The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, when Petitioner was an employee of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From November 2004 until early 2008, which period includes all times relevant to this case, Petitioner Robinson Nelson ("Nelson") worked for Respondent Alutiiq-Mele, LLC ("AML") as a security guard. Nelson, who is black, alleges that on two discrete occasions, AML unlawfully discriminated against him based on race, once denying him an overtime shift which he requested, and the other time refusing to assign him "equal work hours." The first incident allegedly took place on "or about March 1, 2005." According to Nelson, he called his supervisor that day, using a telephone at his workstation, to ask that he be scheduled to work overtime on his day off. The supervisor, Nelson claims, told him that overtime had been "eliminated" and denied Nelson's request. Shortly thereafter, as Nelson tells it, the supervisor called Nelson's coworker, Nadja Abreu, and offered her the overtime that Nelson had just been denied. Nelson's story cannot be squared with AML's records, which the undersigned considers reliable and truthful and hence credits. Nelson's timesheet for the week of February 27 through March 5, 2005, shows (and it is found) that he worked all seven days that week, putting in 40 regular hours and 26 overtime hours. Ms. Abreu's timesheet for the same period shows (and it is found) that she worked four days, accruing 40 regular hours and four overtime hours. At hearing, Nelson claimed (apparently for the first time) that the telephone conversation with his supervisor regarding overtime had not occurred on or about March 1, 2005—— as he had alleged originally in his Charge of Discrimination (signed on November 20, 2005) and maintained as recently as the Joint Prehearing Stipulation (dated May 30, 2008)——but rather some two weeks later, on or about March 15, 2005. Again, however, credible contemporaneous records belie Nelson's claim. A payroll document shows (and it is found) that Nelson and Ms. Abreu each worked 40 regular hours during the week of March 13, 2005——and neither put in overtime. (Moreover, Nelson did not work on March 15 and 16, 2005, which means that, if Nelson called his supervisor on March 15, as he asserted at hearing, then he likely would not have been at his workstation at the time, which is inconsistent with his testimony that he placed the call while at work.) Regarding the second alleged incident of discrimination, Nelson claims that on Monday, October 31, 2005, shortly before 9:00 a.m., he received a telephone call at home from his supervisor, who wanted to know why Nelson had failed to report for work that morning. Nelson says he told his supervisor that he had not been scheduled to work that day, and he could not work because he was babysitting. Nelson complains that, in connection with this situation, AML "denied" him regular work hours because of his race. In addition to being facially illogical, Nelson's claim of discrimination is contradicted by reliable and persuasive documentary evidence. First, AML's payroll record shows (and it is found) that Nelson worked four hours on Sunday, October 30, and seven-and-a-half hours each day the next Tuesday through Friday, making a total 34 regular hours during the week of October 30, 2005. While this was not quite a full-time workweek, that Nelson worked fewer than 40 hours one week is not, of itself, proof that AML "denied" him six hours of work. In fact, AML did not "deny" Nelson a work opportunity, as other contemporaneous documents——not to mention Nelson's own testimony——show. In evidence are two work schedules pertaining to the week of October 30, 2005. One was printed on October 28, 2005, and the other on October 30, 2005. There are a number of differences between them; each, however, notes that "scheduled hours are subject to change as needed." On the earlier schedule, Nelson was to be off on Monday, October 31, 2005. On the subsequent schedule, he was to work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. that day. Had Nelson reported to work on October 31, 2005, as (ultimately) scheduled——and as he was asked to do——Nelson would have worked more than 40 hours the week of October 30, 2005. Ultimate Factual Determinations Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is either insufficient to establish that AML discriminated unlawfully against Nelson on the basis of his race; or it proves, affirmatively, that AML did not, in all likelihood, unlawfully discriminate against him. Either way, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that AML did not violate the civil rights laws in its treatment of Nelson while he was an employee of AML.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding AML not liable to Nelson for racial discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Christine L. Wilson, Esquire Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 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
The Issue The issue is whether the claim of employment discrimination contained in the Petition for Relief must be dismissed due to Petitioner's execution of a release of all claims.
Findings Of Fact On June 29, 2012, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated. On July 24, 2012, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging that he was subjected to discrimination. On August 18, 2012, Petitioner signed an agreement. Under the agreement, Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner $5,000.00, net several items, provided Petitioner did not exercise his right to revoke the agreement within the seven days following execution, as provided in the agreement. Petitioner did not revoke the agreement, and Respondent discharged all obligations under the agreement. In exchange, Petitioner agreed to release Respondent from all claims, damages, suits, complaints, damages, losses and expenses, of every nature, legal or equitable, whether known or unknown, which Olascoaga ever had, now has, or may claim to have, upon or by reason of the occurrence of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever . . . . This release specifically includes, but is not limited to, a release of any and all claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act . . . . There is no contention that Petitioner was not acting knowingly or voluntarily when he executed a release of claims.
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 Carlos Olascoaga's Petition for Relief from employment discrimination for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April 2014.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on his age.
Findings Of Fact Currently, Petitioner is a retired, 68-year-old male. He retired from Respondent at the age of 66. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a truck driver. The position of truck driver, involves many long hours of driving (sometimes over 56 hours) various interstate and intrastate truck routes, along with some lifting and exposure to diesel fumes. Petitioner attributed a variety of illnesses and health problems to his work as a truck driver. Some of the illnesses and health problems are hypertension and heart blockage and failure, which resulted in the implantation of a pacemaker, carpal tunnel syndrome, polyneuropathy, muscular and autonomic system problems and pathological hyper-insomnia. Petitioner offered no evidence that any of these conditions resulted from his employment with Respondent. Prior to September 9 or 10, 2000, at the age of 64, Petitioner was hospitalized for heart problems. Around September 9 or 10, 2000, Petitioner was released from the hospital. Upon his return to work, he gave his employer a physician’s note indicating that his work duties be limited to 40 hours a week. Petitioner met with Respondent’s transportation manager regarding whether less lengthy routes were available or whether his schedule or work duties could be adjusted. The employer did not have the ability to adjust the length of the routes, but added a second driver to ride and help with the driving on any route that Petitioner drove. Petitioner inquired about office work and was told that if he was interested in such work he needed to apply at the main office to see what was available. In part, because Petitioner liked driving and in part because the lesser number of hours involved in office work would cause Petitioner to earn less, Petitioner elected not to pursue and did not apply for such office work. No adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner, and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. At some point during this meeting, Petitioner alleges that the transportation manager said, “Why don’t you just retire.” Petitioner offered no specific context for this statement other than it was a general conversation about his health and closeness to retirement age relative to the adjustments that could be made to his driving duties. One isolated statement such as the one above does not demonstrate any intent to discriminate on Respondent’s part based on Petitioner’s age, especially since no adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. Around January 1, 2001, for medical reasons, Respondent approved a Leave of Absence with pay for Petitioner. In June or July, 2002, Petitioner filed his first workers compensation claim with Respondent. Petitioner’s claim was turned over to Respondent’s workers' compensation insurer, Kemper Insurance Company. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Kemper was under the direction or control of Respondent in any decisions Kemper made regarding paying or litigating Petitioner’s claim. In any event, Petitioner’s claim was contested. The main reason the claim was contested was that Kemper alleged that Petitioner’s “injuries” were not work-related. Over the years, Petitioner has amended his claim to include, among other health claims, the health problems listed above. Kemper has maintained its defense. During a mediation session on December 11, 2002, at which the employer was not present and in response to an inquiry regarding Kemper’s defense, Kemper’s representative stated that except for the carpal tunnel claim, all of Petitioner’s medical conditions were due to the natural aging process. Petitioner claims this statement demonstrates an intent on his employer’s part to discriminate against him based on his age. Such an isolated statement does not demonstrate such an intent especially since such conditions can be age related, there was no expert medical evidence demonstrating the cause of Petitioner’s health problems, the statement did not come from the employer, and there was no evidence that the insurer was under the direction or control of the employer regarding decisions to litigate or the factual basis for the defenses that the insurer would raise. The workers' compensation litigation continues to date. In the interim, Petitioner remained on a leave of absence with pay until January 1, 2003. He retired thereafter. There was no evidence that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner or that Petitioner suffered any adverse employment action based on his age. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Glynda Copeland Qualified Representative Tree of Life, Inc. Post Office Box 410 St. Augustine, Florida 32095-0410 Robert C. Johnson 560 Florida Club Boulevard, Suite 112 St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
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,
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Age Discrimination Petitioner, Ila Sharpe, was employed by FCHR from June 28, 2002, until February 6, 2006. Regina Owens is the housing investigations manager for FCHR. In approximately May 2004, Ms. Owens hired Petitioner into the housing unit upon the suggestion of the deputy director, Nina Singleton. Ms. Owens placed Petitioner in a vacant Senior Clerk position under her supervision in the housing unit. At the time, Ms. Owens became Petitioner’s supervisor, Ms. Owens was 51 years old. Petitioner was approximately 50 years old at that time. After Petitioner was in the Senior Clerk position for six or seven months, Ms. Owens promoted Petitioner to the position of Investigation Specialist I. Ms. Owens waived the requirements of a college degree and investigative writing experience for this new position, because Petitioner already worked for FCHR and had expressed an interest in moving up. The Investigator Specialist I position is a Selected Exempt Service position which included investigating cases, as well as “intake” duties. Ms. Owens explained to Petitioner that she would be doing investigations after about four months on the job. Petitioner was promoted to this position in January 2005. Ms. Owens sent Petitioner to Washington D.C. for training on three occasions in 2005: February, June, and December. Each training session lasted about a week and was conducted by the National Fair Housing Training Academy. After attending the February week-long training session, Petitioner continued to perform solely “intake” duties. Following the February training, Ms. Owens asked Petitioner if she was ready to take on an investigative caseload. Petitioner indicated that she was not ready to do so at that time. After Petitioner attended the June 2005, training session, Ms. Owens again spoke to Petitioner and determined that Petitioner was still not ready to take on investigative duties, although she had been in the position more than four months. In September 2005, Ms. Owens had e-mail communications with Petitioner, which gave her cause for concern that Petitioner might not know the answers to matters on which she had received training. In particular, Ms. Owens was concerned that Petitioner’s e-mail responses to her indicated that Petitioner was confused as to whom an investigator should be dealing with in a particular situation. Petitioner attended the third week-long training session in December 2005. After a discussion with Petitioner, Ms. Owens was still concerned about Petitioner’s reluctance to take on investigative duties despite her training and length of time on the job. Petitioner had been in the investigator specialist position for nearly a year but never investigated a case. In late December 2005, Ms. Owens developed a test for employees of the housing unit. The purpose of the test was to test employees’ working knowledge of the HUD manual and research skills in using the manual, specifically regarding the intake process. The “Housing Unit Intake Test” was based on the HUD manual, which is the book that all investigators have and use. The test was similar to the test the investigators had to take in Washington during training. The test developed by Ms. Owens is now given to all new investigators during their training. On January 5, 2006, Petitioner was first given the test using a “closed book” administration. The test pertained to the HUD manual materials, and Petitioner was given an hour to complete the closed book test. The purpose of the closed book administration was to assess the employee’s working knowledge of the subject matter. Petitioner scored ten correct answers out of 34 test questions. On January 6, 2006, Ms. Owens again gave Petitioner the same test questions. However, this second administration of the test was “open book” with two hours allowed to take the test. The open book administration was designed to assess the employee’s ability to do research, find the answers in the HUD manual, and to answer the questions correctly. Petitioner scored 11 correct answers out of 34 test questions. Also on January 6, 2006, Ms. Owens administered the same test to investigation specialist Julina Dolce. Ms. Dolce’s score on the closed book test is unclear from the record. However, on the open book test, Ms. Dolce received a score of 27 correct answers out of 34 test questions. After taking the test, Petitioner spoke to Ms. Dolce about what was on the test. However, there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Owens was aware that Ms. Dolce had a “heads up” on the test content prior to taking the test. The test was also given to Marshetta Smith on January 6, 2006. At the time she took the test, Ms. Smith was a senior clerk who did not do much intake work, and was approximately 30 years old at the time. While not an investigator, Ms. Smith was given the test to assess her working knowledge and research skills for potential upward mobility. Ms. Smith had 11 correct answers out of 34 test questions. Ms. Smith has since been terminated from employment with Respondent. About two weeks after administering the first test, Ms. Owens administered a different test, the “55+ exam”, which pertained to housing regulations for older persons. Petitioner scored 14 correct answers out of 20 test questions on the closed book administration and 16 correct answers out of 20 test questions on the open book administration of the test. Based upon her reluctance to take on an investigative caseload and upon her poor performance on the intake test, it was determined that Petitioner would be demoted to a senior clerk position. A meeting was held on January 26, 2006, with Ms. Owens, Petitioner, and the human resources manager, informing Petitioner of the intended demotion to be effective February 10, 2006. On January 30, 2006, Petitioner submitted her letter of resignation to Ms. Owens effective February 6, 2006. Her resignation was accepted, effective the close of business February 6, 2006. Consequently, the demotion did not take place as Petitioner resigned from employment with Respondent prior to the effective date of the intended demotion. After Petitioner’s resignation, Respondent moved Ms. Dolce into Petitioner’s position of investigation specialist. At that time, Ms. Dolce was 31 years old. While making a vague assertion that Ms. Owens made innuendos regarding younger people “some time ago”, Petitioner acknowledged that Ms. Owens never said anything derogatory to Petitioner about her age. Sherry Taylor began working at FCHR in 1999 as a senior clerk. She moved into an investigator position in April 2000. When Ms. Owens came into the housing unit in 2004, Ms. Taylor was an investigator II. Ms. Taylor was demoted in the fall of 2006 to an investigator I because the quality of her work “went downhill." At the time of her demotion, Ms. Taylor was 30 years old. There is no competent evidence that FCHR used age as a criterion in its decision to demote Petitioner. Timeliness Petitioner sent a document entitled “Technical Assistance Questionnaire for Employment Complaints” to the EEO Office, which alleged that she had been discriminated against by FCHR on the basis of her age. The fax cover sheet shows a date of January 19, 2007, but no “received” stamp appears on the document. The document included a request from Petitioner that the “complaint” not be forwarded to FCHR for investigation. Despite this request, the EEO office forwarded the completed questionnaire to FCHR on January 31, 2007. This date is confirmed by the date stamp indicating receipt, as well as the fax transmittal notation at the top of each page. However, the investigation was conducted by the EEO Office. The Determination: No Cause dated July 30, 2007, issued by FCHR to Petitioner states in part that “the timeliness and all jurisdictional requirements have been met.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 11th day of June, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) on or about September 9, 2014, and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and probative facts: TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER, CARYL ZOOK Petitioner, a 61-year-old female born in 1954, worked as a private chef for Mr. Friedkin, owner of Respondent. She began in 2007 and was an “at will” employee, there being no written employment contract. Her duties included providing dinners and other meals at Mr. Friedkin’s residence, catering or assisting him with some events, and overseeing some of the other staff members at his residence. Petitioner was in an auto accident in 2011 and suffered neck injuries. Petitioner required physical therapy, acupuncture, steroid injections, and several x-rays. After Petitioner was terminated from Respondent in September 2013, she underwent surgery to remove several bad vertebrae from her neck area. Due to her neck injury and pain, Petitioner testified that she needed to park close to Mr. Friedkin’s house to carry groceries as a reasonable accommodation. Other than the inference drawn from this scant evidence, there was little, if any, direct or circumstantial evidence presented to prove that Respondent had knowledge of a qualifying disability by Petitioner.1/ Petitioner characterized Mr. Friedkin’s behavior over the years as insulting and abusive, and she endured it for many years. There was an arrangement between Petitioner and Friedkin for him to purchase a home for her to live in. She would repair or remodel the home, and at some point, he would transfer the mortgage and home to her.2/ For the Yom Kippur holiday, Mr. Friedkin contacted Petitioner and instructed her to prepare a dinner for his family and to have it ready at 3:00 p.m. that day. Typically, meals were prepared by Petitioner at Mr. Friedkin’s home. However, this one was prepared at Petitioner’s home because, as she testified, it “needed to be brined” in her refrigerator in advance. Petitioner was admittedly running late and did not have the meal prepared by 3:00 p.m. Mr. Friedkin called her while she was driving to his house but she did not answer the phone. When she arrived at his house, Mr. Friedkin was in his vehicle blocking the driveway. After she parked on the street, Mr. Friedkin got out of his vehicle and began ranting and raving at her, accusing her of being late. He was very upset. He continued yelling and told her that, “Next week you better start looking for a new job.” Petitioner went into the house and left the food in the refrigerator. It was undisputed that the food (a turkey breast) was not given to Mr. Friedkin outside the home because it was not carved or ready for consumption. TESTIMONY OF SHEREE FREIDKIN Mr. Friedkin’s wife testified that Mr. Friedkin had made it clear to Petitioner that he wanted her to prepare a turkey meal and that they would pick it up at 3:00 p.m. at the residence. When she and her husband arrived at their home at 3:00 p.m., Petitioner was not there. They went inside, looked in the refrigerator, and saw that the food was not there. They called Petitioner on her cell phone but she did not answer. They waited for some period of time for her, all the while getting very frustrated and agitated.3/ After waiting more than 30 minutes for Petitioner to arrive, they decided to go to Whole Foods to buy a turkey meal at around 3:40 p.m. On their way, Petitioner phoned them. She said she would be at the house soon, and so, they decided to drive back and meet her. After they arrived back at their residence they had to continue to wait for her to arrive. She finally arrived, sometime after 3:40 p.m., and got out of her vehicle eventually. (Apparently, Petitioner waited in her car for some period of time.) When she got out, Petitioner was in shorts, a sloppy shirt, and her hair was in curlers. Mr. and Mrs. Friedkin found this inappropriate, particularly since Petitioner usually wore an apron and dressed more appropriately in their presence. Mr. Friedkin was very upset and demanded that she give him the food because they were running late to their family function. Petitioner refused, claiming the turkey needed to be sliced. Mr. Friedkin was very angry and used several unnecessary expletives during the course of his conversation with Petitioner. Mr. Friedkin told her something like, “you’re fired” and “don’t show up Monday for work.” Mrs. Friedkin overheard no age, disability, or retaliation-related comments during this heated exchange. TESTIMONY OF MONTE FRIEDKIN He confirmed that Petitioner was his chef and also did some assorted chores and supervision around his house. He directed Petitioner to make a meal and have it ready for them to pick up at his residence by 3:00 p.m. on the day in question. He testified that Petitioner always cooked any food for his family at his residence. When they arrived around 3:00 p.m. at the house, Petitioner was not there, and there was no food. He tried to call her and had to leave a message. They decided to go to Whole Foods to buy the meal. They departed for Whole Foods around 3:40 p.m. His description of the event was consistent with his wife’s testimony. In addition to the delay caused by Petitioner, Mr. Friedkin testified that it was important to him that she was presentable at all times around him and his family. During the confrontation in the driveway, he terminated her employment. He testified that he had experienced some other performance issues with her over the months preceding this event and that she had begun to respond to questions and directives from him in increasingly insubordinate ways. As far as her termination was concerned, he unequivocally denied that her age, a disability, or retaliation was ever considered or motivated his decision. He admitted that Petitioner told him that she had a car accident in one of their vehicles sometime in 2011. However, she continued to work for him for approximately two years after the accident without incident. She did complain to him, at some point, of some neck pain. He denied that Petitioner ever gave him any medical documents verifying or stating that she was disabled. On cross-examination by Petitioner, Mr. Friedkin elaborated that, during the months preceding the food incident, she had become more and more insubordinate, and there was a growing problem with her not following instructions he gave her. In his words, the incident at his residence involving the turkey dinner was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.” On redirect, Mr. Friedkin denied ever considering any disability and said he did not even know she was “disabled.”4/ TESTIMONY OF ROSARIO DIAZ Another witness, Mrs. Diaz, testified that Mr. and Mrs. Friedkin arrived at the residence at around 3:00 p.m. and came into her office. They wanted to know whether or not Petitioner was there with the food, and whether or not she had called. Diaz told him that she was not there and did not call. Mr. and Mrs. Friedkin then departed. Approximately 30 minutes later, Petitioner came into her office upset and said that she could not believe what had just happened and that Mr. Friedkin had just fired her. Ms. Diaz commented to her that maybe they were upset because she was late. Mrs. Diaz had worked for Mr. Friedkin for nearly 30 years. She interacted with Petitioner at the residence frequently. She testified that Petitioner never complained to her about age, disability, or other discriminatory remarks or comments by Mr. Friedkin. She also testified that she never overheard any comments by Mr. Friedkin about Petitioner’s age or disability, or how either may have affected Petitioner’s work performance. At Petitioner’s request, recorded portions of an unemployment compensation hearing, conducted by an appeals referee from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), were played. Petitioner represented that the purpose was to show that Mr. Friedkin had made several statements during that hearing that were inconsistent with his present testimony. The DEO hearing was to determine whether or not Petitioner was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. DEO ruled in Petitioner’s favor and found that she was not disqualified from receiving benefits and that no “misconduct” occurred on the job as a result of the Yom Kippur meal incident.5/ The undersigned finds that Mr. Friedkin did not make any materially inconsistent statements during the DEO hearing bearing upon his credibility as a witnesses in this case. There was insufficient proof offered by Petitioner to show that Respondent’s proffered explanation for her termination (poor work performance) was not true, or was only a pretext for discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief and find in Respondent’s favor. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert L. Kilbride 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 27th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating or retaliating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a Maintenance Technician III in March 2007. He held that position until his employment ended in January 2009. Petitioner was responsible for performing maintenance duties at two of Respondent's properties. The Majestic Sun is a 96-room, 10-story high-rise. Beech Street has 48 units in 24 two-story buildings. Both properties are located in Destin, Florida. A Maintenance Technician III is required to perform a wide range of maintenance duties. The position involves the following: (a) moving and lifting furniture, refrigerators, stoves, televisions, and washers and dryers; (b) stooping and kneeling to repair toilets, sinks, water heaters and air conditioners; (c) climbing on ladders to change light bulbs, repairing ceiling fans and performing other work; and (d) climbing stairs. The written Job Description Summary for the Maintenance Technician III position describes the physical requirements as follows: “Lift and carry up to 50 pounds; stand, sit and walk for prolonged periods of time; climb up and down several flights of stairs; frequent reaching, stooping, bending and kneeling; manual dexterity and mobility; extensive prolonged standing and walking.” Petitioner injured his knee in a job-related incident on September 6, 2008. He was treated at the Destin Emergency Care Center and placed on restrictions requiring “no work for now.” He was unable to work for approximately a week and a half. On September 17, 2008, Petitioner was given a Workers’ Compensation Uniform Medical Treatment Status Reporting Form imposing medical restrictions of no lifting, pushing or pulling greater than 10 pounds, and no ladders or stairs for four weeks. With those restrictions, Petitioner returned to work on light duty on September 18, 2008. While on light duty, Petitioner was given only those functions of his job that did not require him to exceed his medical restrictions. Other employees had to perform all of Petitioner’s other functions. Petitioner's work restrictions were extended for another four weeks by a Workers’ Compensation Uniform Medical Treatment Status Reporting Form dated October 15, 2008. The October 15 form imposed the same medical restrictions as the September 17 form. Petitioner aggravated his knee injury approximately a week later. On October 22, 2008, he was given a Workers’ Compensation Uniform Medical Treatment Status Reporting Form imposing the following work restrictions: (a) desk duty only; no lifting, pushing, or pulling at all; and (c) no standing or walking for more than 15 minutes at a time. Petitioner returned to work for a day or two after being restricted to desk duty. Respondent, however, had no desk-duty position available for him, so Petitioner was placed on a leave of absence beginning October 24, 2008. Petitioner requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). His request was denied on November 21, 2008, because he did not provide all of the required information. The obligation to provide that information is the employee’s. FMLA leave was denied not by Respondent but by Cigna, which is a third-party administrator for these benefits. Because FMLA leave had been denied, Petitioner’s employment was protected from termination for only 30 days from the date he went on leave, through November 24, 2008. Employees receiving workers’ compensation benefits are not protected from termination. If a worker is not on FMLA leave, Respondent's policy is that he or she may be terminated after 30 days of leave. Even though Respondent could have terminated Petitioner after November 24, 2008, it did not do so. Petitioner was medically restricted to desk duty throughout November and December 2008. He remained on a leave of absence during that time and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the date his leave of absence commenced. On December 16, 2008, Petitioner’s supervisor, John Diaz, e-mailed the Assistant Resort Manager at the Majestic Sun to ask about Petitioner’s status. Mr. Diaz had hired a temporary employee to cover for Petitioner while he was on leave. The cost of the temporary employee was significantly more than the cost of a regular employee. Mr. Diaz was concerned about the impact of the temporary help on his budget. Mr. Diaz also was concerned about the lack of information that he had received regarding the date Petitioner would return to work. Mr. Diaz's inquiry was forwarded to Raina Ricks, a Human Resources Generalist in Respondent’s Human Resources (HR) Department. Ms. Ricks responded on December 16 and 18, 2008, reporting that Petitioner’s physician had recommended surgery. She expected to have information about his surgery schedule and recovery period within a few days. The next day, December 19, 2008, Ms. Ricks e-mailed Melanie Doubleday, an Analyst in Respondent’s HR Department, to ask about Respondent’s policy on the length of time an employee can remain on active status and not be terminated while unable to work due to a job-related injury. Ms. Doubleday is located in Respondent’s office in Orlando, Florida. Ms. Ricks asked Ms. Doubleday at what point Petitioner would possibly be terminated if he could not return to work soon. Ms. Doubleday responded on December 22, 2008, providing Respondent’s approved guidelines for processing workers’ compensation injuries. She explained that if the employee is eligible for FMLA, they would remain on workers’ compensation for the duration of their FMLA leave and not be terminated during that leave. If not eligible for FMLA, the employee would receive 30 days of leave. Ms. Ricks updated Mr. Diaz and Chrysse Langley, the Resort Manager, by e-mail the following day, December 23, 2008. Ms. Ricks explained that, since Petitioner’s FMLA leave had been denied, he was subject to termination 30 days following the commencement of his leave on October 24, 2008. Ms. Ricks had also been told by Petitioner’s workers’ compensation caseworker that they still did not have an exact date for Petitioner’s surgery, but that once the procedure was complete, he should be able to perform his normal job duties without restrictions within two to four weeks, or six weeks at the most. Ms. Ricks asked Mr. Diaz and Ms. Langley for their thoughts on terminating Petitioner. Mr. Diaz responded later that day, stating that he was “not trying to have [Petitioner] terminated.” Mr. Diaz's concern was that he had not received any information about when Petitioner would be required to return to work, and Petitioner himself did not seem particularly motivated to return. If Petitioner could return to work without restrictions within eight weeks, Mr. Diaz was prepared to “live with that.” Ms. Langley also responded later that day and confirmed that she and Mr. Diaz both wanted to keep Petitioner, if feasible. She also said that Respondent should proceed with hiring the temporary employee who had been covering for Petitioner during his absence, because Mr. Diaz was planning to terminate one of the other Maintenance Technician III’s for poor job performance. Subsequently, the temporary employee was hired to replace the other Maintenance Technician III. Two weeks later, on January 5, 2009, Ms. Doubleday e-mailed Ms. Ricks regarding Petitioner’s “exhausted leave of absence.” She said Petitioner was entitled to 30 days of leave and must then either return to active status or be terminated. For consistent application of Respondent’s policies, she instructed Ms. Ricks to send Petitioner a Return to Work/Administrative Termination Letter. Ms. Ricks’ employment with Respondent ended a few days later as part of a corporate restructuring. She did not send the “Return to Work” letter before she left. Denise Sniadecki, one of Respondent's HR Managers, assumed Ms. Ricks’ responsibilities. She did not know about Ms. Doubleday’s earlier e-mail or the denial of Petitioner's FMLA leave. Respondent’s HR system, Oracle, showed Petitioner's employment status as “Leave - Workers Comp - FMLA,” indicating that he was on FMLA leave, despite the denial of his FMLA application two months earlier. Ms. Sniadecki thus assumed Petitioner was nearing the end of his FMLA leave, which would have expired on January 24, 2009, 12 weeks after his medical leave began on October 24, 2008. Ms. Sniadecki e-mailed Ms. Doubleday on January 20, 2009, asking what letter she should send to Petitioner in light of the fact that his leave would soon be ending. After a further exchange of e-mails, Ms. Sniadecki e-mailed Ms. Doubleday on January 21, 2009, and explained that Petitioner was listed in Oracle as being on FMLA leave, that he had not been terminated after 30 days, and that she was just getting involved because of Ms. Ricks’ departure. She asked whether she should process Petitioner’s employment as having been terminated 30 days after his leave commenced on October 24, 2008. Ms. Doubleday responded later that day. She said that Petitioner’s status should be changed in Oracle to "WC/Non FMLA" and suggested he be terminated that day. Coincidently, Petitioner came to the workplace that same day, January 21, 2009, to drop off his latest Workers’ Compensation Uniform Medical Treatment Status Reporting Form. Petitioner's knee surgery had taken place a week to 10 days earlier. The form he brought in on January 21, 2009, imposed job restrictions of no lifting, pushing or pulling greater than 10 pounds, no ladders, and limited kneeling or squatting for four weeks. Mr. Diaz informed Ms. Sniadecki of Petitioner’s new work restrictions by e-mail that day. Mr. Diaz was not comfortable having Petitioner return to work on light duty because the medical restrictions severely limited his ability to do what the job required and he might further injure his knee. Mr. Diaz assumed Respondent still planned to administratively release Petitioner later that week. Mr. Diaz copied Ms. Langley on the e-mail. Ms. Langley responded a short time later, stating that there was no position that would fit Petitioner’s latest job restrictions. Ms. Sniadecki responded shortly afterward and told Mr. Diaz that Petitioner “will not be returning as we do not have light duty available for him.” Petitioner was terminated effective January 24, 2009. Ms. Doubleday and Ms. Sniadecki made the decision to terminate Petitioner based solely on the application of company policy. Mr. Diaz was not involved in the decision to terminate. Ms. Sniadecki sent Petitioner a letter dated January 26, 2009, stating he had been administratively terminated for failure to return from leave because he could not perform the essential functions of the Maintenance Technician III position with his medical restrictions. The reference to failure to return from leave referred to Petitioner’s inability to return to work without medical restrictions. Petitioner was invited to reapply for employment upon receiving a release to return to work. All of this was consistent with Company policy. Petitioner continued to be subject to medical restrictions for six months after his employment with Respondent ended. According to Workers’ Compensation Uniform Medical Treatment Status Reporting Forms given to Petitioner in March and April 2009, he was subject to restrictions against lifting, pushing, or pulling greater than 20 pounds until the end of July 2009. The form given to him on July 29, 2009, stated he had reached maximum medical improvement and imposed a permanent restriction against pushing, pulling or pulling greater than 50 pounds. He was given a two percent permanent impairment rating of the body as a whole. Petitioner never reapplied to Respondent for employment. He continued to receive workers’ compensation benefits until he reached maximum medical improvement. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner had found other employment. Petitioner presented no credible evidence showing that he has a disability for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). To the contrary, he testified that, as of January 21, 2009, the date he attempted to return to work, he believed he could do everything the job required, with the possible exception of squatting down. Petitioner failed to present persuasive evidence that he has any impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Petitioner likewise failed to demonstrate that he was a qualified individual for purposes of the ADA or FCRA. At the time he was terminated, Petitioner was subject to medical restrictions prohibiting him from lifting, pushing or pulling greater than 10 pounds, using ladders, and kneeling or squatting for more than a limited period of time. These are essential functions of the Maintenance Technician III position. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of the job at the time he was terminated, either with or without a reasonable accommodation. Petitioner presented no evidence that he engaged in any protected activity that would support a retaliation claim. When asked why he thought Respondent had retaliated against him, Petitioner responded that it was “because of his injury” and “because [Mr. Diaz] was upset because he didn’t have the staff to do the job.” Even if this testimony is accepted as true, it does not constitute protected activity and will not support a claim for retaliation. In addition, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his termination and any protected activity. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner was terminated because he could not perform the essential functions of the Maintenance Technician III position, not because he engaged in any sort of protected activity. Petitioner failed to prove any facts to support a retaliation claim. Petitioner attempted to demonstrate that other injured employees received more favorable treatment than he did. None of the alleged comparators identified by Petitioner was similarly situated to him. One of them had a knee injury, but her position required that she work at a desk, so the injury did not interfere with her ability to perform the essential functions of her job. The other alleged comparators were maintenance technicians, but none of them had an injury like Petitioner's that required a lengthy leave of absence. None of them was subject to medical restrictions limiting them to desk duty for even a short period of time. Even if the other employees were similarly situated to Petitioner, such a showing would not support a claim of discrimination or retaliation. Petitioner would need to present evidence demonstrating that non-disabled employees were treated more favorably than he was, and he did not do that. In short, Petitioner failed to identify any comparators that would support his claim for discrimination or retaliation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Derek Griffin 1136 Sweetbriar Station Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547 Jae W. Im, Esquire Wyndham Vacation Ownership 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32819 W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her alleged disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Danette Marshall ("Marshall") was employed by Respondent Sam's East, Inc. ("Sam's Club") from October 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005. She worked at a store in Tallahassee and, at all relevant times, held the position of "greeter." The essential functions of a greeter were, then as now, constantly to (a) greet members (shoppers) and check membership cards, (b) keep the entrance area clean and organized by picking up after members and providing them with carts, and (c) resolve member concerns. It was (and is) important to Sam's Club that greeters be mobile at all times. While working on February 9, 2005, Marshall experienced such pain and swelling in her feet that she asked to leave work early to seek medical treatment. With her supervisor's permission, Marshall went to the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with bilateral plantar fasciitis and referred to a podiatrist. Marshall saw a podiatrist later that month. The evidence adduced at hearing is insufficient to make findings concerning the prescribed treatment and Marshall's prognosis.2 It is undisputed, however, that her doctor suggested Marshall should stand only for brief periods while working. Following the doctor's advice, Marshall asked her employer to either provide her with a stool on which to sit or, alternatively, transfer her to another position that would not require constant standing. Sam's Club refused to let Marshall sit on a stool while on the job because, in its view, greeters are supposed to be constantly moving about their work stations, keeping busy attending to shoppers and performing other duties. Sam's Club could not give Marshall a sedentary job because it did not have such a position available for her. Marshall's supervisor did, however, informally accommodate Marshall by letting her take an extra five-minute break most every hour, conditions permitting. Despite that, after February 21, 2005, Marshall effectively stopped coming to work, claiming inability to perform.3 In consequence of Marshall's repeated failures to report for work, Sam's Club informed her that she needed either to resume working immediately or take a medical leave of absence——and failing that, her employment would be terminated. Marshall was given a Leave of Absence form to complete and submit for approval if she were to opt for taking time off. To be eligible for a medical leave, a Sam's Club employee must obtain a certification from his or her doctor (or other health care provider) specifying, among other things, the dates during which the employee needs to be away from work. Marshall brought the Leave of Absence form to her podiatrist, who signed the document but failed fully to complete the certification, putting "X"s on the lines where the "begin leave" and "return date" information should have been inscribed. In early March 2005, Marshall submitted her Leave of Absence form. Sam's Club subsequently notified Marshall that the form was not in order because the doctor's certification was incomplete; it reminded her that leave could not be authorized unless she submitted a properly completed request. Thereafter, Marshall returned to her podiatrist and asked him to complete the required certification, but he refused to do so.4 Effective March 31, 2005, Sam's Club terminated Marshall's employment due to her chronic absenteeism and professed inability to perform the job of greeter without a stool on which to sit and rest from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding Sam's Club not liable to Marshall for disability discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 April, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has been discriminated against on account of her handicap or disability in connection with her termination of employment, in alleged violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Teresa Cavanaugh, was employed by Sprint from 1985 through 2000. During 1999 and 2000, Ms. Cavanaugh held the position of Technical Analyst I, assigned to the Carrier Market’s department at Sprint’s National Access Service Center in Leesburg, Florida. In this position, Ms. Cavanaugh was responsible for assuring that orders for the use of Sprint’s local telephone lines by long distance carriers such at AT&T were processed correctly. Ms. Cavanaugh’s immediate supervisor in this position was Robert Whittaker, the Customer Access Manager. Mr. Whitaker’s immediate supervisor was Jackie Picard, the National Customer Service Manager. On August 26, 1999, the Petitioner was arrested in Marion County, Florida and charged with two third-degree felonies involving obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and possession of a controlled substance. The Petitioner informed Sprint’s house counsel, Susan Stucker, of her arrest on August 31, 1999. Ms. Cavanaugh explained the arrest to Ms. Stucker and Ms. Stucker informed Ms. Cavanaugh that she needed to report the arrest to her supervisor. Ms. Stucker also told the Petitioner that as long as the arrest was not related to work, she would be permitted to continue working for Sprint until such time as there was a disposition of the charges. After speaking with Ms. Stucker, the Petitioner informed Mr. Whitaker of her arrest. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Stucker informed her, in the above-described conversation, that her job would not be affected as long as adjudication was withheld with respect to the criminal charges. Ms. Stucker, however, denied telling that to Ms. Cavanaugh and instead testified that she would never have made such a statement because, pursuant to Sprint’s unwritten policy, convictions for or pleas to felony charges are terminable offenses, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. Ms. Stucker also told the Petitioner that Sprint’s policy was to that effect in a subsequent conversation. This dispute in testimony is resolved in favor of that given by Ms. Stucker because of the respective demeanor of the witnesses and Ms. Stucker’s undisputed testimony that on at least two other occasions she approved terminations of persons who pled nolo contendere to felony charges. Her testimony was corroborated by documentation regarding the nolo contendere plea of one of the persons whose employment was terminated, Wilson Hinson. In fact, as with Ms. Cavanaugh, Mr. Hinson’s records demonstrate that the court withheld adjudication of guilt regarding the charges against him. Several weeks later, on Friday, September 17, 1999, the Petitioner sent an e-mail to Mr. Whitaker expressing that she was "losing control of her mind," was "spinning out of control," felt "helpless and desperate," was "going over the edge," and needed "some serious help." The Petitioner indicated also that she had an "overwhelming sense of helplessness and hopelessness." Ms. Cavanaugh stated in her e-mail, and in testimony at the hearing, that prior to this incident, she never had felt this way. She further testified that she had no prior history of mental illness. After reading the Petitioner's e-mail, Mr. Whittaker became concerned that Ms. Cavanaugh could be a threat to herself or to co-workers. Based upon this concern, he shared the e-mail with Ms. Picard, and both Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard informed the Human Resources Department of Sprint of its contents. Mr. Whitaker, Ms. Picard and Colby Gilson, the Manager of Employee Relations, developed a plan whereby the Petitioner would be placed on paid "crisis leave" and referred to Sprint's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for evaluation as to her ability to safely perform her job. Mr. Whittaker informed the Petitioner that she was being placed on leave and referred to EAP on the morning of her next scheduled work day, Monday, September 20, 1999. After meeting with Mr. Whittaker, the Petitioner was placed on leave and evaluated by the EAP. The Petitioner informed the psychiatrist who was evaluating her as part of the EAP process that her mood had improved after being placed on leave. The Petitioner was cleared to return to work on a part-time basis in late December 1999 or early January 2000. She was allowed to return to a full-time schedule in late January 2000. On or about June 27, 2000, the Petitioner, on her own initiative, commenced a short-term disability leave. Because the leave was for an alleged mental condition, the Petitioner was asked to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) pursuant to Sprint's standard policy of verifying leaves for conditions that are difficult to review through objective medical evidence (e.g., mental conditions and soft tissue injuries). The Petitioner underwent the IME, which confirmed her need for leave. The Petitioner then remained on leave until October 17, 2000, at which time she returned to work on a part- time basis. She resumed a full-time schedule approximately one week later, on October 23, 2000, with no restrictions on her ability to work. Due to the amount of leave the Petitioner had taken to date, during September and October 2000, Sprint's Benefits Department in Kansas City sent the Petitioner two letters informing her regarding the availability of long-term disability benefits and disability retirement benefits, respectively, should she wish to apply for them. These letters were sent out pursuant to the Benefits department's standard practice of notifying employees who have been out comparable periods of time of the availability of such benefits so as to minimize the potential lapse in benefits should an employee exhaust all of his or her short-term disability leave. After her return from leave, on or about October 31, 2000, the Petitioner told Mr. Whittaker that she was taking what she believed to be a very strong prescription that had been given to her by her doctor. Mr. Whittaker consulted with Mr. Gilson as to whether he needed to take any action in response to this information. Mr. Gilson informed Mr. Whittaker that he should require the Petitioner to provide a note from her doctor indicating whether or not she could continue at work while taking the medication. Mr. Whittaker followed Mr. Gilson's directions and requested that the Petitioner provide a note from her doctor. She submitted such a note to Mr. Whittaker on November 2, 2000. According to that note, the Petitioner was cleared to work with no limitations or restrictions, "as long as she participates in treatment and maintains compliance with medications and scheduled appointments." The Petitioner has not established how any major life activities have been substantially limited by any alleged mental condition. On or about November 29, 2000, the Petitioner informed Mr. Whittaker that her probation officer would be calling him to verify that she worked at Sprint and was coming to work on a regular basis. According to Whittaker, at no time prior to that conversation had the Petitioner informed him of any final disposition of the felony charges filed against her. Mr. Whittaker informed Mr. Gilson of this conversation, and Gilson then asked Stacy Smith, a security investigator, to contact the court in Marion County to determine whether there had been any final disposition of the charges lodged against the Petitioner in August 1999. Mr. Smith, who as part of his regular job duties had been tracking the proceedings against the Petitioner and other Sprint employees subject to criminal charges, contacted the Marion County Clerk's office which provided documents showing that, in October 2000, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the two felony charges. The documents Mr. Smith received also showed that the court had withheld adjudication on the basis of that plea. The information Mr. Smith received from the court ultimately was provided to Mr. Gilson, Ms. Stucker, Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard. Based upon Sprint's unwritten policy regarding terminations for felony convictions or pleas, Mr. Whittaker recommended the termination of the Petitioner's employment. Ms. Picard concurred with Mr. Whittaker's recommendation, as did Picard's immediate supervisor, Krystal Barr. Mr. Whittaker's recommendation was reviewed by Ms. Stucker, Mr. Gilson, and David Sapenoff, Mr. Gilson's immediate superior. Each of these individuals concurred in the decision to terminate the Petitioner’s employment. On the basis of Mr. Whittaker's recommendation, and the above-mentioned concurrences, the Petitioner's employment was terminated on December 14, 2000. Although the Petitioner claims that she was never told the basis for her termination, both Mr. Whitaker and Ms. Picard testified that the Petitioner was told that she was terminated because of her felony plea. This dispute in testimony is resolved in favor of that of Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard, given both the respective demeanor of the witnesses and the fact that the records of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security indicate that the Petitioner stated in an interview, regarding her entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits, that she was terminated because of her felony conviction.
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 denying the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2004, 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 9th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Teresa Cavanaugh 3010 Northeast Seventh Lane Ocala, Florida 34470 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick M. Muldowney, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
