The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, (2010), by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of sex through the creation of a hostile work environment or through constructive discharge, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Department of Corrections (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the custody of inmates in state prisons. It operates the Reception and Medical Center in Union County, Florida, to process newly committed inmates into the state prison system and provide primary medical care to inmates. The Department employs over 15 employees. The Department has a policy, Procedure #208.052, which instructs all employees regarding the proper filing and processing of discrimination complaints. The Department has a Sexual Harassment Rule, Procedure or Policy, COER-1, which instructs all employees regarding their responsibility in reporting and filing discrimination complaints. The Department has a policy, Procedure #602.008, which instructs all employees on how to take appropriate action to report inappropriate inmate behavior. Ms. Stephanie Neff,1/ Petitioner in this case, is a woman who first began working for the Department as a Certified Nursing Assistant in March of 2008. On July 15, 2008, she submitted a letter of resignation because she was planning to leave her husband and return to South Florida due to marital problems. However, she and her husband sought marriage counseling and on July 24, 2008, she rescinded her resignation. She stayed on for over a year until she resigned in August of 2009. She was subsequently re-employed on March 19, 2010, as a clerk specialist for the period of employment at issue here, until she again quit her job on or about July 1, 2010. When Ms. Neff began her employment on March 19, 2010, she received an anti-discrimination information sheet, referencing the Department's Sexual Harassment Brochure, COER-1, and advising that complaints could be filed with the Senior Personnel Manager of Employee Relations at the appropriate service center or with the Supervisor of the Employee Relations and Program Section of the Bureau of Personnel, which she signed. When Ms. Neff began her employment on March 19, 2010, she also received and signed an Equal Opportunity and Anti- Harassment Statement advising that complaints could be filed with the Senior Personnel Manager of Employee Relations at the appropriate service center or with the assistant chief of the Employee Relations and Program Section of the Bureau of Personnel in Central Office, and advising her that complaints could also be filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When Ms. Neff began her employment on March 19, 2010, she received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and signed a receipt for those policies. Through Ms. Neff's receipt of the Sexual Harassment Brochure, COER-1, she became aware of her reporting responsibilities in relation to acts of sexual harassment in the workplace. When Ms. Neff commenced her employment on March 19, 2010, she received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding Non-Security Staff Instructions for Reporting Inappropriate Inmate Behavior and signed a receipt for those policies. As an employee of the Respondent, Ms. Neff had access to the Department's forms, rules, and procedures through the Department's computer system. Ms. Judith Nader was Ms. Neff's supervisor and next in her chain of command. Ms. Nader, retired from the Department at the time of the hearing, worked for the Department for over 18 years. When Ms. Nader commenced her employment with the Department she received Department policies detailing her responsibilities regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and signed a receipt for those policies. No responsibility is placed on supervisors to report harassment, but "management" is given such a responsibility. Ms. Nader received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding Non-Security Staff Instructions for Reporting Inappropriate Inmate Behavior and signed a receipt for those policies. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Nader had access to the Department's forms, rules, and procedures through the Department's computer system. Ms. Shea Dicks was Ms. Nader's supervisor and next in her chain of command. Ms. Dicks received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding Non-Security Staff Instructions for Reporting Inappropriate Inmate Behavior and signed a receipt for those policies. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Dicks had access to the Department's forms, rules, and procedures through the Department's computer system. In addition to these formal notifications of Department policies on sexual harassment, employees had meetings at which the topics of sexual harassment and reporting procedures were discussed. The Department's sexual harassment policies have not been adopted by rule, are slightly inconsistent, and are not well understood or followed by the Department's employees. On March 26, 2010, Sgt. Patrick Pierce, a Corrections Officer employed by the Department, made comments to Ms. Neff which she has identified as inappropriate. On that day, about a week after Ms. Neff had begun her employment, she had gone outside with another person to smoke a cigarette. They did not have a lighter, so they went to "J-Dorm" (the infirmary) to borrow a lighter from one of the nurses. None of the nurses had one. As they were leaving, Sgt. Pierce asked them what they were looking for, and they replied that they were looking for a lighter. He did not have one, but got one for them from back in the inmate area. After using the lighter, they returned it and Ms. Neff went back to her office located in the portion of the hospital known as "Two West." Only a couple of minutes after Ms. Neff returned to her desk, the phone rang. She answered the phone, "Two West, Neff." The male voice on the telephone said, "Just who I was looking for." She said, "Who is this? How can I help you?" He replied, "You know who this is." She said, "No I don't. I'm really busy, how can I help you?" He said, "You need to bring that view back out here more often. You livened up the scenery." She said, "What are you talking about?" He said, "You need to bring that view back out here more often and if you'll back that ass up, I'll touch it. But you have to back it up because that's the only way I can touch it without getting in trouble." Ms. Neff replied, "The only person I back my ass up to is my husband. Have a nice day." She then hung up the phone. The comment to Ms. Neff on the telephone was sexual in nature and was inappropriate and unwelcome. Ms. Neff then called the J-Dorm nurses station to see if she could identify the caller. The nurse on duty told Ms. Neff that Sgt. Pierce was the only male on duty at the time. Ms. Neff testified at hearing that she immediately reported this incident to Ms. Nader and asked what she should do about it. She testified that Ms. Nader told her that that depended on how badly she wanted her job, telling her, "If you don't rile security they won't mess with you." Sgt. Pierce made one additional comment to Ms. Neff which she identified as inappropriate. Ms. Neff was sent back to J-Dorm to make some photocopies a couple of weeks later. Sgt. Pierce came in and went to the back desk to make a phone call. After the phone call, he closed the door, propped himself against the front desk and said, "So are you going to back that ass up to me now? I can smack it now. No one can see us, we are all alone." Ms. Neff now felt sure that Sgt. Pierce had made the earlier comments, because they were so similar. Ms. Neff testified that she said, "I forgot something" or offered some other excuse to leave the room, and went to the nurses' station. A nurse that was not busy accompanied Ms. Neff back to the room while she finished the copying. When they returned to the room, Sgt. Pierce left without saying anything. Sgt. Pierce's comments to Ms. Neff in the J-Dorm were sexual in nature and were inappropriate and unwelcome. Ms. Neff told Ms. Nader about the incident and asked Ms. Nader what she should do. Ms. Nader again advised Ms. Neff that if she wanted to keep her job, she should keep her mouth shut. She said, "Don't jack with security and they won't jack with you." Ms. Nader said she just would not send Ms. Neff back to J-Dorm anymore. Ms. Neff was the only source of income for her family; she needed her paycheck and decided not to report the incident. Ms. Nader did not report the incident to her superiors either. Ms. Nader's testimony at hearing was somewhat confused. She believed there was only one incident involving Ms. Neff and Sgt. Pierce, rather than two. She testified that at the time Ms. Neff told her about Sgt. Pierce's comment, she did not think that it constituted sexual harassment. She said that Ms. Neff did not seem that upset and that it appeared that Ms. Neff had appropriately handled the situation. Ms. Nader testified that she told Ms. Neff not to say anything because she was trying to protect Ms. Neff. She admitted advising Ms. Neff not to make an accusation against a Security Officer under the circumstances and further testified: Q: Is there an understanding at the DOC that you're not supposed to mess with security? A: There is in my book. There is – the way I look at it, if you don't mess with security . . . now, that's my understanding. Whether or not everybody else understands that, I don't know. But that is the way that I look at it. I can't tell you what other people think or don't think, but I would never mess with them. But, you know, I can't speak for the whole place. Ms. Nader went on to testify that had Ms. Neff stated that she had been sexually harassed, that then, whether Ms. Nader thought it was sexual harassment or not, "we would have sat down and pulled out the policies and procedures" and figured out what to do next. Ms. Neff was never physically touched by Sgt. Pierce and never witnessed him physically touch anyone else. Ms. Neff's total interaction with Sgt. Pierce involved two incidents: one on the telephone and one while she was making copies in J-Dorm. Petitioner was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment. Petitioner was the object of harassment because of her gender. A couple of weeks later Ms. Tammy Jo Laney, a temporary Health Support Aide at the Reception and Medical Center, called Ms. Neff from the parking lot. Ms. Laney told Ms. Neff that she did not want to go to work because she was scheduled to work in J-Dorm and the security officer that worked there was making comments to her that made her feel very uncomfortable. Ms. Neff advised Ms. Laney to go to work and say nothing. Ms. Neff told her it would not do any good to say anything, because they would just tell her that if she wanted to keep her job, she should keep her mouth shut. Ms. Laney did not follow Ms. Neff's advice. On April 23, 2010, Ms. Laney made a complaint of sexual harassment against Sgt. Pierce. The complaint was made to Ms. Dicks. Ms. Laney explained to Ms. Dicks that she wanted to talk about sexual harassment and then began to cry. Ms. Dicks immediately left the office and returned with a Health Services Administrator and Lieutenant Driggers to continue the meeting. Ms. Laney advised Ms. Dicks that Sgt. Pierce had told her she had pretty eyes and that that had made her uncomfortable. Ms. Laney told Ms. Dicks that a couple of days earlier when she had told Sgt. Pierce that she was going to the doctor, Sgt. Pierce had replied, "You are too sexy to be going to the doctor." Ms. Laney named numerous other women who had told Ms. Laney that Sgt. Pierce had made inappropriate sexual remarks or innuendos to them. Ms. Dicks called Ms. Emmelhainz, the Senior Personnel Manager, and put her on the phone with Ms. Laney, and then left the room so that Ms. Laney could have some privacy when talking with Ms. Emmelhainz. Ms. Laney then went to the Personnel Office to file a complaint with Ms. Emmelhainz. When Ms. Emmelhainz receives a sexual harassment complaint, she sends it to the Central Office Employee Relations Section, which turns it over to the Inspector General's Office for an investigation. The report then goes to the Warden. If discipline is warranted, the Warden then coordinates with Ms. Emmelhainz in the Personnel Office and with the legal office. Between April 23 and April 26, 2010, the Department moved Sgt. Pierce from the RMC Main Unit to the RMC West Unit. Following Sgt. Pierce's move from the Main Unit to the West Unit, Ms. Neff did not have to work with or see him again while working for the Department. After Sgt. Pierce had been moved to the West Unit, Ms. Nader again assigned Ms. Neff some clerking duties at J-Dorm in the evenings. On Monday, April 27, 2010, Ms. Neff was sent to J-Dorm to work. While she was there, Nurse Kristina Imler, LPN, told her about a conversation that Nurse Imler had had with a paraplegic inmate, Ernest Horton. As relayed by Nurse Imler, inmate Horton had asked Nurse Imler who Ms. Neff was. When Nurse Imler said, "That's Neff," inmate Horton replied, "Oh, my boy Pierce told me that she was the one who had turned him in." Nurse Imler further relayed to Ms. Neff that everyone was talking about her. There was some discrepancy between Ms. Neff's hand- written incident report of April 30, 2010, the audio recording she made on June 14, 2010, and her later testimony at hearing on June 1, 2012, as to exactly what she was told by Nurse Imler. Her two accounts from 2010 are more consistent with Nurse Imler's hearing testimony and with Nurse Imler's 2010 written statement. Ms. Neff's earlier accounts have been credited over Ms. Neff's testimony at hearing. Ms. Neff was concerned that inmate Horton believed she was the person who had reported Sgt. Pierce's conduct. She considered inmate Horton's remark as threatening, and advised Ms. Nader what she had been told. Ms. Neff testified that Ms. Nader told her that she would report it to Ms. Dicks. Ms. Nader did not recall talking with Ms. Neff about inmate Horton, but did remember telling someone that Ms. Neff did not have anything to do with turning in Sgt. Pierce, that it was somebody else, and that Horton "had his story wrong." Ms. Neff has never spoken directly to inmate Horton nor heard him make any reference to Sgt. Pierce. When Ms. Neff heard the statements allegedly made about her by inmate Horton she did not complete a Disciplinary Report. Meanwhile, after her meeting with Ms. Laney, Ms. Dicks had begun to contact the women that Ms. Laney had named who were also Ms. Dick's subordinates to ask them if they had also been subjected to inappropriate sexual comments from Sgt. Pierce. She contacted Ms. Neff and asked to talk with her. On April 28, 2010, Ms. Neff met with Ms. Dicks in her office and Ms. Neff told her about the telephone incident, the copier incident, and the more recent remark attributed to inmate Horton. Ms. Dicks told Ms. Neff that the advice Ms. Nader had earlier given her to stay silent to keep her job was not acceptable. Ms. Dicks told Ms. Neff to complete an Incident Report but to return it to Ms. Dicks rather than send it up the security chain. Ms. Dicks also advised Ms. Neff to call Ms. Emmelhainz because in addition to the comment from inmate Horton there was possible sexual harassment. Ms. Dicks did not advise Ms. Neff to fill out an actual Complaint for sexual harassment. When Ms. Nader next came on shift, Ms. Dicks talked to her about Ms. Nader's response when Ms. Neff had reported Sgt. Pierce's comments. Ms. Nader admitted telling Ms. Neff to just forget it and do her job. Ms. Dicks told Ms. Nader that Ms. Nader could not do that and told her that even if Ms. Neff did not want to come forward, that Ms. Nader, as her supervisor, had a duty to report such incidents. It was Ms. Dick's understanding that before inmate Horton became a paraplegic, he had been very violent. Ms. Dicks went to Nurse Imler and asked her to file an incident report regarding her conversation with inmate Horton. Ms. Dicks also talked with Major Willie Smith about the incident involving inmate Horton, and Major Smith told her that he would handle it. On or about April 29, 2010, Ms. Imler completed an incident report concerning statements made by inmate Horton. On or about April 29, 2010, an investigation was initiated into allegations that Sgt. Pierce sexually harassed the Department's employees, identified as Case No. 10-2-5291. Prior to April 29, 2010, and the initiation of the investigation into allegations that Sgt. Pierce sexually harassed the Department's employees, Ms. Neff did not do any of the following in accordance with Department Procedure 208.052: File a complaint of discrimination by contacting the Assistant Chief of Employee Relations and Programs Section in the Bureau of Personnel; File a complaint of discrimination by contacting the Florida Commission on Human Relations; File a complaint of discrimination by contacting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; File a complaint of discrimination through the Department's internal formal procedure; File a complaint of discrimination through the Department's internal informal procedure. On April 30, 2010, Ms. Neff filed an Incident Report alleging Sgt. Pierce sexually harassed her. Ms. Neff completed her Incident Report and brought it directly to Ms. Dicks, as she had been instructed. Ms. Dicks immediately delivered the Incident Report directly to the Warden's office. Warden Riedl did not sign off on the Incident Report at the bottom as he customarily does. Warden Riedl testified that he believed the Incident Report had been dropped off at his office, but that due to its confidential nature it had then been immediately faxed to Personnel and the Inspector General's office. Warden Riedl identified a FAX number printed on the top of the incident report as the FAX number from his office. Under Department Policies, as testified to by Warden Riedl, sexual harassment should not be reported using an incident report filed through chain of command channels, but rather should be filed as a discrimination Complaint with an "intake officer" through Personnel, and sent from there to the Inspector General to conduct an investigation. Ms. Neff testified that subsequently she overheard Corrections Officers talking about her. They would say things such as, "Oh, that's Neff. You have to watch out for her." She testified that officers would not go into stairwells with her or get into the elevator with her. She testified that she was being treated as if she were the one who had done something wrong. She testified that these comments upset her. She noted that she depended on Corrections Officers for security and that she was worried that they might not protect her if she needed their help. Petitioner stated that she did not want to go to work, that a job that she had once enjoyed became a job she hated. It became "just a way to earn a paycheck." On May 6, 2010, Ms. Dicks sent a memo requesting discipline of Ms. Laney for having 17 unscheduled callouts, 3 tardies, and for leaving early on 3 occasions from February through April. Ms. Dicks testified that she submitted documentation on each of the unscheduled call-outs along with her request for discipline. This information was supplied by Ms. Nader and others on the shift. Ms. Emmelhainz received the recommendation for discipline against Ms. Laney. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that the attached documentation had been made by various individuals at the time of the unscheduled call out or early departure, but had been forwarded to Ms. Dicks at later dates. All were signed by Ms. Dicks on dates after the complaint of sexual harassment had been filed. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that it was not unusual for a supervisor to accumulate notes and memos and send them up only when they were seeking discipline. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that 17 incidents over a 90 day period was "a lot." At the time she received the request for discipline on Ms. Laney, she remembered that Ms. Laney had filed a sexual harassment claim earlier. Ms. Emmelhainz remembered discussing with corrections officials whether or not Ms. Laney should be disciplined in light of the recent complaint: And I said if we would normally discipline the person, we should not let the sexual harassment complaint interfere with it. We're not going to treat anybody any different, but if we would – anybody else, if we would treat them and do discipline, then we need to do discipline on her. The sexual harassment complaints should not interfere with that. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that termination was appropriate for a temporary OPS employee with attendance problems such as those reflected in the documentation on Ms. Laney. On May 27, 2010, Ms. Laney received a Letter of Termination of her employment from the Florida Department of Corrections signed by Warden Riedl. In the Inspector General's Report of the investigation, it is recorded that Ms. Neff stated she "knows why Nurse Laney got fired but it was convenient that it happened like it did." Ms. Laney testified that she did not have 17 unexcused absences. She stated there were two occasions when she called in to say she was sick and could not come to work. Ms. Laney testified that she believed she was fired because she filed a Complaint about sexual harassment. On or about June 8, 2010, Inspector Marrell Sercy of the Inspector General's Office initiated his investigation into Ms. Laney's complaint of sexual harassment. He interviewed Ms. Laney on June 9, Ms. Dicks on June 10, Nurse Johns and Nurse Holmes on June 11, Ms. Neff and Nurse Imler on June 14th, Ms. McKee and Officer Prevatt on June 15, Sgt. Pierce on June 18, Warden Riedl on June 29, Officer Owens on July 19, and Nurse O'Neal and Sgt. Pierce again on July 21, 2010. Meanwhile, on July 6, 2010, Ms. Nader left a message for Ms. Neff on her cell phone because on July 1, 2010, Ms. Neff had left work early on a family emergency and had not been back since. Ms. Neff called back about 5:00 pm to say that due to her family situation and for her personal safety it was necessary for her to leave the state and that she would not be coming back to work. Ms. Neff said that she was sorry it had to be that way but that it was necessary. Ms. Nader then transferred the call to Ms. Dicks. Ms. Nader documented this phone conversation on a form DC2-610. Ms. Neff told Ms. Dicks that she had talked with a staff person on July 2, 2010, and told them she would not be in to work that day. She went on to say that due to a personal matter she was going to move out of state and that she was resigning from her job. Ms. Dicks documented this phone conversation on a form DC2-610. The investigation into Ms. Laney's complaint of sexual harassment was completed on or about July 22, 2010. As was usual in complaints of employment discrimination, no recommendation was made, but records of the interviews and information were compiled. Based upon information contained in the Inspector General's Office investigation into Ms. Laney's allegations of sexual harassment, Inspector Stacy Fish of the Inspector General's Office opened an investigation into whether or not Ms. Nader failed to report allegations of sexual harassment that had been made to her. Inspector Fish listened to the interview of Ms. Neff, but was unable to interview her again because she had resigned and no one had any information on how to contact her. On October 22, 2010, Inspector Fish interviewed Ms. Nader, who stated that she did not remember Ms. Neff ever reporting to Ms. Nader that she had been sexually harassed by Sgt. Pierce. Almost four months after Ms. Neff quit her job, and while Sgt. Pierce was still working in the West Unit, there was another incident involving Sgt. Pierce. On October 29, 2010, Sgt. Gillian Scott, a female Corrections Officer, filed a Department of Corrections Discrimination Complaint, form DC2-881, accusing Sgt. Pierce of sexual harassment. Sgt. Scott alleged that Sgt. Pierce had exposed himself to her and crudely asked her to perform sexual acts. On October 29, 2010, through letter signed by Warden Riedl, Sgt. Pierce was placed on administrative leave "pending investigation of charges which could result in your dismissal." Another Inspector General investigation, Case No. 10- 2-10464, was commenced against Sgt. Pierce based upon Sgt. Scott's allegations. Sgt. Pierce was issued a Permanent Status Career Service Extraordinary Dismissal Letter dated February 2, 2011. The Extraordinary Dismissal Letter to Sgt. Pierce stated that the investigation into complaint #10-2-5291 filed by Ms. Laney had determined that Sgt. Pierce made unwanted sexual comments and sexual innuendos to Tammy Laney, Stephanie Neff, Charity Johns, Elizabeth Holmes, Kristina Imler, and Barbara McKee. It further stated that investigation into complaint #10- 2-10464, filed by Sgt. Scott, had determined that Sgt. Pierce had exposed himself and crudely solicited Gillian Scott to masturbate him and engage in oral sex with him. The Extraordinary Dismissal Letter was signed by Warden Riedl. Ms. Neff filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on June 16, 2011. The complaint was in letter form, signed by the complainant and verified, and was sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action or practice complained of. The FCHR Charge Form was signed by Ms. Neff on July 26, 2011. The Commission issued a Determination of No Cause on January 13, 2012, and Ms. Neff filed her Petition for Relief alleging an unlawful employment practice on February 8, 2012. On February 10, 2012, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge. The hearing was held on June 1, 2012. In her testimony at hearing, Ms. Neff attempted to connect her references to "family situation" and "personal matter" that she gave as the reasons for her resignation in July 2010, to her subsequent complaint of sexual harassment. She stated, I no longer trusted the people I was supposed to trust to protect me. It was causing problems at home. The hang-up phone calls. The stress. The yelling at my kids because they were five minutes late walking from the bus stop. My husband told me it was either quit my job with the Department or our marriage was going to end. I quit my job with the Department. However, Ms. Neff's explanation at hearing that she had actually been referring to the sexual harassment at work when she explained why she was leaving was not credible, and Ms. Neff did not demonstrate that she resigned because work conditions were intolerable. The comments of Correctional Officers made in Ms. Neff's presence that "we need to watch out for her" or words to that effect were hurtful, but were not directly threatening. Under all of the circumstances, an objective person would not conclude that the Corrections Officers making them would not protect her if an inmate attempted to hurt her in some way. There was no evidence that any Corrections Officer other than Sgt. Pierce ever sexually harassed Ms. Neff or any other person at the reception and Medical Center. It is not reasonable to assume they were all guilty of such conduct and were therefore afraid of Ms. Neff also turning them in. An objective person would instead conclude that being unaware of the true facts about Sgt. Pierce's behavior, security personnel were concerned that they not be wrongly accused by Ms. Neff. Ms. Neff's belief that these security personnel were unhappy that Ms. Neff (as they erroneously thought) had turned in Sgt. Pierce for sexual harassment was reasonable under the circumstances; her further conclusion that they would therefore want her to be hurt and so would not do their duty to protect her against physical injury from an inmate was not warranted. At hearing Ms. Neff testified that she did not leave work early before the end of her shift on July 1, 2010. She testified that she did not leave for a family emergency. Ms. Neff testified that she left the State and went to Alabama with her daughter but without her husband. She stated, "He stayed in Florida and took care of our stepson and his pregnant girlfriend. She could not leave the state due to prenatal care. I had just met my biological father a year and a half before. My daughter and I went to vacation with him for the summer so I could get to know him." Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Sgt. Pierce's statements, the remark by inmate Horton, and the comments by Corrections Officers were constituent parts of one broader working environment. The sexual harassment Of Ms. Neff was not so severe or pervasive that it altered the interpersonal climate of the workplace or created an objectively abusive and hostile atmosphere. The facts do not support the conclusion that the Department of Corrections discriminated against Ms. Neff on the basis of sex.
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 complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 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 30th day of November, 2012
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a sexually hostile work environment and was retaliated against for complaining about the alleged harassment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James E. Gonzales, is a male person who was hired by the Respondent, Pepsi Bottling Group, on March 13, 1995. He was hired as a route sales trainee in the Central Florida marketing unit of that employer. The Pepsi Bottling Group (Pepsi) is responsible for the manufacture sale and delivery of Pepsi products to its vendors. Over the last three years the Central Florida unit has been the foremost marketing unit in the United States. The management of the Central Florida Marketing Unit has been rated by its employees as being the top management team in the country for Pepsi. The Petitioner applied for a Pre-sale Customer Representative (CR) position on March 27, 2003. On April 21, 2003, the Petitioner was assigned to a Pre-Sell (CR) position. As a Pre-Sell CR, the Petitioner was responsible for serving his own accounts; creating and maintaining good will with all customers; ordering customer's products in advance; and developing all assigned accounts relative to sales volume, market share, product distribution, space allocation and customer service. He was responsible for solicitation of new business; selling and executing promotions; soliciting placement of equipment; selling sufficient inventory; and utilizing point of purchase materials to stimulate sales. He was also charged with maintaining "shelf facings" cleaning and shelving and rotating product and merchandising product sections and building displays to stimulate sales. Additionally, he was required to complete and submit all related paperwork regarding sales and promotional operations in an accurate and timely manner. The Petitioner's direct supervisor initially was David Lopez. He was replaced by Wanzell Underwood in approximately August 2003. On December 5, 2002, the Petitioner received the Respondent's employee handbook. The handbook contains the Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Sexual Harassment Policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, disability, etc. including sexual orientation. It encourages employees to immediately report any complaint, without fear of retaliation, to the Human Resources Manager or Human Resources Director. The Respondent's policy has a zero tolerance for retaliation and forbids any retaliatory action to be taken against an individual who in good faith reports a perceived violation of that policy. Employees who feel they have been retaliated against are required to report such retaliation to the Human Resources Manager or Director. The sexual harassment policy of the Respondent prohibits all forms of harassment and clearly sets out complaint procedures for employees to follow in the event they have experienced harassment. They are directed to report any complaint immediately to the Human Resources Manager or Director. Throughout his employment the Respondent received numerous customer complaints regarding the Petitioner's poor performance. The Petitioner received five disciplinary actions against him from the period 2003 through 2005. These "write- ups" were for failing to service customers according to the Respondent's standards and were dated August 2003, April 2004, September 2004, October 2004, and May 2005. On August 1, 2003, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning after the Respondent received a complaint from a customer regarding the amount of out-of-date product in his store and the poor level of service he was receiving from the Petitioner. On April 9, 2004, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning for his failure to prepare his three Circle K stores for a "customer tour," although he had assured his direct supervisor, Mr. Underwood, and the Key Account Manager, Eric Matson, that the store would be ready. The Petitioner's failure to prepare his Circle K stores for the customer's tour embarrassed both his supervisor and the Key Account Manager. On June 23, 2004, the assistant manager at ABC Liquor, a store Gonzales was responsible for, sent an e-mail to Eric Matson complaining about the lack of service provided by Gonzales and requested a new CR to service his store. The customer stated that Gonzales had given nothing but "crappy" service, bad attitude, and sometimes no service. On September 21, 2004, Eric Matson received an e-mail regarding the Petitioner's failure to order product for the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. The Petitioner's supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, visited the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and confirmed the manager's complaints. The Petitioner received a written warning for not properly servicing the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. In the Petitioner's contemporaneous written comments in opposition to the written warning he failed to note that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco was purportedly sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, the Petitioner received a final written warning and one-day suspension after his direct supervisor re-visited the same Mt. Dora Sunoco store that complained previously. The Petitioner was warned that a similar problem in the future would lead to his termination. Again, in the Petitioner's written comments in opposition to his written warning, he made no mention that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store was sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, after the Petitioner was suspended for one day, he requested that the Human Resources Manager, Christopher Buhl, hold a meeting. During the meeting he complained for the first time to the Unit Sales Manager, Howard Corbett, the Sales Operations Manager, Tom Hopkins, and Mr. Buhl, that three years previously, in 2001, one person had told the Petitioner that everyone thought he was "gay" (meaning co-employees). One person asked him if he was gay, according to the Petitioner's story, and one person said, "We all know you're gay," before he became a Pre-Sell CR. The Petitioner, however, refused to cooperate with Mr. Buhl in obtaining information regarding his complaints. At no time during the meeting did the Petitioner complain about being sexually harassed by the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. During the October 11, 2004, meeting the Petitioner claimed his supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, threatened him. However, the Petitioner conceded during the meeting that the alleged statement made by Mr. Underwood was made to a group of Customer Representatives, to the effect that he would "kill you guys if you do not make the sales numbers." Mr. Underwood denied ever threatening to kill the Petitioner. During the meeting the Petitioner also complained that his route was too large and he requested that it be reduced. At no time during that October 11, 2004, meeting did the Petitioner complain that he was sexually harassed by Alice Marsh, the Mt. Dora Sunoco manager. His extensive notes and comments on his Disciplinary Action Reports did not document any such complaint. In November 2004, the Petitioner was asked to go to K- Mart and place an order, but the Petitioner failed to follow instructions and visit the store. Instead, the Petitioner placed the order over the phone. The manager of the store called the Respondent three times to complain about the poor service provided by Mr. Gonzales. Each year the Respondent changes its delivery routes. During the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005, the Respondent re-routed all of its Pre-sell CR routes. The Respondent reduced the Petitioner's route as he had requested and in conformity with its route standards. Despite the Petitioner's allegation to the contrary, in fact the Petitioner's route was not reduced by as much as 50 percent. In May 2005, Key Account Manager, Mike Lewis, visited the Petitioner's K-Mart store to conduct a "Look at the Leader" audit. The Petitioner had been trained and was responsible for preparing the K-Mart for the audit. When Mr. Lewis arrived at the store, the store did not meet the Respondent's standards. Additionally, required product was missing from the displays. Mr. Lewis called Howard Corbett to inform him of the problems. Mr. Corbett called the Petitioner to ask about the missing product. The Petitioner assured him that the product was in the store and on display. The missing product was not displayed, however, and was later found in the back room of the K-Mart store. On May 18, 2005, the Respondent received another e- mail from Charles Pippen, District Manager for Sunoco, complaining of the Petitioner's poor service at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. He claimed that the Petitioner did not reply to phone calls and rarely ordered enough product. On May 19, 2005, the Territory Sales Manager, John York, followed up on that complaint by visiting the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and meeting with the Manager, Alice Marsh. Mr. York was substituting for Mr. Underwood who was out on medical leave. During the meeting, Ms. Marsh complained that the Petitioner did not order the quantity of product she requested, failed to provide adequate signage, and refused to place product where she requested. While at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store, Mr. York observed the problems about which Ms. Marsh had complained. After meeting Ms. Marsh, Mr. York spoke with the Petitioner to inform him of Ms. Marsh's complaints. During his conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner admitted to failing to service the account by not placing the product by the gas pumps as requested, not ordering the amount of product requested, and not hanging certain signs. Later in this conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner informed Mr. York that he believed that the Sunoco Manager's reason for complaining about his service was that he had refused her sexual advances. The Petitioner did not tell Mr. York what the alleged advances consisted of or when they might have occurred. Mr. York, however, in fact was never the Petitioner's supervisor. The Petitioner was responsible for two CVS stores in Mt. Dora. On Friday, May 20, 2005, the Petitioner made an unusual request of his temporary Manager, Dan Manor, for a Saturday delivery to his CVS stores. The Respondent does not normally schedule Saturday deliveries for such "small format" stores like CVS. When Mr. Manor approved the Saturday delivery, he specifically instructed the Petitioner that must meet the bulk delivery driver at the stores to "merchandise" the product, because bulk delivery drivers do not merchandise the product delivered and Mr. Manor did not have a merchandiser assigned to the Mt. Dora stores. The Petitioner agreed to meet the bulk delivery driver at the CVS stores on Saturday. The Petitioner did not advise his supervisor that he had made arrangements with the CVS store manager or a merchandiser regarding alternate arrangements for the Saturday delivery. The supervisor would have expected the Petitioner to do so. On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the Petitioner failed to meet the bulk driver to assist in merchandising the orders at the two CVS stores as instructed. The customer refused to take delivery of the product until a merchandiser was present to merchandise the product. Mr. Manor was unable to reach the Petitioner by telephone because the Petitioner was at Sea World with his family. Mr. Manor had to send a merchandiser from Longwood in order to merchandise the product that the Petitioner had ordered for the CVS stores. On May 23, 2005, the Petitioner failed to attend a weekly mandatory 5:00 a.m. meeting. He did not call his supervisor advising of his unavailability. The Petitioner did call Mr. Manor at about 6:15 a.m. and told him that he had overslept. When Mr. Manor questioned the Petitioner about why he did not meet the bulk driver on Saturday, he said that "he did not get a chance to make it out on Saturday." On May 23, 2005, Mr. Corbett decided to terminate the Petitioner based on his very poor performance. That decision to terminate him was approved by the Respondent's Human Resources Department. On May 26, 2005, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner for failing to service the CVS stores at a critical time, for the services issues at the Sunoco and the K-Mart, and for failing to attend the Monday morning meeting. At the time of his termination the Petitioner was on a final warning and had been advised that he could be terminated. The Petitioner never alleged during his termination meeting that he was being sexually harassed. Howard Corbett provided the Petitioner with documents to file an internal appeal on the day he was terminated. The Petitioner, however, did not appeal his termination as permitted by the Respondent's policy. The Petitioner claims he was the victim of sexual harassment by being subjected to (1) homosexual related comments made in 2001, and (2) alleged sexual overtures by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, in 2003. According to Ms. Marsh, she was never interested in the Petitioner sexually. She did not socialize with the Petitioner, and did not want a relationship with him. She did not touch him and did not state that she wanted the Petitioner fired. She also testified that she never stated that she wanted a sexual relationship with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's allegations regarding sexual harassment by Ms. Marsh related the following behaviors: She touched his back and arm; She was too close to him when he was around; She was nice to him until informed that he was married; She suggested sexual interest by her body language and eyes; and She wore provocative clothing. David Lopez supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2001 to 2003 time period. During this time period the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Lopez that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Lopez did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while working with the Respondent either. Wanzell Underwood supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2003 to 2005 time period. During this time, the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Underwood that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Underwood did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while he worked for the Respondent. The Petitioner never made a compliant regarding the alleged sexual harassment by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, to the Human Resources Department, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. He did not explain the nature of any sexual harassment, even when he finally claimed that he was being harassed. The Respondent would have terminated the Petitioner for his poor performance regardless of whether he engaged in the purported protected activity by complaining of sexual harassment. The Petitioner alleges he was terminated for reasons other than complaining about sexual harassment, including his alleged knowledge of theft in Lake County. In any event, on July 15, 2005, the Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission and the resulting dispute and formal proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James E. Gonzales 26437 Troon Avenue Sorrento, Florida 32757 Nicole Alexandra Sbert, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondent, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Inc., subjected Petitioners, Jasen Baker and Bernard Southwell, to a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a chain of casual Italian restaurants. Respondent has adopted a policy against discrimination and harassment. In addition to prohibiting harassment, the policy instructs employees whom to contact if they experience harassment. The policy is contained in an employee handbook that is distributed to all employees during the initial orientation process. During orientation, Respondent's manager reviews the employee handbook with the new employee, including the policy on sexual harassment. During the orientation process, Respondent also requires employees to view a video that explains that Respondent will not tolerate harassment. The video familiarizes the employees with the company's expectations regarding the reporting of harassment in the workplace. During the orientation process, the employees are required to sign an acknowledgment on the exterior of their employee folders indicating that they have received and read the policy against harassment. The critical sections of the policy are reprinted on the folders immediately above the signature lines. All of Respondent's restaurants are required to display a poster known as the "Carrabbamico Info" poster in the kitchen area. This poster reprints the harassment policy and provides employees with a list of names to call if they feel that they have been harassed. Respondent has implemented reasonable precautions to prevent harassment from occurring in its restaurants. In the Central Florida market, Respondent's restaurants are overseen by a joint venture partner named Dick Meyer. Meyer is responsible for hiring and firing the managers of the restaurants that he oversees. In March 2000, Lawton DePriest became the managing partner at Respondent's Palm Bay location. DePriest reported to Meyer. DePriest remained in that capacity until September 2003, when he became the managing partner of Respondent's restaurant located in Formosa Gardens. It was DePriest's management style to frequently yell at employees in order to motivate them. It is also possible that he had favorites on the staff of the Palm Bay restaurant. Baker was hired by Respondent's Palm Bay restaurant in January 2002. At the time that Baker began working for Respondent, he attended an orientation session conducted by DePriest. It was DePriest's practice during orientation to discuss harassment issues and instruct employees to come to him directly if they experience any problems with sexual harassment. If for some reason an employee is not comfortable with him, DePriest would encourage the employee to contact any other person listed on the poster. Baker was given a copy of Respondent's handbook, which contains the company's policy against harassment. On that same date, January 19, 2002, Baker signed his employee folder on the blank line under the harassment policy indicating that he had read and received the policy. Whether he reviewed the employee handbook further after that date is irrelevant. Baker "vividly remembers" that during his orientation, he watched the videotape that included instructions on what he should do if he felt harassed. However, during the hearing, Baker denied ever seeing the Carrabbamico Info poster. However, Baker admitted on cross-examination that during his deposition, he had acknowledged seeing the Carrabbamico Info poster posted in the store. During the deposition, Baker specifically remembered that there were business cards with contact information for Meyer and Cheri Ashe attached to the bottom of the poster. Despite Baker's attempt to deny seeing the poster, his earlier answers in deposition were more credible in view of his specific recollection of the attached business cards and the lack of any persuasive explanation for the discrepancy. After completing his orientation, Baker initially worked as a dishwasher. Later, he was shown how to do food preparation work. Before coming to work for Respondent, Baker had previously worked for a restaurant by the name of Golden Corral. During the time that he worked with Golden Corral, he became acquainted with a co-worker named Bernard Southwell. In the summer of 2002, Petitioners discussed the possibility of Southwell coming to work for Respondent. Baker spoke favorably of the restaurant and recommended that Southwell submit an application. At the time, Baker had worked for Respondent for six or seven months. Baker did not express to Southwell that he had observed or experienced any problems with unwelcome harassment. Southwell submitted an application and was hired by Respondent's Palm Bay restaurant in August 2002 as a dishwasher. At the time he began employment with Respondent, Southwell was living with a friend of his named Joe Corbett. At the time, Baker was living in a one-bedroom apartment with his girlfriend. Several weeks later, Baker's girlfriend decided to move out. According to Petitioners, she suggested to Southwell that he move into Baker's apartment to replace her. Around October 2002, Southwell moved out of the Corbett residence and moved in with Baker. A third employee named Chris Germana also moved into the residence around the same time. Because the apartment only had one bedroom, Germana slept on the couch. Petitioners slept in the bedroom. When employees at the restaurant learned of these arrangements, speculation began about whether the two men were homosexual. According to Petitioners, sometime after Southwell started to room with Baker, co-workers at the restaurant started referring to Petitioners by nicknames. The co-workers referred to Baker as "powder," "crack pipe," and "crack head." Baker knew that "powder" was a reference to a character from the movie "Powder" and that the name had nothing to do with his sexuality. The co-workers also referred to Petitioners as "butt buddies." Southwell testified that a male co-worker, Christopher Bouley, told him, "I know you guys are lovers." Bouley, Arnold Samuel and DePriest all used these nicknames on occasion to refer to both Petitioners, according to Baker. After several months, Southwell eventually went to DePriest and complained about the "powder," "crack pipe," and "butt buddies" nicknames. Southwell told DePriest that the nicknames were funny at first, but that they started getting old. DePriest then told Samuel and Bouley to stop using the nicknames. Thereafter, the use of the nicknames stopped. Southwell claimed that Bouley would gyrate his hips behind other employees as they were bending down. However, Petitioners both admitted that Bouley would do these hip motions to both male and female employees. During the hearing, Petitioners claimed that Bouley subjected them to unwelcome touching. Baker claimed that Bouley had touched his buttocks once. However, Baker acknowledged that when his deposition was taken prior to the final hearing, he did not mention that Bouley touched his buttocks. In fact, when asked during his deposition whether he had been sexually harassed, Baker testified that he had not and that he had only been verbally harassed. Furthermore, Baker made no mention of any physical touching in the Affidavit that he submitted to FCHR at the time he filed his charge of discrimination. Southwell never saw Bouley touch or grab Baker's buttocks. And despite their close relationship, Baker never told Southwell that Bouley had grabbed his buttocks. Accordingly, Baker's allegation that he was touched inappropriately by Bouley or any other of Respondent's employees is not credible. Southwell claimed that Bouley had touched his buttocks on two or three occasions and touched his nipples twice. Southwell also claimed that Bouley had touched his penis on one occasion. According to Southwell, he was bending down to pick up sauté pans when Bouley, who was supposedly standing behind him, reached between Southwell's legs from behind and clutched Southwell's genital area through his trousers. This incident supposedly occurred during the restaurant's hours of operation while customers were in the restaurant. The alleged grabbing supposedly took place in front of a stove that sat in full view of customers seated at the restaurant's bar. Bouley flatly denied ever touching Southwell's genitals or private area. In the Affidavit that Southwell submitted to FCHR at the time he filed his charge of discrimination, Southwell made no mention of Bouley touching Southwell's penis. At the time that he submitted this Affidavit, Southwell was represented by counsel. Southwell did not offer any convincing reason for the omission of any description of his genitals being grabbed. Accordingly, Southwell's allegation that Bouley touched Southwell's genitals is not credible. Although Petitioners testified that they spoke to DePriest on several occasions, they admit that they never spoke to any of the other individuals listed on the harassment poster to complain about sexual harassment. DePriest testified that the only complaint he ever received had to do with the nicknames and that he took prompt action to resolve this problem. Annually, Respondent submits an employee experience survey to its employees that is completed anonymously and forwarded to an outside company for analysis. After the survey is completed, employees participate in a small group feedback session to discuss the results of the survey. On March 11, 2003, DePriest held the feedback session for his store, which was attended by Petitioners. During the session, Southwell commented about the situation with the nicknames. He indicated that the situation was resolved when it was brought to DePriest's attention. This was the sole extent to which either employee complained of unwelcome behavior. Respondent was not on notice of any problems with regard to touching or more serious inappropriate behavior. On March 12, 2003, Petitioners' last day of work, Southwell approached DePriest to complain about scheduling for a special event at the convention center. Southwell stated that he and Baker had signed up to participate in this event. Southwell was scheduled for the event, but Baker was not. DePriest explained that he needed Baker to float, because there were not enough people scheduled to work at the restaurant that night. DePriest later talked to Baker, who indicated that he was not disappointed that he was not participating in the event. That conversation, however, was the last time that DePriest saw Baker. DePriest learned that Petitioners had left before the end of their shift, when the plates in the restaurant were getting low and the sauté pans were getting stacked up. DePriest asked about the whereabouts of Petitioners and learned that they were seen riding their bicycles away from the restaurant. DePriest could not contact them because they did not have a telephone. DePriest eventually terminated their employment for voluntarily walking off the job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order that: Dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Jasen Baker, in DOAH Case No. 05-0623, FCHR No. 23-03891; and Dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Bernard Southwell, DOAH Case No. 05-0632, FCHR No. 23-03892. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jason M. Gordon, Esquire Gordon & Cornell 103 North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Kevin D. Johnson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jonathan W. Whyte, held teaching certificate number 517135 issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of physical education and is valid through June 30, 1996. When the relevant events herein occurred, respondent was certified as a teacher and was employed in various positions (both instructional and non- instructional) at Terry Parker High School (TPHS) in Jacksonville, Florida. The school is a part of the Duval County School District (District). Respondent was married to and lived with Cathy Whyte until they separated in November 1989. They had two children, S. W., born on November 22, 1985, who is the alleged victim in this case, and C. W., an older brother whose age is unknown. In addition, Cathy had two older boys from a prior marriage. The six lived together in Jacksonville, Florida, where respondent was employed as a teacher and coach at TPHS. Shortly after the separation, or in March 1990, dissolution proceedings were initiated by the wife, and a somewhat acrimonious and lengthy custody battle for the two biological children ensued. A dissolution of the marriage was eventually granted, and Cathy was given primary custody of the two children while respondent received visitation rights during parts of the summer and Christmas holidays. In 1990, or after the two were separated but before the marriage was dissolved, Cathy relocated to Connecticut with her boyfriend and another male friend taking all four children with her. In December 1990, charges that respondent may have sexually abused S. W. were allegedly made by the daughter to the mother who reported these allegations to Connecticut authorities. The charges were subsequently reported to Florida authorities, and after learning of them, the District temporarily removed respondent from the classroom in 1991 and reassigned him with pay to the media center for the remainder of the school year. Because the charges still remained unresolved at the beginning of school year 1992-93, respondent was temporarily reassigned with pay to the transportation center for that school year. By the summer of 1993, respondent had not taught in a classroom for two consecutive years, and this constituted a ground for the District to refuse to renew respondent's annual contract for school year 1993-94. Consequently, he was forced to seek employment in an unrelated field pending the outcome of this complaint. In September 1992, petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint against respondent charging him with sexually abusing his daughter in July 1990. The complaint was later amended to add the charge that he also sexually abused his daughter during Christmas holidays of 1992. The filing of the complaint prompted respondent to request a hearing. The Allegations The origin of the charges The administrative complaint, as amended, alleges that from July 15, 1990, to July 31, 1990, the Respondent committed sexual acts upon his five year old daughter. Such acts included but were not limited to kissing with an open mouth, engaging in oral sex, fondling of genitals, and penile penetration of the vagina. The complaint goes on to allege that on or about December of 1992, when the Respondent's daughter was visiting him for Christmas vacation in Florida, while the Respondent's daughter was at her Grandparent's home, the Respondent again committed sexual acts upon his daughter. Such acts included but were not limited to fondling of genitals, penile penetration of the vagina, and other inappropriate touching. The Respondent thereupon told his daughter, "Don't tell anyone I did this." The veracity of these allegations, which respondent strongly denies, is discussed in greater detail below. In December 1990, or after Cathy had moved to Connecticut and while she and respondent were in the midst of a custody battle, charges that respondent had sexually abused his daughter first arose. These charges were lodged by his estranged wife after she allegedly heard these complaints from her then five year old daughter. The matter was referred to the state police, and the daughter was interviewed on videotape by a female state trooper. This videotape was later furnished to the Florida circuit court having jurisdiction over the dissolution and custody matters. In March 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) also received the same report that respondent had abused his daughter in July 1990. After an investigation was conducted, the report was classified by HRS as unfounded. In late 1992 or early 1993, the mother again reported to Connecticut authorities that respondent sexually abused his daughter while she visited him during Christmas holidays of 1992. The charges were referred to the Jacksonville sheriff's office in January 1993 and were later incorporated by petitioner into an amended complaint. The validity of the charges In support of the complaint, petitioner has relied upon the testimony of the alleged victim, two psychologists, an HRS investigator, and a sheriff's detective. The mother did not testify. Although the alleged victim made statements concerning the allegations to each of these witnesses, petitioner has conceded that, with one exception, all of these statements are hearsay and can be used only for the purpose of supplementing and explaining other competent evidence, if any. As to the one claimed exception, which involves the statements made by the child during an interview with Dr. D'Amato, a psychologist, the circumstances surrounding the making of the child's statements indicate a lack of reliability, and they are accordingly deemed to be hearsay. The specific reasons relied upon by the undersigned in making this finding are cited below. The validity of the charges turns in large measure on the veracity of the alleged victim's testimony. Bearing on this issue are several considerations. First, the allegations in the amended complaint arose during the course of a protracted child custody battle. Where there is marital conflict, divorce or custody proceedings, false sexual abuse allegations are not uncommon. Indeed, according to the accepted testimony of one expert, Dr. Krop, a higher percentage of false sexual allegations are made by a parent in this type of case. At the same time, there was evidence here of the presence of the parental alienation syndrome. In other words, one parent (the mother) was attempting through negative statements to alienate the children, including S. W., towards respondent, the estranged parent. When such alienation occurs, it tends to cast doubt on the credibility of the complaints of the alleged victim. Further, the evidence showed that during the child's first interview concerning the alleged abuse in late 1990 or early 1991 with a Connecticut state trooper, she was "contaminated" by inappropriate questioning and improper interview techniques. For example, during that interview, the trooper improperly interrogated, rather than questioned, the child. In addition, and contrary to accepted practice, the mother was allowed to remain in the room during the interview and was asked to verify some of the child's responses. Also, the interrogator repeatedly used leading questions and prompted the child with the desired responses. When contamination such as this occurs, any further allegations of abuse must be viewed "suspiciously" and are placed in doubt since the child is vulnerable to figures of authority and may give an answer, whether truthful or not, simply because she believes that the answer given is expected by the interrogator. Moreover, by being "interviewed" in this manner, the child was "conditioned" to give the same responses in subsequent interviews to authority figures. It is also noted that during the child's videotaped deposition in May 1993, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2, her answers lacked sponteneity, and she was repeatedly led by counsel and answered many questions only after being given the suggested answer. At that time, she acknowledged that "someone" had told her that by confirming that abuse had occurred, it would "help" her father. It is noteworthy that during the deposition, while claiming that some abuse occurred, the alleged victim specifically denied the allegations of oral sex, penile penetration and kissing with an open mouth, all being charges in the amended complaint. She also changed her testimony as to the number of times she was abused, and she used and understood the meaning of the words "vagina" and "penis" because of knowledge imparted to her by her mother. It is extremely unusual for a child of that age to use and understand those anatomical words. Collectively, these considerations cast considerable doubt on the credibility of the alleged victim's testimony and lead the undersigned to find that it should not be accepted. Given this finding, the hearsay testimony (consisting of statements made by the child during various interviews) offered by the HRS investigator, sheriff's detective and two psychologists does not supplement or explain any competent evidence of record and has been disregarded. Finally, the undersigned has also considered other pertinent testimony that supports the above findings, and that accepted testimony has been set forth below. The charge that respondent sexually abused his daughter during Christmas holidays of 1992 does not comport with other competent evidence. Due to the earlier allegations of abuse (that allegedly occurred in July 1990) being leveled against respondent, he agreed to certain restrictions during his visitation periods with the children. Under the terms of that agreement, when the two children visited him in Florida, they were to stay at his parents' home in Neptune Beach, and S. W. was to sleep in her grandparents' bedroom. Also, respondent agreed to never be alone with the children and to have one or both of the grandparents with them at all times. During her visit at Christmas 1992, S. W. was never alone with her father or out of sight of one of the grandparents except on one occasion when the girl accompanied her father out of the home during the day with another adult but not the grandparents. This was confirmed by uncontroverted testimony. During that same period of time, respondent slept on a couch at his parents' home, and his two children shared a bedroom directly across from his parents' bedroom. As to the alleged abuse in July 1990, the only time that the child was in Jacksonville without her brothers or mother being present was for one three day period, a Saturday afternoon to the following Tuesday. During that time, S. W. stayed at her grandparents' home while respondent spent the nights at his apartment. Respondent was working from five until midnight at a second job on Monday through Saturdays, by which time S. W. had already gone to bed, and he was attending classes at the University of Florida each work day until mid-afternoon when he returned to Jacksonville to go to work at his second job. On the only days he saw his daughter, a Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday, his parents were constantly present. Three psychologists testified in this cause. The first, Dr. Krop, a witness for respondent, became involved with evaluating respondent's family in October 1990 after being appointed by a circuit judge to evaluate the family and make a recommendation for the childrens' primary residence and visitation arrangements. The second, Dr. Kaplan, was appointed by the same circuit judge in July 1992 to offer his recommendation as to visitation arrangements for S. W. Both psychologists interviewed the alleged victim and her family, including respondent, and became aware of the sexual abuse allegations during the course of their interviews. Doctor Kaplan, who testified on behalf of petitioner, had extremely limited experience in the area of child sexual abuse, and before this case, had never been proffered as an expert in that area. Although he was accepted as an expert in psychology, he was not accepted as an expert in child sexual abuse, and very little weight, if any, has been accorded his opinions on this subject. The third psychologist, Dr. D'Amato, a Jacksonville psychologist, and also a witness for petitioner, first interviewed the child in April 1991 after the case was referred to him by the Jacksonville state attorney, presumably in response to the allegations referred to that office by Connecticut authorities. At the request of the mother's divorce attorney, and for the purpose of "monitoring" the child on the mother's behalf, Dr. D'Amato continued to see the child on four occasions in July and August 1992 for either fifteen or thirty minute sessions when she was visiting Florida. During those sessions, the psychologist found the child to be free of anxiety, comfortable with her father, and "enjoying herself." The testimony of Dr. Harry Krop, an expert in the field of child sexual abuse and who testified on behalf of respondent, has been accepted as being the most credible and persuasive of the three psychologists who testified. Based on his interviews with the child and family, and review of videotapes, depositions and other pertinent medical records, Dr. Krop concluded that the alleged sexual abuse of S. W. cannot be validated. The undersigned concurs with this finding. In summary, for the reasons cited above, it is found that respondent did not sexually abuse his daughter as alleged in the amended complaint. Therefore, the charges must fail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the amended administrative complaint with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6173 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-9. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence or hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 12. The remainder has been rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 11-13. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 16-20. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 22-24. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 25-26. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 27-30. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 31. Rejected as being unnecessary. 32-33. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 35-37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary or contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 40-41. Rejected as being irrelevant. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wm. Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry L. Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, by allowing Petitioner to be sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes, Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. Respondent manufactures rubber parts for housewares, aircraft, and the automotive industry. Respondent typically employs an untrained workforce then provides its employees with on-the-job training. Respondent experiences a high turnover in entry level jobs. Petitioner began working for Respondent on or about November 15, 1995. Her immediate supervisor was Walter Tate. Part of Mr. Tate's job was to train Petitioner how to operate a rubber injection machine. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Tate ever touched Petitioner or spoke to her in a sexually inappropriate manner. On December 6, 1995, Petitioner's hand was injured at work. This injury occurred when another employee drove a forklift into the platform where Petitioner was working. Mr. Tate did not blame Petitioner for the accident. He did not use the accident as a means to sexually discriminate against Petitioner. On or about February 16, 1996, Petitioner's machine caused a shut down in production. The machine broke down when someone placed a metal bar in the feed hole. The metal bar broke off between the machine's feed hole and its extruder, preventing the rubber from passing through. The machine was a silicon extruder; this type of machine is usually turned off when the designated operator takes a break. Based on a good faith belief that Petitioner was responsible for damage to her machine, Mr. Tate gave Petitioner a verbal warning for using the metal bar instead of a plastic one. Mr. Tate advised Petitioner that the next time she would be given a written warning. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Tate had any hidden agenda when he reprimanded Petitioner. Petitioner became visibly upset about the verbal reprimand and cursed Mr. Tate. Subsequently, Petitioner signed an employee warning report, indicating that she disagreed with the verbal warning but gave no reasons for her disagreement. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner met with Respondent's plant manager, Steve Wieczorek, and second-shift plant superintendent, Robbie Misenheimer. Petitioner complained that she did not like Mr. Tate telling her what to do because she already knew her job. Petitioner also complained that she did not like Mr. Tate's use of profanity. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner never complained to Respondent about any form of sexual harassment or discrimination by Mr. Tate during this or any other meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Wieczorek took handwritten notes of Petitioner's complaints. According to Petitioner, she signed these notes before she left the meeting. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Wieczorek typed the notes in accordance with his customary procedure. Mr. Wieczorek and Mr. Misenheimer signed the typed notes before placing them in Petitioner's personnel file. Petitioner did not sign the typed notes. The location of the handwritten notes was not established during the hearing. After the meeting, Mr. Wieczorek directed Mr. Misenheimer to investigate Petitioner's complaints. In accordance with that directive, Mr. Misenheimer talked to Mr. Tate and several of Petitioner's co-workers. Mr. Misenheimer concluded that there was no merit to Petitioner's complaints that Mr. Tate was treating her unfairly. Nevertheless, Mr. Misenheimer continued to check with Petitioner personally and to observe Mr. Tate for several days to ensure that Petitioner was not being mistreated. On February 27, 1996, Petitioner walked out of the plant, voluntarily leaving her workstation in the middle of her shift. Petitioner did not advise Mr. Tate or any other supervisor of her reason for leaving the work site. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Tate threatened Petitioner for turning him in before she abandoned her workstation. After leaving the plant, Petitioner did not call Respondent for three days to explain why she had not returned to work. Respondent did not attempt to contact Petitioner during this time. In accordance with the company's personnel policies, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on March 1, 1996. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent's policy was that sexual harassment was not to be tolerated. This policy was communicated to employees in group meetings. Petitioner admits that she received instruction on the procedure for complaining about sexual discrimination when she began working for Respondent. However, she could not remember whether she received the information in a training session or in a printed form. Respondent posted information in the employee break room about state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committe, Esquire 17 South Palafox Place, Suite 322 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Heather Fischer Lindsay, Esquire Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs 1400 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Sharon Moultry, 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 the Respondent intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner on the basis on her national origin/Hispanic (Puerto Rican) or gender/female (sexual harassment). Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was removed from her position with the Respondent in retaliation for her filing of a sexual harassment complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 12, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings and the parties involved. All procedural prerequisites and requirements have been duly accomplished or satisfied. Respondent, Martin-Marietta Electronics Information and Missiles Group, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Florida which employs more than fifteen employees. Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Margarita Coll, is a female, hispanic, citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was an employee of Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., during all relevant periods, and was a de facto employee of Respondent for approximately four and one-half years. Petitioner was employed at Respondent company through a temporary agency called Associated Temporary Services and placed with the Respondent on January 5, 1987 as a receptionist/secretary in Martin-Marietta's Fleet Administration Department off Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. Her responsibilities included record keeping, filing and helping Respondent's employees with company vehicles. Petitioner reported to the Respondent's Fleet Manager, Linda Reilly. Her day to day work assignments and supervision were received exclusively from the Fleet Manager. Petitioner worked in her position at the pleasure of the Respondent. She was assigned a "buyer" at Martin- Marietta who worked with the requesting department to fashion a position to meet the department's needs. The work was bidded out and awarded to the temporary employment agency who best met Respondent's criteria, on an annual basis. Over time, Petitioner assumed additional job responsibilities and in June, 1988 received a commendation for exceptional performance from Respondent's supervisors. In an effort to reward her efforts, Reilly successfully upgraded her position, first to Administrative Assistant and then to Fleet Analyst. When she was reclassified as a Fleet Analyst, the contract for her position was awarded to Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., since Associated Temporary Services did not provide technical employees under their contract with Respondent. Petitioner always worked at Martin-Marietta as a temporary employee and was never employed as a regular employee of the company. As such, she had no company benefits; she was classified as a contract laborer and her services were purchased by purchase order. Petitioner completed no company employment application, was not subject to Martin-Marietta performance appraisals and had no Martin-Marietta employment records or personnel file, other than her contract labor time slips. Petitioner received her pay from Hi-Tec. In June, 1990, Marilyn Quinonez was placed in the Fleet Administration Department as a Fleet Administrative Assistant by a temporary employment agency. Friction quickly developed between Petitioner and Quinonez. Petitioner believed that Quinonez was hired to assist her and became upset when she would not follow Petitioner's supervision or directions. Quinonez understood that she was to report to the Fleet Manager, and objected to the way Petitioner treated her. On November 15, 1990, Reilly was laid off by Respondent as part of a reduction in force and was replaced by Joseph LaPak. LaPak observed the bickering between Petitioner and Quinonez and that it continued to escalate over time. In December, 1990, the temporary positions in the department were reevaluated and the contract requirements for both positions were rewritten. The titles of both Petitioner and Quinonez were changed to that of Fleet Administrative Assistant. Any language in the contract which called for Petitioner to direct the clerical duties of the department were eliminated. In the fall of 1991, Quinonez met with LaPak and Wally DuBose to clarify her reporting responsibilities. It was confirmed that Quinonez and Petitioner were to report to the Fleet Manager, and that Petitioner did not have supervisory authority over Quinonez. Nevertheless, disputes between Petitioner and Quinonez continued. Attempts by management to resolve the problems were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1992, during the normal lunch hour, an altercation occurred between Petitioner and Quinonez. When Quinonez returned from lunch, she found Petitioner at her computer terminal. Quinonez asked for it back. Petitioner refused and an argument ensued. The two women became so angry and loud that a neighboring supervisor had to come over and separate them. Wally DuBose sent both Petitioner and Quinonez home for the day. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, LaPak was not in the office at the time. DuBose then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Paul Smilgen, and it was decided that Petitioner would be removed from the contract for her failure to work with fellow employees and management, and for general insubordination. LaPak was not involved in the decision to remove Petitioner. The decision was communicated to Hi-Tec. They, in turn, notified Petitioner that same evening that she was being replaced on the contract and not return to the Fleet Administration Department. Hi-Tec offered to attempt to place Petitioner elsewhere at Martin-Marietta but Petitioner refused because the openings available at the time paid less that the Fleet Administrative Assistant position. When LaPak first became the Fleet Manager in November of 1990, Petitioner and Quinonez worked in a very small work space. While Petitioner was training LaPak and working on the computer, LaPak's body was frequently close to Petitioner's and she felt pinned in a corner by him. After the initial working relationship was established and LaPak came into Petitioner's work area, he would touch her on her arms or shoulder in order to get her attention. In December, 1990, Petitioner complained to DuBose about LaPak touching her and making her uncomfortable. Both Petitioner and DuBose talked to LaPak about the fact that Petitioner did not want LaPak to touch her. LaPak honored that request and did not touch her again. He made every reasonable effort to get her attention when he needed to talk to her without touching her. In October, 1991, Petitioner complained to the Martin-Marietta EEO office that LaPak was sexually harassing her by inappropriate touching. Respondent then conducted an immediate investigation into the allegations and attempted to resolve the matter through internal mediation. Petitioner's testimony and other witnesses' testimony concerning sexual comments, innuendoes or propositions and inappropriate touching allegedly made by LaPak that occurred between December, 1990 and October, 1991 were inconsistent and are not credible. Petitioner presented no relevant or material evidence to show that Petitioner was the victim of national origin discrimination. Respondent's articulated reason for its decision to remove Petitioner from her contract labor position was not based on gender discrimination or national origin discrimination, nor was it pretextual. Petitioner failed to prove that her termination of employment at the Respondent's company was in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued in which the Charge of Discrimination is DENIED and the Petition for Relief is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(in part), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 13, 14(except as to date of hire), 15(in part), 16(in part), 18(except as to the date of the counseling session), 19(except as to the date of the counseling session), 20, 21(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 5(in part: Petitioner was first a contract employee with Associated Temporary Services), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 15(in part), 16(in part), 17. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 11, 12, 21(in part). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4(in part), 5, 6(in part), 7, 11(in part), 12, 13, 14(in part). Rejected as argument or a conclusion of law: paragraphs: 9, 10, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 4(in part), 8, 11(in part), 14(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 6(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kay L. Wolf, Esquire John M. Finnigan, Esquire GARWOOD, MCKENNA & MCKENNA, P.A. 815 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32806 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination is what should be the award to Petitioner as to back pay, interest on the amount awarded, retirement system contributions, attorney's fees, and costs.
Findings Of Fact Had Petitioner retained her employment with Respondent, she would have earned $161,014.11. However, she actually earned $125,865.87. As a result of Petitioner's being terminated by Respondent, she lost income in the amount of $35,148.24. As a result of Petitioner's being terminated by Respondent, she lost pension contributions in the amount of $7,110.16. Consequently, Petitioner incurred a total monetary loss in the amount of $42,258.41. As to whether Petitioner incurred a break in service, no one from the Division of Retirement was called to testify. Consequently, no evidence was presented as to that issue. Petitioner suggests that she should receive credit for retirement from October 8, 1993, the date of her termination when she was a career service employee, to January 1995, the date that she again became a career service employee. Petitioner's suggestion is a reasonable resolution to the issue of break in service and should be implemented if there exists a break in service. No argument was presented to contradict that the statutory interest rate is ten percent per annum. Petitioner's counsel testified that she expended 437.80 hours on this matter and Petitioner's expert opined that such hours are reasonable. Respondent's expert opined that 241.30 hours are reasonable. Petitioner's expert did not review the index of the official file of this matter, which was maintained by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent's expert reviewed the index online. Further, Respondent's counsel reviewed the Verified Motion, but did not review the file of Petitioner's counsel. Respondent's expert questioned whether Petitioner's counsel personally performed the tasks in certain entries in the Verified Motion or whether a secretary performed the tasks, not whether the tasks were performed. However, Respondent's expert did not question, and did not indicate that he was required to question, Petitioner's counsel on such entries prior to hearing. Regarding such entries, Petitioner's counsel testified that she, not her secretary, performed the tasks in the entries. The testimony of Petitioner's counsel is found credible. Respondent's expert also questioned whether some entries contained adequate detail and specificity to support them, not whether the tasks were performed. The expert's testimony is found to be credible. The detail and specificity are inadequate in the entries identified by Respondent's expert. The lack of detail and specificity dictate a reduction in the number of hours requested by 98.30 hours. Consequently, the number of hours reasonably expended by Petitioner's counsel in this matter is 339.50. Petitioner and her counsel entered into a mixed agreement (Agreement) for representation at $250.00 per hour and for contingent fees. The Agreement provided in pertinent part as follows: agree to pay my attorneys from the proceeds of the gross recovery including costs and fees awarded attorney's fees, if applicable the following fee: * * * b. 40% of any recovery up to $1 million after the filing of an answer or the demand for appointment of arbitrator through the trial of the case; 40% becomes immediately applicable as soon as the matter is set for trial; * * * My attorneys shall be entitled to choose the fee at the hourly rate [$250.00 per hour] if I am entitled to an award of attorneys fees from the client or the contingency, whichever is greater. In the event there is a court-awarded fee which is more than the contingency fee, the attorneys shall keep the court-awarded fee in lieu of the contingency fee provided it is greater than the contingency fee and provided the court-awarded fee is actually collected. The hourly rate of $250.00 by Petitioner's counsel is within the range of rates for this matter. The hourly rate of $250.00 is reasonable. Therefore, the amount of reasonable attorney's fees in this matter is $84,875. Petitioner requests an enhancement of attorney's fees by one-third because of the uniqueness or unusualness of this matter. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that this matter is a unique or unusual case involving employment discrimination. Petitioner's counsel requests costs in the amount of $3,094.49. The Verified Motion contains taxable and non-taxable costs.2 Costs identified as fax or facsimile, postage, cab fare, and transportation to and from the courthouse should be excluded as inappropriate. As a result, the reasonable amount of costs is $2,844.48. Petitioner's Verified Supplemental Motion indicates additional attorney's fees associated with this hearing in the amount of $11,200.00, representing 44.80 hours (out of a total of 65.30 hours indicated) at a rate of $250.00 an hour; and additional costs associated with this hearing in the amount of $12,100.91. Regarding the supplemental attorney's fees, no explanation was submitted as to why the entries from June 6, 2003 to August 20, 2003 were not available at hearing. Notwithstanding, the supplemental documentation is sufficiently detailed and specific. As a result, the number of supplemental hours reasonably expended by Petitioner's counsel is 44.80, and the reasonable amount of supplemental attorney's fees is $11,200.00. Regarding the supplemental costs, the cost for the services rendered by Petitioner's experts are included in the $12,100.91. Petitioner obtained the services of an expert on attorney's fees and an expert on lost wages and benefits. For the services rendered by the expert on attorney's fees, the cost was in the amount of $1,775.00. For the services rendered by the expert on lost wages and benefits, the cost was in the amount of $9,006.25. The total cost for the services rendered by the experts is in the amount of $10,781.25. Again, costs identified as fax or facsimile, postage, cab fare, and transportation to and from the courthouse should be excluded as inappropriate. Additionally, regarding costs, Petitioner represents that the parties agreed to equally share in the expense of the court reporter for the hearing, which is shown on the Verified Supplemental Motion as $663.00. Respondent did not refute the representation. Consequently, the reasonable amount of supplemental costs is $12,054.91.
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 as to back pay, interest on the amount awarded, retirement system contributions, attorney's fees, and costs: Ordering the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services n/k/a Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to pay Gloria Garcia (Garcia) back pay in the amount of $35,148.24. Ordering the Department to make contributions to the Florida Retirement System on behalf of Garcia in the amount of $7,110.16. Ordering the re-evaluation of Garcia's break in service by the Division of Retirement. Further, ordering that, if it is in compliance with and satisfies applicable statutes and rules of the Division of Retirement, Garcia receive credit in time for retirement from October 8, 1993, the date of her termination, to January 1995, the date that she again became a career service employee. Ordering the Department to pay to Garcia's counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $96,075.00 and costs in the amount of $14,899.39, totaling $110,974.39. Ordering the statutory interest rate of ten percent per annum be applied to the amounts awarded. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent’s license as a psychologist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Board of Psychology was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing and professional discipline of psychologists in Florida. Respondent is and has been licensed as a psychologist in Florida and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Psychology. During the period April 11, 1995, through August 7, 1995, Respondent was employed as a psychologist at the University of South Florida Counseling Center for Human Development. In that capacity, Respondent saw the Complainant, K.R., on several occasions and established a psychologist-client relationship with her. At the initial visit of K.R. to his office, Respondent conducted an initial intake evaluation of her and, in his client notes, defined the goal of his continued treatment of her as being to assist Ms. K.R. in stabilizing her depression; and to clarify her needs and patterns with regard to her career and relationships. Upon completing the intake evaluation of K.R., Respondent referred her to himself as treating therapist, and between the initial meeting and the end of August 1995, met with her approximately thirteen times. Review of Respondent’s notes regarding his sessions with K.R. reveals that they discussed her relationship with her parents; her relationships with men; her ability to deal with her emotions, her anxiety, and depression. K.R. relates that during many of their sessions, Respondent told her she had nice legs and was very sexy. He also told her of his personal life, including his dissatisfaction with his marriage, and it appears that he met with her outside his professional office on a purely social basis. K.R. claims Respondent told her not to tell anyone about their friendship outside the clinic. The relationship between Respondent and K.R. culminated in their engaging in sexual intercourse which resulted in her becoming pregnant. The pregnancy was subsequently aborted. As a result of their relationship, K.R. filed a complaint against Respondent with the Board of Psychology relating the sexual nature of their relationship. Subsequent to the filing of K.R.’s complaint against Respondent, and the Agency For Health Care Administration’s (Agency) filing of an Administrative Complaint against him, the Agency deposed Dr. George J. Rockwell, Jr., a retired psychologist with a specialty in school psychology. Dr. Rockwell did not meet with Respondent or speak with him in any capacity. He examined the file collected in this case regarding the allegations against Respondent, and from his review of all the material, concluded that Respondent had established a psychologist/patient relationship with K.R. This relationship involves trust and the generation in the patient of a basic belief that the psychologist has the skills and knowledge that would assist the patient in dealing with whatever problems he or she has. The patient develops the ability to talk to a non- critical, non-judgmental person in an effort to help him or her deal with their problems or concerns. The psychologist has the responsibility to create an emotionally safe environment for the patient. In this process the patient is often made vulnerable. The patient must be open with the psychologist and feel comfortable in sharing emotions and incidents which he or she would most likely not be able to share with others. It is without question a special relationship, and in Dr. Rockwell’s opinion, it is unlikely that a patient will work with a psychologist and not form that special relationship. This special relationship places upon the psychologist special responsibilities toward the patient. These include abiding by the laws and rules relating to the practice of psychology; having respect for the patient; and keeping all matters confided by the patient confidential. In addition, the psychologist has the responsibility to comport himself or herself in a manner so as to maintain a professional relationship and distance with the patient. Specifically, sexual relationships between a psychologist and his or her patient are normally prohibited as being beyond boundaries that should not be crossed. It is the psychologist’s responsibility to set the limits on behavior so as to prevent an inappropriate relationship from developing. This applies even if the patient initiates sexual advances. These advances would not excuse the psychologist from professional responsibility toward the patient. In the event the psychologist detects what appear to be inappropriate sexual advances from the patient, the psychologist had a duty to discuss this with the patient; talk about the nature of the psychologist/patient relationship; and explain that such a relationship would not be appropriate. The constrictors on the professional are even more specific in the event the psychologist finds himself or herself sexually attracted to the patient. Under no circumstances should the professional act on those feelings, but should evaluate the situation to ensure that those feelings are in no way interfering with the therapeutic relationship. There is absolutely no situation which Dr. Rockwell can think of in which it would be appropriate for a therapist to engage in sexual relations with a patient, either during or after termination of a therapy session. Inappropriate sexual contact between a therapist and a patient can have severe and deleterious effects on a patient. These might include feelings of guilt and depression, based on the patient’s belief that the inappropriate behavior was his or her fault. The patient might also feel embarrassment and be reluctant to undergo further treatment. Further, the patient would most likely lose trust in the involved therapist and potential other therapists. Dr. Rockwell concluded that notwithstanding Respondent’s contention that he saw K.R. solely for the purpose of career counseling, and at no time entered a psychologist/patient relationship with her, Respondent’s clinical notes regarding K.R. clearly indicate a professional psychologist/patient relationship was formed. An independent review of the records supports that conclusion, and it is so found. Even were the counseling limited solely to career counseling, it would still constitute counseling, the conduct of which is covered by the standards of the profession. Here, however, Dr. Rockwell is convinced that Respondent’s conduct toward K.R., as alleged, constituted sexual misconduct in the practice of psychological counseling which fell below the minimum standards of performance and professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Psychology enter a final order in this matter finding Respondent guilty of all Counts in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking his license to practice psychology in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 O. C. Allen, Qualified Representative 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Amy M. Jones, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Petitioner (“Holly Mathis” or “Ms. Mathis”), in contravention of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01 through 760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ experienced sexual harassment and/or disparate treatment during her employment at Respondent, O’Reilly Auto Parts (“O’Reilly”).
Findings Of Fact O’Reilly is a retail distributor of automobile parts headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. On approximately August 11, 2014, Ms. Mathis began working at an O’Reilly’s store in Panama City Beach, Florida (“store no. 4564”). Her duties included pulling automobile parts from the store’s inventory and using an O’Reilly’s-owned vehicle to deliver automobile parts to mechanics in the surrounding area. Ms. Mathis was the only female employee at store no. 4564. Upon beginning her employment with O’Reilly, Ms. Mathis received a copy of the O’Reilly Auto Parts Team Member Handbook (“the Handbook”) detailing policies, benefits, and the responsibilities of O’Reilly’s employees. One portion of the Handbook specifies that O’Reilly’s employees “are not discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, military obligation, disability, or other protected class as defined by federal, state or local laws.” Another portion of the Handbook addressed harassment and stated that “[a]buse of other team members through ethnic, racist, or sexist slurs or other derogatory or objectionable conduct is unacceptable behavior and will be subject to progressive discipline.” This portion of the Handbook continued by describing sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment is a specific form of harassment that undermines the integrity of the employment relationship – it will not be tolerated. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual’s employment. Submission to or rejection of the conduct is the basis for an employment decision affecting the harassed team member. The harassment substantially interferes with a team member’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. This portion of the Handbook also instructed employees how to report harassment: If you feel you have been discriminated against or have observed another team member being discriminated against due to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sex, age or veteran status, you should immediately report such incidents to your supervisor/manager, local Human Resources representative, the corporate Human Resources Department, or anonymously via the company’s T.I.P.S. Hotline at 1-800-473-8470 without fear of reprisal. A prompt, thorough investigation will be made as confidentially as possible. Appropriate action, up to and including termination, will be taken to ensure that neither discrimination nor harassment persists . . . . The Handbook instructs an O’Reilly’s employee with work-related concerns to bring them to the attention of his or her supervisor. If the work-related concern involves that employee’s supervisor, then the Handbook instructs the employee to “speak directly with the next level of supervision.” Store no. 4564 had a poster notifying employees that sexual harassment is illegal. The poster stated that: If you experience or witness sexual harassment, report it immediately to your supervisor or the Human Resources Department without fear of retaliation. The company will promptly investigate all complaints as confidentially as possible. If the company concludes that sexual harassment did occur, disciplinary action will be taken with the offender(s) up to and including termination. The poster listed two “hotline” phone numbers that O’Reilly’s employees could utilize to report sexual harassment. Also, the Handbook states that “[s]moking, eating, and drinking are not allowed in company vehicles, and team members are not permitted to possess food or beverages, including water, within the cab of a store delivery vehicle.” As noted above, Ms. Mathis began working for O’Reilly on approximately August 11, 2014. She typically worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Ms. Mathis’ hiring by O’Reilly was probably facilitated by the fact that she had previously worked with the store’s general manager (Paul Stephenson) at an Advance Auto Parts store. Ms. Mathis considered Mr. Stephenson to be a “big brother.” However, in September of 2014, Mr. Stephenson began directing sexual comments toward Ms. Mathis, and inappropriate conduct by Mr. Stephenson continued through April of 2015.2/ During Ms. Mathis’ employment with O’Reilly, Mr. Stephenson was the highest-ranking employee at the Panama City Beach store. Therefore, Mr. Stephenson had supervisory authority over Ms. Mathis. On April 4, 2015, Ms. Mathis and Mr. Stephenson were working at store no. 4564. When Ms. Mathis asked to leave early so that she could spend time with her newborn, Mr. Stephenson repeatedly asked her to expose her breasts to him. Ms. Mathis refused Mr. Stephenson’s requests but was eventually allowed to leave work early. However, Ms. Mathis had been under the impression that she would not be allowed to leave early unless she complied with Mr. Stephenson’s request. On approximately April 13, 2015, Ms. Mathis applied for a position at an Autozone store approximately five minutes from store no. 4564. By April 14, 2015, Ms. Mathis had secured a new position at that Autozone store and submitted a letter of resignation to O’Reilly on April 14, 2015. Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct did not stop after Ms. Mathis submitted her letter of resignation. As discussed in her Petition for Relief, Mr. Stephenson attempted to touch her in an inappropriate manner many times on April 15, 2015, and succeeded in doing so on April 16, 2015. Ms. Mathis reaffirmed that statement during her testimony at the final hearing. The undersigned finds Ms. Mathis’ testimony regarding Mr. Stephenson’s conduct in April of 2015 to be credible. April 16, 2015, was Ms. Mathis’ last day of work at store no. 4564, and she began working for Autozone on April 17, 2015. In addition to Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct, Ms. Mathis asserts that she was subjected to disparate treatment by her direct supervisor, William Yohe. Specifically, Ms. Mathis testified that Mr. Yohe would belittle her by calling her “stupid” in front of co-workers and customers. Male employees did not experience such verbal abuse. In addition, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to decline deliveries without giving Ms. Mathis the same option. When a male driver declined a particular delivery, then Ms. Mathis was required to handle it. Also, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to have food and beverages in the O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. However, Mr. Yohe sent Ms. Mathis home early on April 10, 2015, for having a Gatorade in a delivery vehicle. With the exception of family and friends, Ms. Mathis told no one (including no one with authority over Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Yohe in O’Reilly’s chain-of-command) of the sexual harassment and disparate treatment she experienced at store no. 4564. Ms. Mathis did not report the sexual harassment and disparate treatment to anyone associated with O’Reilly because she was worried that Mr. Stephenson or Mr. Yohe would learn of her complaints and fire her. As a single mother of a newborn, she could ill afford to be out of work. As for the anonymous T.I.P.S. Hotline in the Handbook, Ms. Mathis was concerned that her anonymity could not be maintained because she was the only female employee at store no. 4564. The undersigned finds that Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stephenson sexually harassed her in April of 2015 as described above. There was no reliable evidence to rebut Ms. Mathis’ allegations regarding Mr. Stephenson. For example, another driver at store no. 4564 testified that he never observed any behavior towards Ms. Mathis that amounted to a violation of O’Reilly’s policies. However, that testimony and his written statement were of little use because the other driver worked Mondays and Tuesdays while Ms. Mathis usually worked Wednesday through Friday. Mr. Stephenson did not testify during the final hearing. He did give a written statement to O’Reilly in which he denied any inappropriate conduct of the nature described by Ms. Mathis. However, and as explained in the Conclusions of Law below, Mr. Stephenson’s written statement was hearsay, and it did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. In addition, several other O’Reilly’s employees submitted written statements explaining that they had never seen any discrimination at their workplace and/or that they were unaware of any discrimination occurring at their workplace. However, those employees did not testify, and their written statements did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. Mr. Yohe gave a written statement in which he noted that no one had complained to him about being sexually harassed. However, and as noted above, Ms. Mathis told no one other than friends and family about her experiences at store no. 4564. While Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Stephenson during her employment at O’Reilly, she did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to other types of disparate treatment. Mr. Yohe denied verbally abusing Ms. Mathis, and O’Reilly’s witnesses persuasively testified that male and female drivers were treated equally with regard to having prohibited items in O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. As for Ms. Mathis’ assertion that she was forced to make deliveries that male drivers declined, Mr. Yohe rebutted that assertion by testifying that Ms. Mathis was unable to successfully work the front counter at store no. 4564 because she had yet to accumulate sufficient knowledge of automobile parts. Therefore, if the front counter was short-staffed at certain times, then a male driver would be asked to work the front counter and Ms. Mathis would have to handle all of the deliveries during that time period. The undersigned also finds O’Reilly had reasonable measures in place to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior. It is also found that Ms. Mathis failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities offered by O’Reilly.
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 Holly Mathis’ claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Hostetler holds Certificate #432348 covering the areas of business education, physical education, and administration and supervision. Said certificate is valid through 1987. On or about October 2, 1978, Respondent pled guilty to child molestation in the State of Georgia and was placed on five years probation by the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. See Exhibit 4.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Barry L. Hostetler, guilty of violating Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the teaching certificate of the Respondent be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy L. Glass, Esquire 1400 66th Street, North, Suite 480 Post Office Box 10008 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mr. Barry L. Hostetler 360 24th Street, NW, #1031 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-1468 BARRY L. HOSTETLER, Respondent. /
