The Issue Has Respondent committed an "unlawful employment practice" against Petitioner, pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon a Petition for Relief dated October 13, 1997, referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Florida Commission on Human Relations?
Findings Of Fact Respondent stipulated to jurisdiction, and the evidence demonstrates that by number of employees, Respondent is an "employer" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a freight company which ships and receives living nursery stock by truck through a depot/warehouse. Petitioner was employed there from 1993 until June 16, 1995. In the course of formal hearing, Petitioner waived his Charge of Discrimination on the basis of his national origin (United States citizen). (TR-116). There is no evidence the Respondent employs anyone other than United States citizens. The remainder of Petitioner's allegations were that Respondent failed to accommodate one or more handicaps and subjected Petitioner to disparate treatment from similarly situated black employees. Petitioner also related a series of remarks and one personnel action that he considered to be harassing and abusive due to his handicaps. The "handicaps" that Petitioner testified to were high blood pressure, an undefined heart condition requiring medication, "bad knees," and problems with his back. At formal hearing, no medical physician or health care professional corroborated the foregoing conditions. However, it is undisputed that on or about January 9, 1995, Petitioner presented a physician's excuse to Respondent's Warehouse Supervisor, Jeff Bradner. That physician's excuse stated that Petitioner could return to work on that date, working 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, doing medium lifting, that is, "lifting 30 pounds and frequently lifting and/or carrying objects weighing 25 pounds." The excuse further stated that Petitioner was to avoid squatting, kneeling, and climbing. Mr. Bradner informed Eddie Payne, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, that the foregoing January 9, 1995, medical restrictions were to be observed for Petitioner. Attached to both Petitioner's initial Charge of Discrimination and his later Petition for Review was another physician's letter dated January 29, 1993. It stated, in pertinent part: [Petitioner], patient of record, suffers from high blood pressure, anxiety, and arterial coronary disease. These conditions are aggravated by the stress caused by problems he has with his teenage son. Also attached was a March 3, 1994, doctor's letter stating that Petitioner had a spine and knee injury. It contains the same restrictions as the January 9, 1995, letter. Because the 1993 and 1994 letters are part of the record herein, (attached to the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief), I have taken official recognition thereof and find that they supplement or explain Petitioner's oral testimony at formal hearing to the effect that Petitioner was suffering from high blood pressure, anxiety, and arterial coronary disease in 1993, and from a knee injury in 1994. However, these letters were not introduced in evidence at formal hearing, and Petitioner did not testify that he ever presented any such written medical confirmations of these conditions to any of Respondent Employer's supervisory personnel. Mr. Payne and Mr. Bradner denied that any oral or written requests for accommodation had been received from Petitioner other than the January 9, 1995, doctor's excuse listing specific restrictions. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Mr. Payne denied knowing of Petitioner's heart condition. There also is no corroboration of Petitioner's testimony that he orally requested any accommodation specifically because of his high blood pressure or heart condition at any material time. Furthermore, and most importantly, the 1993 letter places no restrictions on Petitioner in the workplace, and the 1994 letter imposes the same restrictions as the 1995 letter, which is in evidence. The only medical condition any of his co-workers ever heard Petitioner complain about was his "bad knees." Upon the record as a whole, it is inferred that Eddie Payne also knew Petitioner complained of "bad knees." At all times material, both before January 9, 1995, and afterwards, Petitioner worked for Respondent as a "checker." Checkers have the most physically non-taxing job in Respondent's operation. They make sure that "wheelers" or "loaders" place unloaded freight on pallets in the correct location in the warehouse and that "loaders" load the correct freight from the warehouse or warehouse dock into the correct truck. In this capacity, the bulk of Petitioner's work was carrying a clipboard, making notations thereon, and orally directing others where to put boxes. Petitioner testified that due to his blood pressure and back condition, he "needed" to sit down for 15 minutes' rest every 20 minutes after January 9, 1995. The evidence as a whole does not indicate that Petitioner clearly enunciated this "need" to any supervisor. Moreover, the credible evidence supports the inference that no one could work effectively as a checker while taking 15 minute breaks as frequently as every 20 minutes, because each truck needed to be loaded or unloaded as a component, so as to avoid shipping errors. Therefore, substituting other checkers every 20 minutes would have adversely affected Respondent's business and would constitute an unreasonable accommodation for Petitioner and undue hardship for the Employer. Either substituting another checker or waiting on Petitioner to rest every 20 minutes would have been unduly costly, burdensome, or substantially disruptive and would have altered the nature of Respondent's business. Prior to January 9, 1995, Petitioner worked at least a 40-50 hour week and was paid by the number of hours he worked. Due to the nature of Respondent's business and the hours when freight was received, Petitioner's usual hours before January 9, 1995, were from approximately 4:00-4:30 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. (17- 18 hours) three days a week, mostly Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. At all times material, both before and after January 9, 1995, only twenty-five percent as much freight came in on Wednesdays and Fridays as came in on the other three work days of each week. Therefore, all employees were not needed for a 17-18 hour day on those days, and employees had the option of working at whatever was available on those days to "make their hours" for pay purposes. At all times material, on Wednesdays and Fridays, all employees who wanted to work took turns digging weeds out of the cracks in the Respondent's paved parking lot with a claw on a broom handle or the edge of a shovel; picking the weeds up with a shovel; and throwing them away. Sometimes a blower was used. In accord with the January 9, 1995, physician's written restrictions, Eddie Payne accommodated Petitioner by assigning him to work from 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m., so that Petitioner would only be working 10 hours per day. This assignment had Petitioner working the hours during which the employer needed the most men because those were the hours when the workload was the heaviest. Petitioner complained because Mr. Payne would not let him work his 10 hours from 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., a less busy time, but he complained only because those hours were more convenient for him. Petitioner related that after January 9, 1995, he was made to lift more than 30 pounds of parking lot weeds at a time, with the shovel, after getting on his hands and knees to dig the weeds out, and always in the hot sun, which aggravated his undisclosed heart condition. He also related that he never got to use the blower like other employees. His testimony on this issue is not credible in light of the contrary testimony of all the other witnesses. Even if credible, Petitioner was not forced to do this work. He was permitted to do this "make work" during slow days so that he would earn at least 40 hours per week. Witnesses confirmed that another "make work" project on a single occasion was digging muck out of a ditch. Petitioner testified that he was required to dig more than 30 pounds of muck in each shovelful that he lifted out of the ditch. His description was neither corroborated or refuted, but again, Petitioner was the one who controlled the content of each shovel, and he could have declined to work at that "make work" project. According to Petitioner's time cards, from which information Petitioner received his pay, Petitioner usually worked only 10 hours or less per day after January 9, 1995. Occasionally, he worked more than 10 hours, but less than 11 hours per day. Petitioner and Eddie Payne were fishing buddies outside of work, and on at least one occasion, Eddie Payne treated his subordinates, including Petitioner, to a night-clubbing expedition. Petitioner asserted that on the job, Eddie Payne had used derogatory and profane language to him, on account of his handicaps. Once, when Petitioner wanted to punch-out early, Mr. Payne supposedly said, "Go home if you need to, you crippled old pussy." Once, Mr. Payne allegedly called Petitioner "a crippled old Mother F-----." Mr. Payne denied ever using such language either socially or on the job. Mr. Bradner testified that he had instructed his subordinates against profanity on the job, and related that Mr. Payne had a reputation for not using profanity. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's testimony that any such language had ever been addressed to Petitioner. Petitioner called Matthew Hickox, a co-employee, as a witness. Mr. Hickox related that Petitioner would often "act goofy," by doing a "Quasimodo imitation," twisting his arm, making a face, and dragging one leg behind him. When Petitioner did this, other employees would "make cracks." Petitioner claimed that dragging his leg behind him was evidence of his handicap. Mr. Hickox's opinion was that "disabled don't give you the right to act like a nut and then people not make some comment." Petitioner testified that he had only become entirely disabled since leaving Respondent's employ June 16, 1995. Although Petitioner moved slowly and evidenced pain on rising and sitting, he was able to move around and approach the witness stand at formal hearing. The undersigned observed no twisted arm, facial contortions, or dragging leg. It is inferred from observing the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses, including Petitioner, and from the whole of the evidence, but particularly from Mr. Hickox's testimony, that on such occasions as Petitioner performed his imitation on the job, Mr. Payne or Mr. Bradner may have vehemently ordered Petitioner back to work and warned him to cut out the horseplay. Petitioner claimed to have received only a fifteen-cent per hour raise when other employees received more. According to Petitioner, the other employees, including Mr. Gonzalez, were raised by twenty-five cents per quarter hour for a $1.00 per hour raise. What anyone was being paid before this raise is not in evidence. Since no evidence indicates whether this raise occurred before or after January 9, 1995, when Respondent's management clearly knew of any of Petitioner's restrictions, there was no nexus between the lack of raise and handicap discrimination.2 Petitioner also developed no nexus between this raise and racial discrimination. According to Eddie Payne, Petitioner was a sub-average worker. According to Eddie Payne and Jeff Bradner, they frequently had to instruct Petitioner to resume work. Mr. Bradner related an incident when Petitioner was leaning on a shovel in the parking lot, so Mr. Bradner sarcastically commented, "You're not getting much work done leaning on that shovel," but this motivational comment was not directed at a handicap. No employee testified that any supervisor's instructions to Petitioner, which they observed or overheard, were offensive or otherwise inappropriate. On one occasion, Petitioner was told by Mr. Bradner to stop kicking a "basketball of tape" around; throw it away; and get back to work. No employee other than Petitioner found this instruction offensive. On another occasion, Petitioner was given a written reprimand when a truckload of freight was sent to the wrong location. Petitioner attributed the error to a black "loader" named James Oliver and perceived the reprimand as discriminatory because Mr. Oliver was not reprimanded. Petitioner's superiors reprimanded Petitioner as a formal personnel action instead of Mr. Oliver because they considered Petitioner responsible for the error and resultant costs since Petitioner was in the superior position of checker. Petitioner suffered no loss of pay, hours, or seniority as a result of the reprimand. Petitioner's assertions that he was required to climb tall ladders to change light bulbs in the warehouse, to squat to lift boxes, and to kneel to pull weeds were denied by management witnesses and uncorroborated by Petitioner's witnesses. On one occasion, Petitioner had just come on duty and was having a coke and a cigarette, when Mr. Bradner told him to get to work helping a black loader named "Willie T." unload a truck. On this single occasion, Petitioner may have been asked to lift boxes in excess of 30 pounds, but the boxes also may have weighed as little as 20 pounds. This incident may have occurred before Mr. Bradner knew of Petitioner's medical restrictions on January 9, 1995, but it was probably afterwards. If so, this single incident was contrary to Petitioner's doctor's instructions, but Petitioner admittedly never complained to Mr. Bradner about this one-time incident in terms of "lack of accommodation" for his physical limitations. On the same occasion, Willie T., who already had been loading the truck for three hours, took a coke and cigarette break a half an hour after Petitioner began to help him unload the truck. Willie T. asked Petitioner to join him on his break, which Petitioner did. Mr. Bradner spotted them and instructed Petitioner to return to loading the truck because he felt Petitioner was not entitled to a break after only a half an hour of work, but did feel that Willie T. was entitled to a break after three full hours of work. This was a bona fide business consideration of Respondent. Petitioner failed to establish a nexus of racially discriminatory intent on the basis of this incident. On June 16, 1995, Petitioner was sweeping the warehouse floor, leaving trails of residue behind. Petitioner intended to go back and sweep up the residue, but before he could do so, Mr. Bradner told him that he was leaving trails and that he should do a better job. Petitioner considered this instruction to be demeaning and discriminatory, but he did not reply to Mr. Bradner. Mr. Bradner noted that Petitioner began to do a better job of sweeping, and Mr. Bradner left the area. Petitioner perceived that his co-workers were laughing at the incident and became upset. Petitioner finished sweeping one section of the warehouse and asked Eddie Payne if he could clock-out. He assumed that Eddie Payne knew he was upset because of Mr. Bradner's comment but did not tell him so. Eddie Payne authorized Petitioner to clock-out. Petitioner clocked-out and never returned to work for Respondent
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Human Relations Commission enter a Final Order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief on all issues. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue Whether the City of Milton failed to accept an employment application from Sydney McCray on the basis of race or national origin, thereby committing an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Mr. McCray is a male African-American, and he is a member of a protected class. In his complaint, Mr. McCray claims that on April 4, 1994, the City discriminated against him by failing to hire him for the position of laborer (maintenance worker). Specifically, Mr. McCray alleged that in response to a newspaper advertisement for a laborer's position, he and his sister, Alice Larkins, contacted the City Manager's office for the purpose of submitting their employment applications. Both Mr. McCray and Ms. Larkins asserted that they arrived at the office of Mr. Whitson, the City Manager, at the appointed time, and that they waited over an hour to see Mr. Whitson. After waiting an hour, both Mr. McCray and Ms. Larkins left without ever meeting Mr. Whitson. Mr. McCray asserts that Mr. Whitson failed to meet with him or receive his employment application because of his race. The City disputes Mr. McCray's claims for several reasons. First, the City provided evidence to contradict Mr. McCray's position that he first learned of the laborer position through an advertisement. Several city employees testified that the City only advertises skilled positions and that the unskilled positions, such as maintenance positions, are handled through the Public Works Department without advertisement. With regard to the Public Works Department, testimony was also received that indicated the process for receiving applications for laborer positions. In particular, it was stated that applications for laborer positions are processed by the Public Works Department and that once the applicant has been interviewed, all qualified applicants are placed on a list for future vacancies. The record is clear that Mr. McCray never applied for a laborer position through the established procedure. Second, even if the position was advertised as stated by Mr. McCray, the City disputes that Mr. Whitson's office would have ever made an appointment for Mr. McCray. As indicated above, the prospective laborers are processed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Whitson testified that he plays no role in screening laborer applicants and that he is purposefully insulated from the hiring process. Therefore, it makes no sense that his office would have arranged an interview as asserted by Mr. McCray. Third, in addition to Mr. Whitson's lack of involvement in the employment process for prospective laborers, all the testimony received at the hearing supports a finding that Mr. McCray did not have an appointment with the City manager. Specifically, several City employees, including Mr. Whitson's personal secretary, testified that neither Mr. McCray nor his sister ever had an appointment with Mr. Whitson. They also testified that neither person appeared at Mr. Whitson's office on April 4, 1994. When pressed on the date and time of the alleged appointment with Mr. Whitson, Mr. McCray was unable to articulate consistently when the meeting was to take place. Mr. McCray appeared confused and his answers varied from his earlier deposition testimony and the testimony of his sister. Furthermore, based on the records maintained by the City of Milton, Mr. McCray never submitted an application for the position of "Laborer" with the Public Works Department of the City of Milton. Mr. McCray attempts to supplement his claim of discrimination by establishing that the City of Milton has systematically discriminated against him by failing on more than one occasion to hire him. Specifically, Mr. McCray stated that prior to April 4, 1994, he applied for other positions with the City of Milton, and he was denied such positions. In particular, Mr. McCray stated that he applied for the position of mechanic and technician. In both instances raised by Mr. McCray, however, it appears, based on the record, that he either failed to adequately complete his job application or he failed to possess the minimum qualifications for the positions sought. As further evidence supporting his claim, Mr. McCray offered the testimony of his sister, Alicia Larkin. Ms. Larkin testified that she, like her brother, was the subject of discrimination by the City. The undersigned dismissed her testimony as lacking relevancy and more importantly lacking credibility. First, Ms. Larkin has a claim pending against the City alleging similar discriminatory practices and she appears to have a bias against the City. Second, Ms. Larkin's testimony lacked consistency and lacked credibility. No evidence was presented to indicate that the City of Milton discriminated in its employment practices. Furthermore, the City presented testimony that it has and continues to develop fair employment practices relating to minorities. Specifically, the City of Milton, through Mr. Whitson, has met with the NAACP for the purpose of continuing to improve race relations between the City and the African-American community in Milton. In summary, the City has effectively rebutted the allegations raised by Mr. McCray. The City offered a series of witnesses that had personal knowledge of the employment policies and hiring practices of the City and each corroborated the other. Those witnesses collectively support a finding that the City did not discriminate against Mr. McCray.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this claim with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committee, Esquire 8870 Thunderbird Drive Pensacola, Florida 32514-5661 Roy V. Andrews, Esquire Post Office Box 586 Milton, Florida 32572 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue The ultimate issues are whether ACT Corporation (ACT) engaged in unlawful employment practices by discriminating against Petitioners Rosa Gibson (Gibson) or Lillian Brown (Brown) on account of race. More specifically, both Petitioners allege that they were terminated based on race.
Findings Of Fact ACT Corporation is a comprehensive community mental health provider. In 1989, it had five major clinical departments and employed approximately 500 people, of whom 24% were minority employees and 18% were black. One of the clinical departments includes two residential facilities for mentally ill clients, Big Pine and Big Tree. The Petitioners herein have been employed at both facilities, but were on the staff of Big Tree at the time of their terminations. Brown began working for ACT on September 14, 1982. She worked at several different facilities, but was working at Big Pine in 1987 as a Residential Specialist or Residential Advisor (RA) under the immediate supervision of the house manager, Myra Morris, who is black. Gibson began working for ACT in November, 1987, as Residential Specialist or Residential Advisor (RA) at Big Pine under Morris. Gibson was often tardy for work and Morris counseled with her about the problem. During one discussion between Morris and Gibson about tardiness, Gibson became haughty and verbally aggressive toward Morris. Morris would have terminated Gibson for this aggression, but she knew Gibson needed the job. Instead, Morris had Gibson transferred to Big Tree. In early 1988, Morris was transferred to another position with ACT. She was replaced as house manager by Kenneth Polite, a black employee. Brown continued as an RA at Big Pine. Brown was transferred to Big Tree and promoted to House Manager on September 30, 1988. Gibson continued as an RA at Big Tree under Brown. In January, 1989, Ann Turley became the Clinical Administrator for Adult Services and the immediate supervisor over both facilities. Brown was still on probation in the House Manager position because Turley's supervisor, Chris Kennedy, had extended Brown's probation. The extension resulted from Brown's poor performance, including poor follow through on assignments, incorrect preparation of reports and paperwork, inability to communicate effectively, and inability to conceptually grasp and carry out programs. Turley kept Brown on in the House Manager position despite the poor performance because Brown told her that Kennedy and she just did not understand all that Brown was doing. Turley told Brown to keep a written record to show what she was doing. In July, 1989, Polite left employment with ACT. Turley made some organizational changes at that time. ACT and her department needed to come up with $100,000 in revenue or in expense reduction. Turley made the decision to cut back one staff person at Big Pine. The position of house manager at Big Pine was eliminated. The two facilities were reorganized to have a Team Leader at Big Pine and a Residential Coordinator at Big Tree. Turley told Brown of these changes before they were announced. Brown was promoted to the Residential Coordinator position. Donna Dooley, a white employee was made Team Leader at Big Pine. She received a 5% raise, not a raise to the salary level of House Manager. Turley made the selection for Team Leader from the five eligible employees remaining at Big Pine. All five had been employed at ACT by Turley's predecessor. Turley examined the personnel files of the five employees, including performance evaluations. The employee with the best evaluation, within the most recent evaluations made by Polite, was Dooley. Polite noted in her evaluation that Dooley had filled in for him and had done a good job at it and that the other staff at Big Pine came to Dooley for leadership and advice. Turley's decision was poorly received by some of the staff. Polite had wanted the house manager position to go to his roommate, a black employee. Other staff thought the position should have been awarded based on seniority. Staff from the various facilities of ACT asked Turley by letter to meet with them to discuss the position. Turley met with the staff, but no real discussion occurred. The staff in attendance was racially mixed. Individual staff members, including Gibson, verbally attacked Turley because they failed to understand that the house manager position had been eliminated and that the Team Leader position was not its equivalent. Turley was quite emotionally upset about the hostile tone displayed at the meeting. She was also concerned that Brown had signed the staffs' letter requesting a meeting and had attended the meeting, because Brown was a supervisor and not a member of the supporting staff. Brown also had been told before anyone else the reasons for the reorganization and she knew that she was being promoted to Residential Coordinator. Turley had made the decision to promote Brown as Residential Coordinator because the reorganization had to go through and Brown's duties would not change that dramatically. The Residential Coordinator would work closely with the Team Leader to organize and coordinate the operation of both facilities. The position of House Manager ceased to exist at either facility. Brown's inadequate performance continued while she was on probation as Residential Coordinator. The same problems were apparent and some new ones arose. One significant problem was in Brown's supervision and discipline of Gibson. Gibson was repeatedly late for work and she brought her child to work with her. Brown was told by Turley to take certain corrective and disciplinary actions with Gibson, but she failed to do so. Gibson also was rude to a case manager at medication clinic (med clinic), refused to get a client's chart for a case worker, and repeatedly yelled at, demeaned and was uncooperative with the staff at med clinic. Turley instructed Brown to give a counseling statement to Gibson for this behavior, but again Brown did not do so. Because of Brown's lack of appropriate job performance, Turley demoted her from Residential Coordinator to Residential Advisor at Big Tree on September 7, 1989. Turley assumed Brown's job duties temporarily. Brown and Gibson were very upset over this demotion. The evidence taken as a whole shows that Brown and Gibson developed an "us versus them" attitude which significantly interfered with their job performance thereafter. After Brown's demotion, Turley discovered a new fiscal problem. One option for addressing the problem was to change Big Tree from a level two to a level one facility. That change would require a change in staffing patterns such that licensed practical nurses would be required around the clock and a registered nurse as the supervisor of the LPNs. Turley rewrote the job description for the Residential Coordinator position to require a registered nurse's license. In October, 1989, Darlene Hasenkamp, who is white, was hired as the Residential Coordinator because she was an RN and had experience with mentally ill patient care. As Residential Coordinator, Hasenkamp supervised all staff at both Big Tree and Big Pine. Donna Dooley, the Team Leader at Big Pine was the person immediately below Hasenkamp in the supervisory chain. While the staff at Big Tree were not immediately responsible to Dooley, Dooley did have some supervisory responsibilities over the staff at both facilities when Hasenkamp was not there. Brown and Gibson did not like working for Hasenkamp or Dooley. Both were subtly resistant and uncooperative with Hasenkamp and Dooley. Mentho Saafir is another black Residential Advisor with ACT. Her observation is that Brown and Gibson were part of a small tight group of black employees. The group got mad because Dooley was made Team Leader. Then when Brown was demoted and Hasenkamp was hired, they became openly oppositional to any encounter with Dooley. Gibson was especially hostile and uncooperative with Dooley. On a Saturday during November, 1989, Dooley and Hasenkamp were both off work, but they were on call for their respective facilities. A client at Big Pine was suicidal. The one staff person working at Big Pine was managing the client and called Dooley for assistance in getting the van and transporting the client to the hospital. The van was parked at Big Tree because Big Tree always had two staff persons on duty and Big Pine only had one. Therefore in an emergency, one staff person could leave Big Tree to take the van to Big Pine to assist. Dooley was at home and called Big Tree to get the van delivered to Big Pine. Gibson answered the telephone at Big Tree. She was evasive and refused to answer Dooley's questions about who was working at Big Tree and where that person was. Dooley told Gibson that she needed the van for a suicidal client. Gibson kept saying that her coworker wasn't there and finally told Dooley that if she needed the van "I suggest you come and get it yourself." After much pressing by Dooley, Gibson acknowledged that her coworker was Brown and Brown was not there. Dooley called Hasenkamp and explained the problem and described Gibson's evasiveness and lack of cooperation. Hasenkamp told Dooley to meet her at Big Tree. When Dooley arrived at Big Tree, Hasenkamp was discussing with Gibson her rude and uncooperative behavior toward Dooley on the telephone. As Dooley walked in to Big Tree, Gibson jumped up, leaned over the desk and shouted that Dooley was not her supervisor and she did not have to report (or listen) to Dooley. In order to avoid a confrontation and to get the van to the client in need, Hasenkamp told Dooley to take the van. Dooley left. Hasenkamp sat down and waited for Brown to return to work. When Brown came in 45 minutes later, she had a bag of fast food. Hasenkamp asked where she had been and Brown advised that she had been getting breakfast. Brown said she had only been gone 25 to 30 minutes. Hasenkamp told Brown that it was against normal procedures to leave like that while on duty. Brown simply said she didn't know that. Hasenkamp then took Brown to Big Pine to relieve Dooley who was there alone, having sent the staff person in the van with the client. On the way, Hasenkamp stopped at her home and at her mother's home. When they arrived at Big Pine, Hasenkamp's briefcase fell open to reveal a counseling statement to Brown regarding some furniture, however, that counseling statement was administered at a later time. The counseling statement about the furniture arose from Hasenkamp's direct instructions to Brown to inspect some furniture that was to be delivered before signing the invoice. Brown did not inspect the furniture, but did sign the invoice. When the furniture was finally inspected by Hasenkamp, a tear was discovered in one chair. Brown claimed that she had told the maintenance man to look at the furniture, but that was contrary to Hasenkamp's direct instruction. Brown was "written up" for this failure to carry out her supervisor's instructions. Brown and Gibson were also written up for the incident regarding the van. Gibson was also written up regarding another matter. Hasenkamp had sent a memo to all of the staff about eating pastry in the office. She instructed all staff to initial and sign-off on the memo by a certain date. Everyone signed the memo except Gibson, who refused. The time for signing the memo passed, but rather than write Gibson up for failing to carry out her instructions, Hasenkamp called Gibson to find out why she had not signed the memo. Gibson was off work at the time and Hasenkamp called her at home. Gibson was extremely rude, told Hasenkamp that she had no business bothering her at home, and refused to discuss the memo. Gibson gave Hasenkamp no choice except to write her up again. On December 12, 1989, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Hasenkamp and Dooley drove up to Big Tree. Dooley went in for Hasenkamp because Hasenkamp was on crutches. Brown came outside to the car and told Hasenkamp she needed to come inside regarding a problem. Dooley and Hasenkamp observed Gibson holding and comforting a client, Janice, who was suffering a locked jaw and an extremely painful muscular reaction as a side effect of her psychotropic medication. The patient had to have been in severe discomfort for a couple of hours. The side effects are counteracted by another medication, Cogentin. It was obvious to Hasenkamp that the client needed emergency medical care. Hasenkamp asked if the client had been given her Cogentin. The Cogentin is to be given every day at 9:00 p.m., so Hasenkamp asked to see the medication records from December 11, 1989, to see whether the client had received her Cogentin. Gibson and Brown were the staff people for the 4 to 12 p.m. shift on both December 11 and 12, 1989. Hasenkamp asked Gibson if she had given the client the Cogentin on December 11th. Gibson said yes. Hasenkamp then looked at the medication records and found that no one had initialed to show that they had given the Cogentin on December 11th. Hasenkamp again asked Gibson, but when Gibson was shown the unsigned medication record, she admitted that she did not know if she had given the medication. Hasenkamp sent Gibson to take the client to the emergency room. The client was given an injection of Cogentin. When Gibson asked Hasenkamp if she should give the December 12th dose of Cogentin to the client, Hasenkamp told her no, because the injection would serve in place of the dose. Hasenkamp told Gibson to initial the medication record for December 12th to show that Cogentin was given. Hasenkamp also instructed Brown to hold the client back from work the next morning and to make sure the client was sent to med clinic so that the psychiatrist could review and adjust her medications. The next morning, December 13, 1989, Hasenkamp arrived at Big Tree just as the van was leaving with clients for med clinic. She flagged down the van and asked the driver, Rosario Rizzo, if that client, Janice, was on the van. Rizzo said "no" because no one had told him to take that client. Hasenkamp told Rizzo what had happened the night before, because Rizzo is a nurse. She then sent Rizzo to find the client and take her to med clinic. When Rizzo had arrived that morning, he went to the office and spoke with Brown and Nadine Banning. Banning was the person who had been on duty from midnight to 8:00 a.m. He personally asked Brown and Banning who was scheduled to go to med clinic. Brown read him the names off of a list, but did not mention Janice. At Hasenkamp's instructions, Rizzo found Janice at the bus stop, waiting to go to work. He took her to med clinic. When Hasenkamp went into Big Tree, she immediately asked Brown why she had failed to hold Janice and send her to med clinic. Brown's only reply was "It doesn't matter anyway because the psychiatrist won't see Janice without an appointment." Hasenkamp then went to look at the medication records for Janice and discovered that Gibson had gone back and filled in her initials to show that she had given the missed dose of Cogentin to Janice on December 11th. When Hasenkamp asked Gibson about this, Gibson told her that she remembered that she had given the medication on the 11th. In fact, it is not possible for the client to have had such a severe side effect reaction on December 12th if she had been given her medication on the 11th. Hasenkamp determined that Gibson and Brown had endangered the safety and health of a client and had failed to follow her direct instructions, because Gibson did not properly given the medication and Brown did not hold Janice for med clinic. Gibson's late "memory" that she had given the medication further undermined her confidence in Gibson. She felt she could no longer trust their judgment and could no longer entrust the care of patients to them. Hasenkamp recommended that both be terminated. Turley took that recommendation and did an investigation. From that investigation, she determined that they had, in fact, endangered the client. Specifically, Turley found that Gibson had failed to ensure that the medication was taken and had then tried to cover up that failure and that Brown had failed to get the client to med clinic as instructed. Turley terminated Brown and Gibson on December 14, 1989. The reason given to each in the letter of termination was "insubordination." This reason was given in writing because the personnel director of ACT recommended that they not say "endangerment of a client's health and safety" for liability reasons. Both Gibson and Brown filed a grievance with ACT's affirmative action officer, Carolyn Fleming, a black employee. Fleming did an extensive investigation of all of Gibson's and Brown's allegations of harassment and termination based on racial discrimination. Fleming determined that there was no racial discrimination in ACT's actions. Based on an observation of the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses and on a review of the contradictions in the testimony, it is determined that the testimony of Brown and Gibson is less credible than that of the witnesses for ACT. Both Brown and Gibson gave testimony that was calculated to show them in the best light. While it is not determined that their testimony was untrue, it is found that their memories of these events are skewed so as to diminish the severity of their failures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitions for Relief filed by Rosa Gibson and Lillian Brown be DENIED and DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 2nd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Rosa Gibson 1129 Hillcrest Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117 Reginald E. Moore Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1848 Daytona Beach, FL 32015 Mitchell A. Gordon Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, FL 32120
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Chipola is a college located in Marianna, Florida, and offers two-year and four-year degrees. In August 2005, Ms. Tucker contacted personnel at Chipola inquiring about a faculty position. She sent an e-mail to Karan Davis (Ms. Davis), Chipola’s associate vice president of Human Resources and included a brief résumé. No positions were available at that time. On or about May 18, 2006, Ms. Tucker submitted an application for employment at Chipola as an adjunct instructor. An adjunct instructor position is a temporary position on an as- needed basis to instruct a specific course. Health benefits are not provided for adjunct instructors. The employment application which Ms. Tucker submitted requested that applicants complete a section on educational employment and a section on non-educational employment. In each section, the application provided space for the listing of three present or former employers. The application stated, “If you wish to further describe your work experience, please attach a resume to this application.” Ms. Tucker did not attach a résumé to the application. In the section for educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment as a substitute teacher for two school districts and one private school. In the section for non- educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment in 2006 at Florida State University, employment from 1979 to 1988 with the United States Postal Service, and a position as a legal secretary from 1975 to 1977. The application asked, “Have you ever been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position?” to which Ms. Tucker replied, “No.” The application contains an applicant certification, which states: I am aware that any omissions, falsifications, misstatement or misrepresentations may disqualify me for employment consideration, and if I am hired, may be grounds for termination at a later date. Ms. Tucker signed the applicant’s certification. Wendy Pippen (Ms. Pippen) is employed by Chipola as the human resources coordinator. She is responsible for coordination of the daily activities and tasks in the Human Resources Department, including review of employment applications and résumés. She did not receive a résumé from Ms. Tucker at any point during the hiring process. Ms. Tucker was interviewed for the position as adjunct instructor. During a conversation with Ms. Pippen following Ms. Tucker’s interview, Ms. Tucker mentioned that she had worked at the University of South Florida. Ms. Pippen did not recall seeing the University of South Florida listed as an employer on Ms. Tucker’s application. She checked Ms. Tucker’s application and confirmed that the University of South Florida was not listed on the application. Ms. Pippen immediately advised her supervisor, Ms. Davis, of the omission. Ms. Tucker told Ms. Pippen that she had omitted her employment with the University of South Florida because an employment agency had advised her to do so due to the potential for a negative reference. Ms. Tucker vehemently testified at the final hearing that the reason she did not list employment with the University of South Florida was that she was terminated for medical reasons, and it was “no one’s business.” However, she also testified that the University of South Florida gave “bad references.” She had told others that she was concerned that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference. It was her opinion that the University of South Florida was not ethical in giving references on former employees. Having judged the demeanor of the witnesses, Ms. Pippen’s testimony is credited that Ms. Tucker told her the reason that she did not put the University of South Florida on her application was that she felt the University of South Florida would not give her a good reference. Upon being informed by Ms. Pippen that Ms. Tucker had worked at the University of South Florida, Ms. Davis contacted the University of South Florida to check Ms. Tucker’s past employment. Ms. Davis was advised that Ms. Tucker had been employed by the University of South Florida and that she had been terminated for medical reasons. Ms. Davis did not inquire why Ms. Tucker was terminated. That information was volunteered by personnel at the University of South Florida. Ms. Davis did not ask for an explanation of the medical reasons, and no explanation was volunteered. Ms. Davis did not inquire whether Ms. Tucker had a disability, and no one from the University of South Florida told Ms. Davis that Ms. Tucker had a disability. The decision was made not to hire Ms. Tucker as an adjunct instructor because she had failed to include the University of South Florida on her application and had stated in her application that she had not been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position. Ms. Davis perceived that the omission of the University of South Florida from the application and the failure to indicate that she had been discharged from previous employment amounted to falsification of the application, which was a reason for disqualification from employment as clearly stated in the application form. Ms. Tucker contends that Ms. Davis was aware that she had been employed by the University of South Florida because she had included the employment on the résumé that she sent to Ms. Davis in 2005. Ms. Davis did not recall seeing the résumé and given that there was a lapse of seven months from the time that Ms. Tucker sent her résumé in 2005 until she submitted an application in May 2006 without a résumé, it is reasonable that Ms. Davis would not recall seeing the résumé or was not aware that Ms. Tucker had listed the University of South Florida on a résumé. After Ms. Tucker was advised that she would not be hired as an adjunct instructor, she wrote Dr. Spires at Chipola, stating that she had not put the University of South Florida on her employment application because she had been advised by an employment agency to omit the University of South Florida because it had a long history of illegal employment practices. Ms. Tucker does not contend that she has a particular disability which served as the basis for Chipola’s failing to hire her, and she did not inform staff at Chipola that she has a disability or identify any medical condition she has. Her claim is that she was not hired because of a history of medical problems. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Ms. Tucker was not hired because she had made misrepresentations on her application and not because of any history of medical problems. It is clear that Ms. Tucker did not include the University of South Florida on her application and did not inform Chipola that she had been discharged because she was afraid that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entering finding that Chipola College did not discriminate against Ms. Tucker and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 2nd day of November, 2007.
The Issue In her charge of discrimination Ms. Alexander alleges that her employer created a hostile work environment and unfair conditions of employment when it singled her out as a thief of a stolen purse, denied her overtime, disciplined her for the size of her earrings, and made insulting statements about African Americans. The issues in this proceeding are whether that discrimination occurred, and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter its final order dismissing the complaint by Felicia A. Alexander against Dynair. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Felicia A. Alexander Post Office Box 549 Sanford, Florida 32772-0549 Gabriel G. Marrero, Administrator Dynair Services, Inc. Two Red Cleveland Boulevard, Suite 205 Orlando-Sanford International Airport Sanford, Florida 32773 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Petitioner is a thirty-one (31) year old male who has been a diabetic for approximately twenty-five (25) years and during this time has always taken his insulin as prescribed. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a Correctional Officer 1 (Recreational) and assigned to work at the Florida Correctional Institution at Lowell, Florida (FCI). Petitioner began his employment with Respondent effective April 22, 1985. FCI is a facility for housing female felony offenders who require minimum to close security. The grounds of FCI consist of approximately eight hundred (800) acres, of which one hundred (100) acres is within the compound. FCI houses approximately six hundred seventy-five (675) inmates. FCI has a staff of two hundred twenty (220) employees, however, on weekends and on the 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift, as few as eighteen (18) staff members may be on duty. Petitioner was responsible for maintaining the care, custody and control of the inmates involved in recreational activities and his duties would require his response to emergency situations to prevent escape or suppress inmate disorders. Petitioner advised Respondent prior to being hired that he was diabetic but that his diabetes was kept well under control and presented no problem and that he had sight in only one (1) eye. From February 27, 1984, until Petitioner moved to Florida in April, 1985, Petitioner was being treated for his diabetes in West Virginia by Dr. John P. Griffiths. During this period, Petitioner consulted Dr. Griffiths regarding "blackouts". Although Dr. Griffiths mentioned Petitioner's "kidney problem", he did not diagnose the "kidney problem" as being the potential cause of the Petitioner's "blackouts" and did not suggest a way for Petitioner to avoid having these "blackouts" in the future. Petitioner suffered several "blackouts" while living in West Virginia before accepting employment with Respondent, the last one being approximately a year before moving to Florida. These "blackouts" resulted in Petitioner being taken to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Petitioner did not make Respondent aware of these "blackouts" at the time he applied and was accepted for employment by the Respondent. At the beginning of his employment, Petitioner was required to have a complete physical examination which was administered by Dr. A. Rodriquez, Chief Medical Officer, FCI, and his staff. Among the tests administered was a urinalysis which revealed an abnormal level of protein in the urine. Being concerned over the level of protein in Petitioner's urine, Dr. Rodriquez requested Lester Dinkins, Personnel Manager, FCI, to advise Petitioner to see a private physician in this regard. About a week later, Petitioner consulted Dr. Rodriquez who explained the test results and advised Petitioner to see a nephrologist (kidney specialist). On May 2, 1985, Petitioner was examined by Dr. James J. Mahoney, private physician in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Mahoney did not discuss a possible "kidney problem" or tell Petitioner why there was excess protein in his urine. Dr. Mahoney recommended that Petitioner continue on his blood pressure medication, have his blood pressure checked once a day so that medication adjustments could be made as needed, to see an opthamologist, and to keep check on his diabetes. FCI does not provide non-emergency health care for staff, therefore, Petitioner was unable to get his blood pressure checked by the FCI medical staff and did not get it checked by any outside private facility. Petitioner scheduled a second appointment with Dr. Mahoney which was rescheduled by Dr. Mahoney for a later date. Petitioner was dismissed by Respondent before the second appointment and, therefore, he did not keep the second appointment. On May 3, 1985, the day after Petitioner was examined by Dr. Mahoney, he suffered his first "blackout" while on the job. Petitioner was taken to the emergency room at Monroe Regional Medical Center where the medical personnel raised his glucose level and restored him to consciousness. After Petitioner regained consciousness he refused any further medical treatment. When Petitioner returned to FCI after his first "blackout", he was told to take Saturday and Sunday off and report to work on Monday. On Monday, Petitioner assured George Denman, Superintendent of FCI, that he could and would prevent another "blackout". Although Mr. Denman was concerned about Petitioner's ability to discharge his duties properly, he nevertheless allowed Petitioner to return to work on Petitioner's assurance that he could control the "blackouts". On May 9, 1985, Dr. Mahoney advised Respondent by letter that Petitioner's present condition should not interfere with his employment if Petitioner followed Dr. Mahoney's recommendations set out in Finding of Fact 10. There is sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner did not follow Dr. Mahoney's advice. Petitioner "blacked out" again on May 18, 1985, while he was preparing for a softball game between inmates of FCI and another institution. Petitioner was transported to the FCI infirmary and from there to Harold's Clinic and from there to another hospital. This "blackout" occurred on a Saturday when a staff of approximately eighteen (18) employees were on duty at FCI. Petitioner had keys to various parts of the institution in his possession at this time. Once Petitioner was stabilized after the "blackout", he was instructed to take Sunday off and report in on Monday. On Monday, he reported first to Lester Dinkins and then to Mr. Denman who informed him that he would be dismissed on Friday, May 24, 1986 because of Petitioner's inability to perform his duty to maintain proper care, custody and control of the inmates which placed the security of the institution in jeopardy. The prison superintendent is authorized to allow employees up to three (3) weeks leave without pay under extenuating circumstances, however, for a "brand new" employee, such as Petitioner, it would be exceptional. Leave without pay was not offered to Petitioner at any time before his dismissal to seek help with the problem of "blackouts" because Petitioner assured Mr. Denman that he had his problem under control. Additionally, Petitioner did not request any time off to seek help with his problem of "blackouts". Although Petitioner thought his "blackouts" were related to a serious automobile accident that he was involved in during 1972, there was no medical evidence introduced at the hearing to support Petitioner's theory. At the time Petitioner was dismissed, both parties were aware of Petitioner's kidney problem, but neither knew the exact cause or if the kidney problem was related to the "blackouts" or to the diabetes. Although Petitioner would have accepted other alternatives to dismissal, Respondent had no job openings for which Petitioner qualified for at the time. Lester Dinkins did inquire with other agencies and found a job as a Recreational Therapist with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the Gulf Coast Center in Ft. Myers, Florida. Petitioner rejected that job on the basis of being unable to cope with the emotional stress of working with mentally and physically handicapped individuals, and that by moving he would lose Dr. Donald Mars as his primary care physician. In June, 1985, Dr. Mars, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Shands Teaching Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, diagnosed the cause of Petitioner's "blackouts" as the result of Petitioner's continued use of insulin adversely affecting his kidneys so that protein was being excreted with Petitioner's urine instead of being used by his body which caused episodes of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and, since corrective measures were not taken by Petitioner, "blackouts" resulted. A diabetic can take a measurement of the glucose (sugar) level in his body by using the "finger stick" test. This test can be performed in approximately two (2) minutes, and if there is an indication of a low level of glucose, the diabetic can correct the condition by eating some form of carbohydrate, such as bread or pastry, for quick energy. A diabetic can avoid "blackout's" by performing the required number of "finger stick" tests each day and properly responding to the results. In Petitioner's case, it would require two (2) to four (4) tests each day which could be performed on the job. There are other diabetics on the staff at FCI. Petitioner's job performance, other than during the time of the "blackouts", was satisfactory. Petitioner's "blackouts" put the security of FCI in jeopardy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition For Relief filed by the Petitioner, Stephen Retton. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0975 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Findings of Fact 1 and 2 covered in background material. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6.-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 8.-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 16.-18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 19.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 22. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 23.-24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 25. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 26.-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 29.-32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 35.-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 37. 38. Rejected as not comporting evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact to the substantial 15. competent 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as modified. 41.-47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 48.-52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 53. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 54.-56. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 23. 8.-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as modified. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 15. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas R. Williams, Esquire 359 N.E. First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie L. Wainwright Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 3230 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). Lloyd A. Perry was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Dana E. Pratt was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Prior to February 17, 1976, Lloyd A. Perry was employed by the Citrus County Road Department for a period of over four years. Immediately prior to the time that his employment was terminated, Perry was a roller operator. Except for rare occasions when he performed work as a flagman, or other work in conjunction with his roller work, Perry operated a tandem road roller. For the several months prior to February, 1976, Perry had continuously operated the same roller machine. Prior to February, 1976, none of Perry's supervisors informed him that his work was unsatisfactory, reprimanded him for performing work in an unsatisfactory manner, or indicated to him in any way that his job was in jeopardy for unsatisfactory performance of his duties. Dana E. Pratt had been employed by the Citrus County Road Department for approximately five years prior to February, 1976. For four years prior to that date he had been a motor grader operator. Pratt had annually received formal evaluations and his evaluations had always been very good. Prior to February, 1976, Pratt had never been criticized for below average or unsatisfactory work. He had never received any written reprimand for unsatisfactory performance on the job. From approximately December, 1973 until February, 1976, Perry had operated the newest grader machine in use by the Citrus County Road Department. No one else had operated the machine since it was acquired by the Citrus County Road Department. During February, 1976, Thomas Hutchinson was the Citrus County Road Superintendent. William Hitt was thee Assistant Road Superintendent. Hutchinson and Hitt served under the direction of the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners. Perry, Pratt, and numerous other employees of the Citrus County Road Department had, prior to February, 1976, become dissatisfied with conditions in the Road Department, primarily the manner of direction given the department by Hutchinson and Hitt. On Sunday, February 8, 1976, Perry drafted a petition specifying numerous grievances against Hutchinson and Hitt. It was his intention to secure the signatures of employees of the Road Department on the petition, and to present it to the Board of County Commissioners. Perry sought the assistance of County Commissioner DeBusk in drafting the petition. DeBusk offered several suggestions and his daughter typed the petition for Perry. Perry secured six or seven signatures on that Sunday. He was the first person to sign the petition, and Dana Pratt was the third. On Monday, February 9, Pratt informed his office that he had business to attend to and would not be at work that day. He did not claim sick leave for the time he missed. Prior to work and during the lunch hour he called as many employees of the Road Department as he could. After working hours he waited at a business establishment called the "Country Store" which was located in close proximity to the place where Road Department employees checked out of work. Forty-six employees of the Road Department signed the petition. Dana Pratt assisted in soliciting people to sign the petition. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that those persons signing the petition did so other than freely and voluntarily. On Tuesday, February 10, 1976, Perry called his supervisor, Mr. Hutchinson, and told him that he had business to attend to. Hutchinson asked him if he was going to solicit more signatures. Perry told him that he was not. The Board of County Commissioners was meeting on that date, and Perry presented the petition to the Board. Members of the Board discussed the petition at length during the meeting. One commissioner asked Perry if he was big enough to go back to work and forget about the matter. Perry said that he was. On February 11, 1976 Perry returned to work at the regular time. Rather than being assigned to his regular duty as a roller operator, he was assigned to flag traffic for a grader operator. He continued in that capacity until Tuesday, February 17. On that date, at approximately 11:00 or 11:30 A.M. Tom Morton, the grader foreman, informed Perry that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Both Morton and William Hitt told Perry that they did not know why he was fired. Dana Pratt attended the County Commission meeting on February 10. He was asked about whether he threatened a Road Department employee named Langley with respect to signing the petition. Pratt told the County Commission that he did not threaten Langley, and no evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that he did. On February 12, 1976, Pratt used the new grader machine that he had been using for some time prior thereto. At the end of that day his supervisors informed him that he would be using the oldest machine in the Department thereafter. He began using it on February 13. It took some time to get it started on that date. It also took some time to get it started on Monday, February 16. This was an old machine, and had been difficult to start for some years prior to the time that it was assigned to Pratt. At 12:30 on February 17, 1976, Tom Morton informed Pratt that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Pratt was never given any reasons for his termination. On February 17, 1976, the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners acted to terminate the employment of Perry and Pratt. These actions were taken upon the recommendation of Mr. Hutchinson. Ostensibly the reason for Pratt's termination was that he had marked out on sick leave on a day when he was not sick. Ostensibly the reason for Perry's termination was that he had been missing from the job for approximately an hour. The evidence would not support a finding that Perry and Pratt were fired for these reasons. These reasons offered by Hutchinson, and followed by the Board of County Commissioners, were used as a ruse. On February 18, 1976, the day after Pratt and Perry were fired, Hutchinson called a meeting of all employees of the Road Department. Hutchinson told the employees that he had nothing to do with the termination, but he also told them that he would tolerate no more petitions and that if anyone did not like working conditions at the Road Department they could leave. He said that he had four County Commissioners in his pocket, and he reminded the employees that unemployment in Citrus County was high. He told the employees that he would take care of any petitions they distributed. During the week the petition was distributed, Hutchinson told one employee of the Road Department, James Johnson, that Johnson could be put in jail for signing the petition. During that same week he told his assistant superintendent, William Hitt, that all of the men who signed the petition had to go. After Perry and Pratt were fired, Hutchinson told Hitt that he got two, and he would get the rest. The basis for Hutchinson's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that Perry and Pratt be terminated was the fact that they participated in the distribution of the petition, and presenting it to the Board of County Commissioners. There was no evidence offerred at the hearing to indicate that any members of the Board of County Commissioners knew Hutchinson was presenting false reasons for the terminations; however, they did act to adopt the recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners did know that Pratt and Perry were among the leaders in distributing the petition highly critical of Hutchinson's work, and was clearly on notice that Hutchinson may have ulterior motives in recommending their dismissal.
