Lowes' progressive discipline system prior to termination. Petitioner had used Lowes' confidential customer contact information to telephone a regular commercial customer, Justice Steele, at his home. Shortly after this conversation, Mr. Steele telephoned Charles Raulerson, the manager of store number 2365, to complain about Petitioner’s unprofessional conduct. Mr. Steele followed up the phone call with a letter, dated April 25, 2008, which stated as follows, verbatim: The evening of April 23, at approximately 6:30 P.M., I received a call from Rosie [Chavez] in Commercial Sales when I answered she proceeded to tell me that, she had heard John and I talking earlier. So I asked her what the problem was? At this point she started to tell me I had no right to critique her work, I tried to explain to her that I was quite unhappy that she had lost one order of mine and had mixed up another one in the same week. And had I known she was there I would have spoken to her face to face, at this point she became very argumentative and started telling me how she was the only person who did her job in commercial sales. And her co-workers where [sic] lazy and stupid that they should not even be there, personally I thought this was very very unprofessional on her part. Not to mention calling me at home considering I am in the store almost daily placing orders, getting estimates, etc. In the years I have been doing business with your company I always found the staff to be quite knowledgeable an courtesy I’m surprised that you would allow an employee to act in this manner. I’m aware you do your best to screen employees but if this issue is not addressed I will not continue doing any further business with your company. Thank you for your attention to this matter. In her meeting with Mr. Raulerson about Mr. Steele’s complaint, Petitioner asserted that her boss could not tell her what to do on her own time, and that Mr. Steele was lying about her phone conversation with him.6/ Mr. Raulerson attempted to explain that Petitioner was conducting Lowes business when she called Mr. Steele, and she was therefore a representative of Lowes whether or not the call was placed from the store. Petitioner continued to assert that she could do anything she wanted if she was not physically at the store. Mr. Raulerson issued the Final Notice and transferred Petitioner to the position of cashier in response to Mr. Steele’s complaint.7/ The transfer was a lateral move, involving no change in Petitioner’s employee status or pay. During the meeting at which the Final Notice was issued, Mr. Raulerson reminded Petitioner of Lowes' confidentiality policies and provided her with another copy of Performance Management Policy 315. The referenced Performance Management Policy would have allowed Mr. Raulerson to terminate Petitioner’s employment for her unauthorized use of confidential customer information. However, Mr. Raulerson decided to give Petitioner another chance to salvage her job, away from the Commercial Sales department.8/ On July 25, 2008, Mr. Raulerson received another complaint about Petitioner from Lowes customer Chris Bayne. Mr. Bayne was a registered nurse working in the emergency room at North Florida Regional Medical Center in Gainesville. On July 24, 2008, Petitioner phoned Mr. Bayne at his private cell phone number, which he had given to Lowes two years previously when buying lumber. Mr. Bayne was without knowledge of Petitioner’s grievances against Mr. Edwards, Mr. Raulerson and/or Lowes. Nonetheless, Petitioner caused Mr. Bayne to leave the emergency room in the middle of a procedure to take her phone call. Petitioner solicited Mr. Bayne to write a letter of character reference for her, to be used in a discrimination lawsuit against Lowes. Mr. Bayne had no idea what Petitioner was talking about. In an effort to get her off the phone and get back to his job, Mr. Bayne gave Petitioner his email address and told her to send any information via that route. After work, with more time to think about the call, Mr. Bayne became increasingly disturbed. He wondered how Petitioner had obtained his private phone number and began to worry about identity theft. The next morning, he telephoned Lowes and complained to Mr. Raulerson. Mr. Bayne later sent Mr. Raulerson a copy of the letter that Petitioner had emailed to Mr. Bayne. The letter read as follows: Hi. As many of you already know, I have been demoted to cashier. Mr. Justice Steele wrote a letter to Lowe's. According to Mr. Charlie Raulerson, store manager and Mr. Tom Bragdon, operation manager, Mr. Steele claimed that I called him on his personal time and that I argued with him. I always follow up on my orders. I overheard Mr. Steele tell someone that I lost his order. So I called him up to find out what happened and what is going on. I had informed Mr. Steele that I will be placing a copy of his estimate in front of his file folder because he had not paid for it yet. The copy was still there in front of his file folder. There was no argument. There were a couple of other things that were mentioned in which not a single word was brought up. I asked Charlie Raulerson the store manager for a copy of the letter and he refused to show me the letter because it was Lowe's property. I am defending myself. There is more than what you know is going on. I have been discriminated based on my national origin and my gender now for over eight months at Lowe's #2365 in Gainesville Florida on 13th Street. You are my fifth proof. I am knowledgeable about construction. I graduated from Building Trades. I loved my job and I loved the people. Please submit a character reference to Emily Davis, EEOC Investigator (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) at Emily.davis@fchr.myflorida.com. For those who do not have e-mail, please mail reference to 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 200, Tallahassee, FL 32301-4857. Tell her everything you know. Do not fear anything. The reference letter is not going to Lowe's. It is going to Emily Davis only. Everything is strictly confidential. Ms. Davis is currently investigating my case #15D200800721. Please keep me in your prayers. In addition, please give a copy of this letter to the prayer group at your church and ask them to pray for me. Please pass the word around because I did not get everyone’s phone number since I was immediately demoted to cashier on May 2, 2008, on a Final Notice. Please ask everyone to e-mail Emily Davis or write to her. Please help me and thank you for your help. Rosie At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she sent this letter to hundreds of people. As the text indicates, most of the recipients were current or former Lowes employees, but many were customers such as Mr. Bayne. None of the recipients had any personal knowledge of Petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner appeared to have no understanding that her actions were in clear violation of Lowes' confidentiality policies, not to mention common sense. Mr. Raulerson asked Ms. Daubney to investigate Mr. Bayne’s complaint. Ms. Daubney interviewed Petitioner in an attempt to understand why she called Mr. Bayne. Petitioner refused to answer Ms. Daubney’s questions. She insisted that her conversation with Mr. Bayne was none of Lowes' business. Mr. Raulerson testified that Mr. Bayne’s complaint provided more than adequate grounds for terminating Petitioner’s employment, but that he decided to give Petitioner yet another chance to turn her situation around and become a productive employee. Shortly after investigating Mr. Bayne’s complaint and learning that Petitioner had used Lowes' confidential business records to circulate her own complaint to hundreds of people, Ms. Daubney received a copy of a memorandum written by Linda Brown, Records Bureau Chief of the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office. Ms. Brown was the supervisor of Nanci Middleton, the wife of Larry Middleton, one of Petitioner’s co-workers at Lowes. Ms. Brown’s memo stated that she had received a telephone call from Petitioner seeking to discuss “an EEOC issue of discrimination” involving Mr. Middleton, and asking to speak with Ms. Middleton. Ms. Brown told Petitioner that it was inappropriate to contact Ms. Middleton at work about an issue unrelated to the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner testified as to her purpose in phoning Ms. Brown. Petitioner sought permission to eavesdrop on a proposed conversation between the Middletons, during which Mr. Middleton would somehow be urged by his wife to “tell the truth” about Mr. Edwards’ “fence around the Mexican border” statements. Petitioner wanted Ms. Brown to join her in eavesdropping on this conversation in order to serve as Petitioner’s witness in her discrimination case. Not surprisingly, Ms. Brown declined Petitioner’s proposition. Ms. Daubney concluded that Petitioner’s telephone call to Ms. Brown violated Lowes' confidentiality policies. In consultation with Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Daubney decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment with Lowes, effective August 8, 2008. The grounds for Petitioner’s termination were repeated customer complaints about Petitioner’s job performance and intrusions into customers’ privacy, and her repeated violations of Lowes' confidentiality policies despite numerous warnings. Petitioner’s position, repeated in her testimony at the hearing, was that Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, gave her the right to “defend” herself in any way she deemed appropriate, and to contact anyone who might help her, regardless of whether they had any knowledge of or connection to her disputes with Lowes. Petitioner refused to acknowledge that any of her actions had been inappropriate. Petitioner offered no evidence to establish that her employment was terminated because of her gender or national origin. Petitioner testified that her firing was unrelated to her national origin or her gender. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Lowes discriminated against her because of her national origin or her gender, subjected her to harassment because of her national origin or gender, or retaliated against her in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no credible evidence to support her factual allegations against Mr. Edwards. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Edwards threatened physical harm to Petitioner or made derogatory remarks to Petitioner regarding her national origin. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Lowes for terminating Petitioner’s employment. The evidence established that Petitioner’s First and Second Complaints were devoid of merit. The evidence established that Lowes showed great forbearance in not firing Petitioner well before August 8, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petitions for Relief filed in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged handicap.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Respondent employed Respondent in January 1990. Respondent reassigned Petitioner to the Division of Recreation and Parks in 1993. At the time of his dismissal in October 2003, Petitioner was working as a park ranger at the St. Marks GeoPark in Wakulla County, Florida. Petitioner is a history aficionado. He enjoys researching Florida and Civil War history. He has authored a 200-page book entitled The Civil War in and Around St. Marks, Florida. He has written an article entitled "Forts in St. Marks during the War Between the States." Petitioner enjoys participating in history interpretations for the public. Several times in the past decade, Respondent nominated him for an award for his activities in history interpretations. Petitioner has constructed colonial-era equipment and musical instruments. Although they are his personal property, Petitioner has used them in displays for the public at state parks. Petitioner researched the historical accuracy of his projects both at home and at work. Petitioner had surgery in 2000 for a cervical herniated disc. After the surgery, Respondent made accommodations for Petitioner in the form of lighter duty assignments during his recovery period in keeping with his doctor's request. In a letter dated August 28, 2000, Petitioner's doctor set forth the specific type of work that Petitioner could and could not perform. The doctor released Petitioner to perform desk work, telephone duties, and visitor services but no maintenance duties. At all times relevant here, Thomas Nobles was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Nobles and Petitioner have known each other since high school. However, they did not have a good relationship at work. In 2001, Petitioner filed gender discrimination charges against Mr. Nobles. Respondent conducted an investigation and exonerated Mr. Nobles. Mr. Nobles wrote several counseling memoranda and one reprimand, which criticized Petitioner's work performance. Among other things, Mr. Nobles warned Petitioner not to visit a music store in Tallahassee during work hours. In a memorandum dated July 19, 2002, Mr. Nobles discussed his concern over Petitioner's work habits that allegedly caused damage to a state-owned vehicle and other property and Petitioner's inability to complete paperwork. Petitioner responded to each of Mr. Nobles' criticisms in a memorandum dated July 28, 2002. On September 20, 2002, Mr. Nobles wrote a memorandum to document an earlier conversation with Petitioner regarding Mr. Nobles' concern that Petitioner was not keeping the park neat. In the memorandum, Mr. Nobles instructed Petitioner not to bring "personal projects" to work, specifically referring to a mandolin that Petitioner had been sanding in the park office. In a memorandum dated October 22, 2002, Mr. Nobles criticized Petitioner for reading a book about musical instruments. Mr. Nobles warned Petitioner not to let personal projects take priority over the park's appearance and cleanliness. On February 25, 2003, Petitioner called his office to provide his employer with the date of his second neck surgery, which was scheduled for March 5, 2003. During the telephone call, Petitioner asserted that he required further surgery due to his work-related injury. However, Petitioner never filed a workers' compensation claim; he believed that he was not eligible for workers' compensation due to a preexisting condition. After Petitioner's March 2003 surgery, Respondent returned to work. In a letter dated April 10, 2003, Petitioner's doctor released him to work running a museum. On or about May 7, 2003, Petitioner's doctor released him to light- duty work assignments, including no more than one hour of lawn maintenance at a time. In a letter dated July 29, 2003, Mr. Nobles' doctor once again restricted Petitioner's work assignments. Petitioner was not supposed to use heavy machinery or operate mowers, edgers, or similar equipment for prolonged periods of time. The doctor recommended that Petitioner avoid repetitive gripping and lifting. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with these accommodations. In the meantime, on July 23, 2003, Mr. Nobles requested Respondent's Inspector General to investigate a posting on the eBay Internet site involving a replica of a 1800s guitar, advertised as being made of wood from the Gregory House, a part of Torreya State Park in Gadsden County, Florida. The Inspector General subsequently commenced an investigation. Petitioner posted the advertisement for the guitar under his eBay site name. Petitioner makes replica mandolins and guitars and occasionally sells them on eBay. Petitioner bragged to at least one co-worker in 2003 that he had made a lot of money selling musical instruments on eBay. One of Petitioner's friends made the "Gregory House" guitar out of discarded roof shingles. Petitioner merely posted the advertisement on his internet site because his friend did not know how to use a computer. During the Inspector General's investigation, Petitioner admitted that he had accessed eBay at work but denied he had used it for bidding. An inspection of the hard drive of the computer at Petitioner's office revealed that someone using Petitioner's eBay password had accessed eBay four times from April-July 2003. Around the general time and date of one of those occasions, someone placed an eBay bid on the "Gregory House" guitar. Additionally, the computer at Petitioner's office had been used to access numerous musical instrument and/or woodworking Internet sites other times from April-July 2003. Petitioner was at work on most, but not all, of the days. A park volunteer admitted that she sometimes used the office computer to access eBay. Respondent's policy prohibits an employee from accessing the Internet for personal use if that use adversely affects the employee's ability to perform his job. Personal use of the Internet should be "limited to the greatest extent possible." Petitioner was aware of Respondent's Internet policy. Nevertheless, he used the Internet for personal reasons at work to access eBay and sites related to his woodworking business after he had been counseled not to let personal projects interfere with his park duties. This caused him to not be available to do park business and, therefore, adversely affected his ability to do his job. Petitioner violated Respondent's Internet use policy. Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on September 25, 2003, for alleged rule violations, conduct unbecoming a public employee, and perjury. Petitioner appealed to the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), contending that Respondent lacked cause to discipline him. PERC appointed a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing and issue a Recommended Order. The PERC Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on October 28, 2003. The Hearing Officer issued the Recommended Order on November 10, 2003. In the instant case, the parties stipulated that they would not re-litigate issues previously litigated at the PERC hearing. The PERC Hearing Officer found as follows: (a) Respondent had cause to discipline Petitioner for violating the computer use policy; and (b) Respondent had discretion to discipline Petitioner by terminating his employment. On November 24, 2003, PERC entered a Final Order adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not allow employees, other than Petitioner, to read books unrelated to work during office hours. In fact, Respondent did not terminate Petitioner for any of the following reasons: (a) because he read history books at work; (b) because he might file a workers' compensation claim for a work-related injury; (c) because he filed a gender discrimination against Mr. Nobles; or (d) because Respondent intended to eliminate his position. Rather, Respondent dismissed Petitioner for using the office computer for personal reasons. Respondent has fired other employees for the same reason. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner believed that he was physically incapable of performing the duties of his position. However, there is no evidence that Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with appropriate accommodations as requested by Petitioner's doctors.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen Gerrell, Jr. 10750 Kilcrease way Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to creditable service with the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from February 1, 1997 through November 30, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Hendry County is governed by the Hendry County Board of County Commissioners (Board). The period in dispute is February 1, 1997, through November 30, 1999. During this 32- month period, Petitioner served as legal counsel for the Port LaBelle Utility System (PLUS), a division of Hendry County, under the direction of the County Administrator. (Stipulation e.2.b., modified. See also Finding of Fact 11.)1/ Both immediately prior to and immediately following the period in dispute, Petitioner was employed full-time by Hendry County in the regularly established position of "County Attorney." (Stipulation e.1.a. modified) Regularly established positions in Hendry County, such as "County Attorney," are created by the Board and supervised by the County Administrator. When Petitioner resigned the County Attorney position in 1997, he was approached by a Board member to work on two specific PLUS projects for $500.00 per month minimum, at the rate of $100.00 per hour. The Board and Petitioner initially called the $500.00 a "retainer fee" and anticipated that Petitioner would only work on two specific PLUS projects. Petitioner is only claiming that this guaranteed $500.00 per month, which was paid for 32 months, should have been covered by FRS. The new County Attorney had no experience in water and sewer utilities, so Hendry County and Petitioner later struck a deal for Petitioner to take up the additional role of counsel of record for all routine PLUS matters, including special projects, and to act (as he had when he was County Attorney) as PLUS contact person between PLUS and all governmental regulatory agencies at the rate of $100.00 per hour for every hour he worked above the guaranteed minimum of $500.00 per month. Petitioner was hired in this capacity due to his legal expertise in the area of utilities. Both Petitioner and the Board contemplated that he would personally render his legal services, and it was never anticipated by either party that Petitioner would sub-contract out those legal services. All of his services were rendered personally by Petitioner during the disputed period of time. At the commencement of the agreement, both parties anticipated their arrangement would continue indefinitely. No formal written contract was executed between Petitioner and the County for the period at issue. Either Petitioner or the Board could terminate the oral contract at any time without financial liability, but Petitioner would have had a professional duty to assist in the transition of cases to a replacement attorney. (Stipulation e.l.k. expanded.) The County Administrator could terminate the County Attorney, but only the Board could terminate Petitioner. During the disputed period of time, Petitioner's responsibilities and services as counsel for PLUS became essentially the same as the responsibilities and services he had provided to PLUS in his regularly-established position as County Attorney prior to the disputed period and which he subsequently provided to PLUS as County Attorney after the disputed period. However, during the period at issue, Petitioner did not perform all the other non-PLUS duties of the County Attorney. The oral agreement between Petitioner and the Board provided for Petitioner to be paid $500.00 per month by the County on behalf of PLUS. (Stipulation e.2.b., modified. See also Finding of Fact 1.)2/ Originally, Petitioner understood that the agreement guaranteed him $500.00 minimum per month even if he did no routine or special project work for PLUS. Ultimately, the oral agreement also contemplated that Petitioner could charge the County at an hourly rate of $100.00 per hour for any time he spent working on PLUS projects. This was substantially more money per hour than the full-time regular employee salary Petitioner had previously received from the County as its County Attorney. Petitioner is not claiming FRS coverage for any additional amounts of money above $500.00 per month that he charged Hendry County for PLUS work during the 32 months at issue. Petitioner is only claiming that the $500.00 per month constitutes his part time employee "salary" for this period of time. The parties stipulated that the $500.00 fee was paid to Petitioner by the County on a monthly basis, and Petitioner was not required to submit a time card to his supervisor setting forth his time worked each month in order to be entitled to the $500.00 payment. (Stipulation e.1.d. expanded.) Petitioner was not required to submit a timesheet or to similarly account for his time. However, Petitioner, in fact, billed the County for his services. The testimony is that he billed monthly, but his invoices appear to have been rendered every two or three months. Petitioner referred to the $500.00 as a "retainer" on each invoice he prepared. Each of his invoices included a vendor number, recognizable by the County Finance Department. Regularly established positions in Hendry County have no numbers. He sent his invoices from a law office in his home. Most, if not all, of the months during the disputed period, Petitioner billed more than $500.00, including time for projects and legal work not originally anticipated. Most of his services were frequent and sometimes recurring; other were not. Despite his testimony that his agreement with the County guaranteed him a retainer of $500.00 per month, regardless of how few or how many hours he worked on PLUS projects, Petitioner conceded that from the first invoice, he always credited the guaranteed $500.00 to the County and deducted it from the total hours of legal work he billed the County. Petitioner's invoices itemized all services for PLUS and any other projects he performed for the County in tenths of hours worked at the rate of pay of $100.00 per hour, and the $500.00 was always applied each month against the total PLUS hours worked. The County's Finance Department's policies were directed by the Board. Testimony shows that during the period at issue, Petitioner's monthly $500.00 was paid by the County's Finance Department, out of funds exclusive to PLUS, in response to Petitioner's invoices. However, the invoices which are in evidence show that the $500.00 and all additional charges were paid by a single County check for a lump sum in response to the total on each invoice, whenever the invoice was received. The accompanying check stub differentiated between specific projects and general charges, but the $500.00 was not isolated on the check stub. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that during the period at issue, the County Administrator's Office, Human Resources Office, and Clerk of Court did not handle Petitioner's situation as if he were an employee filling a regularly established part-time position. Rather, they treated the whole of his services, invoices, and remuneration as if he were a vendor or independent contractor. Payments to him were designated by the Finance Department as paid out of "professional services." However, the County's current Finance Director, an accountant who was not hired by the County until later, testified that the County should have separated out the $500.00 retainer and the cost of Petitioner's monthly services above that amount into separate amounts because Petitioner was performing non-vendor services for the $500.00 base amount. The County reported Petitioner's pay by Form 1099 for an independent contractor, rather than by Form W-2 for an employee. The Hendry County Personnel Manual requires that one work 7.5 hours per day in order to qualify as a full-time County employee. By law, the County is required to withhold income tax, social security, and medicare deductions for its employees, even the part-time ones. The County withheld no taxes, social security, or medicare deductions from the amounts it paid to Petitioner during the period at issue. The County did not make matching contributions for social security or medicare from the amounts it paid to Petitioner in this period. (Stipulation e.1.c., expanded.) The County did not include any fees paid to Petitioner in its wage computations for its workers' compensation insurance premiums, but had Petitioner claimed to have been injured on the job, and coverage denied by the company, only litigation would have determined if he were "covered" by workers' compensation. (Stipulation e.1.c., expanded.) Petitioner did not accrue, and was not paid, sick pay or vacation time during this period. (Stipulation e.1.c., expanded.) According to the County Personnel Manual, a County employee who works less than 22 hours per bi-weekly pay period does not earn sick or vacation leave, but would still be eligible for FRS. No FRS payments are linked to Petitioner's employment during this period. All County employees in regularly established positions, both part-time and full-time, are paid bi-weekly. Petitioner billed every two or three months. In response, the Finance Department paid Petitioner's invoices in lump sums, as if Petitioner were a vendor or independent contractor. Petitioner did not consider himself a County employee during the disputed time period, and, in fact, considered his arrangement with the County to be a classic retainer agreement. Petitioner treated his income from the County as "other income" by paying both the employer's and employee's share of social security during this period. During the period at issue, Petitioner did not list himself in the business section of the phone book or the yellow pages or otherwise offer his services to the general public, although he could have done so without violating his arrangement with the County. Petitioner had a separate and independent law office in his home during this period and charged individuals for occasional deeds and wills. Petitioner did not have to account to the County for any of his time not on the clock for County business. During this period, Petitioner also acted and was paid as counsel for the Central County Water Control District. Prior to accepting the District as his client, Petitioner sought from the Hendry County Board of County Commissioners permission to represent the Central County Water Control District, because of the Florida Bar Rules on attorneys' conflicts of interest and, presumably, rules on full disclosure to clients, but not because Hendry County was his employer. During the period at issue, Petitioner advised the Hendry County Attorney of what work he was performing, but the County Attorney could not instruct Petitioner how to do his job and did not assign him tasks or direct him. (See Findings of Facts 40 and 42.) During the period at issue, Petitioner received no training from the County. Most of the knowledge Petitioner had regarding County procedures and PLUS issues had been acquired prior to the period in question while he had been serving as the County Attorney. Some of the additional issues Petitioner represented Hendry County on during the disputed time period were assigned by the County Administrator or the Board, but Petitioner could prioritize issues and had discretion as to when he would work on them. The Board, as Petitioner's client, could direct certain of Petitioner's actions as its utilities counsel and had to agree or disagree to certain proposals. On most of these matters, votes of the Board were necessary. A major part of Petitioner's duties as counsel for PLUS during the disputed period involved attendance and providing advice to the Board and other County personnel at meetings or appointments scheduled unilaterally by the County Administrator. Petitioner was required to make reports at these events. No one in the County's administrative hierarchy could instruct Petitioner how to do his job as an attorney but the Board, County Administrator, and Utility Director could assign him tasks and instruct him on projects. In the main, however, the Board and its County Administrator had to rely on Petitioner's expert legal capabilities and professionalism as would any client in an attorney-client situation. During the disputed period, almost all of Petitioner's work for PLUS was done at a County office facility or at meeting sites designated by the County. The County made available office materials, books, and other equipment to Petitioner. All of the clerical and other staff assisting Petitioner in the performance of his duties for the County were employees of the County in regularly established County positions. Petitioner reimbursed the County for its paralegal's services at the rate of $15.00 for each hour she worked on PLUS projects. Petitioner's reimbursement to the County was in the form of a deduction from his invoices. The County paid Petitioner's cell phone and travel expenses or provided reimbursement of these expenses during this period, as billed on his invoices. Petitioner submitted his travel expenses as starting from the County courthouse, not from his home with its private law office. During this period, the services provided by Petitioner were critical and essential to the continued operation of PLUS. Petitioner did not use any of his personal capital in performing the services as counsel for PLUS during the disputed period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order ratifying its denial of FRS creditable service for February 1, 1997 through November 30, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact After the motion for continuance was again denied, petitioners declined to offer any evidence and petitioners announced that they would be pursuing certain supposed federal remedies.
Findings Of Fact During the fall of 1974 OWHEA, an affiliate of the National Education Association, commenced efforts to organize instructional personnel employed by OWJC. By letter dated February 20, 1975, directed to Dr. J. E. McCracken, the President of OWJC, the OWHEA requested recognition as the bargaining agent for all full-time, regularly employed, certified instructional personnel. (PERC Exhibit 5). By letter dated February 26, 1975 the request for voluntary recognition was denied. On March 3, 1975 the OWHEA filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission through which recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel at OWJC was sought. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). A hearing was scheduled to be conducted on May 1, 1975. On that date the parties entered into an Agreement for Certification Upon Consent Election. In accordance with the Agreement the election was conducted on September 18, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). On September 25, 1975 the Public Employees Relations Commission, through its Chairman, verified the results of the election. By a vote of 41 to 27 OWJC employees within the prospective bargaining unit rejected representation by the OWHEA. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). On July 21, 1975, approximately two months prior to the election, the OWHEA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission. Subsequent to the election the OWHEA filed Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. By order of the Acting General Counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission, the two matters were consolidated and a hearing was conducted before the undersigned on January 14, 15, 26, and 27, 1976. On November 7, 1974, Dr. J. E. McCracken, President of OWJC, and a voting member of the Board of Trustees of OWJC, called a meeting of the Faculty Council. The Faculty Council is a group of five faculty members, who meet periodically with the President and members of the President's staff to consider faculty problems and to provide recommendation to the President. At least four of the five members of the Faculty Council at that time were members of OWHEA. The meeting was called to discuss solicitation and distribution guidelines in light of the collective bargaining law, Florida Statutes Sections 447.201 et seq. which would go into effect January 1, 1975. Dr. McCracken wished to adopt guidelines for solicitations by employee organizations in the interim period before comprehensive guidelines were adopted by the Public Employees Relations Commission. The November 7 meeting lasted for longer than one hour. Every member of the council made some contribution to the meeting. Solicitation guidelines substantially similar to those ultimately promulgated, (See: PERC Exhibit 2) were discussed. No disagreement to such guidelines was expressed at the meeting. A solicitation guideline policy was then drafted by President McCracken, and was presented to the faculty at a November 19, 1975 meeting. At the hearing several members of the Faculty Council testified that they were surprised to see the guidelines as they were presented at the November 19 faculty meeting, but none of them spoke in opposition to the guidelines at the meeting. If members of the Faculty Council opposed the guidelines, their opposition crystalized after the November 9 Council meeting, and was not openly expressed at the November 19 faculty meeting. There may not have been a full consensus in support of the guidelines among members of the Faculty Council as expressed in the body of the solicitation guidelines; however, President McCracken was justified in believing that there was such a consensus since no opposition was expressed. The solicitation guidelines were later amended by a memorandum from Dr. McCracken to all personnel dated June 2, 1975. (See: PERC Exhibit 16). The solicitation guidelines presented to the faculty meeting on November 19, 1975 provide in part as follows: "The Faculty Council and the President of the College were in full consensus in affirming the following specifics relative to solicitations on the campus: College personnel are not to be subjected to solicitation by any groups or persons on-campus between 7:30 A.M. and 10:30 P.M. except in the following specified dining areas and during the scheduled lunch hour of any given employee. Meetings and activities on-campus shall be scheduled through the office of the Director of Community Services, Mr. James Rhoades, who maintains the official calendar of College activities and the official room-use schedule. All meetings and activities on the College campus, as a public institution campus, are intended to be in full compliance with the Sunshine Law of the State of Florida. On-campus distribution of any literature and notices which are not official College business shall be by placement on or in the square counters in the front lobby of the Administration Building. Posters and notices of interest to personnel of the College shall be placed in the covered main bulletin board in the front lobby of the Administration Building. Mr. Rhoades, Director of Community Services, will receive such materials for posting and will assure that such notices will be posted and that outdated and obsolete notices are removed." The guideline is signed by Dr. McCracken followed by the following note: "Although inadvertently overlooked in the discussions with the Faculty Council, it is, of course, obviously understood that College clerical services, postage, materials production services, telephones, and equipments are to be used only for official College business." The amendments to the solicitation guidelines distributed in the June 2, 1975 memorandum define "working time" as follows: "Okaloosa-Walton Junior College is officially opened to its clientele and operating with them from 7:30 through 10:30, Monday through Friday. Working time is that time when an employee has any scheduled obligations, whether instructional or non-instructional, to perform with respect to his position at the College including but not limited to all such obligations as required office hours, committee work, conferences, and official meetings." Solicitation is defined in the memorandum in pertinent part as follows: "College personnel are not to be subjected to solicitation by any groups or persons on- campus for any purpose when any person involved in the solicitation is on "working time" as defined above. Meetings and activities on-campus shall be scheduled through the office of the Director of Community Services, who maintains the official calendar of College activities and the official room-use schedule. All meetings and activities on the College campus, as a public institution, are intended to be in full compliance with the Sunshine Law of the State of Florida. On-campus distribution of any literature or notices which are not official College business shall not take place during working time, nor shall it take place in areas where actual work of public employees is normally performed. Posters and notices of interest to personnel of the College shall be placed in the covered main bulletin board in the front lobby of the Administration Building. The Director of Community Services will receive such materials for posting and will assure that such notices will be posted and that outdated and obsolete notices are removed. College clerical services, postage, materials production services, telephones, and equipments are to be used only for official College business and shall not be used in any way for solicitation or for promotion of unsanctioned activities or of organizations other than those which are official elements of the College or in which the College holds institutional membership." The November guidelines were not literally followed by the OWHEA, either in its efforts to secure the requisite showing of interest or in the election campaign. Many solicitations occurred outside of the designated areas during the proscribed hours, and several occurred during times when the person being solicited was actually on duty. The President of OWJC had reason to believe that the guidelines were being violated, but no effort to enforce them was ever initiated. Members and officers of the OWHEA who were involved in the organizational effort and in the election campaign gave various interpretations of the solicitation guidelines that were issued in November, and the amendments to the guidelines issued in June. The guidelines prohibited certain activities which the OWHEA considered desirable; however, the OWHEA was able to engage in a wide variety of campaign activities, and an even wider variety of activities that were available were not utilized. During the campaign members of the OWHEA spoke freely in support of the organization to non-members in the hallways, in the lunchroom, in the parking lot, and in faculty offices. The OWHEA distributed numerous bulletins, newsletters, and assorted memoranda to persons in the prospective bargaining unit. Material was delivered through the mails directly to OWJC, where it was placed in the faculty mailboxes; was delivered through the mails to the residences of faculty members; and was placed at a distribution point in close proximity to the mailboxes so that it could be read by any interested person. Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 4 - 16 are all examples of such literature that was distributed prior to the election. Respondent's Exhibits 17 - 23 are examples of literature distributed after the election. The total volume of materials distributed by the OWHEA through these avenues exceeded materials distributed by the Respondent. OWHEA members personally contacted many persons within the prospective bargaining unit. Many of the authorization cards which were forwarded by the OWHEA to the Public Employees Relations Commission with the representation certification petition were signed on campus as a result of such direct communications. The OWHEA conducted several off campus meetings. Members of the prospective bargaining unit were urged to attend such meetings and several did attend. There was testimony that these meetings were not well attended; however, there was no testimony offered from which it could be concluded that members of the prospective bargaining unit could not have attended these meetings or were not adequately apprised of them. On the contrary it appears that members of the prospective bargaining unit were apprised of the meetings and could have attended them if they desired. The OWHEA was allowed the opportunity to speak at a faculty meeting with respect to the benefits that might be obtained from the collective bargaining process, and with respect to the desirability of having the OWHEA as the bargaining agent. The OWHEA declined to avail itself of this opportunity. Mr. Chilton Jensen delivered a brief statement at that meeting. A copy of the statement was received into evidence as PERC Exhibit 3. Several campaign devices were available to the OWHEA, but were not utilized. The OWHEA could have distributed literature by placing it on automobiles in the faculty parking lot. There was testimony that this would have been too time consuming, but there was also testimony that on some days faculty members had as much as two hours of time which was not devoted to official OWJC duties. At least one bulletin board was available to the OWHEA for placing posters. While undoubtedly not the most effective campaign device, as noted by several OWHEA members, it is one, and could only have assisted in advancing the OWHEA position. While the OWHEA requested that certain meeting facilities be provided for presentations to be given during the lunch hours, no request was made to, conduct such meetings in the area set out in the solicitation guidelines. The only reason for failing to request use of these facilities given by OWHEA officials was that students were often present in that area, and that they did not feel it appropriate to "air the dirty wash" in an area where students were present. No request was made to alleviate this problem by setting aside, an area in the lunchroom. It was suggested that use of this facility would not have been appropriate because managerial officials of the OWJC would be able to attend the meeting. This was not, however, a concern of the OWHEA at the time that it was requesting meeting facilities. In its letter requesting use of other meeting facilities, the OWHEA invited Dr. McCracken, the chief managerial employee of the OWJC to attend the meeting. (PERC Exhibit 9). As stated above, the OWHEA was able to distribute materials to members of the prospective bargaining unit through the mails. There was absolutely no limitation upon such distributions. Distributions could have been timed so that members of the prospective unit would have received whatever amount of literature at whatever time the OWHEA deemed appropriate. No evidence was presented as to whether any telephone solicitations were conducted. This was a campaign device that was available to the OWHEA. Several campaign devices were not available to the OWHEA under the solicitation guidelines. The OWHEA was prohibited from using the campus mail system. The OWJC maintains a mailroom. Each faculty member has a mail box with a combination, in which many college related bulletins are placed. Mail directed to a faculty member through the Junior College is placed in these boxes. The OWHEA desired to use this mailing system so that it could distribute literature to members of the faculty without having to pay mailing expenses. The solicitation guidelines restricted the availability of meeting rooms. On one occasion the OWHEA requested a meeting room other than the lunch area designated in the solicitation guidelines. (See: PERC Exhibits 9, and 12) The request was denied by Dr. McCracken on behalf of the Respondent. (See: PERC Exhibits 10 and 13). The request was denied for several reasons, and indeed, as noted by one OWHEA official, would have been very difficult to grant as framed. It is apparent that any request for a meeting facility other than in the area designated in the solicitation guidelines would have been denied. The OWHEA was not permitted to make a presentation to any faculty meeting, other than at the November meeting. The OWHEA was not permitted to solicit members, or to campaign during working hours, and was not permitted to use the staff or facilities of the OWJC to assist in the campaign effort. The Respondent, under the direction of Dr. McCracken, engaged in an active campaign in opposition to collective bargaining and in opposition to the OWHEA. At a meeting of the faculty in February, 1975, Dr. McCracken read a statement which was received into evidence as PERC Exhibit 6. Counsel for the Respondent made an additional presentation at the meeting. Attendance at the faculty meeting during these presentations was optional. No compunction existed for any faculty member to stay during the presentation. The Respondent distributed numerous memoranda to its faculty respecting the collective bargaining process and OWHEA. Such memoranda were received into evidence as PERC Exhibits B, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. Additional memoranda were distributed subsequent to the election. (See: PERC Exhibits 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38.) The Respondent did not make any further presentations at faculty meetings, and engaged in no personal contact campaign. Members of the proposed unit who opposed collective bargaining spoke to undecided members of the proposed unit, but there was no evidence from which it could be concluded that there was any connection between that activity and the administration of OWJC. In support of their contention that the Respondent engaged in a campaign of misrepresentation, the general counsel and the OWHEA cite PERC Exhibits B, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and PERC Exhibit 8 is a memorandum that was distributed to the OWJC faculty through the faculty mail system on February 26, 1975. In this memorandum Dr. McCracken treats the request from the OWHEA for recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel at OWJC as an effort by OWHEA to avoid the election process. In fact, such a request is a condition precedent to the filing of a representation certification petition requesting an election when the employee organization claims that it represents more than fifty percent of the persons in the proposed unit, as did the OWHEA. Dr. McCracken's characterization of the request for exclusive representation totally ignores the fact that the OWHEA was required to make the request. There was, however, ample opportunity for the OWHEA to respond to Dr. McCracken's memorandum, and to set the record straight. The February 26, 1975 memorandum is not such as would have had any effect upon the election, which was conducted some seven months later. PERC Exhibit 14 is a memorandum dated April 11, 1975 from Dr. McCracken directed to the faculty of OWJC through the faculty mails. The memorandum essentially states the Respondent's position in opposition to collective bargaining and to the OWHEA. The following language from the exhibit was cited as a misrepresentation: . . . I would like to state my perception of where we are and where we are going from here. Essentially, it is very simple. We now have two facets of activity going on: (1) the intrusion into normal activities of a representation petition submitted to PERC by Mr. Eugene Stafford, local Director of UNISERV/FUSA/NEA and agent for OWHEA, this development forcing, from here on, active use by the College and by OWHEA of essential, specialized legal assistance; and (2) our ever-present, on-going obligations to the regular planning, services, functions, and commitments of this College." This memorandum constitutes at most an extravagant statement in opposition to the collective bargaining process. PERC Exhibit 21 is a memorandum from Dr. McCracken A directed to all instructional personnel, distributed through the campus mail system, dated September 9, 1975. In the memorandum Dr. McCracken sought to refute certain statements made by the OWHEA in a memorandum dated August 12, 1975 (Respondent's Exhibit 14). In its August 12 memorandum, the OWHEA asserted that the collective bargaining process resulted in substantial gains to members of the faculty in the public schools in Okaloosa County. Many of the "gains" set out in the OWHEA memorandum were subjects of collective bargaining in the Okaloosa County Public Schools; however, they were also matters which had already been a part of the teachers' contracts and were not gains at all. Far from containing misstatements, Dr. McCracken's September 9, 1975 memorandum accurately explains the exaggerations contained in OWHEA's August 12 memorandum. PERC Exhibits 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 are similar to PERC Exhibit 14. They set out what can be called an exaggerated view in opposition to the collective bargaining process and to the OWHEA. The OWHEA distributed materials which present an exaggerated view in favor of the OWHEA. The memoranda distributed by the Respondent did not result in any subversion of the election process. The OWHEA had adequate opportunity to respond to all of the alleged misrepresentations except for those set out in PERC Exhibits 24, 25, and 27. The election was conducted on September 18, 1975. PERC Exhibit 24 was distributed on September 15, 1975; PERC Exhibit 25 `was distributed one September 16, 1975, and PERC Exhibit 27 was distributed on September 18, 1975. Because of the inability of OWHEA to directly respond to these memoranda, special attention should be given them. In PERC Exhibit 24 Dr. McCracken asserted that information distributed by the OWHEA respecting average teachers salaries at the OWJC was inaccurate. No evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the information set out in PERC Exhibit 24 was inaccurate. PERC Exhibit 25 contains a statement that the OWHEA's national affiliate was supporting legislation that would require non-union members in a certified bargaining unit to pay a fee to the union in an amount equal to membership dues. The NEA was not supporting such legislation. This misrepresentation was not substantial, and would have had appeal only to persons who did not wish to have the OWHEA serve as its bargaining representative. PERC Exhibit 27 contains the following language: "The Board of Trustees and the President over the past months - almost a year now - have diligently resisted many harassments in order to bring to you today your right to vote secretly . . ." Dr. McCracken had not intended the word "harassments" to refer to activity of the OWHEA. While the word "harassments" might be construed as derogatory of the OWHEA, any member of the faculty of the OWJC would have already been aware that Dr. McCracken held a derogatory opinion of the OWHEA. To the extent that the term "harassments" is a misstatement, it is not one that would have had any material effect upon the outcome of the election. All of the various memoranda distributed by Dr. McCracken which contained exaggerated language, or statements in opposition to collective bargaining and the OWHEA, considered together, would not have had an improper, substantial effect upon the electoral process. As set out above, the OWHEA was not permitted to use the OWJC mailing system to distribute information to members of the faculty, and was not permitted to make presentations to any regular faculty meetings subsequent to November, 1975. The Florida Association of Community Colleges; however, was permitted to use the mailing system and was given time during the faculty meetings to make presentations, including solicitations for membership. The FACC is an organization whose general purpose is to advance the Florida Public Community College program. A copy of the FACC bylaws which set out the purposes of the FACC was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 27. The Florida Association of Community Colleges is not an employee organization within the meaning of the Public Employees Relations Act. Dr. McCracken advanced the FACC as an organization worthy of support by members of the faculty; however, in doing that he was not a lending support to an employee organization opposing the OWHEA, but rather to a general professional organization. Other organizations were permitted to use the facilities at OWJC to make presentations. Such organizations included the American Association of University Women, a local concert group, armed services recruiters, and a politician. No employee organizations were permitted use of campus facilities for meetings, and those organizations which were permitted use of the facilities made educational, cultural, or community oriented presentations. In its motion to dismiss the objections case, the Respondent has asserted that the General Counsel conducted no investigation of the allegations of the OWHEA's petition. The General Counsel was invited to submit an affidavit respecting what, if any, investigation was undertaken. No affidavit was submitted, and it was asserted at the hearing that the investigation conducted in connection with the unfair labor practice case, and the hearing itself constituted the investigation. In its objections petition, the OWHEA asserted that the Respondent failed to deliver a list of teachers to the OWHEA as required in the Certification Upon Consent Election Agreement. Such a list was mailed to Chilton Jensen, who had been listed as the president of the OWHEA within the time period set out in the agreement. Mr. Jensen was ill, and he did not pick up his mail until after the period set out in the agreement. He then delivered it to Mr. Leatherwood, who had become President of the OWHEA. The failure of the OWHEA to obtain a copy of the list within the period set out in the agreement was not the fault of the Respondent. No substantial competent evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Respondent coerced, threatened, or intimidated any members of the prospective collective bargaining unit; that the members of the collective bargaining unit were unable to inform themselves with respect to the merits of the collective bargaining system, and the OWHEA; or that the OWHEA was unable to disseminate information to members of the prospective collective bargaining unit. The Respondent did not interfere with, restrain or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Public Employees Relations Act.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on November 9, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Chinese-American female who was hired by Respondent on or about August 29, 2005, as a bilingual Customer Service Representative I (CSR I) in the Customer Service Department. Respondent is a natural gas marketing company providing natural gas to customers in Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and New York. The function of Respondent’s Customer Service Department is to assist its natural gas customers. The Customer Service Department divides its CSR I and Customer Service Representative II (CSR II) employees into teams in the call center. The call center floor is divided into four sections each of which contain a number of work stations. Each team is based in its section with a person who is “team leader.” In each area, the team leader has a supervisor. Petitioner sat with her team in a work station closest to her team leader. Petitioner felt isolated from her co-workers in the location were she was placed because the work station next to her was vacant for a period of time. Petitioner speaks English and Chinese. Because Petitioner was hired as a bilingual CSR I, her initial rate of pay was $9.75 per hour. This rate of pay was $.50 per hour higher than the starting wages of non-bilingual customer service representatives. After being employed for one year, Petitioner received an Employee Performance Evaluation which rated six areas of job performance with a score range of 1 for “unsatisfactory performance” to 5 for “exceptional performance.” Petitioner received a rating average of 3.3 (a score of 3 indicates “meets expectations” and a score of 4 indicates “exceeds expectations.”) Petitioner received a 6.6 percent raise following her annual performance evaluation in August 2006. In August 2007, Petitioner received another annual Employee Performance Evaluation with a rating average of 2.5 (a score of 2 indicates “marginal performance”). Petitioner received a 5 percent raise following her second employee performance rating in August 2007. Petitioner thereafter received a cost of living wage increase and another bilingual wage increase. At the time she was terminated from employment in November 2007, Petitioner was receiving a rate of pay of $11.50 per hour. Respondent typically imposes disciplinary action to its employees in the following sequence: a verbal warning; a first written warning; a second written warning; a final warning; termination from employment. Petitioner’s personnel file reveals that in 2006, there were six instances in which Petitioner received verbal warnings followed by first written warnings, and one instance in which she received a second written warning. The categories listed on the personnel documents for which Petitioner received these disciplinary actions were tardiness, behavior/conduct, absenteeism, and adherence to schedule. Petitioner’s personnel file reveals that in 2007, she received progressive discipline for failure to follow policy and procedure. That is, she received a verbal warning on April 19, 2007; a first written warning on April 25, 2007; a second written warning on May 18, 2007, and a final warning on June 17, 2007. Also in 2007, Petitioner received a verbal warning for absenteeism. In between the time she received the verbal warning until she was terminated on November 1, 2007, Petitioner received almost 50 coaching sessions. From March of 2006 until she was terminated in November 2007, Petitioner received 105 coaching sessions. Respondent provides coaching sessions to employees so that they can improve their job performance when needed. During a coaching session, a supervisor or other person will sit with the employee during a call and, afterwards, instruct or “coach” the employee as to how their performance could be improved. On November 1, 2007, Petitioner received a termination notice for failure to follow policy and procedures and performance. In January 2007, Respondent sent an e-mail to employees which consisted of a job posting for the position of Quality Assurance Analyst-Bilingual. The job description for a Quality Assurance Analyst lists “Bilingual in Spanish a plus” under the category “Minimum Education, Work Experience and Qualifications.” This is a salaried position with an expected hiring range of $37,000 to $40,000 (presumably an annual salary.) Petitioner did not receive an interview for this position. John Pinillos, an employee of Respondent already working in the quality assurance department who is fluent in English and Spanish, was hired for the position. In August 2007, Petitioner applied for the position of Payment Processor. The job posting noted, “Performance, attendance, tardiness and any disciplinary actions will be reviewed as part of the initial screening process.” The expected hiring range was listed as $9.08-$9.99 (presumably per hour). It is Respondent’s policy that when an employee applies for a job, the employee’s disciplinary actions are reviewed from his or her personnel file. Petitioner’s application for this position came after the final warning in June 2007, which ultimately resulted in her dismissal. Petitioner was not granted an interview for the Payment Processor position. At a point in time that is not entirely clear from the record, Petitioner applied for a CSR II position. The person who was hired for the position was an employee named Jeffrey Hill. Mr. Hill had not received any disciplinary actions, and had 26 counseling sessions during the year prior to his being hired for the job. Typically, an employee performing at a desirable level receives approximately 20 to 50 coaching sessions within a year. When Petitioner was terminated, she was escorted out of her work area. Other persons collected her personal belongings. Petitioner felt embarrassed by this and believes that she was treated this way because of her national origin. However, at hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she was not aware of whether other employees who were terminated were allowed to collect their own belongings. It is Respondent’s policy that employees in the customer service and call centers who are being terminated are escorted from the call room to another location to have the termination meeting. At that time, the employee’s supervisor goes to the employee’s desk with a witness, gathers the employee’s personal belongings, and places them in a box. The box is taken to the location where the termination meeting is taking place. There was no competent evidence presented that establishes that Petitioner’s termination, or any other employment action taken by Respondent, was based on race or national origin.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination in its failure to promote Petitioner on the basis of her race and/or gender.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent is a constitutional office of local government that appraises property for tax purposes. At hearing, Petitioner claimed to have sent a written narrative of her concerns to FCHR on December 20, 2005, although she did not file her formal Charge of Discrimination until December 28, 2005.1/ At the commencement of the disputed-fact hearing, Petitioner indicated that the only issue to be determined was her entitlement to a promotion, and that no other discrimination claims were at issue in this case. Petitioner also indicated that she was challenging only two alleged promotional decisions: (1) a front counter position awarded to Valencia Scott; and (2) a sales qualifier position awarded to Mike Nichols.2/ Prior to being employed by Respondent, Petitioner had received a B.S. in criminal justice, with a minor in business administration, from Troy State University. Prior to being employed by Respondent, Petitioner worked as a substance abuse counselor with Corrections Corporation of America; as a regulatory specialist with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation; as an evaluation specialist with Disc Village; as a drug treatment counselor with the Alabama Department of Corrections; and as a mental health associate with Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. During her employment with Respondent, Petitioner also worked part-time in a cleaning job. Petitioner was initially hired by Respondent approximately January 2003, as an “Other Personal Services” (OPS) employee. (Stipulated Fact). While serving as an OPS employee between January 2003, and October 2003, Petitioner was not entitled to, and did not receive, the usual benefits and emoluments of a regular, full-time employee, including but not limited to, membership in the Florida Retirement System, paid annual and sick leave, and health insurance. While employed as an OPS employee, Petitioner answered Respondent’s telephone switchboard and performed data entry duties. In approximately October 2003, Petitioner was employed in a full-time position at a higher rate of pay and full benefits. (Stipulated Fact.) In October 2003, Respondent promoted Petitioner into a newly-created full-time position of "switchboard operator." Prior to the creation of this switchboard operator position, various employees had worked the switchboard in the equivalent of four-hour shifts, because working the switchboard non-stop was monotonous in good times and was hectic and stressful due to the number of phone calls received during two peak periods each year. On some occasions prior to October 2003, part-time students also had been used for this purpose. Petitioner was offered the promotion on October 8, 2003, with an effective starting date of October 16, 2003. Upon this starting date, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in a full-time position at a higher rate of pay than she had received as an OPS employee, and began to receive retirement benefits, annual and sick leave, and health insurance. In 2003, Respondent promoted five employees. Four of the five promoted were African-American and/or female. Petitioner was one of the four African-American females promoted that year. From December 28, 2004, through December 28, 2005, none of Respondent’s employees were promoted. During this same period, Respondent had no promotional opportunities of any kind available to any employee. There also were no promotions between December 20, 2004, and December 28, 2005. (See Exhibit P-4 and Finding of Fact 11.) Petitioner received raises throughout her employment with Respondent. During busy times, she was provided additional assistance with her phone duties upon her request, because management agreed with her that the switchboard position was stressful. Petitioner consistently received excellent performance reviews. In September 2005, Petitioner asked her immediate supervisor, Shirley Eaton-Marks, where Respondent would advertise a front-counter position that was expected to become vacant. Petitioner testified that Ms. Eaton-Marks “vaguely” responded, "I am not sure. Sometimes on the Internet or in the [Tallahassee] Democrat."3/ In or about September 2005, Petitioner was provided an extended period of leave for back surgery and recovery. (Stipulated Fact.) Petitioner was on sick leave from September 28, 2005, through November 14, 2005. Respondent provided Petitioner as much leave as she needed for her surgery and recovery. When she ran out of her own accrued paid leave, sick leave was donated to Petitioner by a co-employee. During her leave of absence, food drop-offs to Petitioner’s home were coordinated by her co-employees. Hot meals were provided by co-employees to Petitioner and her family, as well as groceries. During one of these deliveries, Petitioner remarked to Michele Weathersby, Respondent's Chief Financial Officer, that Petitioner was appreciative of her co- workers’ efforts and gifts. Petitioner seemed genuinely overwhelmed by their generosity. While on sick leave, Petitioner spoke with Kathy Doolin, Assistant Property Appraiser, about working at the front counter. A sales qualifier position was not available at that time, and by all accounts, even Petitioner’s account, Petitioner never applied for, or made anyone in Respondent's office aware that she was interested in the sales qualifier position. Petitioner claims she was wrongfully denied a front- counter position. She also claims that the front counter position and sales qualifier positions constituted promotional positions for her. Petitioner’s definition of a “promotion” is moving into a position with greater job responsibility and more authority. However, she did not demonstrate what the job responsibilities and authority of the front-counter or sales qualifier positions were. Therefore, the respective responsibility and authority of the three positions cannot be compared. Petitioner has never specifically applied for any promotion while employed by Respondent. The front-counter position was filled by Valencia Scott. Ms. Scott, like Petitioner, is an African-American female. According to Michelle Weathersby, Respondent’s Chief Financial Officer, Respondent defines a “promotion” as moving an employee to a position with an increase in salary and perhaps an increase in benefits, such as a different benefits classification like “senior management” class, instead of “regular employee” class. By these standards, neither the front desk position nor the sales qualifier position would have constituted a promotion for Petitioner, and moving from a front desk position to the sales qualifier position would not have constituted a promotion for anyone. Petitioner returned from sick leave on November 14, 2005. On December 19, 2005, Petitioner requested to speak to the incumbent property appraiser. Petitioner testified that on December 20, 2005, she approached the incumbent property appraiser in his office and asked if he were aware that she was interested in promotion. She further testified that the Incumbent then stated that he was aware Petitioner was interested in promotion, but that "Speaking from the hardhat point of view, you were hired as a favor to my friend. I did not hire you to be promoted or trained in any other position." At hearing, the Property Appraiser emphatically denied making this statement or any similar statement. However, he acknowledged that he had hired Petitioner upon the recommendation of a mutual friend and that on December 20, 2005, Petitioner had come to speak to him about the stress she was feeling in her position as a switchboard operator and about her health problems. Kathy Doolin, who was present for most, but not all, of the December 20, 2005, meeting, also denied under oath that the comment described by the Petitioner had been made by the Incumbent while she was in the room. Further, she confirmed that the thrust of Petitioner's remarks in her presence were not about any promotion but were about the stress Petitioner was experiencing in her switchboard operator job. The testimony of Ms. Doolin, together with the respective narratives written by herself and Petitioner (Exhibits P-2 and P-5) immediately after the December 20, 2005, meeting strongly suggest that the incumbent property appraiser said he had done all he could to relieve Petitioner's job stress and could not transfer Petitioner to another position just because her current position was stressful, and that Petitioner heard these statements as a refusal to promote her at any future date and a lack of appreciation for Petitioner’s college degree and excellent work history. The Incumbent’s and Petitioner’s respective versions of the December 20, 2005, conversation amount to an equipoise of testimony. In other words, one says "yes," and one says "no." This type of evidence is insufficient to tip the balance of weight and credibility to Petitioner's version of events. Moreover, even if Petitioner's version of the Incumbent's December 20, 2005, statement to her, allegedly made outside Ms. Doolin’s presence, were the more credible version, which it is not, Petitioner’s version of what the Incumbent allegedly said expressed no racial or gender bias. Petitioner testified that she believed that what the incumbent property appraiser had said on December 20, 2005, and how he had said it, created a hostile work environment. However, Petitioner never filed any internal complaints with Respondent alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment. In fact, she filed no internal discrimination complaints of any kind concerning the December 20, 2005, meeting, and the term "hostile work environment" did not appear until her July 6, 2006, Petition for Relief, which was filed after FCHR's "Determination: No Cause." On her lunch hour, either December 20 or 21, 2005, Petitioner telephoned her physician, because she was still upset by her perception of the December 20, 2005, meeting. Petitioner never returned to work after December 21, 2005. On December 23, 2005, Petitioner's doctor wrote a note for her to be off work from December 22, 2005, until January 2, 2006, due to undefined "significant health problems." On or about December 23, 2005, three days after the December 20, 2005 meeting, when Petitioner was no longer on the job, Mike Nichols, a Caucasian male, was transferred from the front counter into a sales qualifier position. Mr. Nichols had previously worked in Respondent's Deed Section and in its Mapping Section and had recently received his law degree from the University of Florida. Respondent considered Mr. Nichols to be a suitable candidate for the sales qualifier position. Upon transfer, Mr. Nichols did not receive a raise in his rate of pay. Petitioner never applied for the sales qualifier position (see Finding of Fact 18) and was not on the job when that position was filled. (See Finding of Fact 29.) While the duties of a sales qualifier were not developed at hearing, the job title “sales qualifier” suggests that Petitioner was arguably not as good a fit for the sales qualifier position, as was Mr. Nichols. Petitioner’s education was primarily in criminal justice, and her job experience was primarily in drug rehabilitation and answering a switchboard. Mr. Nichols’ legal education and training and his office experience with Respondent may have made him a superior candidate for the sales qualifier position. When contacted by her superiors, Petitioner gave no reason for leaving work, except that it would be "best under the circumstances." On January 4, 2006, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her employment with Respondent. (Stipulated Fact.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and its subordinate Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2006.
