The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of handicap or disability, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact North Florida Sales Company (North Florida), the Respondent in this case, is a beer and ale wholesaler that does business in Florida and employs over 15 people. Window Mitchell, Petitioner in this case, began working at North Florida as a custodian in the maintenance department on June 22, 2009. His normal schedule at North Florida was Monday through Friday. Near the time he was hired, Petitioner received a copy of Respondent's "Employee Information Handbook." The handbook advised Petitioner of North Florida's "open door" policy that permitted employees to take any complaints or problems directly to the Human Resources Manager, the General Manager, or the President. It further advised employees that it was North Florida policy to treat all employees equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, disability, or national origin. It stated that any violation of North Florida's equal opportunity policies must be reported immediately to the Human Resources Manager or General Manager without delay. The employee handbook also advised Petitioner of North Florida's policies on attendance. It required employees to give advance notice of any absence or lateness, and noted that employees who fail to maintain an acceptable attendance record would be subject to disciplinary action. On September 10, 2009, Petitioner received an Employee Warning Report noting that Petitioner had missed six days of work during his 90-day probationary period. The report stated that this amount of absenteeism was considered excessive and that immediate improvement was expected. It was signed by Petitioner and Petitioner's supervisor. On November 10, 2009, Petitioner received another Employee Warning Report. It stated that Petitioner's attendance continued to be a problem and that it was creating a burden on the maintenance department. It stated that further incidents of absenteeism, or arriving late or leaving early, would result in termination. It was signed by Petitioner, Petitioner's supervisor, and Margaret Lombardi, Human Resources Manager. There is no evidence that Petitioner ever received any further "Employee Warning Reports." On June 3, 2010, Petitioner received an Employee Performance Review. In his review, Petitioner was given a rating of "3" out of "10" on "dependability." The comment under that heading indicated that Petitioner was "out from work too many days." Petitioner received two other "3"s on his evaluation and received no evaluation above a "5" in any area. In the final section, entitled "Objectives for the Next Review Period," the first of two objectives listed was "keep all curbs in warehouse painted." The second was, "try to be at work all of the time." On July 17, 2010, Petitioner was returning from a barbecue with four friends. He testified that he had not been drinking. The car he was driving ran into a pole head-on. Petitioner's knee and leg hurt and became badly swollen. He had "little chunks of meat" missing from his left elbow and forearm. He was seen by an emergency doctor at Baptist Medical Center about 9:45 p.m., released, and given discharge instructions. On July 19 or 20, 2010, Ms. Lombardi received a paper entitled Adult Discharge Instructions on a Baptist Health form dated July 17, 2010. It indicated that Petitioner had been in the vehicle collision and had been treated for abrasions and a contusion on his right knee. In the instructions, Petitioner was told to take medications as instructed, follow up with the doctor in two days, and return to the emergency room for worsening symptoms. A box was checked indicating "no work for 2 days." Ms. Lombardi interpreted the note as excusing Petitioner from work on Sunday and Monday, and therefore expected Petitioner to return to work on Tuesday, July 20, 2010. When Petitioner did not return to work on Tuesday, Ms. Lombardi called him. Petitioner said he did not realize that the doctor's note had excused him for only two days. Ms. Lombardi told Petitioner that it did, and she told him he needed to come to work that day. Petitioner complained that his arm and leg were still hurting. Petitioner said he would return to work that afternoon, but did not. Petitioner did not come to work on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Petitioner left a message for Ms. Lombardi and she called him about 10 a.m. Petitioner told Ms. Lombardi that he had gone to the doctor the day before and had another note excusing him from work. Ms. Lombardi asked Petitioner why he had not called her or the supervisor to let them know. Petitioner stated that he had called the supervisor, but had been unable to reach him and had been asked to call back. Petitioner said he did not call back because he did not get out of the doctor's office until after 5:00 pm. Ms. Lombardi directed him to have the note sent to her by facsimile transmission (fax). Ms. Lombardi received a form faxed from Baptist Health entitled "Discharge Instruction" about 4:38 p.m. that day, as indicated in her note prepared for Petitioner's file. It had a subtitle of "Work Release Form." The form stated that Petitioner had been seen again on July 21, 2010, and that he could return to work on July 25, 2010. The form had date and time blocks indicating "July 21, 2010" and "4:31 p.m." Ms. Lombardi testified that the form from Baptist Health indicated that Petitioner had been seen by a doctor that same day and that "I received it shortly after-–there was a discharge time on it." On the following day, July 22, 2010, Ms. Lombardi again called Petitioner. When asked about an excuse from the doctor whom Petitioner had seen on July 20, 2010, Petitioner replied, "Oh, that was a different doctor." Petitioner said that the excuse from the visit on July 21, 2010, was from the same doctor he saw on July 17, 2010. Ms. Lombardi's file note stated that this was "the second time that Mitchell has incurred absences with inconsistency in the facts surrounding that absence." Petitioner gave evasive and inconsistent testimony at hearing about whether there was ever a third doctor's excuse, in addition to the excuses of July 17, 2010 and July 21, 2010. Any of Petitioner's testimony suggesting that there was third excuse was not credible. There were only two doctor's excuses. On July 22, 2010, Ms. Lombardi filled out a "Status/Payroll Change Report" that discharged Petitioner from employment at North Florida. In the "Reason" portion of the form, Ms. Lombardi wrote, "Excessive absenteeism and multiple incidences of inconsistent facts surrounding his absences." Petitioner was immediately notified by telephone that his employment had been terminated. In that conversation, Petitioner asked Ms. Lombardi why he was being discharged. Ms. Lombardi told Petitioner that the basis for his discharge was his poor attendance. Petitioner was recovering from the injuries he received in the accident for about a week-and-a-half. After that he was fully recovered. Petitioner's substantial interests are affected by Respondent's decision to discharge him. It has been difficult to find work in the depressed economy and Petitioner has financial responsibilities. Petitioner has three children. Petitioner was employed by Wage Solutions, working the warehouse at Liberty Furniture, unloading furniture and bringing it to the showroom from March 2011 to August 2011. Petitioner lost that job because that business closed. At the time of hearing Petitioner was not employed. Petitioner went to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. He did not complain to them that he had been discriminated against on the basis of a handicap or disability. He just wanted an investigation into his discharge because he believed he had been terminated unfairly. He testified: Doing – I guess, telling my side of the story to file whatever they wanted me to file. I didn't even know it was doing – about the disability or not. I didn't know they signed me up under that. The only thing I thought, they were going to investigate to see why I got terminated. * * * And from there, I guess that – that's it. I knew I had to come to court from there, so I was just really based on that. I knew I had to show up to court for – I wasn't looking for all of this to come down to this. The only thing – I just wanted to know why I got fired, because I – about my attendance or being absent, but I had excuses for them. On October 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief against Respondent claiming an unlawful employment practice, alleging that he was wrongfully fired because of a mishap, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings the same day.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 4th day of May, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a correction officer for the 16-month period between March, 1981 and July, 1982. She was assigned to the St. Johns County Jail, where her duties included booking and releasing both male and female inmates, taking mug shots, obtaining fingerprints, delivering food and mail, and providing general security. Petitioner satisfactorily completed a one-year probationary period and achieved permanent status. She became aware of her pregnancy in March, 1982, and informed her supervisor of this fact. 1/ She was initially told by her supervisor to report "downtown" for reassignment. However, the officer in charge of that department knew nothing of the proposed change in assignment and sent Petitioner back to the jail. Petitioner then resumed her correctional duties but was assigned exclusively to the booking desk based on her pregnancy. Around May, 1982, Petitioner was reassigned within the jail to the canteen, where her duties were clerical rather than correctional. On May 28, 1982, the jail administrator wrote to Petitioner's physician inquiring as to whether Petitioner could continue to perform correctional duties based on her physical ability and safety considerations. The physician's reply established that her physical ability would permit her to continue working until the date of her confinement, which he anticipated would occur about October 14, 1982. The physician declined to evaluate her condition in terms of job safety. In mid-July, Petitioner was told by her immediate supervisor, Sgt. Threet, that she should take maternity leave. Petitioner declined in the belief that she had a choice in the matter and that she was able to continue working. However, her unwillingness to take leave was not communicated to Captain Janson, who advised her by letter that he was placing her on leave as agreed. A meeting was held to discuss the proposed leave, but apparently the misunderstanding continued. Petitioner reported for work on July 21, 1982 and was directed to leave by her former supervisor, who advised Petitioner that she was no longer on the payroll. Petitioner's apparent termination on July 21, 1982 was confirmed by a letter from the St. Johns County Sheriff dated July 30, 1982 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The Sheriff's letter and other after-the-fact statements of subordinate officials indicated their belief that Petitioner and her fetus were in "obvious jeopardy" (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), so long as she continued to have contact with jail inmates. Additional reasons given for her removal were that she could not backup her commands to inmates because of her physical condition, and that she was becoming too large physically to work behind the booking desk (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The lack of any policy with respect to pregnancy and the confusion in this case were evident in the two attempted reassignments of Petitioner prior to her discharge and referral of the matter, at one point, to Petitioner's physician. Both Petitioner and her immediate supervisor, Sgt. (now Lieutenant) Threet are women of small physical stature. They are essentially unarmed while on duty and must rely on outside help if there is a major disturbance within the jail. Lieutenant Threet concedes that she would not be able to overpower a strong male prisoner if confronted by one. Therefore, the physical demands of the correctional officer position must be considered limited. There was no medical evidence presented that indicated Petitioner was unable to perform her assigned duties at the time of her discharge. She was aware of the physical risk to herself and fetus (although the degree of such risk was not established) and accepted this responsibility as a condition of her continued employment. The argument regarding Petitioner's alleged physical difficulty at the booking desk is rejected as pretextual and was not pursued at the hearing. Her alleged inability to backup commands to inmates due to her condition is likewise rejected in that she, as well as her female supervisor, were not at anytime capable of physically enforcing their commands with respect to the large and stronger male prisoners.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order directing that Petitioner be reinstated by Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Polly Leggitt on the basis of her handicap, violating Sections 760.23(1), (2) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes (1992). If discriminatory conduct has been proven, whether quantifiable damages, or other allowable remedies, have been proven under Section 760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether Florida Commission on Human Relations’ failure to conclude its investigation within one year requires dismissal of the complaint/charge; and Whether Florida Commission on Human Relations’ delay has prejudiced the Respondent and whether the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of violation of the statute of limitations or laches.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with the administration of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.30, Florida Statutes (1995). If Petitioner is unable to obtain voluntary compliance with sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes, or has reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred, Petitioner may institute an administrative proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes on behalf of the aggrieved party. On February 3, 1993, Leggitt filed a complaint with the Petitioner, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complaint names Carole Naylor, Property Administrator, as the person who discriminated against her. On March 24, 1993, the Petitioner notified Regency Place Apartments and Carole Naylor that the complaint had been filed, and stated that within 100 days the Petitioner would investigate the complaint and give notice whether there was or was not reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred. The Notice further provided that a final administrative disposition of the complaint would be completed within one year (on or about February 3, 1994). A Notice of Determination: Cause and Issuance of an Administrative Charge was made and issued by document dated and served on August 28, 1996. It named Regency Place Apartments; Carole Naylor, Property Administrator; Frank Cutrona, Property Manager; and Robert Stitzel, Owner. The notice was issued more than one year after the filing of the complaint. Respondent was the developer and owner of Regency Place Apartments in Melbourne, Florida, at all times relevant. Respondent hired Frank Cutrona as manager of Regency Place Apartments and was the manager during the relevant period. Respondent hired Carole Naylor as a clerical worker and gave her the title of Property Administrator. On September 9, 1992, Regency Place Apartments located in Melbourne, Florida, responded to a letter of inquiry from Polly Leggitt, and offered certain apartments for rent. The letter of September 9, 1992, was signed by Frank Cutrona and his wife (resident managers) offered a $100.00 discount, and invited Leggitt to visit the complex. At that time, Leggitt was a resident of Richardson Apartments located in Fort Myers, Florida. Leggitt indicated that she wanted to leave that area and move to Brevard County, Florida. On or about October 11 or 12, 1992, Leggitt visited the apartment complex and was shown an upstairs one-bedroom apartment, by a woman who she did not identify. Leggitt did not advise the woman that she had a disability, and Leggitt did not have a seeing-eye dog with her at that time. Leggitt found that the price and location of the apartments were suitable to her needs. Leggitt wanted to move to Regency Place because the apartments were accessible to all that was important to her. She used a guide dog at the time to help her with traffic. There was a veterinary clinic nearby; a light to cross the street; a bus stop so that she could get the mall; and a bank and grocery store directly across the street. Leggitt did not contact the apartment complex again until after Christmas of 1992, at which time she called and spoke to a person she believed was Frank Cutrona, the apartment manager. Leggitt was sent an application which she filled out and returned sometime after January 8, 1993. On the application she noted in the place where it requested information about automobiles, “None- (legally blind - no license)”. The application form requested information regarding pet ownership and indicated that there would be a separate application for pets. She wrote in the application that she had a guide dog, and that federal and state laws prohibited discrimination by charging a fee for guide dogs. The application stated that she was self-employed and obtained $281.34 per month in Social Security disability income. In the application, she stated “Mom pays rental and ut’s” (presumably utilities). The proposed monthly rental for a one-bedroom apartment was $380 per month, plus utilities. Leggitt sent a deposit and application fee on or about January 11, 1993. No specific amount of contribution towards Leggitt’s income was shown for her mother on the application. By letter dated January 18, 1993, Leggitt’s application was declined, citing the unavailability of the kind and location of the apartment which she desired and insufficient income to qualify. The letter was signed by Carole Naylor, “Property Administrator.” The original cashiers check for the deposit was also returned. Subsequent conversations took place between Leggitt and Frank Cutrona regarding her ability to pay and whether or not her mother’s income could be considered for credit requirements. Leggitt asked him to speak to her mother. Leggitt stated that she did not submit any information regarding her mother being a co-signer. Polly testified “[t]hey told me they would send her an application.” Christine Puchalski testified that she knew Leggitt as a resident of the apartment complex where she was a resident manager. In response to an inquiry by an unknown person calling on behalf of Regency Place Apartments, Puchalski stated that she did not go into any details other than that Leggitt paid her rent on time, that she did not have any returned checks, and there were no problems with Leggitt’s tenancy. By letter of January 28, 1993, Leggitt was advised that her application was not approved, stating that “We require the tenant/occupant to have sufficient income to qualify. Your mother living out of state, and not occupying the apartment would preclude her income from being part of the calculation.” This letter was signed by Carole Naylor, Property Administrator. Leggitt acknowledged that her application was not very specific as to income and that there were times that her mother paid rent directly to the apartment complex and sometimes she sent the sum directly to her. Following the rejection of her application, Leggitt moved to Titusville, Florida, to an apartment that was not accessible for her handicap. This apartment was on a very dangerous road, with no reliable public transportation and three miles to the grocery store. She had to buy a bicycle and risk her life on the dangerous road leading to the apartment, to buy groceries. She lived there eight-and-a-half months before moving to Merritt Island, Florida. Regency Apartments, containing 219 units, was built by Robert Stitzel in 1983 and owned by him until it was sold on April 30, 1993, to a third party corporation. The contract to sell the property had been executed in December, 1992. Frank Cutrona had worked for Stitzel between 4 and 6 years. He died on December 26, 1996. Carole Naylor did not work in the rental office. She made no judgments regarding the rental of the apartment, nor the creditworthiness of the prospective tenants. Her title “Property Administrator” appears to be a title only. Her duties were administrative, typing, and bookkeeping. She composed and typed the two letters that were sent to Leggitt, but the contents of the letters were given to her by Cutrona. She had no conversations with Polly Leggitt or Frances Leggitt. Robert Stitzel made no judgments regarding the tenants. Regency Apartments would require income equaling three times the gross rental. The creditworthiness and the determination of who would rent apartments was left solely with the resident manager. The proposed rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $380. Therefore, three times that amount equals $1,140.00. Respondent demonstrated that many disabled people had lived in the apartment complex. There was a person who was legally blind. There were amputees and physically challenged people of many different disabilities over the years. Accommodations were made for people with disabilities by Cutrona and such costs for these accommodations were paid by Regency. It does not appear that Regency Apartments is a legal entity. The owner of the apartment complex at the time of the alleged discrimination was Regency Place, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, which no longer owns the apartment complex. Frank Cutrona is deceased, and his estate has not been made party to this proceeding. Cutrona has been described as a caring, disabled man who was kind and considerate of his tenants with disabilities and made innovative accommodations for their benefit. The specific reasons or motivations for the rejection of the application by Cutrona cannot be clarified because of his death in December, 1996. Respondent was aware that the complex could not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex or disabilities. The Petitioner has made a prima facie case of discrimination in that Leggitt is a handicapped person, who is otherwise qualified to rent the apartment, and she suffered a loss of a housing opportunity, under circumstances which lead to an inference that Respondent based its action solely upon her handicap. Respondent presented evidence that Regency’s requirement of gross income equaling three times the monthly rent had not been satisfied by Leggitt’s mother’s agreement to contribute $550 per month. Leggitt’s income of $281.34, plus her mother’s contribution, would come to $831.34 per month. Three times the monthly rent was $1,140, thus rendering their income short by $308.66 per month. The motivation for rejecting the application is recited in those letters which stated that the apartment which Leggitt wanted was not available, and Leggitt did not have sufficient income to qualify. There is no evidence of a discriminatory motive on the part of Cutrona, Naylor, Stitzel, or Regency Apartments, other than conjecture. There is no evidence that suggests the reasons given were not true at the time the letters were written or that they were merely pretextual. Further, it does not appear from the evidence that any discriminatory motive has been proven. There is nothing in the evidence that proves that Leggitt’s legal blindness was a cause of the rejection of her application. There is no evidence of any act or conduct which would suggest discriminatory conduct or a discriminatory animus by any of the persons named as Respondents. Taken as a whole, the credible evidence indicates that the sole basis for rejecting her application was the unavailability of the unit that she requested, and her failure to satisfy management of her financial ability to meet the financial requirements of Regency Apartments. Although Leggitt testified as to her inconvenience caused by the denial of her application, there is no evidence of any quantifiable damages.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order denying the relief sought and dismissing the petition filed in this matter. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Evelyn Davis Golden, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Ms. Polly Leggitt 505 Landings Way, Apartment Number 12 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Mike Krasny, Esquire Krasny & Dettmer Post Office Box 428 Melbourne, Florida 32902-0428
Findings Of Fact After the motion for continuance was again denied, petitioners declined to offer any evidence and petitioners announced that they would be pursuing certain supposed federal remedies.
Conclusions The Director, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Division), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, enters this Final Order. 1. on May 20, 2013, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit win, 2. On October 1, 2013, a hearing in this cause was held before the Honorable Suzanne Van Wyk, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings. 3. On December 11, 2013, the Honorable Suzanne Van Wyk issued a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "2". The Statement of the Issues, Preliminary Statement, Filed January 6, 2014 1:49 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation contained in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted in toto and incorporated herein by reference. Based upon the foregoing, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is, hereby ORDERED that: for Respondent's violations of Section 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereto the following penalty is imposed: 1. Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of $1,200.00, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. 2. This Final Order shall become effective on the date of filing with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ORDERED this BF aay of Pece hi , 2075. Rie Oi fon Disnew 5. Werpglle Diann S. Wo¥zalla, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1015
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Holland Apartments, c/o Cindy Holland, 162 Rainbow Drive, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Suzanne Van _ Wyk, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this CG day of Sanuary , 20\4_ Prtccln MN Nihbe For Putreln~M, Division of Hotels and Restaurants : “Certified: Article: Number, ; ; 7446 008 S111 5516 1783
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's allegation of subjection to an unlawful employment practice is barred by Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by Respondent until her termination on November 15, 1996. Petitioner discussed the firing with her attorney in January of 1997. Petitioner was apprised by the attorney that she could file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Prior to August of 1997, Petitioner's attorney informed her that he had filed a Charge of Discrimination on behalf of Petitioner with the EEOC. Petitioner was led to understand that an investigator for EEOC would contact her. Petitioner was never contacted by the EEOC. On April 14, 2000, Petitioner received a notice from her attorney that apprised Petitioner that the attorney had been suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court for a period of 10 days. Later in either May or June, Petitioner read a newspaper article that recounted the suspension of Petitioner's attorney from the practice of law. Petitioner then determined to consult her present counsel in this matter, David Glasser, Esquire, to handle the charge she believed had been filed with the EEOC. Petitioner learned through Glasser that her previous counsel had not filed a complaint or charge with the EEOC. On July 10, 2000, Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR. Petitioner has neither filed a complaint with the Florida Bar Association or filed a legal malpractice suit against her previous counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 David Glasser, Esquire Glasser and Handel 150 South Palmetto Avenue Suite 100, Box N Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Douglas Kreuzkamp, Esquire American Red Cross Blood Services King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1763 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race, his alleged disability, and in alleged retaliation for his attempt to file a workers' compensation claim in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner also has been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder and major depression. On March 21, 1997, Petitioner began his employment with Florida Department of Corrections as a substance abuse counselor at Lancaster Correctional Institution. Petitioner's employment status was in career service, probationary status for six months from the date of his employment. A probationary status employee can be terminated without cause. Petitioner's employment as a counselor required him to be present at the institution a reasonable amount of time in order to perform his counseling duties. From March 21, 1997 through September 2, 1997, Petitioner failed to report for work 39 full workdays out of a possible 115 workdays. In addition, Petitioner had five other workdays that he only worked part of the day, with a total of 16 hours of leave used over those days. Sixteen hours is the equivalent of two full workdays missed by Respondent. As a result, Petitioner was absent from work approximately 35 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent absence rate was excessive based on Petitioner's job duties. Most of the leave was without pay because Petitioner had not accumulated enough sick or annual leave to cover his absences. The leave was taken for various reasons, but a large part of the leave was taken when Petitioner was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Petitioner's doctor released him from his hospitalization on August 8, 1997; however, Petitioner did not return to work until August 20, 1997. The last pay period ran from Friday, August 22, 1997 to Thursday, September 4, 1997. Petitioner only worked 20 hours out of 40 the first week and two hours out of 40 the second week. Around September 1, 1997, Petitioner went to the personnel office to inquire about filing a workers' compensation claim based on his disability. The staff person he spoke to did not know the procedure for filing a workers' compensation claim. She told Petitioner she would find out the procedure and asked him to return the next day. Other than Petitioner's speculation about the events following his initial inquiry about filing a workers' compensation claim, other material evidence regarding the events following his initial inquiry and Respondent's response thereto was submitted into evidence. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions of a factual or legal nature regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation claim and his termination. Petitioner was terminated on September 2, 1997, the day following his initial inquiry about workers' compensation. Petitioner received his letter of termination on September 2, 1997. Petitioner was a probationary status employee when he was terminated. Eventually, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim. The claim was denied by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. In 1997, L.D. "Pete" Turner was the warden at Lancaster Correctional Institution. As warden, Mr. Turner supervised Petitioner. Mr. Turner made the decision to terminate Petitioner due to his excessive absences. Mr. Turner did not terminate Petitioner based on Petitioner's race, his alleged disability, or because of Petitioner's attempt to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner was needed at work and he was not there a sufficient amount of time to fulfill his job duties. In fact, there was no competent evidence that there was any connection between Petitioner's termination and/or his race, disability, or desire to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner alleged that two employees at the institution were excessively absent but were not terminated. The employees were Doris Jones and Victoria Englehart. Both individuals were career service employees with permanent status. They were not probationary status employees. Doris Jones is an African-American female. Victoria Englehart is a white female. No other evidence was produced at the hearing regarding these two employees, their attendance records, job duties or anything else of a comparative nature. Clearly, the evidence is insufficient to make any comparison between these two employees and Petitioner's employment and termination.
Recommendation Based upon the 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 6th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 6th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Ware Post Office Box 2155 Trenton, Florida 32693 William J. Thurber, IV, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
