The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a sexually hostile work environment and was retaliated against for complaining about the alleged harassment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James E. Gonzales, is a male person who was hired by the Respondent, Pepsi Bottling Group, on March 13, 1995. He was hired as a route sales trainee in the Central Florida marketing unit of that employer. The Pepsi Bottling Group (Pepsi) is responsible for the manufacture sale and delivery of Pepsi products to its vendors. Over the last three years the Central Florida unit has been the foremost marketing unit in the United States. The management of the Central Florida Marketing Unit has been rated by its employees as being the top management team in the country for Pepsi. The Petitioner applied for a Pre-sale Customer Representative (CR) position on March 27, 2003. On April 21, 2003, the Petitioner was assigned to a Pre-Sell (CR) position. As a Pre-Sell CR, the Petitioner was responsible for serving his own accounts; creating and maintaining good will with all customers; ordering customer's products in advance; and developing all assigned accounts relative to sales volume, market share, product distribution, space allocation and customer service. He was responsible for solicitation of new business; selling and executing promotions; soliciting placement of equipment; selling sufficient inventory; and utilizing point of purchase materials to stimulate sales. He was also charged with maintaining "shelf facings" cleaning and shelving and rotating product and merchandising product sections and building displays to stimulate sales. Additionally, he was required to complete and submit all related paperwork regarding sales and promotional operations in an accurate and timely manner. The Petitioner's direct supervisor initially was David Lopez. He was replaced by Wanzell Underwood in approximately August 2003. On December 5, 2002, the Petitioner received the Respondent's employee handbook. The handbook contains the Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Sexual Harassment Policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, disability, etc. including sexual orientation. It encourages employees to immediately report any complaint, without fear of retaliation, to the Human Resources Manager or Human Resources Director. The Respondent's policy has a zero tolerance for retaliation and forbids any retaliatory action to be taken against an individual who in good faith reports a perceived violation of that policy. Employees who feel they have been retaliated against are required to report such retaliation to the Human Resources Manager or Director. The sexual harassment policy of the Respondent prohibits all forms of harassment and clearly sets out complaint procedures for employees to follow in the event they have experienced harassment. They are directed to report any complaint immediately to the Human Resources Manager or Director. Throughout his employment the Respondent received numerous customer complaints regarding the Petitioner's poor performance. The Petitioner received five disciplinary actions against him from the period 2003 through 2005. These "write- ups" were for failing to service customers according to the Respondent's standards and were dated August 2003, April 2004, September 2004, October 2004, and May 2005. On August 1, 2003, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning after the Respondent received a complaint from a customer regarding the amount of out-of-date product in his store and the poor level of service he was receiving from the Petitioner. On April 9, 2004, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning for his failure to prepare his three Circle K stores for a "customer tour," although he had assured his direct supervisor, Mr. Underwood, and the Key Account Manager, Eric Matson, that the store would be ready. The Petitioner's failure to prepare his Circle K stores for the customer's tour embarrassed both his supervisor and the Key Account Manager. On June 23, 2004, the assistant manager at ABC Liquor, a store Gonzales was responsible for, sent an e-mail to Eric Matson complaining about the lack of service provided by Gonzales and requested a new CR to service his store. The customer stated that Gonzales had given nothing but "crappy" service, bad attitude, and sometimes no service. On September 21, 2004, Eric Matson received an e-mail regarding the Petitioner's failure to order product for the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. The Petitioner's supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, visited the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and confirmed the manager's complaints. The Petitioner received a written warning for not properly servicing the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. In the Petitioner's contemporaneous written comments in opposition to the written warning he failed to note that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco was purportedly sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, the Petitioner received a final written warning and one-day suspension after his direct supervisor re-visited the same Mt. Dora Sunoco store that complained previously. The Petitioner was warned that a similar problem in the future would lead to his termination. Again, in the Petitioner's written comments in opposition to his written warning, he made no mention that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store was sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, after the Petitioner was suspended for one day, he requested that the Human Resources Manager, Christopher Buhl, hold a meeting. During the meeting he complained for the first time to the Unit Sales Manager, Howard Corbett, the Sales Operations Manager, Tom Hopkins, and Mr. Buhl, that three years previously, in 2001, one person had told the Petitioner that everyone thought he was "gay" (meaning co-employees). One person asked him if he was gay, according to the Petitioner's story, and one person said, "We all know you're gay," before he became a Pre-Sell CR. The Petitioner, however, refused to cooperate with Mr. Buhl in obtaining information regarding his complaints. At no time during the meeting did the Petitioner complain about being sexually harassed by the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. During the October 11, 2004, meeting the Petitioner claimed his supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, threatened him. However, the Petitioner conceded during the meeting that the alleged statement made by Mr. Underwood was made to a group of Customer Representatives, to the effect that he would "kill you guys if you do not make the sales numbers." Mr. Underwood denied ever threatening to kill the Petitioner. During the meeting the Petitioner also complained that his route was too large and he requested that it be reduced. At no time during that October 11, 2004, meeting did the Petitioner complain that he was sexually harassed by Alice Marsh, the Mt. Dora Sunoco manager. His extensive notes and comments on his Disciplinary Action Reports did not document any such complaint. In November 2004, the Petitioner was asked to go to K- Mart and place an order, but the Petitioner failed to follow instructions and visit the store. Instead, the Petitioner placed the order over the phone. The manager of the store called the Respondent three times to complain about the poor service provided by Mr. Gonzales. Each year the Respondent changes its delivery routes. During the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005, the Respondent re-routed all of its Pre-sell CR routes. The Respondent reduced the Petitioner's route as he had requested and in conformity with its route standards. Despite the Petitioner's allegation to the contrary, in fact the Petitioner's route was not reduced by as much as 50 percent. In May 2005, Key Account Manager, Mike Lewis, visited the Petitioner's K-Mart store to conduct a "Look at the Leader" audit. The Petitioner had been trained and was responsible for preparing the K-Mart for the audit. When Mr. Lewis arrived at the store, the store did not meet the Respondent's standards. Additionally, required product was missing from the displays. Mr. Lewis called Howard Corbett to inform him of the problems. Mr. Corbett called the Petitioner to ask about the missing product. The Petitioner assured him that the product was in the store and on display. The missing product was not displayed, however, and was later found in the back room of the K-Mart store. On May 18, 2005, the Respondent received another e- mail from Charles Pippen, District Manager for Sunoco, complaining of the Petitioner's poor service at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. He claimed that the Petitioner did not reply to phone calls and rarely ordered enough product. On May 19, 2005, the Territory Sales Manager, John York, followed up on that complaint by visiting the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and meeting with the Manager, Alice Marsh. Mr. York was substituting for Mr. Underwood who was out on medical leave. During the meeting, Ms. Marsh complained that the Petitioner did not order the quantity of product she requested, failed to provide adequate signage, and refused to place product where she requested. While at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store, Mr. York observed the problems about which Ms. Marsh had complained. After meeting Ms. Marsh, Mr. York spoke with the Petitioner to inform him of Ms. Marsh's complaints. During his conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner admitted to failing to service the account by not placing the product by the gas pumps as requested, not ordering the amount of product requested, and not hanging certain signs. Later in this conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner informed Mr. York that he believed that the Sunoco Manager's reason for complaining about his service was that he had refused her sexual advances. The Petitioner did not tell Mr. York what the alleged advances consisted of or when they might have occurred. Mr. York, however, in fact was never the Petitioner's supervisor. The Petitioner was responsible for two CVS stores in Mt. Dora. On Friday, May 20, 2005, the Petitioner made an unusual request of his temporary Manager, Dan Manor, for a Saturday delivery to his CVS stores. The Respondent does not normally schedule Saturday deliveries for such "small format" stores like CVS. When Mr. Manor approved the Saturday delivery, he specifically instructed the Petitioner that must meet the bulk delivery driver at the stores to "merchandise" the product, because bulk delivery drivers do not merchandise the product delivered and Mr. Manor did not have a merchandiser assigned to the Mt. Dora stores. The Petitioner agreed to meet the bulk delivery driver at the CVS stores on Saturday. The Petitioner did not advise his supervisor that he had made arrangements with the CVS store manager or a merchandiser regarding alternate arrangements for the Saturday delivery. The supervisor would have expected the Petitioner to do so. On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the Petitioner failed to meet the bulk driver to assist in merchandising the orders at the two CVS stores as instructed. The customer refused to take delivery of the product until a merchandiser was present to merchandise the product. Mr. Manor was unable to reach the Petitioner by telephone because the Petitioner was at Sea World with his family. Mr. Manor had to send a merchandiser from Longwood in order to merchandise the product that the Petitioner had ordered for the CVS stores. On May 23, 2005, the Petitioner failed to attend a weekly mandatory 5:00 a.m. meeting. He did not call his supervisor advising of his unavailability. The Petitioner did call Mr. Manor at about 6:15 a.m. and told him that he had overslept. When Mr. Manor questioned the Petitioner about why he did not meet the bulk driver on Saturday, he said that "he did not get a chance to make it out on Saturday." On May 23, 2005, Mr. Corbett decided to terminate the Petitioner based on his very poor performance. That decision to terminate him was approved by the Respondent's Human Resources Department. On May 26, 2005, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner for failing to service the CVS stores at a critical time, for the services issues at the Sunoco and the K-Mart, and for failing to attend the Monday morning meeting. At the time of his termination the Petitioner was on a final warning and had been advised that he could be terminated. The Petitioner never alleged during his termination meeting that he was being sexually harassed. Howard Corbett provided the Petitioner with documents to file an internal appeal on the day he was terminated. The Petitioner, however, did not appeal his termination as permitted by the Respondent's policy. The Petitioner claims he was the victim of sexual harassment by being subjected to (1) homosexual related comments made in 2001, and (2) alleged sexual overtures by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, in 2003. According to Ms. Marsh, she was never interested in the Petitioner sexually. She did not socialize with the Petitioner, and did not want a relationship with him. She did not touch him and did not state that she wanted the Petitioner fired. She also testified that she never stated that she wanted a sexual relationship with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's allegations regarding sexual harassment by Ms. Marsh related the following behaviors: She touched his back and arm; She was too close to him when he was around; She was nice to him until informed that he was married; She suggested sexual interest by her body language and eyes; and She wore provocative clothing. David Lopez supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2001 to 2003 time period. During this time period the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Lopez that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Lopez did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while working with the Respondent either. Wanzell Underwood supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2003 to 2005 time period. During this time, the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Underwood that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Underwood did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while he worked for the Respondent. The Petitioner never made a compliant regarding the alleged sexual harassment by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, to the Human Resources Department, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. He did not explain the nature of any sexual harassment, even when he finally claimed that he was being harassed. The Respondent would have terminated the Petitioner for his poor performance regardless of whether he engaged in the purported protected activity by complaining of sexual harassment. The Petitioner alleges he was terminated for reasons other than complaining about sexual harassment, including his alleged knowledge of theft in Lake County. In any event, on July 15, 2005, the Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission and the resulting dispute and formal proceeding ensued.
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 29th day of September, 2006, 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 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 E. Gonzales 26437 Troon Avenue Sorrento, Florida 32757 Nicole Alexandra Sbert, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue With regard to DOAH Case No. 98-5090 (FCHR Case No. 95- 5752), the issue is: Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by failing to select Petitioner for the position of environmental manager in the Fall of 1994 because of his age or gender. With regard to DOAH Case No. 98-3611 (FCHR Case No. 96- 1298), the issue is: Whether the Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 by retaliating against Petitioner by terminating him from his position because the Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).
Findings Of Fact DOAH Case No. 98-5090 Discrimination Petitioner began his employment with Respondent in the Southwest District in Tampa on October 1, 1991, as an Engineer III with the air pollution program. He transferred to the Central District in Orlando, Florida, on June 3, 1994. Petitioner is an "employee" and Respondent is an "employer" under the statute. On or about September 26, 1994, Petitioner applied for the position of environmental manager in the Orlando Central District. At the time of his application, he had been with Respondent for almost two years but in the Orlando office for less than four months. Petitioner met the minimum qualifications for the position and is a male over 40 years of age. In September 1994, Alex Alexander was the director of the Central District and the hiring supervisor for the position of environmental manager. Alex Alexander conducted the interviews, decided who would be interviewed, and made the final decision regarding selection. He was assisted in the selection process by James Bradner, who had formerly occupied the environmental manager position. Bradner was an Engineer IV. The previous engineering position was reclassified to environmental manager, prior to advertising it, to eliminate the engineering functions. Alexander was seeking someone who could act as assistant to the director in environmental matters and to represent him on various matters before public and governmental bodies. Alexander determined that it was essential that the candidate have experience in a wide variety of Respondent's regulated programs, as well as with public presentations in dealing with Florida legislators and local government officials, and negotiating and managing Respondent's contracts. In 1994, Alexander was 69 years of age. From the evidence, it appears Alexander had no predisposition as to the age or gender of the selected candidate. He would have preferred a mature candidate if he could have found one who met all of the other requirements. There were 13 applicants for the position of environmental manager of whom nine, including Petitioner, met the minimum qualifications for the position. Four applicants were selected by Alexander to be interviewed, including three females and one male, all under 40 years of age. None of the three male applicants over the age of 40, who met the minimum qualifications for the position, were interviewed. In September 1994, T. Patrick Price was the operations manager for the Central District and his duties included serving as personnel liaison between the Central District and the Bureau of Personnel Services in Tallahassee. As a practical matter, Price's assistant, Minnie Yates, performed most of the clerical functions associated with personnel matters including recruitment and the preparation of recruitment and hiring packages. Price and the selectee, Ruth McLemore, had a "live-in, domestic relationship." They subsequently wed and were married at the time of hearing. Petitioner failed to show that Price was in a position to influence the selection of McLemore, either directly or indirectly. Price removed himself in the early stages from the selection process, when he learned that McLemore had applied for the environmental manager position. Furthermore, had Price not removed himself from the selection process, his role would have been limited to reviewing the applications to determine which applicants possessed the minimum qualifications for the position, and later ensuring that the selected applicant was among the most qualified applicants. The greater weight of evidence did not support the assertion that Price was in a position to influence directly or indirectly, the outcome of the selection process or which candidates were selected for interview. In September 1994, Petitioner had over 20 years of experience as an engineer at the United States Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. However, his experience with programs regulated by Respondent was limited to one year with an Orlando company involving domestic waste, approximately 20 months with the air program in Tampa, and less than four months with the industrial wastewater program in Orlando. Petitioner testified that he had dealt with legislators and their aides in New Hampshire and Maine but offered no proof of experience with the Florida Legislature. Petitioner testified that he did not have experience with or knowledge of Respondent's contracting procedures. While Petitioner testified that he had experience in making public presentations in New Hampshire, and in writing reports in the Southwest District, he failed to attach any writing samples or examples of relevant public presentations to his application. The selected applicant, Ruth McLemore-Price, f/k/a Ruth McLemore, is a white female under 40 years of age. In September 1994, she was an Environmental Specialist III in the Storage Tank program of the Division of Waste Management in the Central District of Respondent. From 1987 to 1988, McLemore was a Biological Scientist I in the Environmental Health Section of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. She was hired by Respondent in 1988 as an Environmental Specialist I in the Domestic Wastewater Section. At the time of her application, she had over seven years of professional experience with environmental programs in Florida, including but not limited to: domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, drinking water, storage tanks, hazardous waste, and solid waste. Additionally, her application includes examples of her numerous public presentations and writing samples. She had extensive contract experience including contracting with local governmental programs. Whereas Petitioner had more years of professional experience, McLemore's experience was more relevant to the position of environmental manager and better met the required knowledge skills and abilities required of the position. Petitioner was unable to produce any proof of his assertion that the group of applicants interviewed must be in statistical parity with protected groups within the District or within Respondent. Rather, the evidence showed that there is no such requirement. Likewise, there was no evidence that merely meeting the minimum qualifications of a position requires that the candidate be interviewed, and the evidence demonstrated this not to be the case. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent classified applicants in such a way so as to discriminate against him due to his age and gender. The evidence showed that the classification of applicants by age, gender, and race was created after the selection process was completed in order to comply with Respondent's requirements, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Civil Rights Act. Further, there was no credible evidence that Respondent's actions were a pretext for discrimination, that the employment decision was grounded in discriminatory animus, or that a discriminatory reason motivated Respondent in its actions. DOAH Case No. 98-3611 In March 1995, following Alexander's retirement, Vivian Garfein became director of the Central District. Within a few days of her arrival, Petitioner approached her and lodged a complaint regarding his non-selection for the environmental manager position. Garfein looked into the matter, and subsequently, advised Petitioner that she found no irregularities in the selection process. Petitioner advised her that he was aware that he had formal remedies and on May 19, 1995, he filed his initial complaint with FCHR. Petitioner alleges that, within hours of complaining to Garfein, a course of retaliation commenced, perpetrated by his immediate supervisor Ali Kazi, which continued until, and was the cause of his resignation in December 1995. These acts included: In April 1995, Kazi returned Petitioner's April timesheet with instructions to complete and sign it before submitting it to his supervisor. Petitioner alleges that this was harassment because it was intended as a preliminary submittal and, therefore, was obviously incomplete. In November 1995, Petitioner alleges that Kazi conducted his performance evaluation and completed it within two minutes. The evaluation encouraged him to attempt to reduce his leave without pay. Petitioner asserted that all of his leave without pay was unavoidable and necessary; and, since he was the hardest worker in the District and kept his work up-to- date, Kazi had no basis for making such a recommendation. Petitioner further alleged that Kazi harassed and retaliated against him by forwarding an e-mail critical of Petitioner which Kazi had received from a supervisor in another program. The remaining incidents of alleged retaliation involve Kazi's refusal to allow Petitioner to make up leave days or requiring him to adjust his timesheet so as not to qualify for vacation pay in August and November 1995. The testimony showed, however, that the timesheet was submitted on the last day of the employee's work month, and it was entirely reasonable for his supervisor to assume that it was his final submittal. It was undisputed that Petitioner took substantial leave without pay (approximately 10 weeks between June 1 and November 7, 1995). This was reasonably perceived by Respondent to be excessive. Petitioner offered no evidence that a longer performance evaluation was in any way required. There was no evidence that Petitioner was ever counseled or otherwise disciplined as a result of the e-mail. Therefore, merely forwarding it could not be deemed as harassment or retaliation. The evidence showed Petitioner had accumulated excessive leave without pay. It was Respondent's policy to discourage excessive leave without pay. It was also undisputed that Kazi had the discretion to perform the acts alleged to be harassment. While it is true that Kazi's actions caused Petitioner to lose pay, the acts are permitted and justified by legitimate business reasons. Additionally, there was no credible evidence that Garfein or any other supervisor had instructed him to treat Petitioner any differently than any other employee.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Donald A. Garrepy, pro se Post Office Box 276 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 For Respondent: Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED as follows: A final order be entered by FCHR dismissing with prejudice the petition of Donald A. Garrepy in DOAH Case No. 98- 5090 (FCHR Case No. 95-5752). A final order be entered by FCHR dismissing with prejudice the petition of Donald A. Garrepy in DOAH Case No. 98- 3611 (FCHR Case No. 96-1298). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Donald A. Garrepy Post Office Box 276 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner was harassed on the basis of national origin or discriminated against on the basis of a disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent in the summer of 1994 and was terminated from his employment on July 28, 1999. The Respondent operates a machine shop where different types of large metal parts are fabricated according to customer order. The Petitioner was employed as a "mill operator" in the "caterpillar" department. As a mill operator, the Petitioner was required to load metal parts into machines for further processing, check the quality of his work, and return the parts to a container of finished parts. At all times material to this case, the Respondent had a policy prohibiting employee harassment on the basis of numerous grounds including "national origin." The policy provided that any employee who believed that such harassment was occurring should report it immediately to a supervisor or to another company official. The non-harassment policy was included in the employee handbook. The Petitioner received the handbook when the Respondent employed him and was aware of the policy. The Petitioner, of Polish origin, asserted that at various times he was harassed on the basis of national origin; specifically, he was sometimes addressed as "pollock" by some co-workers. Although the evidence establishes that employees, perhaps including the Petitioner, occasionally referred to each other by ethnic slurs (i.e., "pollock," "speedy Gonzalez," and "buddha") the testimony regarding such incidents was anecdotal, and the times and dates of such references are uncertain. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment or was harassed on the basis of national origin. Other than as set forth herein, the evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner or any other employee ever advised a supervisor or a manager that co-workers were making ethnic references or that any employee felt harassed by the behavior. In March 1998, a note was taped to the men's restroom door reading "Polish Department – Jerry's [sic] Office." The Petitioner reported the note to his supervisor. A meeting was held with the Petitioner's co-workers on March 16, 1998, where the Respondent's managers advised the employees that such behavior was not acceptable and that similar events in the future would result in disciplinary action against the perpetrators. The Petitioner also asserts that he was discriminated against on the basis of an alleged disability. In December 1998, the Petitioner had a total replacement of his right hip. He was medically cleared to return to work on March 1, 1999, with restrictions of not working more than 10 hours per day for two weeks and not lifting more than 20 pounds. The Petitioner reported for work on March 4, 1999, but was sent home by his supervisor because there was no work that met his restrictions, particularly the weight restriction. Generally the metal parts involved in the Respondent's manufacturing process weighed in excess of 20 pounds. By March 18, 1999, the restrictions were lifted and the Petitioner returned to work without incident until July 1999. On July 6, 1999, the Petitioner received a written warning from a plant supervisor who determined that the Petitioner was not properly inspecting parts being produced in the Petitioner's machine. An excessive number of parts were not within acceptable fabrication tolerances and had to be "re- worked." The warning specifically provided that failure to improve the quality and inspection of parts would result in termination of employment. On July 27, 1999, the Petitioner reported hip pain to his physician and was again placed on a restricted workload that included no lifting of weight in excess of 20 pounds and no "twisting" until the physician determined that the pain had been resolved. Based on the medical restrictions and his experience, the Respondent was unable to locate work suitable for the Petitioner. The Petitioner's employment was terminated because there were no jobs available that complied with the Petitioner's medical restrictions. Review of the Petitioner's performance evaluations establishes that he was generally an average worker who was sometimes warned about becoming too involved in other employees' activities. His evaluations of August 1996 and September 1998 contained references to such involvement and indicated that he should "spend less time worrying" about other employees. The 1996, 1997, and 1998 performance evaluations suggested that the Petitioner obtain additional training in order to advance his career. The Respondent offered a program to fund such training, and notices regarding the training were posted on a bulletin board accessible to employees, but the Petitioner did not take advantage of the program. At the time of the July 1999 medical restrictions, the Petitioner's skill set did not qualify him to perform tasks other than as a mill operator using the machine for which he was originally employed.
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 filed by Jerzy Josefik in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerzy Jozefik 9605 Southwest 27th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34476 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Ignacio J. Garcia, Esquire Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves LLC 600 North Westshore Boulevard, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33609-1117 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) did the College of Central Florida (“CCF”) commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of age and/or sex; and (2) did CCF unlawfully retaliate against Petitioner by firing her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Howell began working in CCF’s lawn maintenance department on August 17, 2015. She worked 25 hours a week performing activities such as removing weeds, picking up debris, and maintaining the flower beds around CCF’s campus. CCF’s lawn maintenance department consisted of approximately 20 people, but Ms. Howell was the only female. At the time of the final hearing, Ms. Howell was 67 years old. Tommy Morelock, CCF’s director of facilities, made the decision to hire Ms. Howell. Ms. Howell claims that her co-workers mistreated her. For example, she asserts that there were at least three occasions when co-workers intentionally drove a four-wheel drive vehicle or a pickup truck into a golf cart driven by her. Another alleged incident involved a co-worker running a finger down her neck. In addition, Thomas Smith supposedly “flipped her off” on numerous occasions throughout her tenure at CCF and referred to her as a “f***ing c*nt.” In approximately August of 2016, after a co-worker allegedly used a vehicle to strike a golf cart driven by Ms. Howell, her fiancée, Newell Melton, called CCF in order to lodge a complaint with Mr. Morelock. Mr. Melton ultimately spoke with Katherine Hunt, one of Mr. Morelock’s subordinates and CCF’s manager of facility operations and construction projects. Ms. Hunt met with Ms. Howell soon afterward about these alleged incidents. Ms. Howell also described how her male co- workers would grab themselves between the legs. However, Ms. Howell did not indicate that those actions were directed toward her. Ms. Howell did not mention any improper conduct by Thomas Smith during her meeting with Ms. Hunt. In late 2016 or early 2017, Ms. Howell also met with Mark Sakowski, another of Mr. Morelock’s subordinates and CCF’s manager of plant safety and facility operations, about one of the vehicle incidents. Mr. Sakowski told Ms. Howell that he would talk to the co-worker in question and asked her to bring any future issues to his attention. Ms. Howell did not mention anything to Mr. Sakowski about Thomas Smith directing obscene gestures toward her. After the meeting, Mr. Sakowski spoke to employees within the lawn maintenance department about professionalism, safety, and having respect for others. Ms. Howell never filed a formal complaint with CCF about her co-workers’ alleged misconduct. At Mr. Morelock’s request, Ms. Howell met with him and Caroline Smith, CCF’s equity officer, on June 7, 2017, to discuss her complaints. During this meeting, Ms. Howell described: (a) how her co-workers would drive vehicles into golf carts she was occupying; (b) the incident in which a co-worker ran a finger down her neck; and (c) a rumor among her co-workers that she was planning to file a sexual harassment complaint. As CCF’s equity officer, Ms. Smith is responsible for investigating student and employee claims of discrimination or harassment. After hearing Ms. Smith’s description of the alleged incidents, she concluded that the allegations involved inappropriate “horseplay” rather than age and/or gender-based discrimination. She then explained CCF’s employee complaint procedure to Ms. Howell, but Ms. Howell declined to initiate a formal complaint. Ms. Howell did not mention Mr. Smith’s alleged misconduct during her meeting with Mr. Morelock and Ms. Smith. In a memorandum dated June 7, 2017, and addressed to Ms. Howell, Mr. Morelock wrote the following: As discussed in our 11:00 AM meeting today with the College Equity Officer, Mrs. Smith, to address your complaints regarding horseplay in the workplace, rumors, and possible harassment, I have met with the 3 employees in your complaint and have addressed these issues. Please let me know immediately if there are any further incidents or if you have any additional concerns. Mr. Morelock noted in the memorandum that Ms. Hunt, Mr. Sakowski, and Ms. Smith received copies. Ms. Howell received a copy of Mr. Morelock’s memorandum shortly after their meeting. At approximately 12:30 p.m. on July 19, 2017, Ms. Howell was nearing the end of her workday and driving a golf cart. She crossed paths with a vehicle driven by Mr. Smith and noticed in her rearview mirror that Mr. Smith was directing an obscene gesture toward her.2/ Ms. Howell proceeded on her way to leaving the CCF campus. However, she reversed course and, with the assistance of another co-worker, spent approximately ten minutes driving around the CCF campus looking for Mr. Smith. Upon finding Mr. Smith at the back of the CCF campus planting junipers, Ms. Howell exited the golf cart and angrily told Mr. Smith to stop directing obscene gestures toward her. According to Mr. Smith, Ms. Howell went into a “tirade.” After confronting Mr. Smith, Ms. Howell left the campus without reporting this new incident to any supervisors. As far as she knew, none of the pertinent supervisors were available. Mr. Smith felt threatened and immediately sought out Mr. Sakowski. Mr. Smith reported that Ms. Howell demanded that he stop spreading rumors about her, and Ms. Howell supposedly stated that CCF, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Smith’s wife “would be sorry.”3/ Rather than obtaining Ms. Howell’s version of the confrontation, Mr. Sakowski and Ms. Hunt spoke to Mr. Morelock, who was on vacation at the time. Mr. Morelock recommended that they confer with CCF’s director of Human Resources and authorized them to resolve the matter as they saw fit. Mr. Sakowski and Ms. Smith called Ms. Howell on July 21, 2017, and notified her that she had been fired. The only explanation given to Ms. Howell was that she did not work well with supervisors and co-workers. Mr. Sakowski explained that he was concerned about his staff’s safety and that of CCF’s students: We take safety very seriously on the campus. And in this day and age with mass-casualty and active-shooter scenarios, we practice these drills on campus on an annual basis. And it did scare me that -- I did not want it [to] make national news. Mr. Sakowski was also concerned by the fact that Ms. Howell confronted Mr. Smith rather than reporting his obscene gesture to a supervisor: Instead of coming back onto campus after leaving her shift, she should have come into the building and either got myself or Ms. Hunt at that time and explained what had just happened instead of taking matters into her own hands. Because Mr. Morelock’s memorandum to Ms. Howell directed her to “[p]lease let me know immediately if there are any further incidents or if you have any additional concerns,” Ms. Hunt considered Ms. Howell to be insubordinate when she confronted Mr. Smith on July 19, 2017.4/ This was the first disciplinary action that CCF had taken against Ms. Howell. Since being fired by CCF, Ms. Howell has unsuccessfully applied for two positions, a greeter at a hospital and a landscaping technician at a local cemetery. While she considers herself to be retired, Ms. Howell is still looking for employment. Ultimate Findings Ms. Howell persuasively testified that Mr. Smith directed an obscene gesture toward her on July 19, 2017. However, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that CCF did not know nor should have known that Mr. Smith directed obscene gestures and/or language toward Ms. Howell. While Ms. Howell consistently testified that she did not discuss Mr. Smith’s conduct with Mr. Sakowski or Ms. Hunt, she gave conflicting testimony as to whether she reported Mr. Smith’s conduct to Mr. Morelock during their meeting on June 7, 2017. In contrast, Carol Smith, CCF’s equity officer, persuasively testified that Mr. Smith’s conduct was not discussed during that meeting.5/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by the Respondent based on race and/or subjected to a hostile work environment based on race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Alphonso Williams, Jr., is an African- American male (Petitioner). Respondent, L. Pugh & Associates (Respondent), is a closely held company in the business of designing, constructing and maintaining fire safety equipment and systems. The company is owned by Larry Pugh and his wife Sharon Pugh. Andy Pugh, the brother of Larry Pugh, is employed by the company as a construction supervisor and spends most the day in the field away from the company’s shop and warehouse. Soni Sully is the company’s office manager and bookkeeper. In 1997, Petitioner was hired by Larry Pugh to run errands for him and to maintain the shop. Petitioner had learned of the job opening from Johnny James, an African-American employee of Respondent’s. Prior to being hired, the employee warned Petitioner about Andy Pugh. The employee intended to communicate that Andy Pugh was a hard, irascible person to work for who did not tolerate mistakes, did not cut anyone any slack, and did not speak in socially polite terms. At hearing, Andy Pugh was described as an ex-marine sergeant. The employee did not intend to communicate that Andy Pugh was a racist. However, Petitioner interpreted the employee’s remarks as such. Throughout this process, Petitioner’s allegations regarding Andy Pugh’s racial slurs towards him have grown initially from three incidents of Mr. Pugh calling Petitioner a "nigger" to, by the time of the hearing, daily racial disparagement. Other than Petitioner’s testimony, there was no evidence of such name calling or such racial disparagement being reported by Petitioner. Contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, there was no evidence from either Petitioner or Respondent that Soni Sully ever issued any racial slurs against Petitioner. Given the lack of corroborative evidence regarding racial slurs and their increasing frequency, Petitioner has failed to establish that he was subjected to such racial slurs while he was employed by Respondent. Petitioner also charged that Andy Pugh would deliberately take the company vehicle assigned to him and assign it to someone on one of the construction crews Mr. Pugh supervised. However, the evidence demonstrated that none of the company’s fleet of vehicles were assigned to any one employee. The company’s vehicles were for use as needed by the company and could be assigned by Andy Pugh as he needed. This policy was explained to Petitioner many times. However, he never seemed to understand the explanation or accept it. Indeed, Petitioner continued to complain to Ms. Sully and Andy Pugh about "his" vehicle being taken. Petitioner’s constant complaints on the subject irritated Andy Pugh who did not always respond politely to Petitioner’s complaints. Petitioner received an hourly wage and mileage for the number of miles he drove. Initially, his hourly wage was $7.00. Over time, his hourly wage was increased to $8.50. By his choice, he received mileage even though he usually drove a company vehicle because it benefited him financially to claim mileage. No employee, including Petitioner, received both mileage and a vehicle allowance. At some point, Respondent instituted a company-wide policy limiting the amount of overtime an employee could work. Larry Pugh felt overtime billing was out-of-control and therefore created the policy. All employees, including Petitioner, were affected by the limitation. When Petitioner complained of the reduction the limitation of overtime caused in his pay, Petitioner was treated more beneficially than other employees and was permitted to work five hours of overtime per week. There was no evidence that Petitioner did not receive the mileage or the hourly pay he was entitled to receive. Likewise, there was no evidence that Petitioner was the only employee required to sign in and out. On June 7, 2001, Petitioner again complained to Andy Pugh about "his" vehicle being taken. At some point, words were exchanged between Andy Pugh and Petitioner. Petitioner alleged that Andy Pugh grabbed him by throat, called him a "nigger" and threatened to kill him. However, the details of this exchange are unclear due to the changing story of Petitioner about those details, the irreconcilable testimony and statements of Petitioner and Mr. Pugh, witnesses to the altercation and the surveillance tape of the premises during the altercation. Other than words being exchanged, there was insufficient evidence to show that this altercation was based on Petitioner’s race or occurred in the physical manner alleged by Petitioner. After talking with Sharon Pugh, Petitioner filed a criminal complaint with the Sheriff’s Department. The details of Petitioner's conversation with Ms. Pugh are unclear. After an investigation, including interviewing witnesses and reviewing the surveillance tape, no arrest or criminal charges were filed against Andy Pugh. Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave until Larry Pugh, who was away, could investigate the incident. Upon his return, Larry Pugh looked into the matter and decided to terminate Petitioner mostly for filing criminal charges against his brother, but also, in part, for other more minor personality conflicts Petitioner had had in dealing with others while on company business. The evidence did not show that Larry Pugh’s reasons for terminating Petitioner were pretextual, retaliatory for Petitioner engaging in a protected activity or based on race. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
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 3rd day of July, 2003, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Frederick J. Gant, Esquire Allbritton & Gant 322 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Michael J. Stebbins, Esquire Michael J. Stebbins, P.L. 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alphonso Williams, Jr. 2415 North "E" Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
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 CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, 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 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Respondent or the Agency), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Sharon Douse (Petitioner), during her employment with the Agency and then by terminating her employment, based upon her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, and the national origin of her spouse, and by illegally retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Sunland Center in Mariana, Florida, is operated by the Agency as an intermediate-care facility for developmentally- disabled individuals. Connally Manor is a residential setting within Sunland Center for 16 developmentally-disabled individuals with significant behavioral and medical involvement. Petitioner began her employment with the Agency on July 15, 2011, until her dismissal on January 5, 2012. During her employment, she was classified as career-service employee, Human Services Worker II, assigned to provide direct care for residents in Connally Manor. As a career-service employee, Petitioner was required to serve a one-year probationary period, during which she was subject to termination at will. While employed with the Agency, Petitioner had a number of performance deficiencies and conflicts with her co-workers and supervisors. On July 22, 2011, Petitioner attended training for the treatment and care of residents. Shortly thereafter, however, Petitioner mishandled residents on at least two occasions. As a result, Joe Grimsley, a senior human services support supervisor for the Agency, suspended Petitioner from working independently with residents, and asked Petitioner to work closely with her peers to learn appropriate care procedures. On August 25, 2011, because of excessive absences and failure to perform duties in a timely manner, Petitioner received counseling from Mr. Grimsley and Agency behavior program supervisor Scott Hewett. Petitioner was counseled for excessive absences because, from July 18 through August 22, 2011, Petitioner took a total of 48 hours of leave time, which was greater than the Agency's policy of no more than 32 hours in a 90-day period. Although Petitioner discussed most of those absences with her supervisor prior to taking the time off, as a result of her absences, Petitioner missed some of her initial training, including professional crisis management training. During the August 25, 2011, counseling session, Mr. Grimsley and Mr. Hewett also discussed other issues of concern with Petitioner, including resident care, following chain of command, team work, proper parking, and data collection sheets. As a follow-up, on the same day as the August 25th counseling, Petitioner received some in-service training regarding proper log book documenting, proper use of active treatment sheet, and unauthorized and excessive absences. Mr. Grimsley permitted Petitioner to go back to her duties of working directly with residents after she received additional training on August 27, 2011. On September 8, 2011, Petitioner's supervisors once again found it necessary to counsel Petitioner regarding resident care, chain of command, teamwork, parking, and data collection, as well as to address two incidences of unsafe handling of residents, and Agency policy regarding food in the bedrooms, and class and work schedules. Because of Petitioner's continued performance deficiencies, on October 5, 2011, Mr. Grimsley wrote an interoffice memorandum to his supervisor, Agency residential services supervisor, Julie Jackson, recommending Petitioner's termination. The memorandum stated: Mrs. Jackson: I am writing to you in regard to Mrs. Sharon Douse HSW II Second Shift Connally Manor Unit 3. Mrs. Douse came to us July 15, 2011, since then she has had three employee documented conferences, due to poor work habits, resulting in corrective action, including retraining. These deficiencies include and are not limited to data collection, excessive absences, and unsafe handling of residents. This past week she was insubordinate to her immediate supervisor by refusing to answer the phone after being requested to do so twice, and being directed that it is part of her job. [Mr. Hewett] as well as my self [sic] has made every effort to help Mrs. Douse achieve her performance expectation; however these attempts have been met with resistance as Mrs. Douse openly refuses to take direction from her supervisors and also to seek the assistance of her peers, who have many years of experience working with the Connally Manor population. Mrs. Douse has not met probationary period. Her continual resistance to positive mentoring and her confrontational attitude and demeanor towards her supervisors and coworkers is creating an increasingly difficult work environment, not only on Connally Manor, but also on the other houses within the unit. It is apparent that Mrs. Douse lacks the willingness to improve her overall poor work performance. I am formally requesting Mrs. Douse to be terminated from her employment here in Unit 3. Mr. Grimsley's testimony at the final hearing was consistent with the above-quoted October 5, 2011, interoffice memorandum, and both his testimony and memorandum are credited. Upon receiving Mr. Grimsley's memorandum, Ms. Jackson submitted a memo dated October 26, 2011, to the Agency's program operations administrator, Elizabeth Mitchell, concurring with the request for Petitioner's termination. In turn, Ms. Mitchell agreed and forwarded her recommendation for termination to Sunland's superintendent, Bryan Vaughan. Mr. Vaughan approved the recommendation for termination, and, following implementation of internal termination proceedings, Petitioner was terminated on January 5, 2012, for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period. Petitioner made no complaints to Mr. Grimsley or anyone else in the Agency's management until after Mr. Grimsley's October 5, 2011, memorandum recommending Petitioner's termination. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Commission on March 29, 2012, after her termination, charges that she was "discriminated against based on retaliation, disability, marital status, sex, color, race and age." The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's allegations. In particular, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination2/ alleges that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her because of her age by "not providing [her] with the same training as offered the other employees -- [professional crisis management training] was offered to the younger employees who were hired at or around the same time [as Petitioner]." The evidence at the final hearing, however, showed that Petitioner was scheduled for, but missed professional crisis management training, because of her absences early in her employment. The evidence also showed that professional crisis management training was not necessary for the position for which Petitioner was hired. Nevertheless, the evidence also demonstrated that, if Petitioner had not been terminated, the Agency intended to provide her with that training. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also asserts that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her by "[n]ot allowing [her] to have . . . scheduled time off . . . [and taking away her] scheduled time off August 12th & 13th and [giving it to a] Caucasian female." The evidence did not substantiate this allegation. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had extraordinary time off during her first two months of employment. Next, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination states that Mr. Grimsley did not follow up on her written concerns and verbal complaints to the "depart[ment] head" regarding the welfare of the disabled residents. Petitioner alleges that she was terminated as a result of her complaint that Mr. Grimsley "sat in the kitchen and baked cookies with the staff who were neglecting disabled residents." Petitioner, however, failed to present any evidence at the final hearing with regard to this allegation. Rather, the evidence showed that, while employed, Petitioner never reported any instances of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Florida Abuse Registry, as required by her training. And, there is no evidence that she reported any such concerns to any outside agency prior to her Charge of Discrimination. Petitioner otherwise presented no evidence suggesting that she was terminated in retaliation for engaging in any protected activity. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination further states that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability because Mr. Grimsley did not allow her to be properly monitored by her physician, and that when she would bring in her doctor's notes, Mr. Grimsley would refuse to put them in her personnel file. The only support for this claim were two medical reports on Petitioner, one prepared in April 2011, and one prepared in October 2011. According to Petitioner, she gave the reports to someone at the Agency's human resources office. She could not, however, identify the person to whom she gave the reports. Also, according to Petitioner, it was in November 2011, after she was recommended for termination, that she gave her medical reports to the Agency to be filed. Considering the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's testimony regarding this allegation is not credible. In addition, the evidence did not show that Petitioner ever asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Rather, based upon the evidence, it is found that Petitioner never advised the Agency, and the Agency was unaware, that Petitioner had a disability. It is also found that Petitioner never asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner, in her Charge of Discrimination, further contends that part of the employee counseling session documented on employee-documented conference forms dated August 25, 2011, and all of the counseling session documented in a September 8, 2011, employee-documented conference form, were held without her, and that some of the concerns expressed on those documents were fabricated. There were two forms documenting discussions from the August 25th session that were submitted into evidence — - one was signed by Petitioner, the other was not. The employee-documented conference form from the September 8, 2011, session was signed by Petitioner's supervisors, but not Petitioner. Mr. Grimsley, who was present for all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the forms, testified that the documented discussions occurred, but that he just forgot to get Petitioner's signatures on all of the forms. During the final hearing, Petitioner acknowledged most of the documented discussions, including two incidents of mishandling residents and the resulting prohibition from working with residents imposed on her until she received additional training. Considering the evidence, it is found that all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the three forms actually took place, and that they accurately reflect those discussions and the fact that Petitioner was having job performance problems. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also alleges that a fellow employee discriminated against her because of her age and race based on an incident where, according to Petitioner, a co-worker screamed and yelled at her because Petitioner had not answered the house telephone. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted into evidence affidavits regarding the incident from the co-worker and another worker who observed the incident. Neither of the affidavits supports Petitioner's contention that she was discriminated against. Rather, they both support the finding that Petitioner had trouble getting along with co-workers and accepting directions from Agency staff. Further, according to Petitioner, after she talked to Mr. Grimsley about the incident, he spoke to both Petitioner and the co-worker, and their conflict was resolved. The incident occurred after Mr. Grimsley had already recommended that Petitioner be terminated. Finally, Petitioner alleges in her Charge of Discrimination that Mr. Hewett discriminated against her based upon her marital status, race, and the national origin of her spouse. In support, Petitioner contends that Mr. Hewett "made rude comments about art work on my locker that Scott knew my husband had drawn[,]" asked, "[do] blacks like classical music?" and, upon seeing Petitioner's apron that was embroidered with a Jamaican flag, Mr. Hewett said, "You can't trust things from overseas," when he knew that her husband was Jamaican. Petitioner also stated that Mr. Hewett "bullied her" about answering the telephone. While Petitioner testified that she wrote to Agency management regarding these comments and the alleged bullying by Mr. Hewett, she did not retain a copy. The Agency claims that Petitioner never complained about these alleged comments or Mr. Hewett's alleged bullying while she was an employee. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and Petitioner's demeanor during her testimony, it is found that Petitioner did not raise these allegations against Mr. Hewett until after her termination from the Agency. It is further found that if Mr. Hewett made the alleged comments, as described by Petitioner during her testimony, Mr. Hewett's comments were isolated and not pervasive. Further, Petitioner's testimonial description of Mr. Hewett's comments did not indicate that his comments were overtly intimidating, insulting, or made with ridicule, and the evidence was insufficient to show, or reasonably suggest, that Mr. Hewett's alleged comments made Petitioner's work environment at the Agency hostile or intolerable. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that the Agency discriminated against Petitioner by treating her differently, creating a hostile work environment, or terminating her because of her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, or her spouse's national origin. Petitioner also failed to show that the Agency retaliated against her because of any complaint that she raised or based upon Petitioner's engagement in any other protected activity.
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 Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 7th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action against Petitioner contrary to Sections 760.10(1)(a) and 760.10(7), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who worked for Respondent's Division of Administrative Services from September 1992 through May 2006. Throughout her tenure, Petitioner consistently received favorable personnel evaluations. During her employment, Petitioner received only the legislatively mandated annual state worker pay increases. However, at the time she was terminated in May 2006, Petitioner was the highest paid non-supervisory employee in Respondent's Division of Administrative Services. At that time, Petitioner was making $70,000. From September 1992 until November 1993, Petitioner worked as Respondent's human resources/relations administrator. Sandy DeLopez, a white female who served as Respondent's Director of Administrative Services, was on the selection team that hired Petitioner for the position of human relations administrator. In that position, Petitioner was charged with the intake and administration of race-based discrimination complaints within the agency. Petitioner supervised two employees in her position as human relations administrator. In November 1993, Respondent moved Petitioner to the Office of Employee Relations. This move occurred because the former human relations administrator wanted to return to her previous position. There is no evidence that Petitioner objected to being moved to the Office of Employee Relations. In the Office of Employee Relations, Petitioner reported to Ken Wilson, the manager. While under his supervision, Petitioner handled employee grievances and drug testing, as well as maintaining Respondent's Supervisor Assistance System (SAS), a statewide computer program for supervisors. In 1997, Respondent moved Petitioner into the Bureau of Personnel Services. This move was in conjunction with Mr. Wilson's move to the Bureau of Personnel Services as Bureau Chief. Petitioner's assignment was to continue handling special projects, including the drug testing program and the SAS computer program. The Office of Employee Relations became the employee relations section in the Bureau of Personnel Services when Mr. Wilson became Bureau Chief. The Bureau of Personnel Services had other sections, including benefits, pay and classification, and employment. In 1997, the pay and classification section was combined with the employment section, and referred to thereafter as the organization development section. When Mr. Wilson became Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Personnel Services, his previous job position as manager of employee relations remained vacant after being advertised two times. Petitioner told Mr. Wilson that she was interested in filling his former position but she did not apply for the position either time it was advertised. Mr. Wilson had a very open relationship with Petitioner. Petitioner frequently told Mr. Wilson that she wanted or needed more money. Mr. Wilson never told Petitioner that Ms. DeLopez would not let Petitioner fill his former position as manager of the employee relations section because Ms. DeLopez had a "hard-on" for Petitioner. Mr. Wilson never heard Ms. DeLopez make the following statements: (a) referring to Petitioner as another one of Mr. Wilson's experiments that had failed; and (b) Petitioner could have been one of "Ms. Ever's boys." There is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained to Mr. Wilson about any statement by Ms. DeLopez. From June 1995 to March 1997, Rene Knight, a white female, was manager of the benefits section in the Bureau of Personnel Services. As manager, Ms. Knight was a senior personnel manager with supervision responsibilities. In March 1997, Ms. Knight applied for, and was appointed to, the position of manager of the organization development section. Her title continued to be senior personnel manager. In June 1997, Ms. Knight began dating Jim Hage, a white male, who worked in the one of the areas under Ms. Knight's supervision. For that reason, Ms. Knight requested a job reassignment as manager of the employee relations section. Mr. Wilson granted Ms. Knight's request for the lateral reassignment that did not require advertisement or an increase in pay. In the Bureau of Personnel Services, the pay grade for the manager of employee relations had been downgraded from a pay grade of 26 to a pay grade of 24. Ms. Knight kept her pay grade of 24 after the lateral transfer. Petitioner's pay grade was 25. It would have been a demotion for Petitioner to accept the position of manager of employee relations. After Ms. Knight moved into the position as manager of the employee relations section, her old position was advertised as vacant. Petitioner did not apply for that position. Subsequently, Ms. Knight married Mr. Hage. Later in 2002, Mr. Hage applied for and was appointed as a manager in one of the sections in the Bureau of Personnel Services. There is no evidence that Petitioner applied for that job when it was advertised. In any event, Mr. Hage's managerial position would have been a demotion for Petitioner. In April 2002, Respondent transferred Petitioner into the Office of Program Support. The move was the result of a need to accommodate a disabled employee, who was put in charge of the drug testing program, formerly part of Petitioner's duties. There is no evidence that Petitioner objected to the transfer. In the Office of Program Support, Petitioner served as a management review specialist and worked under the supervision of Mallory Horne, Jr., then Chief of Staff. Mr. Horne reported directly to Ms. DeLopez. In the Office of Program Support, Petitioner participated in special projects, such as executing the STARS report and working on workers' compensation claims. In 2003, Ms. Knight became the Assistant Chief of Personnel Services just before Mr. Wilson retired. Ms. Knight received this lateral transfer/reassignment because she had served as a manager/supervisor in just about every office in the Bureau of Personnel Services. Ms. Knight was appointed Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Personnel Services when Mr. Wilson retired in May 2003. The Bureau Chief position was a promotion to a higher pay grade for Ms. Knight. The most persuasive evidence indicates that Petitioner was not qualified for the Bureau Chief job. Unlike Ms. Knight, Petitioner did not have five years of experience as a supervisor in the human resources area. In 2002 or 2003, Ms. DeLopez authorized Petitioner's participation in Respondent's Educational Leave with Pay Program. The program allows employees to be full-time students for the final year of their educational programs, with Respondent paying the costs of the programs, as well as their full salary and benefits. Ms. DeLopez also personally authorized at least one semester longer than the usual term for Petitioner because she needed extra time to complete the coursework for a doctorate in instructional systems. Petitioner completed the coursework but did not earn the doctoral degree. When Ms. Knight became Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Personnel Services, Ms. Knight recommended that Cindy Mazzar, a white female, apply for the position of manager of employee relations. Ms. Mazzar applied for and was appointed to the position. Petitioner did not apply for the job and never told Ms. Knight that she was interested in filling the position. In 2004, Kristen Watkins, a white female, applied for and was appointed to the advertised position of human resources manager. Petitioner did not apply for the job. The position of human resources manager would have been a lateral transfer for Petitioner if she had been interested. It would not have increased her pay grade. In 2006, Petitioner continued to work for Mr. Horne in the Office of Program Support as a management review specialist. In that capacity, Petitioner continued to serve as a special projects person. Among other things, Petitioner helped develop an agency-wide safety program. Toward the end of April 2006, Respondent decided to implement a realignment of some of its administrative offices. The reorganization called for the elimination of the Office of Program Support and for Petitioner to be transferred to the Bureau of Personnel Services, working under Ms. Knight as Bureau Chief, and under Ms. DeLopez as Division Director of Administrative Services. As with any reorganization, Respondent wanted to find a position for Petitioner rather than terminate her employment. However, there is no evidence that there ever was a vacant position to which Petitioner preferred to be assigned rather than moving to personnel services. On April 24, 2006, Petitioner received a telephone call from Ms. DeLopez, asking Petitioner to attend a meeting in Ms. Knight's office. During the meeting, Ms. DeLopez informed Petitioner that due to the realignment, effective May 1, 2006, Petitioner would work in Bureau of Personnel Services with Ms. Knight performing Petitioner's Annual Performance Evaluation. Petitioner's office furniture would be moved to her new office on May 3, 2006. Petitioner inquired whether the new job assignment was a promotion. Ms. DeLopez responded by commenting that Petitioner already was the highest paid employee in administrative services that was not a Bureau Chief. Ms. DeLopez also stated that when a Bureau Chief position became available, Petitioner could compete for it. On April 25, 2006, Ms. Knight scheduled a meeting with Petitioner to discuss her currently assigned work projects. The meeting was set for 3:00 p.m. on April 26, 2006, in the personnel services conference room. On April 26, 2006, Ms. Knight sent Mr. Horne an e-mail, requesting a copy of Mr. Horne's position description for Petitioner. Ms. Knight also wanted to know Petitioner's job responsibilities and assigned projects with timelines. On April 26, 2006, Petitioner sent Ms. DeLopez an e- mail, requesting an opportunity to discuss the personnel action being taken. Petitioner wanted Ms. DeLopez to know that Petitioner was seeking an opportunity to advance within the agency and that she wanted to discuss further options. Around 1:00 p.m. on April 26, 2006, Petitioner went to Ms. DeLopez' office uninvited and with no appointment. Ms. DeLopez was working in her office suite alone. Petitioner began talking to Ms. DeLopez about Petitioner wanting to make more money. As the conversation continued, Petitioner became agitated and hostile. When Petitioner would not stop talking, Ms. DeLopez stood up to leave the office. Petitioner, who was standing in the doorway, then stated that she would call 911 if Ms. DeLopez left the office. At that point, Ms. DeLopez felt threatened and decided to leave the room. Petitioner followed Ms. DeLopez down the hall to the office of Lieutenant Colonel Rick Gregory of the Florida Highway Patrol. Ms. DeLopez informed Lt. Col. Gregory that she could not make Petitioner disengage. Lt. Col. Gregory told Petitioner to go back to her office and asked Ms. DeLopez to stay in his office to talk to him. Lt. Col. Gregory went to Petitioner's office a few minutes before 2:00 p.m. He advised Petitioner about a meeting with Ms. Knight that afternoon at 2:00 p.m. In the 2:00 p.m. meeting, Ms. Knight explained that she would be the in-take officer for Petitioner's complaint against Ms. DeLopez. Petitioner stated that she did not want to discuss her complaint with Ms. Knight because both of them were subordinate to Ms. DeLopez. Petitioner also would not discuss her complaint without having someone else in the room. Petitioner then told Ms. Knight that Petitioner was leaving the meeting and that Ms. Knight should "just go ahead and call the police." Ms. Knight and Petitioner never had the 3:00 p.m. meeting to discuss Petitioner's new job responsibilities. Later on the afternoon of August 26, 2006, Petitioner had a meeting with Fred Dickinson, Respondent's Executive Director, David Westberry, Respondent's Deputy Executive Director, and Lieutenant Colonel Austin of the Florida Highway Patrol. Petitioner misunderstood the results of this meeting. She erroneously thought the following: (a) the planned move of her office location would be placed on hold; (b) she would not work for Ms. DeLopez or Ms. Knight; and (c) she would contact the Executive Director's office the week of May 8, 2006, to schedule an appointment to explore other options with the agency. On April 28, 2006, Ms. DeLopez sent Petitioner an e-mail. The message requested her work schedule, an outline of her work assignments, and a list of projects or activities that Petitioner was working on for the week of May 1-5, 2006. On May 1, 2006, Petitioner responded with the requested information by e-mail. In a letter to Mr. Westberry dated May 8, 2006, Petitioner described her employment history at the agency and samples of her work, including but not limited to a concept paper relating to technological innovations and workplace performance. The letter stated that Petitioner wanted to discuss employment options within the agency. The May 8, 2006, letter and attached documents were not responsive to the request that Mr. Dickenson and Mr. Westberry made in the August 26, 2008, meeting. The documents did not identify a position or place within the agency where Petitioner could be of value to the organization and benefit Petitioner at the same time. During a meeting on May 8, 2006, Petitioner gave the above referenced letter and documents to Mr. Westberry. Because Petitioner could not identify another vacant position in the agency that she preferred, Mr. Westberry directed Petitioner to coordinate with Ms. Knight about future job duties. On May 11, 2006, Petitioner participated in a meeting in Mr. Westberry's office where Ms. Knight and Petitioner sat together on a love seat. Later, Petitioner falsely accused Ms. Knight of having intentionally kicked Petitioner when Ms. Knight crossed or uncrossed her legs. In a letter dated May 11, 2006, from Petitioner to Mr. Westberry, Petitioner complained that Ms. DeLopez had subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment, disparate hiring and promotional practices, and a form of retaliation. The letter states that Petitioner's complaint stems from an extended period of time during her employment and most recently on April 26, 2006. The letter requested that someone other than Ms. Knight be assigned as the complaint in-take officer. The letter did not specify race, gender, age, or any specific form of discrimination as a basis for the alleged mistreatment. In a letter dated May 12, 2006, from Mr. Westberry to Petitioner, he states that he received Petitioner's complaint naming Ms. DeLopez and Ms. Knight as parties. In the letter, Mr. Westberry directed Petitioner to go to Maggie Lamar, Senior Consultant in the employee relations section, who would serve as the in-take officer and investigator of Petitioner's complaint. Mr. Westberry advised Petitioner that Ms. Lamar would report directly to Judd Chapman, as Respondent's counsel, and Mr. Dickenson. In the mean time, Mr. Westberry directed Petitioner to continue under the direct supervision of Ms. Knight. Mr. Westberry specifically directed Petitioner to contact Ms. Knight prior to close of the business day to clarify work assignments and related responsibilities. On May 12, 2006, Petitioner sent Mr. Westberry a letter. In the letter, Petitioner states that she had contacted Ms. Knight to clarify job responsibilities. According to the letter, Ms. Knight had not provided Petitioner with information about Petitioner's work assignments and related responsibilities. The letter states Petitioner's concerns that Ms. Knight will abuse her authority as Petitioner's supervisor. The letter includes Petitioner's requests as follows: (a) that Respondent have Ms. Knight clarify Petitioner's work assignments and related responsibilities in writing pending completion of the investigation of Petitioner's complaint; and (b) that Respondent provide a witness during any meeting or conversations between Petitioner and Ms. Knight. In a letter dated May 16, 2006, Mr. Westberry acknowledged Petitioner's May 12, 2006, letter. Mr. Westberry then proceeded to clarify his previous instructions as follows: (a) Petitioner should attend a meeting with Ms. Knight and Mr. Chapman at 11:00 a.m. on May 17, 2006; and (b) In the absence of any documented threat to Petitioner's personal safety, Respondent would not provide a witness to document day- to-day discussions between Petitioner and Ms. Knight. Finally, Mr. Westberry reminded Petitioner of the appointment of Ms. Larmar as the in-take officer for Petitioner's complaint. On May 16, 2006, Ms. Knight sent Petitioner an email. The e-mail alleged that Petitioner had not been at work and had not requested sick leave or any other kind of leave on May 15, 2006. Ms. Knight had left Petitioner several written and telephone messages at Petitioner's office. Ms. Knight called Petitioner's home. Petitioner did not respond to any of the messages on the day in question. Ms. Knight's e-mail urged Petitioner to contact Ms. Knight as soon as possible to discuss work assignments. Petitioner responded to Ms. Knight's May 16, 2006, e-mail by requesting a 4:00 p.m. meeting on May 17, 2006. On May 17, 2006, Ms. Knight sent Petitioner an e-mail, confirming a meeting at 4:00 p.m. in Petitioner's office with Ms. Knight and Mr. Chapman. During the 4:00 p.m. meeting on May 17, 2006, Petitioner gave Ms. Knight a written statement. The statement asserts, in part, that Petitioner considered the meeting to be a continued abuse of authority by Ms. DeLopez and Ms. Knight with the intent to adversely affect Petitioner's employment. During the meeting, Petitioner for the first time accused Ms. Knight of kicking Petitioner on May 11, 2006, in Mr. Westberry's office. It was during this meeting that Ms. Knight first knew about Petitioner's unhappiness with being transferred to the Bureau of Personnel Services. On May 17, 2006, Petitioner sent Ms. Knight an e-mail referencing the 4:00 p.m. meeting. The message provided Ms. Knight with Petitioner's schedule for May 18 and 19, 2006. Petitioner stated she was available to meet with Ms. Knight at her convenience within the confines of that schedule. On May 19, 2006, Ms. Knight visited Petitioner's office at 2:45 p.m. because Ms. Knight wanted to make sure Petitioner knew about the meeting scheduled with Ms. Knight on May 23, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. During the visit, Ms. Knight and Petitioner discussed their professional relationship. Ms. Knight advised Petitioner that everything would work out as long as Petitioner refrained from making further false allegations. Petitioner then said she knew Ms. Knight had not meant to bump Petitioner with her foot in the May 11, 2006, meeting in Mr. Westberry's office. Ms. Knight answered that if Petitioner knew it was an accident, why did Petitioner accuse Ms. Knight of kicking her in front of Judd Chapman in the May 17, 2006, meeting. After the meeting with Ms. Knight on May 19, 2006, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Kay Pietrewicz, Ms. Knight's personal assistant. The e-mail states that Petitioner wanted to change the time of the 9:30 a.m. meeting on May 23, 2006, with Ms. Knight because it conflicted with an unspecified commitment that Petitioner wanted to honor. The message went on to express Petitioner's view of her employment issues, including details of the alleged kicking incident and subsequent conversations with Ms. Knight regarding that incident. After work on May 19, 2006, Ms. Knight got a call at home from Ms. Pietrewicz. During that conversation, Ms. Knight learned about Petitioner's e-mail to Ms. Pietrewicz. Ms. Knight subsequently sent Petitioner an e-mail, giving her a direct order to cease communications relative to her employment issues with any employee except Ms. Knight and Ms. Lamar. Ms. Knight advised Petitioner that the meeting at 9:30 a.m. on May 23, 2006, would take place as scheduled. On May 23, 2006, Petitioner sent Ms. Knight an e-mail to recap the meeting they had earlier in the day. The e-mail indicates that the following topics were discussed during the meeting: (a) the physical move of Petitioner's office furniture on May 24, 2008; (b) the signing of certain administrative forms; (c) the reduction of Petitioner's annual leave balance by eight hours because Petitioner had not been at work on May 15, 2006; (d) the drafting of Petitioner's position description; (e) Petitioner's volunteer/mentor activities; (f) Ms. Knight's direction for Petitioner to refrain from sending e-mails like the one she sent to Ms. Pietrewicz on May 19, 2008; Petitioner's dissatisfaction with her work assignment; Petitioner's computer skills; and (i) Petitioner's project assignment to begin updating the SAS. In a letter dated May 24, 2006, Mr. Westberry advised Petitioner that her employment was terminated effective at the close of business that day. Mr. Westberry made the decision to fire Petitioner 12 days after referring Petitioner to Ms. Lamar. At the time of Petitioner's termination, there was no pending complaint because Petitioner had not contacted Ms. Lamar. Instead of discussing her complaint with the designated in-take officer, Petitioner continued to demonstrate unwillingness to accept the responsibilities assigned to her as a result of the agency reorganization. Three law enforcement officers went to Petitioner's office around 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2006. They delivered the termination letter and offered to escort Petitioner out of building. Respondent uses officers to escort terminated employees when the agency has concerns that termination might be less than a mutual parting of the ways. In this case, Petitioner refused to sign the termination letter or to leave the building. Petitioner inquired about what would happen if she did not leave. After hearing the response to her question, Petitioner stated that the officer would have to arrest her and take her to jail. Next, Petitioner called her husband and the Tallahassee Democrat. When Lt. Col. Austin arrived, he talked to Petitioner alone. He was unsuccessful in persuading Petitioner to leave the premises. When the officers re-entered Petitioner's office, Petitioner confirmed that she wanted to be arrested rather than leave the office voluntarily. The officers then put the handcuffs on Petitioner and began to inventory her purse. Lt. Col. Austin reentered the office, accompanied by Petitioner's husband. After removing the handcuffs, all of the officers left the office so that Petitioner could talk to her husband alone. The officers continued to wait for Petitioner to leave the building. Other officers and Petitioner's pastor arrived to offer assistance in persuading her to exit the building. Petitioner eventually left the premises without being arrested. On May 24, 2006, Ms. DeLopez was afraid for her personal safety after the termination letter was delivered to Petitioner. Ms. DeLopez requested that Mr. Westberry escort her to her car at the end of the workday. Mr. Westberry complied with the request. On May 25, 2008, Petitioner attempted to call Ms. Lamar by telephone. In a letter dated May 26, 2008, Petitioner requested Ms. Lamar to move forward with the processing of her complaint against Ms. DeLopez and Ms. Knight for retaliatory and harassing behaviors toward Petitioner. Petitioner's letter did not allege that the behavior of Ms. DeLopez and Ms. Knight was due to a specific type of unlawful discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. 1882 Capital Circle Northeast, Suite 206 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Glen A. Bassett, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, City of Edgewater (the City), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her age, gender, and/or disability by the manner in which the City terminated Petitioner’s employment. Also at issue is whether Petitioner’s termination was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaints regarding discriminatory conduct by her immediate superior.
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a white female who was over the age of 40 during the events relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner was hired by the City as a part-time animal control officer on June 9, 1993. At the time Petitioner was hired, animal control was part of the City’s police department. On October 15, 1993, Petitioner was transferred to a full-time position as records clerk/telecommunicator in the police department. Petitioner maintained the department’s records and answered all police calls, including 911 calls. She dispatched officers and emergency personnel. Petitioner testified that this was a desk job with no real physical requirements beyond walking to a window to deal with members of the public. She received excellent evaluations and stayed in this position until early 1999. While working this job, Petitioner obtained police training at Daytona State College. Upon graduation, Petitioner applied for a job as a police officer with the City. On February 19, 1999, the City hired Petitioner as a police officer. Petitioner was promoted to sergeant on May 7, 2006, and served in that position until her demotion following an altercation with a female detainee in the City’s holding facility on June 16, 2011. Petitioner was continuously employed by the City for 18 years and eight months. During her employment, she received regular pay increases and numerous commendations. Over the years, she received three written warnings and one demotion, from sergeant to officer after the incident on June 16, 2011. Chief of Police David Arcieri characterized her disciplinary record as good in light of Petitioner’s length of service. During the course of her employment, Petitioner had multiple health problems. In 2001, during work-related mountain bike training, Petitioner suffered a fall that badly injured her shoulder.3/ Petitioner had surgery and recalled that she missed at least four months of work. When she came back to work, Petitioner was unable to perform the normal duties of a police officer. She was allowed to return in a light-duty desk position, working with the City’s chief of grants. She worked in this position for approximately six months before returning to regular duty as a police officer. In 2004, Petitioner was diagnosed with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). Petitioner testified that she freely discussed her condition with her co-workers because of the problems she had establishing a medication regime that did not cause allergic reactions. Until late 2011, she was forced to give herself painful injections in the stomach. She now has a port implanted that allows her to take the medications via infusion. Chief Arcieri confirmed that it was common knowledge in the City’s police force that Petitioner had lupus. Petitioner testified that she missed very little work because of the lupus and RA. She requested no accommodations in the workplace for these conditions. Sometime in 2009, Petitioner underwent neck surgery to repair a disc “that was almost gone.” Petitioner recalled discussing her condition with then-Sergeant Arcieri4/ prior to the surgery. They talked about the fact that her doctors were unsure whether the neck condition had been brought on by her RA. Petitioner testified that she was out of work for two or three months due to this surgery, but did not require a light-duty assignment when she reported back to her position. On September 22, 2009, Petitioner was at work conducting a witness interview when her nose began bleeding uncontrollably. A fellow officer drove her to the emergency room. Another city employee came to the emergency room to make sure Petitioner got home safely. At the hospital, Petitioner was diagnosed with hypertension. She missed several days of work and was placed on medications to control her blood pressure. City Manager Tracey Barlow testified that he was contemporaneously aware of Petitioner’s hypertension. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodations for her hypertension. In early 2010, Petitioner was out of work for a time with uncontrolled vomiting and diarrhea. Petitioner’s physician, Dr. Beatrice Bratu, diagnosed her condition as stress-induced colitis. Petitioner testified that her treatments for the colitis lasted about three months but that she was back at work within a few weeks. On March 15, 2010, Personnel Director Donna Looney addressed the following email to Petitioner: We are very pleased to see you back and doing well! I am in receipt of a note from Dr. Bratu which indicated you may return to work. I want to stress that we understand the necessity for you to follow your doctor’s instructions. No restrictions are noted; therefore you are allowed to continue your regular duties. Please be advised that you have a continuing obligation not to work when you are feeling impaired (fatigue, weakness, pain, etc.). It is City policy that if you expect to have any adverse side effect while taking medication, you must inform your supervisor, and you are never to drive a City vehicle when you are feeling impaired. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodation related to her colitis. On June 16, 2011, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with a 28-year-old female detainee at the City police station. Several officers submitted witness statements about the incident and police station video cameras captured the essentials of the acts that occurred. The video recording did not include sound. The detainee, J.G., had been arrested for battery and was by all accounts heavily intoxicated and belligerent. J.G. asked to go to the bathroom. Petitioner let her out of the cell and escorted her to the bathroom. The video shows Petitioner standing in the open doorway of the bathroom, waiting for J.G. to finish. Petitioner told the police department’s internal affairs investigator that J.G. asked for tampons. Petitioner responded that the police department did not keep such items and that she would have to clean up as best she could with the materials available in the bathroom. J.G. replied that she could not put back on the shorts she had been wearing. She stated they were not her shorts and they were bloody. Petitioner told her that she had to put the shorts back on. At this point, the video shows the shorts flying out of the bathroom and landing behind Petitioner, who kicked them back into the bathroom and stepped into the doorway. J.G., stepping into camera range, picked up the shorts and threw them at Petitioner. The shorts hit Petitioner along her beltline. Petitioner took a step forward and struck J.G. in the face with her open right hand. J.G. pushed forward momentarily, but retreated into the bathroom as Petitioner continued to advance. At this point, Officer Eric Selvaggio entered the picture to assist. For a period of roughly forty seconds, all three people were inside the bathroom, invisible to the camera. The doors then opened, and the three emerged. The two police officers guided the handcuffed J.G. toward a point outside the range of the camera. J.G. wore only a shirt and underwear. The video next cut to an empty holding cell. Petitioner and Officer Selvaggio entered the picture, guiding the handcuffed J.G. toward the cell. J.G. continued to struggle with the officers. She dropped to the ground. The officers pulled her to her feet and pushed her into the cell. J.G. kicked at Petitioner. The camera angle made it impossible to see whether there was contact, but Petitioner stated at the time, and has consistently maintained since the incident, that J.G. kicked her in the stomach. Immediately after the kick, Petitioner attempted to push her way past Officer Selvaggio toward J.G. Petitioner drew back her right fist but Officer Selvaggio’s left arm blocked her from throwing a punch. He pushed Petitioner away and then secured J.G. in the holding cell. Though there is no sound on the video, it is clear that Petitioner and J.G. continued an animated conversation after J.G. was locked in the cell. Multiple police witnesses recalled Petitioner calling J.G. a “fucking bitch.” Petitioner and the other officers on duty went out the back door to discuss the situation. The video appears to show Petitioner performing a joking reenactment of her attempted punch at J.G. Officer Selvaggio stated to the investigator that Petitioner told him she might not charge J.G. for the incident, but he replied that under the circumstances it would be best if she did follow through with charges. Petitioner filled out a charging affidavit against J.G., charging her with battery on a law enforcement officer, in violation of section 784.07(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In her charging affidavit, Petitioner wrote as follows, in relevant part, verbatim: On June 16, 2011 at approximately 12:45 a.m., the defendant, [J.G.] was in police custody at the Edgewater Police Department on a battery charge from a previous police call. The defendant requested to use the bathroom and was escorted to the bathroom by me. The defendant was upset over being arrested, while sitting on the toilet, she kicked off her shorts and threw them out of the restroom stating that she was not putting them back on as they were not hers and were soiled from her menstrual cycle. I pushed the shorts back into the restroom with my foot and advised her she needed to put them back on, she screamed she was not going to. When the defendant rose from the toilet, she picked up the shorts and threw them directly into my face, striking me with the shorts. The defendant then pushed herself up against the sink and began calling me a bitch and telling me again she was not putting the shorts back on and she was leaving. I entered and attempted to get her out of the bathroom, she began to punch at me. Myself and Officer Selvaggio, who was standing nearby, grabbed hold of the defendant in an effort to get her out of the bathroom. The defendant struggled against us, before we got her to the floor and secured her. As we were getting her back into the cell, the defendant threw herself onto the bench and kicked out striking me in the stomach with her right foot. The defendant was left in the cell with no shorts on and in handcuffs . . . . It should be noted that Petitioner’s charging affidavit states that J.G. hit her in the face with the bloody shorts, when in fact the shorts hit Petitioner in the waist area. Petitioner failed to mention that she slapped J.G. in the bathroom or that Petitioner attempted to punch J.G. in the holding cell. Chief Arcieri testified that when he came in later that morning, he reviewed all of the reports filed since the previous day. Petitioner’s report caught his eye because it involved battery on a law enforcement officer inside the station house. He instructed his assistant to pull the video of the incident and make one copy for him and one for Petitioner. When he saw the video, Chief Arcieri notified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”) and requested an investigation. Chief Arcieri testified that he went to FDLE because he thought criminal charges could ensue in the case and that he does not like to investigate criminal matters internally. He also ordered an internal affairs investigation, but placed it on hold pending the outcome of the FDLE investigation. On June 21, 2011, Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave for the duration of the investigations. J.G. refused to cooperate with the FDLE investigators. Without a victim willing to go forward, no criminal charges could be brought against Petitioner. The FDLE investigation was dropped. The internal affairs investigation was completed on August 15, 2011. The investigator’s written report concluded as follows: Sgt. Winston did commit the act of perjury on an official felony charging affidavit. Sgt. Winston did in fact using her hand strike a prisoner in the face which caused her to fall back onto the sink. Sgt. Winston did reach her right arm over the shoulder of Officer Selvaggio in an attempt to strike a handcuffed prisoner which Officer Selvaggio was attempting to secure inside the holding cell. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by removing a prisoner, removing the prisoner’s handcuffs without another officer present and allowed the prisoner to use the restroom. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Policy & Procedure by entering the cell/booking area wearing both her issued side arm as well as her issued taser. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by openly criticizing the policy of securing any and all weapons prior to entering the booking/cell area when prisoners are present. This was done openly in the presence of fellow officers. Sgt. Winston violated City Policy and Procedure 12.02 Inappropriate/Unacceptable Behavior. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police Department Policy & Procedure Excessive force not resulting in injury. Petitioner was represented by counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) in defending herself against the allegations that resulted from the internal affairs investigation. Negotiations ensued between the City and Petitioner to resolve the matter short of litigation. A settlement agreement was reached and executed on August 24, 2011. Petitioner agreed to findings that some of the allegations were sustained.5/ Petitioner agreed to a demotion from sergeant to officer, effective August 19, 2011, with a resulting salary cut, and she agreed to attend anger management courses. On August 24, 2011, Chief Arcieri ordered Petitioner to report for duty at 6:00 a.m. the following morning. Petitioner called in sick and did not report for work on August 25, 2011. Ms. Looney, the personnel director, contacted Petitioner to find out why she was not reporting for work. Petitioner told Ms. Looney that she had sustained a back injury during the altercation with J.G. on June 16, 2011. Ms. Looney testified that this was the first she knew of Petitioner’s back injury. In a letter dated August 24, 2011, and received by Chief Arcieri on August 25, 2011, Petitioner’s personal workers’ compensation attorney wrote as follows, in relevant part: As you know, Ms. Winston is an 18 year employee with our [sic] agency who was recently in an altercation with a belligerent, drunken female on June 16, 2011. Ms. Winston was injured during the arrest but was placed on Administrative leave pending an internal investigation and the matter has not been reported as an injury as of yet. Ms. Winston was not aware that she had injured her low back immediately due to circumstances surrounding the altercation and the typical adrenaline response resulting from such an altercation. She thought she was just sore from being beat up a bit but as the weeks went by her condition worsened. A recent MRI has revealed two herniated discs in the lower back and Ms. Winston does require medical treatment for this work related injury. I am requesting at this time that the Agency immediately file a First Report of injury on behalf of Ms. Winston. This should be considered notice under Chapter 440 of the work related injury. In addition to the back injury, Ms. Winston now suffers from uncontrolled high blood pressure which is also disabling. Ms. Winston will be receiving a letter from her doctor indicating that she is unable to work due to her uncontrolled blood pressure at this juncture. That is also a work related claim under F.S. 112.18, more popularly known as the “Heart/Lung Bill.” This claim should also be processed and medical care should be provided as soon as possible. Please see that a First Report of Injury is completed with regard to this claim . . . . In a related claim, Ms. Winston also has a September 22, 2009 uncontrolled hypertension incident which resulted in hospitalization. As you know, the 2009 accident occurred while Ms. Winston was interviewing a sex crime victim. She was experiencing a severe headache and then had an uncontrollable nose bleed during the interview. The blood pressure reading at the time revealed her blood pressure was severely elevated and she was taken to the hospital. This incident should have triggered the immediate filing of a First Report of Injury under F.S. 112.18 as referenced above. For whatever reason, no First Report of Injury was filed but I am requesting that you file such a First Report of Injury immediately on Ms. Winston’s behalf and that you provide appropriate medical care for this condition . . . . Finally, Ms. Winston advises me that she has been under an internal investigation since the June, 2011 incident. This internal investigation appears to be entirely inappropriate given the circumstances surrounding this event and would appear to be part of an intimidation practice on the part of your Agency, which is in clear violation of F.S. 440.205. As I am sure you know, 440.205 prohibits the harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or termination of an employee by virtue of a workers’ compensation claim. Needless to say, Ms. Winston has numerous ongoing workers’ compensation claims and it appears that all of the harassment which she has been subjected to since the time the internal investigation was opened in this matter appears to be directly attributable to her ongoing workers’ compensation issues. It should also be noted that Ms. Winston is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of this recent altercation and all of the fallout related to same. As I am sure you are well aware, post traumatic stress disorder of this nature is also covered for First Responders under the auspices of F.S. 112.1815. I am requesting again that a First Report of Injury be filed relative to this issue and that appropriate medical care be provided. Ms. Winston is entitled to full pay as she was injured during an altercation with a violent individual. Full pay is appropriate pursuant to the provisions of F.S. 440.15(11). This means that she should be receiving a regular paycheck without deduction of sick or vacation bank time. Please see that the appropriate adjustment is made relative to payment of benefits and feel free to contact me with any question . . . . On August 30, 2011, Petitioner submitted three “Incident/Accident Information Forms” to the City in regard to her workers’ compensation claims. The first states that Petitioner suffered an injury to her lower back on June 16, 2011, when “an intoxicated combative prisoner . . . kicked me in my stomach just above my gun belt.” The second describes “stress” as the injury, dated June 28, 2011, caused by “constant harassment & belittled by Dave Arcieri.” The third form states that the date of injury was September 22, 2009, the injury was “blood pressure caused bleeding of the nose,” and describes the incident in terms similar to those used in the attorney’s letter of June 24, 2011. Petitioner testified that she still sees a psychiatrist once a month and goes to counseling every two weeks, but that she first sought mental health counseling in June 2011 because of problems with Chief Arcieri that dated from long before he became chief. She testified that “he would cuss me out, call me names, have people that were subordinates watching me and reporting back to him to make sure I didn’t breathe the wrong way.” Petitioner testified that Chief Arcieri’s animus toward her dated from her handling of a situation as a sergeant that led to the firing of an officer. A member of Petitioner’s squad reported to her that an officer in another squad stole property from a civilian during a traffic stop and then gave him the stolen item. Petitioner told the officer to file a report and drop the item into evidence and that she would meet with the other officer’s sergeant. The other officer’s sergeant required him to write a report. The officer lied in the report. Petitioner and the other sergeant brought the matter to the attention of their superiors. After an investigation, the department had no choice but to fire the officer. At a sergeants’ meeting a little while later, then- Administrative Sergeant Arcieri said that Petitioner was incompetent. If she had handled the situation differently, Sergeant Arcieri would not have had to fire a good officer. Petitioner asked how the department could tolerate a lying thief in its midst. Sergeant Arcieri told her that the officer could have been reprimanded in some other way. Petitioner testified that she was afraid of Chief Arcieri because of threats he made to her. He made it clear to her and to any other officer who thought about reporting something to Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow that these officials would let him know and the snitch would pay a price. On September 27, 2011, Petitioner sent an email to Michelle Grenham, Chief Arcieri’s secretary, stating that she would be unable to attend the anger management class required by the settlement agreement because she was undergoing major surgery on September 28 at Halifax Hospital in Daytona Beach. Ms. Grenham forwarded the email to Chief Arcieri and Ms. Looney. Petitioner underwent surgery on September 28, 2011, to repair the herniated discs in her back. Petitioner testified that prior to the surgery, she had difficulty walking, standing, bending at the waist, reaching, and climbing stairs due to the pain in her back. She was able to drive a car but only for short distances. She did not have full control of her bladder and bowels. She could only sleep by putting herself in a fetal position then bracing herself with pillows to keep her in that position. Petitioner described the surgery as less than a complete success. She had numbness in her right leg, was unable to bend, squat, kneel or stretch, and could not sit for very long. She eventually required spinal injections and the surgical insertion of a morphine pump in her stomach for pain in her spine. The morphine pump was still in place at the time of the hearing. Physicians also implanted a spinal cord stimulator in her back. She regained control of her excretory functions but was unable to walk without the use of a walker for several months and a cane thereafter. She wore a back brace most of the time. On November 29, 2011, Petitioner and her husband met with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney to discuss Petitioner’s medical situation and when she might return to work. The meeting was held at Petitioner’s request. Petitioner testified that she came into the meeting wearing a back brace and using a walker. Her husband had to drive her to the meeting. Petitioner testified that she asked for the meeting to find out if she could get an extended leave until her physician cleared her to go back to work. She also wanted to discuss Chief Arcieri’s harassment and belittling of her. At the meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Barlow that she didn’t know how long the healing process would take or whether she would need additional surgeries. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow told her it might be in her best interest to retire, in light of her age and her many health problems, including RA, lupus, hypertension, and now the back injury. Mr. Barlow stated that it seemed to him that Petitioner didn’t have anything that was going to go away, and that anyone with a back injury would have issues with it for life. Mr. Barlow asked whether Petitioner really thought she could ever come back as a police officer. Petitioner could only say that she didn’t know. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she hoped to reach retirement as a police officer but that she was willing to take another position with the City if her physical limitations kept her from returning to her former position. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she had a doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, and that Mr. Barlow promised to give her a leave of absence until that appointment. Petitioner’s husband, Ricky Winston, testified that at the meeting, his wife explained her injuries to Mr. Barlow and complained about Chief Arcieri’s constant ridicule and badgering. Mr. Winston stated that Mr. Barlow had a calendar and some paper and a calculator that he was using to diligently figure out something. It turned out that Mr. Barlow was calculating the date of Petitioner’s full retirement, with the idea of carrying her on the City’s employment roster until then. Mr. Winston testified that he left the meeting with the understanding that Mr. Barlow had agreed to grant Petitioner unpaid leave until she reached retirement. Mr. Winston recalled that Mr. Barlow listed all of Petitioner’s physical problems and asked why she didn’t just quit. Mr. Winston testified that this question was devastating to his wife because she never had any intention of leaving the job she loved. Ms. Looney testified that she did not recall Mr. Barlow mentioning any of Petitioner’s physical infirmities aside from her back injury. She did not recall Mr. Barlow using a calculator or calendar during the meeting or stating a date for Petitioner’s retirement. Ms. Looney stated that the goal was for Petitioner to return from her next doctor’s appointment with a physician’s statement as to when she could return to work, whether at full or light duty. Ms. Looney’s assumption, based on Petitioner’s condition, was that Petitioner would return to light duty at first. Mr. Barlow explicitly stated that the City wanted Petitioner to return to work, either full or light duty. Ms. Looney testified that she believed everyone at the meeting understood that Petitioner wanted to return to light duty and that the police department would try to find light duty restricted work for Petitioner when her doctor cleared her to return. Petitioner would remain on unpaid leave until her next doctor’s appointment in January 2012, at which time the City would need to know whether she could return to work. Petitioner had given Ms. Looney light duty notes from physicians in the past, which led Ms. Looney to assume that Petitioner understood what she needed to provide to the City. Ms. Looney stated that Mr. Barlow did not promise to keep Petitioner’s job open until May 2012. Mr. Barlow recalled almost nothing about the November 29, 2011, meeting with Petitioner. The only relevant specific testimony he provided on the subject was a denial that he told Petitioner that she could have a leave of absence until May 2012. However, given his lack of recall as to anything else that transpired in the meeting, Mr. Barlow’s testimony on this single point is not credited. The testimony of Petitioner and her husband regarding the statements made at the November 29, 2011, meeting is credited as to Mr. Barlow’s discussing Petitioner’s retirement and as to the fact that a discussion of Chief Arcieri’s behavior toward Petitioner occurred. On these points, Petitioner and Mr. Winston were credible, consistent witnesses. Ms. Looney’s testimony on these points was confused and equivocal. Mr. Barlow’s testimony was of little use at all as he claimed to remember virtually nothing about the meeting. However, the testimony of Petitioner and her husband cannot be credited as to the matter of Mr. Barlow’s promise to give Petitioner a leave of absence until May 3, 2012. Even disregarding Mr. Barlow’s convenient memory on this point, Petitioner’s testimony and that of her husband diverged on the ground for the leave of absence. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 3, 2012, because that was the date of her next doctor’s appointment. Mr. Winston vaguely recalled that a date was mentioned, either March or May, and that this date was based on Mr. Barlow’s calculation of Petitioner’s retirement date. Petitioner’s claim that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 2012 is further undercut by documentary evidence. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner sent Ms. Looney an email that stated as follows, in relevant part: Call me when you get the chance, I have prescriptions to pick up and get fitted for another brace, but I am going to need to take a leave of absence for a bit. Dr. Vinas [Petitioner’s surgeon] is not releasing me for duty at this time . . ., I will be going into a new brace and will be going to pain management for epidural injections in my spine. I have attached the letter from Dr. Vinas, as well as a copy of the medications I will be taking. My next appointment with him will be May 03/2012 unless the Dr. at the pain management center feels I need further surgery. I have no idea what to do about taking a leave, is there paperwork I need to file or just send you a letter? I would rather speak to you so if you are not busy please call me . . . . If the November 29, 2011, meeting had settled the question regarding Petitioner’s leave of absence until her doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, there would have been no need for Petitioner to write to Ms. Looney on January 26, 2012, to request a leave of absence and to inform Ms. Looney that her next doctor’s appointment would be on May 3. This email is consistent with the assertion made in the City’s February 21, 2012, letter terminating Petitioner’s employment that Mr. Barlow agreed to maintain the status quo until January 23, 2012, the date of Petitioner’s next scheduled doctor’s appointment.6/ In an email to Ms. Looney dated February 9, 2012, Petitioner stated, “[A]t this stage nothing surprises me anymore, I mean after all, I was supposed to be back on my feet and rarin to go by January, well that, as you know did not happen.” Petitioner closed a separate February 9, 2012, email to Ms. Looney with the following: “I forwarded this to [Mr. Barlow] also, but if he does not get it please let him know and tell him I said to keep his chin up as he always does and thank him for allowing me to take a leave of absence. Hopefully it won’t be much longer.” These emails cast further doubt on Petitioner’s claim that she had obtained a leave of absence until May 3, 2012, from Mr. Barlow at the November 29, 2011, meeting. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner was granted an unpaid leave of absence at the November 29 meeting, but only until her physician cleared her to return to work in some capacity, which Petitioner at the time anticipated would occur in January 2012. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Petitioner had used her twelve weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as of November 16, 2011. She had exhausted all of her accrued leave as of December 9, 2011, when she formally began the unpaid leave of absence. On January 1, 2012, Petitioner began receiving the City’s long-term disability benefits. Ms. Looney signed a letter to Dr. Federico Vinas, dated January 25, 2012, that stated as follows: Ms. Winston has informed us she is a patient of yours. She has a follow-up appointment January 26, 2012 in association with surgery perform [sic] by you. First, and foremost, enclosed you will find the Authorization to Disclose Medical Information form executed by Ms. Winston along with her job description (Police Officer) setting out the physical requirement. JoAnne is a valued City employee and it would be greatly appreciated if you verify her ability to perform any or all of these duties. Please provide us with specific restrictions or requirements necessary not to aggravate her condition and advise as to exactly when she can be cleared for full police officer’s duties. Your expertise is [sic] this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me for any further information you may need. The City’s job description for “Police Officer” reads as follows, in relevant part: PRIMARY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (all duties may not be performed by all incumbents) Patrols designated area of the City to preserve the peace, to prevent and discover criminal acts, and to enforce traffic regulations. Answers calls and complaints involving drunkenness, domestic disputes, assaults and batteries, missing persons, fires, thefts, accidents and other felonies and misdemeanors. Is responsible for being knowledgeable of the crime problem in assigned work area and developing strategies to combat the problem. Develop contacts and provide intelligence reports to detectives and administration. Makes preliminary investigations at crime scenes or incidents, protects and collects physical evidence, locates witnesses, interviews witnesses, makes arrests, assists paramedics with basic and advance [sic] life support. Interviews complaints [sic] and witnesses to obtain information about crimes; assists in investigative work. Prepares evidence for issuance of complaints and testifies as a witness in both civil and criminal court, transports prisoners. Patrols school zones and high activity areas when assigned. Assists motorists, directs traffic, investigates accidents, recovers stolen automobiles, prepares detailed reports, advise of and interpret laws and ordinances and provides general information to the public. Cooperates and coordinates with other law enforcement agencies and other components of the Criminal Justice System. * * * Environmental Conditions: Outdoor environment with exposure to discomforting and dangerous working conditions Office environment with exposure to computer operations Physical exertion in lifting/moving items weighing up to 50 pounds Routine travel is required along daily assigned routes Occasional overnight travel is required Other physical/mental requirements may apply * * * DISCLAIMER STATEMENT This job description is not intended as complete listing of job duties. The incumbent is responsible for the performance of other related duties as assigned/required. The physical demands described herein are representative of those that must be met to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. On January 26, 2012, Dr. Vinas forwarded to Ms. Looney a “Work Status” form regarding Petitioner that provided as follows: The above captioned patient is being treated in this office. The patient’s current work status is as follows: ( ) This patient was seen for treatment in our office today, please excuse any absence from work or school. (X) Based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time. Restrictions The patient may return to or continue to work with the following restrictions: ( ) No lifting over pounds. ( ) No excessive/repetitive bending or twisting. ( ) No prolonged sitting/standing or stooping. ( ) No excessive/repetitive pulling or pushing. ( ) No excessive activity with arms above shoulder level/overhead activity. ( ) ALL OF THE ABOVE ( ) Specific instructions ( ) This patient does not work at this time, but has been instructed to limit household/daily activities so as to remain within the above noted restrictions. ( ) This patient’s most recent evaluation supports a return to normal, routine work activities. The effective date of this Work Status is from the date noted above until further notice. If the patient’s current position of employment can be modified or other position found that conforms to the above restrictions, then the patient may return to work. If these restrictions cannot be maintained, I would recommend that the patient be excused from work until further notice. The patient’s work status will be evaluated on a visit-to-visit basis. Ms. Looney testified that based on Dr. Vinas’ Work Status form and her own conversations with Petitioner, she concluded that Petitioner was unable to return to work in any capacity, full or light duty, as of January 26, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner conceded that she could not have returned to work as a police officer on January 26, 2012. As set forth in Finding of Fact 54, supra, Petitioner notified Ms. Looney via email on January 26 that her next appointment with Dr. Vinas would be on May 3, 2012. In the same email, Petitioner asked for guidance on how to request a further leave of absence. The record of this proceeding includes a “Request for Leave of Absence” form in which Petitioner asked for a leave of absence commencing on January 26, 2012, with an “anticipated return date” of May 3, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner could not recall filling out this form. In her testimony, Ms. Looney indicated that she filled out the form for Petitioner. In the space in which the applicant is to set forth reasons for the leave of absence, Ms. Looney wrote, “See attached e-mail,” which was Petitioner’s January 26 email to Ms. Looney. Mr. Barlow denied the request for a further leave of absence by signature on the request form. The form does not indicate when Ms. Looney filled it out or when Mr. Barlow denied the request. The record is also unclear as to when Petitioner was notified that the City was denying her a further leave of absence. As late as February 9, 2012, Petitioner was still sending chatty emails to Ms. Looney regarding her medical condition and treatment, even asking Ms. Looney and Mr. Barlow to stop by her house for a visit if they are ever in the neighborhood. The first clear notice of the denial was in the termination letter set forth in the next paragraph. On February 21, 2012, Ms. Looney wrote the following letter to Petitioner: On November 29, 2011 Tracey Barlow, City Manager, and myself met with you to discuss your medical situation. You informed us your next doctor’s appointment was January 23, 2012, at which time you were hoping to be taken out of your brace. We agreed your continued employment with the City would depend on your returning to full duty and I would send Dr. Vinas a letter requesting exactly when you would be cleared to return to full duty as a police officer. Following your exam on January 26, 2012, you emailed me Dr. Vinas’ work status form which states “based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time.” You also stated your next appointment is May 3, 2012 and asked about taking a leave of absence. JoAnne, as you are aware your FMLA was met as of November 16, 2011; all your workers compensation claims have been denied;7/ you exhausted all of your accruals as of December 9, 2011 and have been granted unpaid leave of absence for the previous 74 days, and as of January 1, 2012 you began receiving the city’s long term disability benefit. Therefore, due to all the facts stated too [sic] include uncertain ability to return to work date, the City Manager has denied your request for leave of absence exceeding 30 days. As a result, consider this formal notification that your employment with the City of Edgewater ends effective February 24, 2012. It is very important that you contact the Personnel Department to make the necessary arrangements for your continued insurance coverage and any outstanding benefits/obligations you have with the City. Petitioner testified that at the time the City terminated her employment, she was still using a cane at home and a walker when she went out. There is no question that Petitioner was unable to return to full duty as a police officer on February 24, 2012. It was Petitioner’s contention that she could have come back to work for the police department in some form of light duty, as she had been allowed to do in the past, or in one of several jobs that the City advertised as open during her convalescence. Petitioner further contended that Ms. Looney should have sent Dr. Vinas the job descriptions of all open City jobs rather than just the job description of a police officer. As to the last point, Ms. Looney testified that it was standard practice for the City to send the physician an employee’s current job description for an assessment of the employee’s ability to return to work. Petitioner was treated no differently than any other City employee in this regard. Petitioner testified that she asked the City to bring her back in another position, but could offer no documentary evidence to support that testimony. She claimed that part of the discussion at the November 29 meeting with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney was her hope to retire as a police officer, but her desire to remain a city employee in whatever capacity she could. Ms. Looney testified that Petitioner never asked to work in any position other than that of police officer. Petitioner sent an email to Ms. Looney on December 26, 2011, asking whether Ms. Looney had “heard from my Dr. as to when I might be able to come back light duty or anything else?” Petitioner claims that the “anything else” portion of the email indicated her desire to be placed in any available job. Ms. Looney read the email as merely asking whether she had heard from Petitioner’s doctor, not as a job request. Ms. Looney’s reading is not unreasonable given that this was the only document Petitioner produced that even arguably contained a statement asking to be placed in a position other than police officer. In any event, whether Petitioner asked to be placed in another position is not decisive because of the blanket statement in Dr. Vinas’ work status form. Ms. Looney testified that she was unable to place Petitioner in any position because Petitioner’s physician had clearly stated that it was in her best interest to be excused from all work duties. It was always the City’s understanding that Petitioner would return to work in a light duty function at first, but in fact Petitioner was not cleared to work at all. Ms. Looney might have followed up with Dr. Vinas and inquired whether Petitioner was capable of doing clerical work or some other form of indoor, deskbound job, but Petitioner has pointed to nothing that required Ms. Looney to do so in light of Petitioner’s failure to request that accommodation. Ms. Looney testified that it was the City’s practice to hold off on discussing positions outside of an employee’s department until the employee has actually been cleared for light duty. No evidence was presented that the City treated Petitioner any differently than it treated other employees in a similar position. Similarly, Mr. Barlow might have agreed to extend Petitioner’s unpaid leave of absence to May 3, 2012, but he was not required to do so. At the time of her termination, Petitioner had used twelve weeks of FMLA leave and had been granted an additional 74 days of unpaid leave at Mr. Barlow’s discretion. Petitioner had been out on some form of medical leave for approximately six months. The City did not seize on some early opportunity to dismiss Petitioner; rather, the City had anticipated that Petitioner would return to work as a police officer and waited until Petitioner had exhausted all avenues of leave except a second discretionary unpaid leave of absence before deciding to terminate her employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that her termination was based on her age, gender, disability or perceived disability or that she was treated differently than other employees due to her age, gender, or disability. The lone indication of possible bias was Mr. Barlow’s statement at the November 29, 2011, meeting that Petitioner should consider retirement in light of her age and poor health. This statement may be easily read as a kindly (if poorly phrased) expression of concern for Petitioner. By her own testimony, Petitioner was on good terms with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney right up to the time of her termination. Petitioner sent solicitous emails to them as late as February 9, 2012. Petitioner’s feelings were hurt by the statement, but no other ill effect followed. She was granted the requested unpaid leave of absence and remained employed by the City for three more months. Petitioner testified that she never considered herself disabled and prided herself on not calling in sick or requesting accommodations for her conditions. Ms. Looney, Mr. Barlow, and Chief Arcieri all testified that they did not perceive Petitioner as having a disability that required accommodation in the workplace, though they were all aware of at least some of her chronic conditions such as lupus, RA, and hypertension. Petitioner claimed that Chief Arcieri carried on something of a vendetta against her. Chief Arcieri testified that prior to the demotion his relationship with Petitioner was friendly. When Petitioner’s house was flooded, Chief Arcieri took off work to help Mr. Winston solder a broken shower valve. After Petitioner was demoted, the relationship was less friendly but always professional. Chief Arcieri testified that he has never yelled at Petitioner or any other employee. He never called her names. The harassment and belittling that Petitioner alleged never happened. Chief Arcieri denied any sort of gender bias, pointing to the successful efforts his department has made to recruit and hire female officers. He denied ever making a comment about Petitioner’s age. He testified that he never considered Petitioner disabled while she was on active duty, despite her lupus. Petitioner never requested an accommodation and Chief Arcieri never saw the need for an accommodation. Chief Arcieri testified that at the close of the internal affairs investigation of the June 16, 2011, incident, he declined to sustain some of the allegations in order to protect Petitioner from a referral to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (“Commission”) for further discipline. Chief Arcieri assented to a request by the FOP that he submit a letter to the Commission stating that he believed the demotion was sufficient and asking the Commission not to take further action against Petitioner. Petitioner’s testimony against Chief Arcieri consisted of general statements that he harassed and belittled her. The only specific incident Petitioner recounted as to the source of any possible animus the chief bore toward her involved the firing of the officer who stole something during a traffic stop. Even if Petitioner’s version of events is accepted, Chief Arcieri’s anger toward Petitioner had nothing to do with her age, gender, or disability. He called her “incompetent.” He was upset about the manner in which Petitioner performed her job, which he believed led to the needless dismissal of a good officer. Whether Chief Arcieri was right or wrong to be angry at Petitioner, he did not engage in an act of discrimination. Even if the factfinder were to accept Petitioner’s description of Chief Arcieri as a bully on the job, there is no evidence aside from Petitioner’s general comments to indicate that she was singled out due to her age, gender or disability. It is telling that in testifying about her fear of reporting the bullying, Petitioner stated, “I was afraid. I was very afraid. David Arcieri made it not only clear to me, but to any other officer who even thought about going to report to Donna Looney or to Tracey Barlow, ‘Don’t worry, they’ll let me know and you will pay the price.’” This statement might be evidence that Chief Arcieri is a bully, a poor leader of his department, or a bad administrator. However, the statement does not establish that Chief Arcieri discriminated against Petitioner in a manner prohibited by section 760.10, Florida Statutes. If anything, the statement indicates that Petitioner found herself in the same boat as the other officers in her department.8/ Petitioner was aware of and understood the City’s nondiscrimination and no-harassment policy, the operative language of which states: The nature of some discrimination and harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless someone reports the discrimination or harassment. THUS, IF ANY EMPLOYEE BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IS BEING SUBJECTED TO ANY OF THESE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION OR HARRASSMENT, HE OR SHE MUST REPORT THIS TO THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR (386-424-2408) AND/OR CITY MANAGER (386-424-2404). If you are encountering a problem, please do not assume that the City is aware of it. The City is committed to ensuring that you have a pleasant working environment, and your assistance in bringing your complaints and concerns to our attention is a necessary first step. (Emphasis in original). The policy was included in the City’s personnel manual. Petitioner was provided with copies of the policy and amendments thereto several times during her tenure with the City. Petitioner conceded that, notwithstanding the policy, she did not report any incidents of harassment or discrimination to either Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow while she was actively working for the City. The allegations of intimidation and harassment made by Petitioner’s attorney in his August 24, 2011, letter and Petitioner’s allegation of “constant harassment and belittlement by Dave Arcieri” in her workers’ compensation incident report were made only after Petitioner had been off the job for eight weeks. Further, the specific allegations made by Petitioner’s attorney claimed that the City was in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes, not that Chief Arcieri or any other City employee was discriminating against or harassing Petitioner because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Petitioner sustained an injury to her back, most likely due to an altercation with a detainee on June 16, 2011, that necessitated surgery and a rehabilitation process that was not complete even at the time of the hearing in May 2014. The City carried Petitioner as an employee until all of her available leave had been used and then for another 74 days on an unpaid leave of absence. The City had no legal obligation to grant Petitioner an unpaid leave of absence but did so in the hope that Petitioner would be able to return to work in January 2012. As of the termination date of February 24, 2012, Petitioner had been away from her job for more than six months, had not been cleared by a physician to do work of any kind, and would not receive a physician’s clearance to work any sooner than May 3, 2012. The City could have consented to carry Petitioner even longer on an unpaid leave of absence, but it was not discriminatory for the City to make the business decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence to refute the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason given by the City for the termination of her employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City's stated reason for the termination of her employment was a pretext for discrimination based on her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City discriminated against her because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of the City.
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 Edgewater did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2015.
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
