The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was terminated from her employment with Respondent for a discriminatory reason.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sharon Singleton, was employed by Respondent in the Information Technology (IT) Department. Petitioner served, as did other IT employees, under an annual contract. Respondent is the administrative government entity for the public schools of Escambia County, Florida. Contracts of employment are with the Escambia County School Board. Mr. Johnnie Odom supervised Petitioner until the last eight months of her employment. Her supervisor was Kathy Cooper during the last eight months of her employment. For many years, Petitioner and the other technicians used a software program that supported the management of school records that was known as “TERMS.” During the last few years of Petitioner’s employment, the District changed the supporting software program from TERMS to a program known as “FOCUS.” This was a major conversion of software programs that took place over an extended period of time. When the FOCUS program was initiated, Respondent hired three additional technicians to support FOCUS. Petitioner disagreed with the hiring of new technicians to support FOCUS, but acknowledges she was not treated any differently from the other Tech III support staff. Her disagreement was over the hiring of the new technicians, rather than allowing the existing ones to serve as primary support for FOCUS. Petitioner sought a promotion to a higher level position in 2011. The promotion process was administered by a selection committee that interviewed and evaluated candidates. As a result of the competitive selection, Petitioner was not recommended or selected for the promotion. On two prior occasions, Petitioner had sought a promotion, and on both occasions a selection committee ranked and evaluated the candidates. Petitioner was not successful in being selected or promoted on those two prior occasions. For the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner received unsatisfactory ratings for her administrative/professional techniques and skills, as well as for her professional relationships with staff. The evaluation contained a note stating that Petitioner has difficulty in resolving conflicts with her co-workers and that her supervisor would like to see her resolve conflicts with her co-workers in a more diplomatic manner. Petitioner had received some unsatisfactory or needs improvement marks in her previous years’ evaluations, so 2011- 2012 was not the first time she had received less than satisfactory marks. Nevertheless, following the 2011-2012 annual evaluation, Petitioner received an annual employment contract for the next school year. At the end of the next school year, Petitioner again received an unsatisfactory mark for her professional techniques and skills. She also was cited for needing improvement in other areas. The notes to that evaluation stated Petitioner had improved her relationships with co-workers, but was still having problems adjusting to the new programs that required modernizing her skill set. Despite a few negative marks on her evaluation, Petitioner received an annual contract for the 2013-2014 school year. Petitioner did not dispute the fact that her evaluator and supervisor, Mr. Odom, believed her performance was unsatisfactory. She disagreed, however, with his assessment of her performance. Petitioner believed she had been demoted in the 2013-2014 school year and testified she signed a paper acknowledging a demotion in a disciplinary meeting with the IT department director, Tom Ingram. She did not receive a reduction in salary or benefits, however. Mr. Ingram classified the action taken against Petitioner as a restriction of her duties to Level I telephone support, rather than the more challenging Level II telephone support duties that she had performed in the past. He did not consider this a demotion, but more of a recognition of assigning Petitioner to duties that he believed she could better handle with her skill set. Petitioner testified that Ms. Cooper told her on several occasions she should consider retirement. Petitioner took this as evidence of Ms. Cooper’s belief she was too old to perform her job. Ms. Cooper testified she made the suggestion because Petitioner had an elderly mother who lived in a nursing home and needed assistance. Ms. Cooper was responding to Petitioner having told her she was left with little time to care for her mother when she finished with work. Petitioner acknowledged that her mother was elderly and needed help and that she had told this to Ms. Cooper. During Petitioner’s final eight months of employment, she worked mainly telephone support under the direction of Ms. Cooper, the support manager for the District. Ms. Cooper manages the help desk and IT support staff. She manages two levels of support. Level I support involves matters that can be resolved by telephone, while Level II support is for matters that cannot be resolved in five minutes or less and require more expertise to cure. Ms. Cooper developed concerns about Petitioner’s support performance. She took her concerns to the Director of IT, Mr. Ingram. Similar concerns with Petitioner’s performance had been raised by another support technician, as well. That technician reported that one of the schools to which he and Petitioner had both been assigned, asked that Petitioner not be allowed to return there for support in the future. When Ms. Cooper brought her concerns about Petitioner to Mr. Ingram, he asked that she bring him documentation of her concerns evidencing recent issues concerning Petitioner’s performance. Mr. Ingram met with Petitioner on September 3, 2013, to review her performance. Mr. Ingram’s notes from that meeting document his concern with Petitioner’s performance and he restricted her duties at that time to telephone support because he did not believe she could independently provide on-site support to more schools. His notes further indicate that Petitioner was not satisfied with his conclusions regarding her performance. Mr. Ingram conducted a follow-up interview with Petitioner on September 4, 2013, because Petitioner wanted to share with him the evaluation she had received from Mr. Odom for the 2012-2013 school year. Mr. Ingram told Petitioner he agreed with the evaluation conducted and recorded by Mr. Odom. Mr. Ingram had yet another meeting with Petitioner in March 2014 regarding her performance. With Ms. Cooper present, Mr. Ingram reviewed documentation concerning Petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The meeting was held pursuant to a Notice of Consideration of Disciplinary Action served on Petitioner. As a result of the meeting, Mr. Ingram was not confident Petitioner could satisfactorily improve her performance. He believed that Petitioner refused to accept the representative examples he gave her of her unsatisfactory performance. After concluding at the March meeting that Petitioner’s performance would not sufficiently improve, Mr. Ingram decided not to renew Petitioner’s annual contract when it expired in June 2014. Petitioner believed she had been marginalized by her perceived demotion to a Level I telephone support technician. She also was removed from ZENworks, a scheduling program she had previously been involved with over the years, becoming the only employee on the support team that was not allowed to participate in that program. Petitioner believed that all the criticisms of her work by management were hyper-technical, and that she received little, if any, feedback or training during the period for which she was evaluated when the unsatisfactory findings were made. She also attempted to show that others who made errors similar to hers were given promotions. The evidence presented on this point was insufficient to support her claim of disparate treatment. Several retired or long-serving District employees testified that their interaction over the years with Petitioner resulted in responsive and high-quality service from Petitioner. None of these witnesses testified about specific support they received from Petitioner during the last three years of her employment, employing the new FOCUS system, which served as the basis for the non-renewal of her contract. Petitioner testified she should receive damages in the amount of $384,000 as the result of her employment being terminated while she was a participant in the midst of D.R.O.P.
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 Respondent did not commit the “unlawful employment practice” alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner’s employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ryan M. Barnett, Esquire Whibbs and Stone, P.A. 801 West Romana Street, Unit C Pensacola, Florida 32502 (eServed) Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire The Hammons Law Firm, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, City of Ocala (“the City”), retaliated against Petitioner, Nyleah Jackson (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Jackson”), for exercising her right to file a claim of employment discrimination against the City pursuant to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Petitioner, an African American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II on May 2, 2016. She worked in that job position until her resignation on February 7, 2018. Petitioner initially worked in the City’s Electric Utility Department and then transferred to the Public Works Department. Her duties were primarily secretarial, clerical, and administrative. Petitioner testified that when she started in Public Works, her direct supervisor was Tom Casey, but that at some point Judy Wade appeared to take over at least some of those supervisory duties. In her telling, Petitioner never recognized Ms. Wade as her direct supervisor except as to specific tasks delegated by Mr. Casey. Ms. Wade was the Fiscal Administrator for Public Works. She testified that Tom Casey and Darren Park are her superiors in Public Works. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was Petitioner’s direct supervisor for the entire time that Petitioner worked in Public Works. Ms. Wade’s supervisory duties included monitoring Petitioner’s attendance at work and her leave requests. Petitioner’s testimony that she was unaware Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor for all purposes is not credited. On or about August 25, 2017, Petitioner presented a formal grievance to the City alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her race when she was not hired for a vacant Administrative Assistant III position. On or about August 31, 2017, Human Resources and Risk Management Director Jared Sorensen spoke with Petitioner and asked her to clarify whether she was pursuing a formal grievance under the City’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or under the City’s Employee Handbook. Petitioner responded that she wished to file her grievance under the CBA. On September 13, 2017, Petitioner sent an email to Mr. Sorensen, with copies to Mr. Casey and Mr. Park. The email stated as follows, in relevant part: Both the City of Ocala Employee Handbook and Collective Bargaining Agreement allows [sic] a response in writing within 10 business days of receipt of the grievance. I spoke with Tom Casey and Darren Park as well as sent my grievance, via interoffice to Human Resources, on August 25, 2017. From my meeting, I gathered that classification matters, discriminatory/biased hiring decisions and equal pay issues is [sic] in the Human Resource jurisdiction. I received a call last week from Jared stating that the target response date was September 8th, 2017 but I would have a definitive response by September 11th, 2017. I plan to hold my employer/HR accountable and liable to this deadline as promised. It is now September 13th with no response. The email concluded with a demand for a response regarding Petitioner’s remedies no later than September 14, 2017. The record evidence indicates that the City’s response was delayed for two reasons. First, Petitioner had indicated that she wished to pursue her grievance through the CBA, and Mr. Sorensen’s conversations with Petitioner’s union representative led him to believe that Petitioner’s grievance was going to be refiled to clearly establish a starting date for the CBA process. Second, Hurricane Irma had just passed through the state, causing significant damage in Marion County and delaying the City’s ability to respond to non-emergency matters such as Petitioner’s grievance. Of greater significance to this retaliation case, Petitioner’s direct supervisor, Ms. Wade, was not copied on any of the correspondence regarding Petitioner’s discrimination claim or her grievance. The only way Ms. Wade would have known of these matters was through word-of-mouth in the office. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was unaware of any of these matters at the time they were occurring. Petitioner believed that Ms. Wade knew of her complaints, but provided no direct evidence of Ms. Wade’s knowledge. One week after her email to Mr. Sorensen, on September 20, 2017, Petitioner interviewed for an open position in the City’s Fleet Department. The Fleet Department is separate from Public Works and is located in a different building. Ms. Wade testified that Petitioner did not inform her that she would be absent from the Public Works office or that she would be interviewing for a position in the Fleet Department. Ms. Wade stated that she checked Petitioner’s office and saw that she was not present. Ms. Wade asked a co- worker about Petitioner’s location and was informed that Petitioner was out at a job interview. Petitioner testified that she told Ms. Wade that she would be out of the office. She did not tell Ms. Wade why she was going out. Petitioner testified that she believed Ms. Wade was not her supervisor and had no reason to know that she was going out on a job interview. Petitioner stated that she told Mr. Casey why she would be out of the office. Petitioner did not call Mr. Casey as a witness to corroborate her version of events. As indicated above, the undersigned does not credit Petitioner’s assertion that she did not believe Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor. When Petitioner returned to the office, Ms. Wade informed her that she was required to use paid time off (“PTO”) for personal business such as job interviews. Ms. Wade sent a request through “Kronos,” the City’s payroll software system, to dock Petitioner for 30 minutes of PTO for the time she was not in the office. Within a few days of making the Kronos request, Ms. Wade discussed the matter with Mr. Sorensen, who told her that City policy provided that employees could interview for other open positions within the City without using any PTO. The time used for such internal interviews was to be treated as regular work time. Evidence produced at the hearing indicated that Petitioner had gone out on such internal interviews previously and not been charged with PTO. Ms. Wade, having learned that she was mistaken regarding City policy, took steps to restore Petitioner’s PTO. On September 26, 2017, Ms. Wade submitted a payroll correction to adjust Petitioner’s pay to her full regular hourly rate. On October 3, 2017, Ms. Wade informed Petitioner of her mistake and that she had reversed the docking of Petitioner’s PTO. Petitioner contended that Ms. Wade’s docking of her pay was in retaliation for her complaint of discrimination and filing of a grievance. Petitioner stated that Ms. Wade’s reversal of the PTO decision was due solely to the fact that Petitioner contacted her union representative about the matter. Petitioner conceded that the only evidence connecting her discrimination complaint to Ms. Wade’s action on September 20, 2017, was their proximity in time. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she did not know about Petitioner’s discrimination complaint on September 20, 2017, and that no one working for the City ever instructed her to take any adverse action against Petitioner. On October 2, 2017, the FCHR received Petitioner’s initial Employment Complaint of Discrimination. The FCHR sent a Notice of Filing of Complaint of Discrimination to the City. The Notice was dated October 3, 2017, but was not received by the City until October 6, 2017. Ms. Wade testified that she was unaware of any potential claim of discrimination by Petitioner prior to October 6, 2017. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Wade was aware of Petitioner’s intention to file the discrimination complaint when Ms. Wade originally docked Petitioner’s PTO in September 2017. To support this claim, Petitioner first testified that one of the emails she sent regarding her potential discrimination complaint was copied to Ms. Wade. When the actual emails were produced by the City and showed that Ms. Wade was not copied on any of them, Petitioner testified that she had told Ms. Wade of her discrimination complaint at a meeting that included Ms. Wade and Mr. Park. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she had no memory of discussing the discrimination complaint with Petitioner at a meeting. Petitioner did not produce Mr. Park as a witness to corroborate her testimony regarding a meeting. Ms. Wade’s testimony is credited on this point. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ms. Wade’s actions on September 20, 2017, were in retaliation for Petitioner’s discrimination complaint. On November 20, 2017, the City hired Erica Wilson as the new Administrative Specialist III to work in Public Works. She assumed the duties of the previous Administrative Specialist III, Melinda Day, who had retired. Petitioner and Ms. Day had worked cooperatively in preparing payroll reports for Public Works. Petitioner would summarize the payroll cards for the stormwater division, and Ms. Day would summarize the payroll cards for the streets and traffic divisions. Once the summaries were completed, either Petitioner or Ms. Day would transmit them by email to the Payroll Department. Petitioner and Ms. Day alternated the task of sending the email to Payroll, with each employee transmitting the information every other week. After Ms. Day retired, Public Works was shorthanded for a time. During this period, Petitioner began summarizing all of the payroll cards for the stormwater, streets, and traffic divisions, and transmitting all of that information to Payroll on a weekly basis. After Ms. Wilson was hired at Public Works, Petitioner continued to perform her new duties while Ms. Wilson came up to speed on her new job. In January 2018, Ms. Wade convened a meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Wilson to discuss the transition for Ms. Wilson to take over the payroll duties formerly performed by Ms. Day. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Wade announced that Ms. Wilson would be in charge of sending all the emails to Payroll and Petitioner would continue summarizing all of the pay cards for all three divisions of Public Works.2/ In other words, the work would be divided more or less as it was before Ms. Day retired. At the meeting with Ms. Wade and Ms. Wilson, Petitioner voiced no dispute or concerns with the division of duties ordered by Ms. Wade. Neither Ms. Wade nor Ms. Wilson recalled Petitioner’s being upset by or objecting to the plan outlined by Ms. Wade. Petitioner herself conceded that she said nothing to indicate her disagreement with the re-assignment. Petitioner contends that Ms. Wade’s decision to take some of Ms. Day’s former duties from her and assign them to Ms. Day’s successor was a retaliatory reduction of her job duties. Again, Petitioner’s only evidentiary support for her contention is that the alleged retaliatory action occurred after she made her discrimination complaint with the FCHR. Ms. Wilson testified that she considered the entire matter of payroll duties to be a minor part of her job. Ms. Wade testified that her only intention in redistributing duties was to restore the status quo ante from before Ms. Day retired. Also in January 2018, another event caused Petitioner to believe that Ms. Wade was retaliating against her. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade further reduced her job duties by forbidding her to contact vendors used by the City or to contact City employee John Long, who was the City’s Vendor Relations Manager. The specific issue concerned Petitioner’s contacts with UniFirst, the vendor who laundered uniforms for every department of the City. Petitioner’s routine job duties included taking delivery of uniforms for Public Works employees from UniFirst drivers. She discussed with those drivers any issues regarding the number of uniforms delivered, the condition of the uniforms, and the amount of the invoice. Petitioner had no responsibility for dealing with UniFirst’s management on behalf of the City as a whole. In April 2017, Petitioner inserted herself into a quality of service dispute with UniFirst. Uniform shirts were coming back from UniFirst in a soiled and threadbare condition. At first, Petitioner followed protocol and addressed her complaints to Mr. Long, who conveyed them to Jeff Peterson, UniFirst’s district service manager. However, after some back- and-forth between Mr. Long and Mr. Peterson, Petitioner elected to send an email of her own to Mr. Peterson. Ms. Wade considered this action unprofessional and counseled Petitioner about it. Ms. Wade did not believe further discipline was necessary because the situation was unlikely to recur. However, in January 2018, a similar quality control issue arose with UniFirst. Mr. Long and Petitioner exchanged emails that indicated Mr. Long believed Petitioner was the City’s point person regarding UniFirst, based on her handling of the previous issue in 2017. However, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst management directly because the City employed Mr. Long to handle citywide vendor relations. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade had instructed her to have no contact with anyone from UniFirst, and that this instruction amounted to a retaliatory reduction of her assigned duties. At the hearing, Ms. Wade made it clear that her order was meant only to stop Petitioner from contacting UniFirst’s management, an action that was never in Petitioner’s scope of duties. Petitioner was still expected to deal with the UniFirst driver who delivered uniforms to Public Works. Her job duties were unchanged. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade retaliated against her by denying her leave to which she was entitled. On February 5, 2018, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to use 2.5 hours of accrued “safety time”3/ that afternoon, and her “floating holiday”4/ on the following day, February 6, 2018. Ms. Wade denied the request. Petitioner nonetheless left work early on February 5, 2018, and did not come into work on the following day, missing 10.5 hours of work in total. The City applied Petitioner’s accrued PTO time, 6.2 hours, to the time she missed work. For the remaining 4.3 hours, Petitioner was charged for leave without pay. Ms. Wade testified that she denied the leave request because the Public Works Department has a written policy stating that if an employee is requesting fewer than five days off, the request should be made no less than 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence.5/ Ms. Wade stated that the policy’s purpose was to ensure that enough employees were present to perform needed work. Supervisors have discretion to deviate from the policy, but only where the employee shows good cause for the failure to provide sufficient notice. In this case, Petitioner provided Ms. Wade with no reason for her request. Petitioner testified that she was never made aware of the policy, and suggested that the City invented the policy after the fact as a response to her claim of discrimination. Petitioner presented documents showing that she had previously been allowed to take time off with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade reviewed Petitioner’s documents at the hearing. She did not recall the specific details of any particular leave request, but testified as to her general practice in granting leave with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade stated that in some cases, Petitioner had likely made an oral request more than 48 hours prior to the leave, but did not submit the written request into the Kronos system until later. In such cases, Petitioner’s leave request would have been granted. In other cases, Petitioner had likely presented Ms. Wade with extenuating circumstances justifying the short notice. Ms. Wade demonstrated her department’s even-handed application of the policy by producing contemporaneous records showing that other Public Works employees had been denied the use of safety hours and floating holidays when they failed to give 48 hours notice to their supervisors. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s denial of her leave request was retaliatory. Petitioner offered evidence on two issues that were beyond the scope of her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. First, she claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her the ability to use “flex time” to work an extra hour on February 1, 2018, so that she could leave an hour early on February 2, 2018. Petitioner claimed that this denial was in derogation of the City’s policy and prior practice. Second, Petitioner claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her request to attend a training class. The City objected to Petitioner’s presentation of this evidence because these matters were not covered in Petitioner’s second Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. Petitioner conceded that these matters were not mentioned in her retaliation complaint, but maintained that she had submitted materials on these issues to, and discussed them with, the FCHR. She also raised the issues in her subsequent Petition for Relief. The undersigned allowed Petitioner to present her evidence because of the ambiguity of the procedural situation. It appears that during its investigative phase, the FCHR accepted evidence from Petitioner as to issues outside the four corners of Petitioner’s retaliation complaint. However, the FCHR ultimately issued no finding as to probable cause. Thus, it is unclear which issues the FCHR formally considered. While finding persuasive the City’s argument that Petitioner should be held to the issues raised in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, the undersigned decided that if he were to err, it would be on the side of allowing Petitioner to present all of her evidence at the hearing. As to the first issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that, on February 1, 2018, she requested that she be allowed to work an extra hour and then use the “flex time” to take an hour off work the next day. Petitioner presented an email chain between Ms. Wade and her regarding this request. Ms. Wade ultimately denied the request on the ground that the City does not allow employees to “flex ahead,” i.e., work extra time now in anticipation of taking time off later. Ms. Wade told Petitioner that she would be allowed to flex an hour on February 1, 2018, and then work through her lunch hour on February 2, 2018. Petitioner testified that the City had always allowed her and other employees to flex ahead, and that the denial in this instance could only be explained as retaliation by Ms. Wade for her discrimination complaint. Petitioner did not offer evidence of the City’s written policy on flex time or evidence that the City even had such a policy. She offered exhibits purporting to demonstrate that she and other employees had been allowed to work extra time on one day to take time off on a later date. However, the coding on these documents was not clear and Petitioner did not adequately explain them. The City declined to offer evidence on this issue because of its contention that it was outside the scope of Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s stated view of the City’s flex time policy was incorrect or that Ms. Wade deviated from past policy and practice by declining to allow Petitioner to flex ahead on February 1, 2018. As to the second issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that on October 12, 2017, she submitted a request to Ms. Wade to take two training courses being offered by the City: “Attitude Means Everything” and “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact.” Ms. Wade gave Petitioner permission to take the first class but denied her permission to take the second. Ms. Wade testified that the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course was designated as a “leadership” course, meaning that only supervisors are generally approved to take it. Petitioner’s position with the City was not supervisory. Petitioner showed Ms. Wade a document that Petitioner stated was a list of employees who had attended the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. Petitioner asked Ms. Wade whether all of the listed people were supervisors. Ms. Wade testified that she could not answer the question because she did not know the people on the list, none of whom were employed by Public Works. Petitioner herself did not identify the employees on the list. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Wade did anything more than follow City policy on training course participation, it cannot be found that Ms. Wade retaliated against Petitioner by denying her request to take the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. On February 7, 2018, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her employment with the City. Petitioner alleged that her resignation was a “constructive discharge” due to the City’s denial of paid leave time for February 6, 2018, as well as the other allegedly adverse retaliatory actions taken by the City since the filing of her discrimination complaint. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the City retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. The only employee specifically cited by Petitioner as allegedly retaliating against her was her direct supervisor, Ms. Wade. The evidence established that Ms. Wade became aware of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint no earlier than October 6, 2017, after she allegedly retaliated against Petitioner by requiring her to use PTO for an internal job interview. Additionally, Ms. Wade rectified the situation as soon as Mr. Sorensen corrected her understanding of City policy. None of the later allegations of retaliation were credible. In January 2018, Ms. Wade gave Petitioner some minor Administrative Assistant III duties at a time when Public Works was shorthanded, then gave those duties back to the Administrative Assistant III position after the new person was hired and learned the job. There was no reason for Petitioner to take offense at this routine reshuffling of minor job duties. Also in January 2018, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst’s management regarding citywide vendor performance issues. Such contacts were not part of Petitioner’s job duties and Ms. Wade had already counseled Petitioner against taking it upon herself to send emails to UniFirst’s management. Petitioner’s actual job duties in relation to UniFirst’s delivery of uniforms to the Public Works Department never changed. Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s February 5, 2018, leave request was in keeping with the express policy of the Public Works Department that leave requests be made at least 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence from work. The evidence established that this was not a rigid policy, but Petitioner failed to show that she presented Ms. Wade with the kind of extenuating circumstances that historically have been the basis for granting leave requests less than 48 hours before the employee’s proposed absence. There was nothing retaliatory about Ms. Wade’s following the stated policy of Public Works. Petitioner was allowed to raise two issues that were not included in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. As to these issues, Petitioner failed to offer proof sufficient to establish that either Ms. Wade’s denial of her request for flex time or Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s request to attend a “leadership” training course was an incident of retaliation. Petitioner failed to prove any incidents of retaliation. Because she voluntarily resigned her position with the City, Petitioner did not establish that the City took an adverse employment action against her in any form.
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 the City of Ocala did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2019, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a software engineer with almost 30 years of experience in the industry. From 2001 until August of 2006, Petitioner was employed by ITT Industries (ITT). Petitioner's employment with ITT came to an end when he was involuntarily terminated. Following his termination, Petitioner filed an employment discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that ITT had discriminated against him because he suffered from Tourette's syndrome (which caused him to have vocal tics and to stutter). Petitioner did not take any action to pursue these allegations of employment discrimination beyond filing this complaint against ITT with the EEOC. Petitioner has been unable to obtain a "permanent job" as a software engineer since his termination by ITT. Respondent is a defense contractor that "make[s] [military] simulation and training equipment." In early 2008, Respondent was looking to fill a temporary software engineer position. Edge Dynamics was one of the outside employment agencies that Respondent used to assist it in the hiring process. On January 9, 2008, Edge Dynamics provided Petitioner's resume to Edward Kaprocki, a senior principal software engineer with Respondent. Mr. Kaprocki was responsible for interviewing applicants for the position and making hiring/rejection recommendations. After reviewing Petitioner's resume, Mr. Kaprocki "thought [it] looked interesting enough where it would worth talking to [Petitioner]," and he so advised Sandra Asavedo, his "point of contact" at Edge Dynamics. Ms. Asavedo made the necessary arrangements to set up a face-to-face interview between Mr. Kaprocki and Petitioner. The interview took place in Mr. Kaprocki's office on January 14, 2008. It lasted about 45 minutes to an hour. Petitioner seemed to Mr. Kaprocki to be "a little bit nervous," but Petitioner did not do or say anything to cause Mr. Kaprocki to believe that Petitioner suffered from any disability. During the course of the interview, Petitioner showed Mr. Kaprocki his personal website, which contained information about and pictures of "some of the projects that [Petitioner] had worked on." Based on the interview, Mr. Kaprocki determined that Petitioner did not have the skill-set that was needed for the position Respondent was seeking to fill. Immediately following the interview, Mr. Kaprocki went to his supervisor, Steve Preston, whose office was "right down the hall," and recommended that Petitioner not be hired to fill the position. Mr. Kaprocki then telephoned Ms. Asavedo to let her know that Petitioner was not going to be hired so that she could inform Petitioner. Mr. Kaprocki's decision to recommend against hiring Petitioner had nothing to do with Petitioner's suffering from Tourette's syndrome or his having filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. Indeed, at the time he made his decision, Mr. Kaprocki did not even know that Petitioner had Tourette's syndrome or had filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. Mr. Kaprocki first learned of these matters only after Petitioner had filed his Complaint in the instant case. After being told that he would not be hired for the position, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Kaprocki several times, pleading with Mr. Kaprocki to "reconsider hiring him." Mr. Kaprocki told Petitioner "that the decision had been made" and would not be reconsidered. Mr. Kaprocki felt that Petitioner, by making these telephone calls, was "badgering and harassing him." To satisfy his own personal curiosity (and for no other reason), Mr. Kaprocki looked online to find out more about the person who was subjecting him to this "badgering and harass[ment]."2 Mr. Kaprocki did not discover, as a result of his online search, that Petitioner had Tourette's syndrome or that Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. His search, however, did reveal certain comments Petitioner had made in an online forum that Mr. Kaprocki considered to be "extremely unprofessional." After reading these comments, Mr. Kaprocki was even more confident than he had been before he began his search that he had made the right decision in not recommending Petitioner for employment. Petitioner was never offered a position with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of any unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Bar-B-Que Management, Inc. d/b/a Sonny's Real Pit Bar-B-Q (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Dorine Alexander (Petitioner), based on an alleged disability and her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a management company with employees at 16 franchise-owned restaurants in central and north-eastern Florida. Respondent has employment policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and disability. It also has policies that provide for reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities. Respondent's policies inform employees about the procedure to be followed in reporting perceived race or disability discrimination. The policies prohibit retaliation against employees who report perceived discrimination. Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent employed her as a cashier in its Belleview, Florida, location from July 14, 2008, to April 5, 2009. At the beginning of her employment, Petitioner was aware of Respondent's policies relative to discrimination. Respondent provided her with a copy of its Team Member Handbook containing the policies. Petitioner's duties included working as a cashier in both the drive-thru and at the front counter. She also was responsible for stocking all takeout areas and completing side work. Initially, Petitioner's job required her to perform deck scrubbing. However, when Petitioner notified her manager that deck scrubbing made it difficult for her to breathe, she no longer had to perform that task. Petitioner never complained that she continued to have breathing difficulties even when others were performing deck scrubbing. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's alleged breathing problem even though Petitioner never provided Respondent with requested medical documentation indicating that she had asthma or any other respiratory difficulties. There is no competent evidence to show that Petitioner is disabled. In the Fall of 2008, Respondent demoted the general manager at the restaurant where Petitioner worked. The demotion was based on poor performance, including not enforcing company policies and failing to hold employees accountable for compliance with company policies and performance standards. Respondent directed the new management team to enforce company policies and to issue discipline when appropriate. The directive was communicated to the restaurant's employees. After the change in management, Petitioner received numerous disciplinary write-ups. The write-ups included the following: (a) violation of Respondent's policy against use of cell phones during working hours; (b) violation of Respondent's policy against smoking on the premises and/or parking lot while in uniform during working hours; (c) violation of Respondent's attendance policy, requiring employees to arrive at work on time and to attend mandatory meetings unless excused; (d) violation of Respondent's cash-handling policy, resulting in cash overages and shortages; and (d) violation of Respondent's work performance standards by failing to stock supplies and complete other side work duties. Non-black employees received written discipline for the same violations as Petitioner. At least one white employee was terminated for violating the cell phone usage policy. Prior to February 2009, Petitioner worked an average of 25 hours per week. The fewest number of weekly hours worked by Petitioner after February 2009 was 19 hours. Petitioner worked 19 hours for only two weeks. Petitioner asserts that she was not allowed to "pick up" extra shifts when another cashier went on vacation for five days. Scheduling requests had to be submitted by Tuesday for the next week's schedule. Petitioner failed to timely request any of the extra available shifts. Instead, she approached the scheduling manager after the schedule was already completed. Despite the lateness of her request, the scheduling manager revised the schedule to assign Petitioner one extra shift. Beginning in January 2009, Respondent's schedules were created and posted on-line through a computer program called Hot Schedules. At all times relevant here, the schedule was posted late only three times. The late posting affected all employees, not just Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that she was assigned to work the drive-thru more than white employees. This assertion is without merit as shown by the following statistics. Petitioner worked 59 shifts between January 1, 2009, and her resignation on April 5, 2009. Respondent assigned Petitioner to work in the drive-thru on 23 of those shifts, approximately 39 percent of the total shifts. Petitioner worked at the front counter for the remainder of her shifts, approximately 61 percent of the total shifts. Two white cashiers, Brittany Knaul and Sarah Liles, worked a comparable number of shifts between January 1, 2009, and April 5, 2009. During that time, Ms. Knaul worked 54 shifts, with 25 shifts or 46 percent assigned to the drive-thru. Of the 86 shifts worked by Ms. Liles, 33 shifts or 38 percent were in the drive-thru. On the other hand, Beatrice McKoy, a black cashier, worked almost exclusively at the front counter between January 1, 2009, and April 5, 2009. Petitioner sought out and spoke with Respondent's Director of Operations, Josh McCall, on several occasions during her employment. The conversations involved her requested accommodation and complaints about the disciplinary write-ups. Petitioner never reported any perceived race discrimination. On one occasion, Mr. McCall asked Petitioner if she believed she was being discriminated against based on her race. Petitioner denied that she was being treated differently from non-black employees. Petitioner submitted a letter of voluntary resignation on March 30, 2009. Her last day at work was April 5, 2009. Petitioner asserts that she was constructively discharged. However, Petitioner failed to notify Respondent of the alleged discrimination until she spoke with Respondent's Area Manager on April 6, 2009, after her resignation and last day at work. Shortly after her last day at work for Respondent, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her other job with Internet Access. Petitioner resigned that job due to a dispute with her manager. Petitioner obtained subsequent employment which ended when that company closed in June 2009. Petitioner remained unemployed until February 2010. The only employment she held in the intervening six months was occasional work assisting her sister, who is a home health aide.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire Jessica A. DeBono, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Post Office Box 3389 Orlando, Florida 32802-3389 Dorine Alexander 307 Marion Oaks Course Ocala, Florida 34473 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black female. As such, she is a member of a protected class. Respondent is a rental and sales company. It rents and sells household furnishings and appliances to consumers. Around the end of June 2008, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as an account manager at its Crawfordville store. Petitioner’s scheduled start time was 7:30 a.m. Petitioner’s account manager duties included delivery of household furniture and appliances to customers, loading and unloading her truck, and collection of money (also known as collecting credits) from customers. Petitioner’s primary delivery route was the south side of Tallahassee, Florida. Her direct supervisor at the Crawfordville store was James Shaw. Mr. Shaw is a Black male. Petitioner alleged that in July 2008, James Shaw began to sexually harass Petitioner, inviting her to a hotel and on one occasion, locking her in the store, pushing her against some furniture, and groping her. Shortly after allegedly being groped, Petitioner reported the incident to Craig Carricino, Store Manager at RAC’s Tallahassee store, and Kevin Besette, the then District Manager. She also called RAC’s complaint hotline. Petitioner reported the incident to Mr. Carricino because she knew him from past dealings with him at the Tallahassee store and felt more comfortable reporting the incident to him. Petitioner made it clear that she did not want to return to the Crawfordville store and desired to be transferred to another location. On the day of Petitioner’s complaint, Brad Donovan, Coworker Relations Manager, initiated an investigation into Petitioner’s claim. Additionally, Mr. Donovan was aware of Petitioner’s desire to transfer to another store and immediately offered Petitioner the opportunity to transfer to RAC’s Tallahassee location. Petitioner readily accepted the offer and was transferred to the Tallahassee store where Mr. Carricino was the manager. After Petitioner’s transfer, Mr. Donovan proceeded with his investigation into her allegations of harassment. He interviewed Mr. Shaw, who denied Petitioner’s allegations. He interviewed Petitioner, who provided him with the name of a witness to Mr. Shaw’s sexual advances. Mr. Donovan interviewed this other witness. The witness reported that he had not seen any inappropriate conduct on the part of Mr. Shaw towards Petitioner. Petitioner never advised Mr. Donovan or any other person at RAC of any other witnesses to the alleged sexual misconduct of Mr. Shaw. In essence, Petitioner’s allegations could not be established because no independent evidence existed to support her allegations of sexual harassment. However, Respondent promptly addressed Petitioner’s allegations of sexual harassment. It investigated her claims and immediately transferred her to another store. Respondent also counseled Mr. Shaw about sexual harassment, but took no further action against him because of the absence of any independent evidence to support Petitioner’s allegations. Clearly, Respondent exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly address Petitioner’s allegations of sexual harassment. Irrespective of whether Petitioner’s allegations against Mr. Shaw are true or believed, RAC did not engage in an unlawful employment action against Petitioner because it acted appropriately in addressing Petitioner’s allegations based on the investigation and conclusions it had reached about Petitioner’s allegations. RAC was not obligated to do more even if Petitioner disagreed with the company’s decision not to discipline Mr. Shaw. After her transfer, Petitioner felt she was harassed/retaliated against by Mr. Carricino when she was “written up” for being late to work. Petitioner identified Scott Taff, who is White, as the only non-minority employee who had allegedly been treated differently than her. She based her assertion on the fact that Scott Taff was not fired when he was late after being ‘written up’ for tardiness. Without going into the mostly hearsay evidence presented at hearing, Petitioner’s own testimony revealed that she was not fired for being late several more times after being ‘written up’ and warned for such tardiness. Additionally, there was no evidence presented regarding Mr. Taff’s disciplinary history or that he had a chronic tardiness problem. Given these facts, the evidence did not demonstrate that non-minority or male employees were treated differently than Petitioner. The evidence, also, did not demonstrate that Petitioner was subjected to any retaliation for her earlier sexual harassment complaint. The evidence did show that her employer wanted her to be at work on time and endeavored to stress its desire to her. Such action does not constitute an unlawful employment practice, especially when the employee has a tardiness problem. Petitioner also alleged she was harassed/retaliated against when she was told that she would have to lift 150-lb. sofas, and, if she complained about the duty, she would be fired. Petitioner did not testify about any specifics regarding this allegation. However, Petitioner’s job required that she be able to deliver a variety of products made available by Respondent, including sofas. Moving furniture, loading and unloading her truck, and picking up and delivering furniture was not specifically required of Petitioner, but was required of all similarly-situated account managers. By her own testimony, Petitioner described times when she had help in moving furniture and times when she did not have help in moving furniture. The store’s manager testified that Petitioner, like other employees, received help moving furniture when other employees including himself, were available to help and not performing their own similar job duties. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner was denied help moving furniture based on her race, sex or in retaliation for her earlier allegations of sexual harassment. Finally, Petitioner alleged that she was harassed/retaliated against when she was not allowed to “collect credits” from customers because she was sent on deliveries and later disciplined for not “running these credits.” However, all account managers were required to collect money from customers and make deliveries. Petitioner was not singled out in being required to collect money from customers and make deliveries. All account managers had to figure out how to perform both functions. Petitioner’s testimony regarding being prohibited from collecting money on Saturday was not established by the evidence. The evidence showed that, for a short time, account managers were instructed not to use the computer system on Saturday mornings to help them in collecting money from customers because of some issue related to the computer system. However, the policy later changed to allow account managers to use the computer system on Saturday mornings. Moreover, there was no evidence that Petitioner could not otherwise collect money from customers without the aid of Respondent’s computer system. The computer may have made the collection process easier because customer contact information was stored in the computer system; however, the lack of use of that system on Saturday mornings did not prevent Petitioner from collecting money from customers. Customer information was available to Petitioner during the rest of Respondent’s time at work. Petitioner, again without any necessary specifics, claims that Mr. Taff was allowed to collect money on Saturdays. No computer records were introduced into evidence and no evidence of the time period when Mr. Taff allegedly collected money on Saturdays was adduced at hearing. Respondent denied that Mr. Taff collected money when he was not supposed to. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Taff or any other similarly-situated employee was treated differently than Petitioner. The evidence did demonstrate that Petitioner had the lowest collection rate at the Tallahassee store and was consistently below that store’s standard for the collection of money. The District manager, Carney Anderson, who is Black, testified that he had no trouble meeting company expectations for collecting money from customers when he was an account manager in a similar, but larger, area and saw no reason why Petitioner could not meet the expectations of the company in the area she was assigned in Tallahassee. Petitioner did not perform up to the Respondent’s standards for the collection of money from customers. Importantly, a former male employee who failed to adequately collect money from customers was similarly disciplined for failing to perform this important job duty. Because Petitioner failed to meet the standards of the Respondent for the collection of money from customers, Mr. Carricino informed Petitioner that she would be terminated for her inability to meet those standards. Mr. Carricino offered Petitioner the option of resigning and assured her that he would provide a favorable recommendation to her, if she did. Petitioner elected to resign and wrote a letter of resignation. The letter did not mention discriminatory or retaliatory treatment and read as follows: “Thank you for everything. I am grateful for the opportunity that you gave me to work at Rent-a-Center, but at this time, I am unable to perform my duties as a mother to my kids due to the overwhelming hours. I am giving my two weeks notice today 11/10/08 in hopes of returning one day in good standing.” Mr. Anderson, who worked at the Tallahassee store every Monday, spoke with Petitioner about the basis of her resignation. She did not mention any belief she had that she had been retaliated or discriminated against. During Petitioner’s final two weeks, Mr. Anderson noticed a serious decline in Petitioner’s attitude and a decline in her work performance. He was not surprised because he had seen other short-term employees have a similar decline. Therefore, on November 15, 2008, Mr. Anderson instructed Mr. Carricino to terminate Petitioner’s employment immediately and Petitioner was terminated that day. There was no evidence that Respondent’s reason for terminating Petitioner was false or a pretext to hide discriminatory or retaliatory behavior. Moreover, given the short time that Petitioner had remaining at RAC and the fact of her resignation; the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner suffered an adverse employment action when she was terminated early during her final two weeks with RAC. Given these facts and the lack of evidence to support Petitioners allegations, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Massa Dionna Hill 1613 Quazar Road Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Andrew Trusevich, Esquire Rent A Center, Inc. 5501 Headquarters Drive Dallas, Texas 75024 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, on the basis of Petitioner's age, Respondent (a staffing agency) unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by having him terminated from his position with Respondent's client, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent inSync Staffing, Inc. ("inSync"), is a company that recruits for, and supplies employees to, its clients, including, as relevant here, NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY"). inSync is an "employment agency" as that term is used in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). See ¶ 13, infra. inSync does not meet face-to-face with most of the candidates it places with clients. On or around August 19, 2015, a recruiter at inSync forwarded the résumé of Petitioner Adalberto Lopez ("Lopez"), then 75 years old, to NBTY in hopes that NBTY might hire Lopez to fill the position of "QA Floor Inspector – Shift 1," a job that paid $13.50 per hour. About a week later, NBTY interviewed Lopez, and, on September 2, 2015, inSync informed Lopez that NBTY was offering him the job. Lopez accepted the offer. NBTY, not inSync, made the decision to hire Lopez. At all times, inSync acted essentially as a go-between, introducing Lopez to NBTY and helping him apply for the job, informing Lopez of NBTY's training and drug test requirements for new employees, and providing him with documents that NBTY wanted completed and returned in the ordinary course of new-hire onboarding. One of the documents that Lopez was required to sign and submit was the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), which is used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, administrator of the federal E-Verify program, to determine whether an employee is authorized to work in the United States. The E-Verify program provided NBTY with a result of Tentative Nonconfirmation ("TNC"), meaning that there was, at a minimum, some discrepancy between the information provided in Lopez's Form I-9 and that available in other public records. A TNC does not necessarily disqualify an employee from continuing to work, but it does need to be resolved to avoid the possibility of termination. In this instance, there is no persuasive evidence that the TNC led NBTY to take any adverse action against Lopez. There is, moreover, no evidence that inSync took any adverse action against Lopez as a result of the TNC. Lopez's first day of work at NBTY was September 14, 2015. The next day, NBTY terminated Lopez's employment. Nevertheless, Lopez showed up for work on September 16 and was told, again, that he no longer had a job. There is no persuasive evidence that inSync played any role in NBTY's decision to fire Lopez. inSync did, however, communicate this decision to Lopez, telling him that he had "been terminated due to not catching on fast enough." This was the reason for the termination given to inSync by NBTY. There is no persuasive evidence that this was not, in fact, NBTY's reason for firing Lopez. There is no persuasive evidence that NBTY eliminated Lopez's job, but there is, likewise, no evidence that NBTY filled the vacant position after Lopez's termination, nor (it obviously follows) any proof regarding the age of Lopez's successor (assuming NBTY hired someone to replace Lopez). There is no evidence concerning the candidates, if any, that inSync referred to NBTY after Lopez had been fired. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of inSync's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Lopez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that inSync did not discriminate unlawfully against Lopez on the basis of his age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding inSync not liable for age discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2017.
The Issue : The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioner has a disability, whether she was discriminated against based upon the disability, whether there was a reasonably requested accommodation which was refused by the Respondent employer, and whether it maintained a hostile working environment.
Findings Of Fact This cause arose upon the filing of a Charge of Discrimination and ultimately a Petition for Relief by the above-named Petitioner against the Respondent, Principal Senior Living Group, d/b/a Benton Village (Benton Village or Respondent). The Petitioner was an employee at the Respondent's assisted living and memory care facility, located in Panama City, Florida. That facility employs approximately 28 to 30 employees and had 53 residents as of the time of hearing. The Respondent has an equal employment opportunity policy in place which precludes discrimination on the basis of any protected status including handicap or disability as to any employees, customers, vendors, or applicants for jobs. The Petitioner signed a document indicating that she had received a copy of that policy when she began employment on or about January 29, 2007. The Respondent, enforces the policy against discrimination and harassment and encourages employees to bring any such discrimination or harassment issues to the Respondent's attention so that it can take necessary steps to correct the situation. The Petitioner received a handbook at the beginning of her employment period that outlined the Respondent's benefits, practices, and policies. The Equal Opportunity Policy is restated in that handbook. On page 18 of the handbook under the title "Discourtesy or Disrespect," the Respondent stated a rule as follows: We expect all employees to be courteous, polite and friendly to our residents, vendors, and to their fellow employees. No one should use profanity or show disrespect to a resident or co-worker, or engage in any activity that could harm the company's reputation. The Petitioner began working for the Respondent in early February 2007 as a personal care assistant (PCA). Her general job description included assisting residents with personal care and activities of daily living and performing daily housekeeping tasks. Mr. Alan Williams is the Respondent's executive director. His duties involve resident care staffing including evaluation for promotion and administering discipline and managing the facility's budget. Mr. Williams was responsible for evaluating the Petitioner's job duties and performance. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Tiffany Sims who was the Resident Services Director while the Petitioner was employed at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner is hearing-impaired and wears a hearing aid that allows her to hear within a normal range and follow normal conversations. She does have difficulty hearing when people speak in a low voice and at times has to request them to speak louder. The Petitioner acknowledged that her hearing aid allowed her to perform her job without any special treatment. Moreover, she was able to attend training course, which involved listening to a lecturer in a classroom, and did not request or need any special accommodation to understand the lecturer. When the Petitioner was hired by the Respondent, she did not tell anyone she had a disability that prevented her from performing the job duties in her job description. She received the same training as the other employees and did not request or receive accommodations for her alleged hearing impairment during the training process. She acknowledged that she did not request special treatment because she did not need special treatment. During her testimony at hearing she admitted that she had never requested an accommodation of her employer. During less that three months of employment she was disciplined once by Ms. Sims and on two separate occasions by Mr. Williams. The Petitioner admits receiving corrective action admonishments from Ms. Sims on or about February 8, 2007. The corrective action document informed the Petitioner that there had been several resident complaints regarding the Petitioner's resident care and the care with meal assistance. The corrective action also embodied an instruction to the Petitioner that within 30 days she should show significant improvement with care of residents, with no resident complaints or she could be subject to termination. Mr. Williams disciplined the Petitioner on February 26, 2007. He was notified on that occasion by Supervisor Sandy Simon and his Assistant Director Renee Rhodes, that the Petitioner had been observed watching television by herself in the Alzheimer's ward. Mr. Williams went to an office where he could view a security monitor and personally observed the Petitioner watching television by herself. Mr. Williams accordingly executed a corrective action form or memorandum to the Petitioner, which the Petitioner admits receiving. Mr. Williams administered discipline to the Petitioner on a second occasion on Tuesday, April 3, 2007. Mr. Williams had learned that the Petitioner had been involved in an altercation with a resident that involved raising her voice, yelling and engaging in disruptive behavior. Mr. Williams informed the Petitioner that this was unacceptable behavior and reflected badly on the Respondent. The Petitioner admitted the occurrence to Mr. Williams when he questioned her. There is a dispute over whether the Petitioner quit or was terminated as a result of this discussion. Mr. Williams established that, under the duly-adopted policy, arguing with a resident can be a terminable offense. Mr. Williams' testimony is deemed credible and is accepted. It was thus established that the Petitioner became angry and informed Mr. Williams that she was quitting her employment during the course of this discussion. One other incident occurred with Mr. Williams when he terminated an employee because the employee had yelled or cursed at a coworker. The employee who was terminated did not have any sort of disability of which Mr. Williams was aware. Mr. Williams' undisputed testimony shows that the Petitioner's hearing impairment did not play any role in the decision to discipline for the television incident, nor in the decision to speak to her about the altercation with the resident or with any other employment decision he made with regard to the Petitioner. The Petitioner admitted that Mr. Williams never made any negative comments to her about her hearing or hearing impairment. The Petitioner contended that some co-workers made fun of her hearing impairment during the course of her employment. The Petitioner acknowledged, however, that she never complained of this to the Human Resources manager or to Mr. Williams, even though she had received a copy of the company's policies against harassment and discrimination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Demetrice Worthy Post Office Box 121 Panama City, Florida 32401 Scott E. Wood, Esquire 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 910 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's decedent, Barbara J. Taylor, was discriminated against in an employment decision (termination) by the Respondent based upon her gender and alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James Saemenes, is the Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara J. Taylor. Barbara J. Taylor was the Petitioner's sister. Ms. Taylor, at times pertinent to the facts in this case, had been an employee of the Utilities Department of the City of Fort Walton Beach, working in the Utility Wastewater Treatment Facility Laboratory as Laboratory Manager. The Petitioner, Mr. Saemenes, did not participate in the hearing. The City of Fort Walton Beach provides public utilities to its citizens including wasterwater operations. Mr. John Hofstad is employed as the utilities director for the city, and oversees the city's wastewater operation. Mr. Hofstad was Ms. Taylor's supervisor at times pertinent to this case. The wastewater operation is responsible for collection and treatment of raw waste to suitable discharge standards. There are 13 individuals employed at the wastewater treatment facility. The positions consist of one plant supervisor, eight licensed wastewater treatment plant operators, one pre-treatment coordinator, two maintenance employees, and one laboratory manager. Ms. Taylor was the laboratory manager at times pertinent to this case and her immediate supervisor, Mr. Hofstad was responsible for evaluating her work and initiating any discipline against her, if necessary. Her duties included managing the day-to-day activities of the laboratory, collecting samples throughout the facility, analyzing samples, managing the quality assurance and quality control plan required by the State of Florida and associated daily paperwork. Her duties required effective cooperative interaction with other employees of the facility and the city on a daily basis. Over a substantial period of time, Mr. Hofstad received numerous complaints and expressions of concern from almost every employee regarding the appropriateness of Ms. Taylor's conduct while at work. Employees complained that she was intimidating and abrasive toward them. She demeaned fellow members of the staff based upon their educational background or their level of knowledge about the operations and their jobs. Mr. Hofstad counseled Ms. Taylor on a number of occasions regarding her co-workers' concerns. Mr. Hofstad witnessed Ms. Taylor harassing Mr. McDowell, the Pre-treatment Coordinator, while working in his office. Specifically, she physically placed an object in Mr. McDowell's pocket despite his previous request for her to refrain from distracting him. Mr. McDowell became visibly upset when Ms. Taylor thereafter made an obscene gesture towards him as she left the office area. Mr. Hofstad drafted a memorandum on December 6, 1996, pertaining to the aforementioned incident and provided a written disciplinary action form to Ms. Taylor because of it. Mr. Hofstad executed a personnel evaluation regarding Ms. Taylor on December 9, 1996. She received an unsatisfactory rating in the area of cooperation with fellow employees and team-work. Mr. Hofstad gave Ms. Taylor that rating due to numerous employee complaints indicating that Ms. Taylor had initiated confrontations. Thereafter on March 6, 1998, Mr. Hofstad drafted a memorandum regarding a confrontation which had occurred the day before between Ms. Taylor and Mr. James Whitley. Without authorization Ms. Taylor directed Mr. Whitley to stop conducting certain tests because they would interfere with her job. Ms. Taylor possessed no supervisory authority over Mr. Whitley. When Mr. Hofstad intervened in the situation Ms. Taylor spoke to him in a insubordinate loud and hostile fashion. She raised her voice at Mr. Hofstad and stated that he did not know how to do his job much like the other individuals employed by him. Mr. Hofstad considered her tone and manner to be inappropriate and insubordinate. He executed a Notice of Disciplinary Action based on Ms. Taylor's actions and demeanor and gave her a copy. Thereafter on or about May 14, 1998, Mr. Hofstad was again verbally assaulted by Ms. Taylor. She spoke in an enraged, loud, and abusive manner in the presence of several subordinate employees. Ms. Taylor stated that Mr. Hofstad had no control over the laboratory. Following this incident which he also considered insubordination, Mr. Hofstad spoke to the Public Works Director his superior, Mr. Mark Tate, regarding Ms. Taylor's conduct. Mr. Tate reviewed Ms. Taylor's disciplinary history and in conjunction with Mr. Hofstad determined that the best course of action, after having tried graduated discipline was to terminate her employment. Mr. Hofstad and Mr. Tate spoke with the Human Resources Department Director regarding Ms. Taylor's behavior and potential termination. The Director of Human Resources agreed that Ms. Taylor's termination was appropriate considering her history of progressive discipline and current misconduct amounting to repeated insubordination. Thus Ms. Taylor's employment was terminated. Her termination was not based upon her gender. In fact, she was replaced in her position with another female, Ms. Harriett Holloway. The current laboratory manager, Melissa Woodall, is a female. Mr. Hofstad never discouraged Ms. Taylor from filling out complaint forms during the course of her employment. In fact, he provided such forms to Ms. Taylor in the event that she had a complaint. Her termination was not related to any complaint filed by her, or for engaging in any other protected activity such as applying for vocation rehabilitation benefits or assistance. Further, her termination was not related to any health conditions she possessed. Mr. Hofstad at the time was unaware of any disability or health condition endured by Ms. Taylor. He did not perceive her as disabled. She was fully capable of performing the duties of her job in terms of her physical abilities and would have continued to be employed but for the misconduct referenced above. She never requested any accommodations for any disability or impairment in the workplace from Mr. Hofstad or others in a supervisory role. Neither Mr. Hofstad, nor any other witness, described any occasion where Ms. Taylor was harassed by operations staff. According to unrefuted evidence of record, Ms. Taylor was always the harasser of other employees. Moreover, when Ms. Taylor sought assistance from Mr. Hofstad, he promptly addressed her concerns in a reasonable, unbiased way. The Petitioner never testified in this proceeding.
Conclusions Petitioner: No Appearance Respondent: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Saemenes, Personal Representative 46 Higgins Road Brighton, Tennessee 38011-3602
