The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, LP Ormond Beach, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare ("Signature") committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race by subjecting her to disciplinary procedures that were not applied to non-minority employees.
Findings Of Fact Signature is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7). Signature is a provider of long-term nursing care in many markets in the United States. Signature operates the skilled-nursing facility in Ormond Beach that is the locus of this proceeding. Petitioner is a black female. On February 29, 2012, Petitioner was hired by Signature as a Certified Nursing Assistant (“CNA”). Petitioner’s job consisted of providing personal care to the residents of Signature’s Ormond Beach facility, including assisting the residents with their activities of daily living (“ADLs”). Signature terminated Petitioner’s employment in August 2013, when she failed to show up for work or call to notify her superiors that she would not be there. Petitioner did not contest the grounds of her dismissal in this proceeding. Petitioner’s complaint is limited to her allegations of disparate treatment on the job at Signature. At the time of her hiring, Petitioner was provided a copy of Signature’s “Stakeholder Handbook,” a document setting forth the company’s employment policies, including its anti- discrimination and anti-retaliation policies. The handbook sets forth Signature’s policies and procedures that prohibit, among other things, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, national origin, or any other categories of persons protected by state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Prior to filing her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR, Petitioner never made a complaint of employment discrimination while working at Signature. Signature also has a written “Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy” (abbreviated herein as the “Abuse and Neglect Policy”). Petitioner received a copy of this policy during her orientation and raised no objection to any of its contents. The policy states that the facility will “immediately report and thoroughly investigate allegations of mistreatment, neglect, abuse, misappropriation of resident’s property or any injury of unknown origin.” The policy further states, “Employees accused of participating in alleged abuse will be immediately suspended until the findings of the investigation have been reviewed by the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, and Human Resources Director.” Signature’s uniform practice is to suspend the accused employee without pay during the investigation. If the investigation discloses that the employee did not commit the alleged abuse, then the employee receives back pay for the period of the suspension. On September 27, 2012, Petitioner’s supervisor, Director of Nursing Judy Wade, issued a “Stakeholder Performance Improvement Plan” to Petitioner because of resident complaints. Ms. Wade wrote: You’ve had three residents complain of your care in the past five months. Complaints summarized as “less than gentle” care, that you told resident you couldn’t provide care because we didn’t have enough staff, sitting in resident room without resident’s permission, rudeness, and lack of assistance to residents in need.[2/] These complaints resulted in you being removed from providing care for these residents. Staff complaints summarized as: Not open to direction, makes excuses, confrontational, not a team player, and off the floor without informing nurse. Ms. Wade went on to outline Petitioner’s future expectations, which included providing care “in a timely, gentle and caring manner,” assisting co-workers and taking direction from superiors “in a positive, friendly manner,” and not leaving the floor without permission of the supervising nurse. The Performance Improvement Plan concluded with the statement, “If any expectation is not fully met your employment will be terminated.” Petitioner was not suspended pursuant to the Performance Improvement Plan because it addressed work performance issues, not “abuse” or “neglect” as defined by the Abuse and Neglect Policy. In late October 2012, Signature suspended Petitioner without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an incident in which a resident whom Petitioner had placed upright in a wheelchair, fell out of the wheelchair and was injured. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she placed the resident in the wheelchair and saw the resident fall. Petitioner’s only contention is that a white co-worker, Claudia Dominique, was also present and witnessed the fall but was not suspended. Luz Petrone, then the human relations director for Signature’s Ormond Beach facility, and Tiffani Petersen, the facility’s abuse prevention coordinator, testified that at the time of the incident they were not aware of any involvement by or allegation of abuse and neglect against Ms. Dominique. Therefore, they were in no position to suspend Ms. Dominique for the resident’s fall. Both women testified that Ms. Dominique would have been suspended if there had been an allegation of her involvement in the incident. The investigation concluded that Petitioner needed additional training on wheelchair usage but that she had not engaged in any abuse or neglect. Signature reinstated Petitioner to her position and paid her for the time she had missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On November 19, 2012, Petitioner was suspended without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an allegation of abuse and neglect. Petitioner did not allege that any white employees were involved in this incident. The record does not disclose the specifics of this incident, but does indicate that the investigation concluded with a finding that Petitioner had not engaged in any abuse or neglect. Petitioner was reinstated to her position on November 26, 2012, and reimbursed for the work she missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On January 15, 2013, Petitioner was suspended without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an allegation that she was being “rough” with a resident while providing care. One of Petitioner’s co- workers, Tina Williams, was involved in the incident and was also suspended pending the investigation. The investigation concluded that Petitioner needed additional training but had not engaged in any abuse or neglect.3/ Petitioner was reinstated to her position and paid for the time she missed while on suspension, as was Ms. Williams. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On March 5, 2013, Signature suspended Petitioner without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation regarding rough handling of a resident and failure to toilet a resident when the resident asked to use the bathroom on March 2. A white co-worker, Patricia Capoferri, was also involved in the incident and was also suspended without pay pending investigation. Ms. Capoferri asserted that the resident in question was assigned to Petitioner but that Ms. Capoferri had to answer the resident’s call light because Petitioner would not do so.4/ Ms. Capoferri claimed that she had to answer Petitioner’s “lights all the time, because she don’t answer them.” Upon completion of the investigation, Signature determined that the allegations of abuse or neglect against Petitioner were not substantiated. Petitioner was reinstated to her position and paid for the time she had missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. Petitioner credibly testified as to the hardship caused by the suspensions imposed on her during the investigations. It is reasonable to assume that a person attempting to survive on a CNA’s wages can scarcely afford to go a week without being paid, even when she ultimately receives full compensation for the suspension. Petitioner suffers from high blood pressure, and the tension generated by the frequent suspensions required several visits to her physician. On March 11, 2013, Signature terminated Ms. Capoferri’s employment as a result of the investigation. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Capoferri never went into the resident’s room on March 2, and that Signature suspended and fired Ms. Capoferri in order to cover its tracks regarding its pattern of discriminatory actions against Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that Signature acted against Ms. Capoferri only after Petitioner filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR. However, Ms. Capoferri was suspended on March 5, three days before Petitioner filed her complaint. Ms. Capoferri was fired on March 11, three days after Petitioner filed her complaint, but Ms. Petrone and Ms. Petersen credibly testified that they were unaware of the complaint at the time Ms. Capoferri’s employment was terminated. Petitioner offered no credible evidence to support her somewhat fanciful claim that Signature would fire a white employee solely to shield itself from a charge of discrimination by a black employee. Signature offered persuasive evidence that it applies its Abuse and Neglect Policy consistently and without regard to race or any other protected category. In April 2013, an allegation of abuse and neglect was made against Nancy Harnonge, a white CNA working at the Ormond Beach facility. Consistent with its policy, Signature suspended Ms. Harnonge without pay pending investigation and then reinstated her to her position with back pay after the investigation concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated. In May 2010, an allegation of abuse and neglect was made against Ms. Capoferri, who was suspended without pay pending investigation and then reinstated with back pay after the investigation did not substantiate the allegations. Petitioner never complained of discriminatory treatment or harassment to any supervisor at Signature prior to filing her Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Signature for her several suspensions pending investigation of abuse and neglect allegations. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Signature's stated reasons for her suspensions were a pretext for race discrimination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Signature discriminated against her because of her race in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner made no claim that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of Signature.
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 LP Ormond Beach, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare 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, 2014, 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, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination against Stephen G. Leslie (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) of 1992.
Findings Of Fact In 1986, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent as a "Safety Specialist." Beginning in 2001, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as an "Outdoor Advertising Regional Inspector." As an outdoor advertising regional inspector, the Petitioner's responsibilities included patrolling state roads in his assigned counties to ascertain the status of permitted outdoor advertising signs and to remove signs that were illegally placed on state right-of-way. The Respondent's duties required extensive driving, which he did in a state-supplied vehicle. The Petitioner was based at the Respondent's Tampa headquarters, but was supervised by employees located in Tallahassee. In 2007, the Petitioner began to experience neurological health issues, but he continued to work and was able to perform the responsibilities of his employment. From September 2008 to June 2011, the Petitioner was supervised by Robert Jessee. In 2009, the Petitioner's health issues got worse. He began to take more sick leave, which the Respondent approved upon request of the Petitioner. The Respondent also provided equipment to accommodate the Petitioner's health issues, including a laptop computer and larger mirrors on the Petitioner's state vehicle. The Respondent also assigned another employee to ride with the Petitioner and to remove signs illegally placed on state right-of-way so that the Petitioner did not have to exit the vehicle. In 2010, the Petitioner was involved in two automobile accidents while driving the state vehicle. In January, he ran into a vehicle that was stopped for a school bus. In February, while transporting a group of other employees on I-75, the Respondent struck rode debris and the vehicle was damaged. In April 2010, the Petitioner's presence in the Tampa headquarters building was restricted for reasons that were unclear. Although the restrictions caused embarrassment to the Petitioner, there was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that such measures were related in any way to the Petitioner's disability. Following an investigation of the traffic incidents by the Respondent's inspector general, the Petitioner received a written reprimand dated August 18, 2010, and was directed to take the Respondent's online driving course. Beginning in June 2011 and through the remainder of the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent, the Petitioner was supervised by Michael Green. The Respondent collects statistical data to measure the productivity of persons employed as outdoor advertising regional inspectors. The Petitioner's productivity statistics were significantly lower than those of other inspectors, and he was behind in his assignments. Accordingly, Mr. Green rode along with the Petitioner for three consecutive days in September 2011 to observe the Petitioner's work. At the hearing, Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner arrived late to pick him up at his hotel on all three days. On one of those days, the Petitioner accomplished an employment- related task prior to picking up the supervisor. Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner's driving made him feel unsafe during the observation. Mr. Green observed that the Petitioner accelerated and slowed the vehicle in an abrupt manner, and that he failed to use turn signals at appropriate times. Mr. Green also testified that the Petitioner was preoccupied as he drove by electronic devices, including a cell phone. Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner appeared to have difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle, and with hearing certain noises in the vehicle, including the click of the turn signal. Mr. Green testified that he felt so unsafe that he asked the Petitioner to alter his driving practices while Mr. Green was in the vehicle. Mr. Green testified that during the observation ride, the Petitioner discussed his physical condition and admitted that medical appointments during the week made it difficult to maintain the routine work schedule. The Petitioner also advised Mr. Green that he was considering filing for disability retirement. After returning to the Tallahassee headquarters, Mr. Green prepared a memorandum dated September 19, 2011, to memorialize his observations about the Petitioner's job performance. Mr. Green's memorandum was directed to Juanice Hughes (deputy director of the Respondent's right-of-way office) and to the Respondent's outdoor advertising manager. In the memo, Mr. Green recommended that the Petitioner be required to provide medical verification of his continued ability to perform the responsibilities of his position. In a letter to the Petitioner dated September 23, 2011, Ms. Hughes restated Mr. Green's observations and directed the Petitioner to obtain medical verification that the Petitioner was able to perform the responsibilities of his position safely. The letter specifically directed the Petitioner to provide medical information related to his ability to work his normal schedule, the existence of any work restrictions or required accommodations, and the impact of any medications prescribed for the Petitioner. The letter established a deadline of September 30, 2011, for the Petitioner's compliance with its requirements, and advised that he would not be permitted to resume his employment duties until the medical verification information was provided and any required accommodations were in place. The Petitioner apparently did not become aware of the letter until September 29, 2011. On that date, both Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes attempted to contact the Petitioner via his work cell phone and by email to advise him of the letter and to direct that he retrieve the letter from the district headquarters. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., contact was made with the Petitioner by calling his personal cell phone. At that time, the Petitioner was advised that he needed to return to the district headquarters to pick up the letter. He was further advised that he was being placed on leave until the requirements of the letter were met and that he needed to turn in his state vehicle when he arrived at the headquarters. The Petitioner advised Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes that he was attempting to obtain documentation required to file for disability retirement, and he asked for an extension of time during which to do so. His request for an extension was denied. The Petitioner, clearly unhappy with the circumstance, made a statement during the conversation that was considered by Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes to suggest that the Petitioner could cause damage to himself or to the state vehicle. The actual words spoken were disputed at the hearing, and the evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would have actually damaged the vehicle or himself. Nonetheless, it was clear after the conversation that the Petitioner was resistant to the Department's instructions. The Respondent immediately directed James Moulton, the director of Transportation Operations for the Tampa district, to check on the Petitioner's condition and to retrieve the vehicle assigned to the Petitioner. Mr. Moulton did so, accompanied by local law enforcement personnel, at approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 29, 2011. In a letter to the Petitioner dated September 30, 2011, Ms. Hughes recounted the events of the day before and again directed the Petitioner to obtain medical verification that he was able to perform the responsibilities of his position safely. No deadline was set for the Petitioner's compliance, and he was advised that he could use leave for any absence related to obtaining the medical documentation. A few days later, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he would be unable to obtain the requested medical verification and that he would be filing an application for medical disability retirement. In November 2011, the Petitioner filed the application accompanied by medical documentation establishing that the Petitioner had a "total and permanent disability," as defined by section 121.091(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/ His application was approved.
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 the Petitioner against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed for approximately five years with Respondent as a salesman. RF Group, LLC, is a limited liability company, doing business as Respondent, McGowan's Heating and Air Conditioning, and is a company engaged in the heating and air conditioning business. Petitioner was a successful salesman for four and one- half years with the company until a new salesman was hired. According to Petitioner, the new salesman was given most of the sales leads and Petitioner was cut out. Eventually, Petitioner's salary was reduced due to a decrease in his sales performance. He attributes his decrease in sales production to Respondent choosing the new salesman over him. Although he claimed age discrimination in his initial complaint, Petitioner offered no evidence or testimony that he was not given the sales leads due to his age and that the younger salesman received the leads because Respondent considered Petitioner too old to conduct his business. Petitioner resigned his position with Respondent because he was not making enough salary. After his resignation, Petitioner went to work with Total Air Care, but his employment was terminated due to company lay-offs in October 2010.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 G. Alan Howard, Esquire Milam, Howard, Nicandri, Dees & Gilliam, P.A. East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Luis G. Arias 3526 Laurel Leaf Drive Orange Park, Florida 32065 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been the subject of an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 1992, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the date, time, and place for the formal administrative hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner and his counsel at the addresses listed in the Petition for Relief and accompanying information. Petitoner's attorney appeared at the hearing. However, even though Petitioner received adequate notice of the hearing in this matter, the Petitioner did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Respondent was present at the hearing. The Petitioner did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned or his attorney that he would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. Petitioner was allowed fifteen minutes to appear at the hearing. As a consequence of Petitoner's failure to appear, no evidence was presented to support Petitioner's case. Specifically, no evidence of discrimination based on handicap or race was forthcoming. Therefore, Petitioner's attorney was advised that the Petition for Relief would be dismissed and a Recommended Order entered recommending the Commission do likewise.
Recommendation Based upon 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 RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Allen, Esquire 322 West Cervantes Street P.O. Box 12322 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Margaret A. Jones Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1992.
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 practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her color and/or her age.
Findings Of Fact The Town is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired by the Town in November 2004 as an administrative assistant to Mayor Anthony Grant. Petitioner is a dark-skinned African-American woman who was 51 years of age at the time of the hearing. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by a committee appointed by Mayor Grant. The committee included town clerk Cathlene Williams, public works director Roger Dixon, and then- chief administrative officer Dr. Ruth Barnes. Mayor Grant did not meet Petitioner until the day she started work as his administrative assistant. The mayor's administrative assistant handles correspondence, filing, appointments, and anything else the mayor requires in the day-to-day operations of his office. For more than two years, Petitioner went about her duties without incident. She never received a formal evaluation, but no testimony or documentary evidence was entered to suggest that her job performance was ever less than acceptable during this period. In about August 2007, Petitioner began to notice a difference in Mayor Grant's attitude towards her. The mayor began screaming at her at the top of his lungs, cursing at her. He was relentlessly critical of her job performance, accusing her of not completing assigned tasks. Petitioner conceded that she would "challenge" Mayor Grant when he was out of line or requested her to do something beyond her job description. She denied being disrespectful or confrontational, but agreed that she was not always as deferential as Mayor Grant preferred. During the same time period, roughly July and August 2007, Petitioner also noticed that resumes were being faxed to the Town Hall that appeared to be for her job. She asked Ms. Williams about the resumes, but Ms. Williams stated she knew nothing and told Petitioner to ask the mayor. When Petitioner questioned the mayor about the resumes, he took her into his office and asked her to do him a favor. He asked if she would work across the street in the post office for a couple of weeks, to fill in for a post office employee who was being transferred to the finance department; as a team player, Petitioner agreed to the move. While she was working as a clerk at the post office, Petitioner learned that the mayor was interviewing people for her administrative assistant position. She filed a formal complaint with the Town. For a time after that, she was forced to work half-time at the post office and half-time in the mayor's office. On or about October 22, 2007, Petitioner was formally transferred from her position as administrative assistant to the mayor to the position of postal clerk in the post office. Her salary and benefits remained the same. At the hearing, Mayor Grant testified that he moved Petitioner to the post office to lessen the stress of her job. Based on his conversations with Petitioner, he understood that Petitioner was having personal or family problems. He was not privy to the details of these problems, but had noticed for some time that Petitioner seemed to be under great stress. The post office was a much less hectic environment than the mayor's office, and would be more amenable to her condition. Ms. Williams, the town clerk, testified that the mayor told her that Petitioner was stressed and needed more lax duties than those she performed in the mayor's office. Mr. Dixon, the public works director, testified that Petitioner had indicated to him that she was under pressure, but she did not disclose the cause of that pressure. He recalled that, toward the end of her employment with the Town, Petitioner mentioned that she felt she was being discriminated against because of her skin color. Petitioner denied ever telling Mayor Grant that she was feeling stressed. She denied telling him anything about her family. Petitioner stated that the only stress she felt was caused by the disrespect and humiliation heaped upon her by Mayor Grant. Petitioner's best friend, Gina King Brooks, a business owner in the Town, testified that Petitioner would come to her store in tears over her treatment by the mayor. Petitioner told Ms. Brooks that she was being transferred to the post office against her will, was being forced to train her own replacement in the mayor's office,3 and believed that it was all because of her age and complexion. Mayor Grant testified that he called Petitioner into his office and informed her of the transfer to the post office. He did not tell her that the move was temporary. He did not view the transfer from administrative assistant to postal clerk as a demotion or involving any loss of status. Mayor Grant testified that an additional reason for the change was that he wanted a more qualified person as his administrative assistant. He acknowledged that Petitioner was actually more experienced than her eventual replacement, Jacqueline Cockerham.4 However, Petitioner's personal issues were affecting her ability to meet the sensitive deadlines placed upon her in the mayor's office. The mayor needed more reliable support in his office, and Petitioner needed a less stressful work environment. Therefore, Mayor Grant believed the move would benefit everyone involved. Mayor Grant denied that Petitioner's skin color or age had anything to do with her transfer to the post office. Petitioner was replaced in her administrative assistant position by Ms. Cockerham, a light-skinned African- American woman born on October 17, 1961. She was 46 years of age at the time of the hearing. Documents introduced by the Town at the hearing indicate the decision to hire Ms. Cockerham was made on March 26, 2008. Ms. Williams testified that she conducted the interview of Ms. Cockerham, along with a special assistant to the mayor, Kevin Bodley, who no longer works for the Town. Both Ms. Williams and Mayor Grant testified that the mayor did not meet Ms. Cockerham until the day she began work in his office. Petitioner testified that she knew the mayor had met Ms. Cockerham before she was hired by the Town, because Mayor Grant had instructed Petitioner to set up a meeting with Ms. Cockerham while Petitioner was still working in the mayor's office. Mayor Grant flatly denied having any knowledge of Ms. Cockerham prior to the time of her hiring. On this point, Mayor Grant's testimony, as supported by that of Ms. Williams, is credited. To support her allegation that Mayor Grant preferred employees with light skin, Petitioner cited his preferential treatment of an employee named Cherone Fort. Petitioner claimed that Mayor Grant required her to make a wake-up call to Ms. Fort every morning, because Ms. Fort had problems getting to work on time. Ms. Fort was a light-skinned African-American woman. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that Mayor Grant and Ms. Fort were friends, and that his favoritism toward her may have had nothing to do with her skin color. Petitioner claimed that there were other examples of the mayor's "color struck" favoritism toward lighter-skinned employees, but she declined to provide specifics.5 She admitted that several dark-skinned persons worked for the Town, but countered that those persons do not work in close proximity to the mayor. As to her age discrimination claim, Petitioner testified that a persistent theme of her conversations with Mayor Grant was his general desire for a younger staff, because younger people were fresher and more creative. The mayor's expressed preference was always a concern to Petitioner. Petitioner testified that she felt degraded, demeaned and humiliated by the transfer to the post office. She has worked as an executive assistant for her entire professional career, including positions for the city manager of Gainesville and the head of pediatric genetics at the University of Florida. She believed herself unsuited to a clerical position in the post office, and viewed her transfer as punitive. In April 2008, Petitioner was transferred from the post office to a position as assistant to the town planner. Within days of this second transfer, Petitioner resigned her position as an employee of the Town. At the time of her resignation, Petitioner was being paid $15.23 per hour. Petitioner is now working for Rollins College in a position she feels is more suitable to her skills. She makes about $14.00 per hour. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that there was a personality conflict between Petitioner and Mayor Grant. Neither Petitioner nor Mayor Grant was especially forthcoming regarding the details of their working relationship, especially the cause of the friction that developed in August 2007. Neither witness was entirely credible in describing the other's actions or motivations. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's claims that Mayor Grant ranted, yelled, and was "very, very nasty" in his dealings with Petitioner.6 No other witness corroborated Mayor Grant's claim that Petitioner was under stress due to some unnamed family situation. The working relationship between Mayor Grant and Petitioner was certainly volatile, but the evidence is insufficient to permit more than speculation as to the cause of that volatility. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, due to this personality conflict, Mayor Grant wanted Petitioner transferred out of his office. He may even have used the subterfuge of a "temporary" transfer to exact Petitioner's compliance with the move. However, the purpose of this proceeding is not to pass judgment on Mayor Grant's honesty or skills as an administrator. Aside from Petitioner's suspicions, there is no solid evidence that Mayor Grant was motivated by anything other than a desire to have his office run more smoothly and efficiently. Petitioner's assertion that the mayor's preference for lighter-skinned employees was common knowledge cannot be credited without evidentiary support. Petitioner's age discrimination claim is supported only by Petitioner's recollection of conversations with Mayor Grant in which he expressed a general desire for a younger, fresher, more creative staff. Given that both Petitioner and Ms. Cockerham were experienced, middle-aged professionals, and given that Mayor Grant had nothing to do with the hiring of either employee, the five-year age difference between them does not constitute evidence of discrimination on the part of the mayor or the Town. Petitioner was not discharged from employment. Though Petitioner perceived it as a demotion, the transfer to the post office was a lateral transfer within the Town's employment hierarchy. Petitioner was paid the same salary and received the same benefits she received as an administrative assistant to the mayor. A reasonably objective observer would not consider working as a clerk in a post office to be demeaning or degrading.
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 Town of Eatonville did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2009, 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 17th day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Optical Shop (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01– and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner, Janice Jennings (Petitioner), to discrimination in employment and by discharging Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent is a corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Respondent operates an optical shop in a Veteran’s Administration (V.A.) Hospital located in Lake City, Florida. At its Lake City location, Respondent fills prescriptions written by eye physicians at the V.A. Hospital, assists patients with choosing frames, and fits patients with their prescription eye glasses. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is fast-paced, with a constant stream of patients, averaging 50-to-60 patients a day. If the optical shop is running behind schedule, it is problematic because often physicians at the V.A. Hospital are waiting to see the patients served by the optical shop. In 2009, Petitioner interviewed for a position at Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City, Florida. During her interview, Petitioner advised Respondent that she had competent computer skills and significant experience working in an office environment and with eye doctors. On May 27, 2009, Respondent hired Petitioner as a part- time clerk at the optical shop. Petitioner was terminated prior to working 90 days for Respondent. When Petitioner was hired, two full-time employees worked at the optical shop: office supervisor, Jean Hartup, and optician, Kathleen Denton. Ms. Hartup has been employed with Respondent for approximately five years. Ms. Denton has been with the optical shop for approximately two and a-half years. As office supervisor, Ms. Hartup can be distant with employees and “hard” at times. She can also be “direct” when speaking to employees. Ms. Hartup demonstrates these traits with all of the employees at the optical shop. Ms. Hartup has written up Ms. Denton in the past and the two have had personality conflicts. Both Ms. Hartup and Ms. Denton assisted with training Petitioner. Evidence indicated that Petitioner received adequate training to perform the tasks she was assigned to perform as a clerk. She often had to be re-trained on the same tasks. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is a very small room, approximately ten-feet by ten-feet square inside the V.A. Hospital. There are two small desks in the shop and it is very crowded. Petitioner was aware of the small working environment at the time she accepted employment with Respondent as a part- time clerk. Past and present employees at the optical shop have had to share desk space. Sometimes work has to be performed in the hallway because of the small office space. All new hires for Respondent are subjected to a 90-day probationary period. As explained in Respondent’s “Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits,” of which Petitioner was aware: There will be a 90-day probationary period during which time the employer may terminate the employee at any time for any reason or for no reason regardless of any other provision of these policies. Sick leave and personal days are accrued but cannot be used during this period. Respondent’s Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits also provides: [Respondent] does not and will not tolerate any employee discriminating against their work peers for any reason i.e., race, color, religion, sex, national origin or handicap. Any known verifiable discrimination will be grounds for immediate termination. Once on the job, Petitioner was not proficient on the computer and, despite repeated training, failed to show any improvement and was slow in performing her job duties. Because of this, service to patients at the optical shop slowed down and the optical shop was frequently behind, resulting in physicians having to wait for patients being served by the optical shop. Ms. Hartup became frustrated with Petitioner’s unsatisfactory job performance and the resulting delays. In addition, Petitioner began to show a lack of interest in her job and even stated that she “didn’t really need a job; she just wanted to be out of the house.” Despite repeated training and opportunities to improve her work performance, Petitioner failed to improve. Petitioner was given a notebook with information from the American Board of Opticians for review but she failed to read it or return it to Respondent. Prior to the end of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner called Respondent’s corporate headquarters in Mississippi and spoke to Mary Walker. Petitioner complained to Ms. Walker that Ms. Hartup was being too hard, was impatient, and was expecting too much of her. Petitioner did not raise concerns with Ms. Walker that she was being discriminated against based on her race, or that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment because of her race. In fact, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained of race discrimination or a hostile work environment based on race discrimination while she was still employed by Respondent. During that first telephone conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Walker suggested to Petitioner that she should talk to Ms. Hartup about the problems. Petitioner assured Ms. Walker that she would. Two days later, Ms. Walker called Ms. Hartup and inquired whether Petitioner had discussed her concerns with Ms. Hartup. Petitioner, however, had not spoken to Ms. Hartup about her complaint. Ms. Walker gave Ms. Hartup the authority to run the optical shop at Lake City, including making hiring and firing decisions. Ms. Walker did not discipline Ms. Hartup because of Petitioner’s complaints. Rather, Ms. Walker told Ms. Hartup to handle the situation regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Ms. Hartup then met with Petitioner and they spoke about Petitioner’s concerns that Ms. Hartup was being too harsh and about Petitioner’s poor work performance. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Hartup felt the situation had been resolved. Petitioner subsequently advised both Ms. Denton, as well as Ms. Walker at Respondent’s headquarters, that the conversation with Ms. Hartup had gone well and that their issues had been resolved. Petitioner’s work performance, however, did not improve. Prior to the end of her 90-day probationary period of employment, Respondent terminated Petitioner from employment for poor work performance, for failing to reach her capabilities as an employee, and because her poor work performance was a detriment to Respondent’s Lake City optical shop. Petitioner testified that, from her point of view, she truly felt as though she had been discriminated against because of her race. That testimony, however, was without further support and was unpersuasive, especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence that Petitioner ever mentioned to anyone during her employment with Respondent that she believed she was being discriminated against. There was otherwise no evidence presented at the final hearing that would support a finding that Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaint against Ms. Hartup. Further, the evidence produced at final hearing does not support a finding that either the manner in which Petitioner was treated during her employment with Respondent, or her termination from that employment, was based on Petitioner’s race. Respondent filled the position of part-time clerk left vacant after Petitioner’s termination by hiring a Native- American male.
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 29th day of July, 2010, 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 29th day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Coastal Properties (“Respondent” or “Coastal Properties”), discriminated against Petitioner, Harry (Hal) Hingson (“Petitioner”), based upon his age and race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male who was 60 years old in May of 2014, when Respondent allegedly discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his age. Respondent is a management company for third-party owners of apartment communities, home owners associations, and condominium associations. Respondent employed Petitioner as a maintenance worker at the Twin Oaks apartment complex, a 242-unit apartment complex in Tallahassee, Florida. On May 6, 2014, after work, Petitioner and his supervisor, Clint Creel, were involved in a physical altercation off the job site, while fishing together on a boat. After the boat returned to the dock, Petitioner went inside his home. Rather than securing himself in his residence and calling law enforcement, Petitioner retrieved a gun from his residence, exited his residence, and fired the gun multiple times at Mr. Creel. Mr. Creel was struck in the back of the leg by a bullet and received medical treatment for his gunshot wound. Although he was shot, Mr. Creel returned to work the next day. Petitioner did not return to work the day after the incident as he was seeking medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the physical altercation. Two days after the shooting, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by the Respondent's Vice-President, Ray Allen, in consultation with the President, Dennis Fuller, after Mr. Allen spoke to both Mr. Creel, and Petitioner, about the shooting. Respondent presented the undisputed testimony of Mr. Allen and Mr. Ray that Petitioner's employment was terminated to protect the safety of the other employees and the residents at the Twin Oaks property. Mr. Creel expressed concern about his safety to Mr. Allen if he had to continue working with Petitioner. Mr. Allen and Mr. Fuller also were concerned about the safety of Mr. Creel, as well as the other employees and residents, if Petitioner and Mr. Creel continued to work together. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint alleges that Petitioner was discriminated against based on race and age. In particular, Petitioner alleges that he was discriminated against because he was terminated after the off-the-job altercation, but his younger supervisor was not. The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim of discrimination. Other than testifying that he at one time, prior to the incident, was told that he was moving slow and at another time was told he was acting feeble, Petitioner did not present any direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to reasonably suggest that Respondent discriminated against him in employment because of his age. Even if Petitioner had presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Respondent provided a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner's employment. Petitioner admitted that Mr. Allen advised him that he was being terminated because he no longer wanted Petitioner and Mr. Creel to work together. Petitioner admitted Mr. Allen told him that he would have continued to employ Petitioner by moving him to another property, but there were no other openings. Respondent’s evidence demonstrated that the day after Petitioner was terminated, of its 59 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 11 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. The evidence also showed that 54 days after Petitioner was terminated, of Respondent’s 64 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 10 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent's reason for terminating his employment was a pretext for age discrimination. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint further alleges he was discriminated against based on his race because another employee, a younger African-American, was arrested for DUI but was not terminated. Petitioner presented no evidence at the final hearing to substantiate that allegation, and Petitioner failed to present any evidence whatsoever to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by treating him differently, or terminating his employment because of his race or age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Grand Boulevard Health and Rehabilitation, d/b/a FL HUD Destin, LLC (“Grand Boulevard”), committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Angela D. Jones based on her race.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the entire record of this proceeding, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Jones is a 49-year-old African American female. She has a high school degree and earned certifications or licenses enabling her to work as a certified nursing assistant (“CNA”), a home-health aide, a cosmetologist, and a security guard. However, healthcare has been her primary field of work. 2 Ms. Jones stated during the final hearing that she had transmitted to DOAH an audio recording made by Mr. Manning and that she had intended to move that audio recording into evidence. The audio recording was not received by DOAH. Nonetheless, the undersigned has determined that no prejudice resulted to Ms. Jones because there was no dispute regarding the event described by Mr. Manning’s affidavit. In May of 2019, Ms. Jones was working in a nursing home and heard from a coworker about the substantial benefits and signing bonus that Grand Boulevard was offering new hires. Grand Boulevard’s employment application contained a question asking each applicant to respond “yes” or “no” as to whether he or she had “ever pled guilty, pled no contest, had adjudication withheld, or been placed in a pre- trial intervention program as a result of being charged with a crime.” Ms. Jones left that portion of her application blank.3 Ms. Jones responded “no” in response to a question asking if she had “ever been convicted of any criminal violation of law, or [if she was] now under pending investigation or charges of violation of criminal law.”4 The employment application contained a provision requiring Ms. Jones to certify that: the information provided in this employment application (and accompanying resume, if any) is true and complete. I understand that any false, incomplete, or misleading information given by me on this form, regardless of when it is discovered, may disqualify me from further consideration for employment, and may be justification for my 3 Ms. Jones testified that she told Shakara Mayberry, Grand Boulevard’s Director of Staff Development at the time, that she had a criminal background and that she left that portion of the application blank because she could not remember specific details about the charges. Ms. Jones also testified that she offered to supplement her application with precise information after she had an opportunity to consult documentation in her possession. According to Ms. Jones, Ms. Mayberry accepted her application and told her to not worry about disclosing her criminal background. Ms. Mayberry also testified during the final hearing and denied telling Ms. Jones that she could leave that portion of her application blank. During the final hearing, Grand Boulevard provided no satisfactory explanation as to why Ms. Jones was hired without completing that portion of her application. 4 Respondent’s Exhibit 3 was Ms. Jones’s responses to interrogatories from Grand Boulevard. Via her responses, Ms. Jones provided documentation regarding her criminal history. However, Grand Boulevard did not request that Respondent’s Exhibit 3 be accepted into evidence. When being questioned about Respondent’s Exhibit 3, Ms. Jones acknowledged that she has: (1) pled no contest to a battery charge; (2) been charged or arrested for resisting an officer; (3) been arrested for criminal mischief; and (4) entered a plea on a different criminal mischief charge. dismissal from employment, if discovered at a later date. After conducting a background check through the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) indicating Ms. Jones had no disqualifying offenses, Grand Boulevard hired Ms. Jones.5 Ms. Jones began working for Grand Boulevard on May 15, 2019, as a CNA helping nursing home residents with activities of daily living such as dental hygiene, grooming, and eating. On June 16, 2019, a resident in Ms. Jones’s care suffered injuries after he rolled out of his bed while Ms. Jones was cleaning him. Pursuant to its policy, Grand Boulevard suspended Ms. Jones while the Walton County Police Department investigated the incident. Ms. Jones returned to work at Grand Boulevard three days later but was suspended again on June 20, 2019, because she had allowed her CNA certificate to expire. Ms. Jones paid her delinquency fee, and her certificate was reinstated. During the course of the investigation of the June 16, 2019, incident, an investigator from the Walton County Sheriff’s Office asked Heather Hanna, Grand Boulevard’s Director of Nursing at the time, why Grand Boulevard would hire someone such as Ms. Jones with a criminal history. Ms. Hanna then had Ms. Jones’s application pulled and noticed that Ms. Jones did not 5 Section 400.9065, Florida Statutes, mandates that AHCA “shall require level 2 background screening for personnel as required in s. 408.809(1)(e) pursuant to chapter 435 and s. 408.809.” Section 408.809(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires level 2 background screening of any person who is expected to provide personal care services directly to nursing home residents. Section 435.04(2), Florida Statutes, lists many specific offenses that disqualify someone from working in a nursing home. Accordingly, the background screening conducted through AHCA is narrower in scope than Grand Boulevard’s employment application, which asks applicants if they have “ever pled guilty, pled no contest, had adjudication withheld, or been placed in a pre-trial intervention program as a result of being charged with a crime.” For example, while Ms. Jones acknowledged that she has pled no contest to a battery charge, that charge would not necessarily have been a disqualifying offense because section 435.04(2) only encompasses felony battery, battery on a minor, sexual battery, and battery on a vulnerable adult. Likewise, resisting an officer and criminal mischief are not disqualifying offenses. respond to the question asking if she had ever been charged with a crime. Ms. Hanna sent the following report to Connie Zuraff on June 28, 2019: I received a visit from Investigator Donna Armstrong with Walton County PD and Julianne Dalton APS investigator. The investigator questioned why we would have an employee who had a recent arrest record, she stated that she knew Angela Jones from the community and that she was concerned that she was employed here. We reviewed her application and found that she had not checked the boxes related to history of arrests.[6] I called Ms. Jones with Tuwanna RN Risk Manager and [Shakara] Mayberry LPN SDC present in the room. I placed Ms. Jones on speaker phone and asked if she had been arrested for any recent criminal activity and she confirmed that she was arrested for battery, petty theft and fighting. I notified the employee that failure to disclose this information could lead to termination and suspended her at that time. The DCS did pull her background through the AHCA clearing house and we confirmed that she still showed eligible for employment. Grand Boulevard then suspended Ms. Jones and ultimately terminated her on June 27, 2019, on the basis that she “knowingly falsified [her] employment application.” There was no persuasive evidence of Grand Boulevard giving more favorable treatment to nonminority employees who neglected to fully disclose whether they had “ever pled guilty, pled no contest, had adjudication withheld, or been placed in a pre-trial intervention program as a result of being charged with a crime.” Any testimony from Ms. Jones on that point was 6 The pertinent question on the application does not require applicants to disclose arrests. The question asks applicants if they have “ever pled guilty, pled no contest, had adjudication withheld, or been placed in a pre-trial intervention program as a result of being charged with a crime.” either unpersuasive, unsubstantiated, or insufficiently specific. Accordingly, the greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that Grand Boulevard committed an unlawful employment practice.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Angela D. Jones, pro se 115 Christie Lane Panama City, Florida 32404 For Respondent: David Sydney Harvey, Esquire Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 3400 Tampa, Florida 33602
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 Ms. Jones’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Angela D. Jones 115 Christie Lane Panama City, Florida 32404 David Sydney Harvey, Esquire Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 3400 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
