The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's age or perceived disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Subsections 760.02(6) and (10). Petitioner is a 51-year-old white male who had cancer in one kidney at the time of an alleged unlawful employment practice. Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(7). Respondent is a construction company engaged in the business of building bridges and other highway structures in Florida. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, a preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's age or perceived disability. Respondent employed Petitioner as a crane operator on February 22, 2008, at a pay rate of $18.00 per hour. Petitioner listed his residence as Naples, Florida. Petitioner was unaware that he had any disability and did not disclose any disability at the time of his initial employment. Petitioner solicited employment from Respondent and was not recruited by Respondent. Petitioner relocated from Wyoming to Florida to be with his family. Respondent assigned Petitioner to a construction job that was under the supervision of Mr. Scot Savage, the job superintendent. Mr. Brandon Leware was also a superintendent on the same job. Mr. William (Bill) Whitfield was the job foreman and Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Sometime in October 2008, medical tests revealed that cancer may be present in one of Petitioner's kidneys. The treating physician referred Petitioner to a specialist, David Wilkinson, M.D., sometime in October 2008. Medical personnel verbally confirmed the diagnosis of cancer to Petitioner by telephone on October 30, 2008. On the same day, Petitioner voluntarily resigned from his employment during a verbal dispute with his supervisors. Petitioner did not disclose his medical condition until after he voluntarily resigned from his employment. The verbal dispute involved Petitioner and several of his supervisors. On October 30, 2008, Mr. Whitfield, the foreman, assigned work to several employees, including Petitioner. Mr. Whitfield proceeded to complete some paperwork and, when he returned to the job site, discovered the work assigned to Petitioner had not been performed. When confronted by Mr. Whitfield, Petitioner refused to carry out Mr. Whitfield’s directions. Mr. Whitfield requested the assistance of Mr Savage. Mr. Savage directed Petitioner to return to work or quit. Petitioner quit and walked off the job. As Petitioner was walking off the job, Petitioner turned around and stated that he had cancer. Petitioner then left the job site. Petitioner's statement that he had cancer was the first disclosure by Petitioner and first notice to Respondent that Petitioner had cancer. The medical condition did not prevent Petitioner from performing a major life activity. Respondent did not perceive Petitioner to be impaired before Petitioner voluntarily ended his employment. None of the employees of Respondent who testified at the hearing regarded Petitioner as impaired or handicapped or disabled or knew that Petitioner had cancer prior to Petitioner's statement following his abandonment of his job on October 30, 2008.2 Within a week after Petitioner voluntarily left his position, Petitioner returned, approached Vice-President Mr. Scott Leware, and asked for his job back. Mr. Leware advised him that he would not get his job back. At the time, Mr. Leware was unaware that Petitioner had cancer. Mr. Leware was the ultimate decision-maker, and Mr. Leware was unaware that Petitioner had cancer when Mr. Leware made that decision approximately a week after Petitioner voluntarily left his employment. The terms of employment did not entitle Petitioner to a per diem payment while employed with Respondent. Petitioner's residence in Naples was within 75 miles of the job site where Petitioner worked. Respondent did pay for the hotel room that Petitioner used at the Spinnaker Inn while on the job, but not other per diem expenses, including meals. The cost of the hotel ranged between $50 and $60 a night. Mr. Brandon Leware followed Petitioner to a gas station and paid for gasoline for Petitioner’s vehicle. Mr. Leware and Petitioner then went to the Spinnaker Inn where Petitioner resided in a room paid for by Respondent. Mr. Leware advised the manager of the Spinnaker Inn that Respondent would pay for Petitioner’s lodging for that night, but not after that night. The rate of compensation that Respondent paid Petitioner was within the normal range of compensation paid to crane operators employed by Respondent. Crane operator compensation ranges from $16.00 to $20.00 an hour. Respondent paid Petitioner $18.00 an hour. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent ever offered to pay Petitioner $22.00 an hour. The allegation of age discrimination is not a disputed issue of fact. Petitioner admitted during his testimony that he never thought Respondent discriminated against him due to his age. Respondent employed another crane operator with cancer at the same time that Respondent employed Petitioner. The other crane operator is identified in record as Mr. Roddy Rowlett. Mr. Rowlett’s date of birth was October 14, 1949. Mr. Rowlett notified Respondent that he had cancer, and Respondent did not terminate the employment of Mr. Rowlett. Mr. Rowlett continued to work as a crane operator until a few weeks before his death. A preponderance of evidence does not show that age, cancer, or perceived impairment were factors in how Respondent treated Petitioner during his employment with Respondent. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent hired anyone to replace Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations against Respondent and dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent, AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Gabriel C. Gaudio (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male over 50 years of age. On or about May 9, 2009, a company located in North Carolina hired Petitioner to work as a Technical Publications Clerk. Petitioner was over 40 years of age at the time of his employment. Prior to March 2012, Petitioner relocated to Florida to continue employment with the company that then became known as AAR Airlift Group, Inc. Respondent does business in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and has over 15 employees, one of whom was Petitioner. At all times material to this matter, Respondent employed Steve Lane (Lane) and Melvin Zahn (Zahn) as supervisors with the company. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent had policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and any other reason prohibited by law. Any employee who believed discrimination had occurred was directed to report to the local Human Resources Department or to the Corporate Vice President of Human Resources. Respondent’s employees are considered “at will.” Respondent reserves the right to involuntarily terminate any employee for any reason or for no reason unless to do so would violate law. Petitioner maintains he was terminated in retaliation for a complaint he submitted because of his age, or because of his disability. All of the actions complained of occurred between March 2012 and June 2012 (when Petitioner was terminated). It is undisputed that Petitioner’s age would establish he is a member of a protected class. It is undisputed that Petitioner was terminated after he submitted a complaint against his co-workers. Although Petitioner asserted he is disabled, Petitioner presented no evidence to establish the nature of his disability or that Respondent required him to perform tasks contrary to his physical or mental limitations. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to accommodate any claimed limitation Petitioner might have had. In April 2012, Respondent issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to Petitioner to outline areas of his job performance that needed improvement. It was anticipated that Petitioner would address the areas of concern and make improvement within 90 days. Upon receipt of the PIP Petitioner filed a claim of hostile work environment with the company’s human resources office. More specifically, Petitioner claimed two employees, Zahn , technical publications manager, and Rachel Grygier (Grygier), a technical publications librarian, had disparaged him regarding his age and disability. To address Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent initiated an internal investigation of the claim. As part of the investigation process, Respondent directed Petitioner not to disclose or discuss the accusations of his claim with anyone. Respondent sought to resolve the matter without having the allegations discussed among employees before individual statements could be taken. Contrary to the directive, Petitioner discussed his complaint against Zahn and Grygier with at least one other employee. That employee (Barnett) e-mailed support for Petitioner to JoAnne Paul (Paul), Respondent’s human resources compliance manager. When Paul confronted Petitioner as to whether he had discussed his complaint with Barnett, Petitioner falsely denied knowing Barnett. Paul took Petitioner’s failure to maintain confidentiality regarding his complaint to Lane, Respondent’s director of quality assurance and internal evaluations. Together, Paul and Lane decided to terminate Petitioner. The basis for the termination was two-fold: the failure to follow a directive not to discuss the complaint; and the lack of truthfulness when asked about knowing Barnett. Petitioner maintains that his termination was in retaliation for his complaint against Zahn and Grygier and that the company wanted him out. Petitioner presented no evidence that after his termination he was replaced with a younger employee. Even though Petitioner did not establish the nature of his disability, Petitioner presented no evidence that he was replaced by a non-disabled person or that his handicap caused Respondent to terminate him. Further, Petitioner did not establish that any area of concern noted in his PIP related to his disability. Neither Zahn or Grygier had anything to do with Petitioner’s termination. Finally, Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that filing a complaint against Zahn and Grygier was the genesis for his termination. Petitioner was a long-time employee with the company. He had started in North Carolina and moved to Melbourne with the company. Had Respondent wanted to terminate him for any reason it could have done so prior to the move or after the move. Petitioner’s claim that his complaint against Zahn and Grygier caused the termination is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 31st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabriel Gaudio 259 Abernathy Circle, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Chelsie J. Flynn, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP Suite 1300 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she should not be disqualified from employment in a position involving direct contact with children or developmentally disabled persons; and, if so, whether Respondent’s intended agency action to deny her request for an exemption from disqualification is an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for regulating employment of persons who provide direct service to APD clients. Petitioner seeks an exemption from disqualification from employment in order to work with APD clients. In a letter dated April 11, 2017, Respondent issued its notice of proposed agency action which informed Petitioner that her request for exemption from disqualification was denied. Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. After filing the hearing request, Petitioner joined in the response to the Initial Order, and the final hearing was scheduled on a date provided by Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner failed to comply with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions and failed to appear at the final hearing that Petitioner requested. Based on Petitioner’s failure to appear and offer evidence, there is no evidentiary basis on which findings can be made regarding whether Petitioner proved her rehabilitation from the disqualifying offense such that Petitioner would not present a danger to children or developmentally-disabled persons served in programs regulated by Respondent. Petitioner has abandoned her hearing request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Carla Johnson-Lane’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Osceola County, based on his disability, race, or national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner brings this action alleging that the County discriminated against him based on his disability, race (white), and national origin (Canadian). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the County failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation to allow him to participate in the application and selection process for a County job. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and under the governance of the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he is a disabled individual with at least seven disabilities. Pertinent to this matter, Petitioner stated that he is partially deaf in one ear which limits his ability to hear.4 In addition, Petitioner relayed that his disability(ies) affect his normal life in that he has frequent medical appointments and requires an increased number of restroom breaks. On October 15, 2019, Petitioner, who is from Canada, applied for the position of Budget Analyst II (the "Analyst Position") with the County. The Analyst Position falls within the County's Office of Management and Budget Department ("OMB"). The OMB is responsible for preparing the County's 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Petitioner filed a revised version of his post-hearing submittal on October 9, 2020, which the undersigned considered as Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order in writing this Recommended Order. 4 At the final hearing, Petitioner initially strenuously objected to identifying his specific disability, asserting that his right to privacy protects him from having to disclose personal medical information, except as requested by a medical professional. annual budget, as well as analyzing and evaluating budget transfers for the County Commissioners. The County initiated the recruitment process for the Analyst Position by posting the opening on the website www.governmentjobs.com on October 14, 2019. Petitioner found the posting on the website and submitted his application through the same. At total of 15 individuals applied for the position, including Petitioner. The application window for the Analyst Position closed on October 21, 2019. Thereafter, the County's Human Resources Department screened the 15 applications to ensure the interested persons met the minimum qualifications for the job. Eleven applicants, including Petitioner, possessed the required qualifications. The Human Resources Department forwarded those 11 applications to the OMB for consideration. The OMB reviewed the 11 applications and selected three individuals to interview. These applicants included Petitioner (a white male), Lizette Rivera (a Hispanic female), and Sean Lower (a white male). Thereafter, the Human Resources Department set up a panel of five County employees to interview the candidates. Petitioner learned that he was being considered for the job on Thursday, October 24, 2019. That morning, the County called Petitioner at his home in Canada to inquire whether he was available for an interview the next day, Friday, October 25, 2019. Damaris Morales, an administrative assistant in the OMB, made the call. This case centers around what was said during that morning phone call. Petitioner and Ms. Morales left the conversation with vastly different impressions of what transpired. The Phone Call According to Petitioner Petitioner testified that Ms. Morales called him at a most inopportune time. His home phone rang at 8:44 a.m. At that moment, Petitioner was rushing out of his apartment to reach a 9:00 a.m. doctor's appointment. In fact, Petitioner had already started his car with an automatic starter, and it was running in his driveway. After he heard his phone ring, however, he turned back to answer the call. Petitioner answered the phone and greeted the caller. The caller identified herself as "Tamaris" from Osceola County.5 Ms. Morales then informed Petitioner that she was calling to set up an interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner initially expressed to Ms. Morales that her call was "great" news. He then explained that he was running out the door to a medical appointment. Therefore, he asked if she would email him details about the interview, and he would respond to her as soon as he returned home. Ms. Morales informed Petitioner that the interviews would take place the next day (Friday). Petitioner was alarmed at the short notice. He explained to Ms. Morales that he was currently at home in New York state and could not travel to Florida for an in person interview the next day. Ms. Morales replied that she could arrange a telephone interview. Petitioner then asked Ms. Morales when the interview on Friday was scheduled. Ms. Morales relayed that she would email him the specific information when she obtained the time from her manager. Petitioner stated that he would "clear my schedule tomorrow for that interview." Petitioner then signed off saying, "Thank you. I do have to run. Sorry." Ms. Morales hung up the phone first. The conversation lasted 1 minute and 30 seconds. As Petitioner left for his doctor's appointment, he was under the impression that Ms. Morales would email him imminently regarding available times for the Friday telephone interview. The Phone Call According to Ms. Morales At the final hearing, Ms. Morales described a vastly different conversation with Petitioner. As further discussed below, Ms. Morales's 5 At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he heard Damaris Morales state her name as "Tamaris." initial impressions of Petitioner from that phone call ultimately led the OMB to decide not to interview Petitioner for the Analyst Position. When Petitioner answered the phone, Ms. Morales testified that Petitioner's "aggressive" tone quite startled her. In a "loud" voice, Petitioner declared, "Yeah. What do you want? I don't have time to talk right now. I've got to be somewhere." Ms. Morales was not expecting such an abrupt and jarring reception. After a few seconds of stunned silence, Ms. Morales explained to Petitioner that she was calling about his application for the Analyst Position. Continuing in his harsh tone, Petitioner replied, "I have somewhere I need to be right now. Send me all the information via email. I am in Niagara Falls, New York." Petitioner then hung up the phone first without providing Ms. Morales his availability for a Friday interview. The whole conversation took less than 30 seconds. At the final hearing, in response to Ms. Morales's testimony, Petitioner suggested that she may have overheard an exchange between him and his son, Stewart, with whom he lives. Petitioner explained that, as he was leaving his apartment, his son called out from his bedroom asking whether the bathroom was free. Petitioner yelled back, "What do you want, Stewart? I am leaving." Petitioner explained that his phone may have malfunctioned and engaged Ms. Morales' call without him actually picking up the receiver. Petitioner strongly denied that he directed the comment "what do you want?" at Ms. Morales. Petitioner also theorized that if he spoke in a loud tone with Ms. Morales, it may have been due to his disability. As indicated above, Petitioner testified that he is deaf in one ear. Petitioner explained that Ms. Morales was talking very fast during their phone call. In responding to her questions, Petitioner was not trying to be abrupt or argumentative. However, he was in a rush to reach his appointment and was frustrated at the delay. Continuing with Petitioner's story, after the phone call, as Thursday morning progressed into Thursday afternoon, Petitioner did not receive an email back from Ms. Morales. Therefore, around 2:15 p.m., Petitioner called the County to speak with her. He was forwarded to her office phone, where he left a voicemail. In his message, Petitioner expressed that he was available for an interview any time the next day (Friday). He also left his Skype contact information. Time continued to pass on Thursday. With no response over the next two hours, at 4:14 p.m., Petitioner again called for Ms. Morales. This time, he was able to reach her. Petitioner inquired about his interview time for Friday. Ms. Morales momentarily demurred, telling Petitioner that she had to check with her manager. After several minutes, Ms. Morales came back on the line. She then told Petitioner that the Friday interviews were "full up." When Petitioner asked about an interview on another day, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales promptly "slammed the phone down in my ear." Ms. Morales, on the other hand, testified that after she informed Petitioner that no interview times were available on Friday, Petitioner got angry and threatened her with a "legal matter." Petitioner then hung up on her. Petitioner was not content to let the matter drop. Therefore, on Friday morning at 9:47 a.m., he emailed the County Manager, Don Fisher, to complain about the County's Human Resources Department and the OMB. In his email, Petitioner summarized the events from the previous day. Petitioner focused on the fact that Ms. Morales told him that she would provide him an interview time. Then, when he contacted her Thursday afternoon, Ms. Morales informed him that the interviews were "full up," and he would not be offered an opportunity to interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner sent Mr. Fisher follow-up emails at 10:01 a.m. and 10:03 a.m. In the first follow-up email, Petitioner stated: I am disabled and covered under the ADA Act. I make this request for accommodation under the ADA Act. At 10:10 a.m., Petitioner sent an email to another County employee, Maria Colon, the Director of the Human Resources Department and the County's Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") coordinator. In this email, Petitioner stated: You are the designated ADA Act Coordinator, but you are discriminating against me and denying my ADA rights to accommodation under the ACT and Title VII. I formally ask for this interview to be rescheduled and Oscola [sic] County to stop this discrimination. Attached to this email, Petitioner included a copy of his Ontario Disability Support Program Certificate of Disability ("ODSP Certificate"). At the final hearing, Petitioner explained that the ODSP Certificate, which was determined in 2013, is proof of his disability. Petitioner's certificate states: Your file with the Disability Adjudication Unit has been adjudicated and you have been found to be a person with a disability as defined in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. 1997. At the final hearing, Petitioner expounded on the reasons for his request, explaining that he sought an accommodation to enable him to conduct a telephonic interview because his disability prevented him from driving from Canada to Florida to interview in person. Furthermore, as a disabled person, he needed more time to prepare and participate in the recruitment process. The specific accommodation he desired was to be allowed to interview by telephone on Monday, October 28, 2019. Not hearing a response from Ms. Colon by Friday afternoon, at 3:03 p.m., Petitioner dispatched another email to her. He again attached his ODSP Certificate. In this email, Petitioner wrote that "your staff member Tamaris" refused to schedule an interview and then "hung up the phone on me." Petitioner also repeated that he was "requesting reasonable accommodation for the Budget Analyst II position." Ms. Colon called Petitioner shortly after his second email. During this call, Petitioner informed Ms. Colon that he was disabled, and he needed a telephone interview for the County job opening. Petitioner added that he was located out of state, and he could not travel to Florida in time for an in-person interview. Petitioner further declared that the County was discriminating against him because of his disability and his national origin. Ms. Colon advised Petitioner that she would look into his concerns and get back to him. Petitioner claims that Ms. Colon ended this conversation by slamming the phone in his ear. During this call, despite Ms. Colon's request, Petitioner refused to identify his specific disability. At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that the law protects those with disabilities from having to disclose their actual medical conditions. He said that, to safeguard their privacy, the disabled do not have to reveal their disability, except to the limited extent necessary to relate the disability to the requested accommodation. At 6:01 p.m. on Friday evening, Ms. Colon emailed Petitioner stating, "Per our phone conversation, I will look into your concerns and get back with you on Monday." By late Monday morning, October 28, 2019, however, Petitioner had not heard from Ms. Colon. Therefore, he sent her two emails. At 11:43 a.m., Petitioner wrote, "When is my interview? I am not available tomorrow." With no response to this first email, at 3:48 p.m., Petitioner wrote, "As per your reply above, you indicated my accommodation request under the ADA and interview time would be dealt with today. It is 4 pm EST. Please respond." Petitioner then signed off, "I am available for an interview 10am to 11 am tomorrow and then on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday." Petitioner received a response from Ms. Colon at 6:10 p.m., Monday evening. In her email, Ms. Colon wrote: I had the opportunity to look into your concerns. To be honest, customer service is very important in the Budget Analyst II role, and we're assessing those skills in every contact with candidates. The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th for the purpose of scheduling an interview. Therefore, the Department has moved forward with other candidates. Petitioner was most displeased at Ms. Colon's email, and at 6:54 p.m., he responded: I did nothing except indicate I was available for an interview. Regardless none of this over-rides the ADA and my rights to employment and accommodation. I will be discussing your actions, the "OMB" in denying my constitutional and ADA rights, my Title VII rights with [a County attorney] tomorrow. If they fail to resolve this, then I will be suing you personally, Tamaris, the OMB and the County on a substantial indemnity basis for well in excess of $500g. Petitioner ended the email with "See you soon in court." Six minutes later, at 7:01 p.m., Petitioner sent another email to Ms. Colon. In this message, Petitioner stated: I must commend you for trying to deflect the egregious violation of my rights through trying to claim my rights to an interview are somehow superceded [sic] by this department withdrawing an interview based on race, geography, nationality and disability … in a call in which this Tamaris said and I quote – "we are full up" … . I asked her to leave my interview time through an email. If that qualifies as "poor customer service" then you have a very BIG legal problem using that as a diversion for blantant [sic] discrimination based on race, color, nationality, and disability. Petitioner ended this email with, "I will be happy to take you to Federal Court not the Courthouse right across the street. See you soon in court." Petitioner wrote Ms. Colon once more at 7:03 p.m. In this email, Petitioner accused Ms. Colon of "a blatant discrimination of interest in applying the ACT. Your superiors told you to deny me my rights under the ADA and you did so." Petitioner then declared that he was going to "sue you personally. … Trust me on that." After Monday, October 28, 2019, Petitioner never heard back from Ms. Morales or Ms. Colon regarding his application for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that the County, by refusing to respond to his request for a telephone interview, denied him his rights under the FCRA and the ADA. At the final hearing, Petitioner vehemently denied that he was rude to Ms. Morales or during his call with Ms. Colon. Petitioner professed that he was perfectly polite to Ms. Morales. In addition, he asserted that Ms. Morales's testimony that he hung up the phone on her is totally false. Petitioner also contended that he did not threaten Ms. Colon with legal action as a means of intimidation. He was just exercising his rights as a disabled person. Petitioner further charged that the County's excuse for removing him from consideration was based on a misconstrued comment overheard during a brief phone call. Petitioner insists that his single utterance, "What do you want (Stewart)," cannot and should not justify the County's discriminatory action. The County ultimately hired Lizette Rivera for the Analyst Position. Petitioner alleges that the decision to hire Ms. Rivera is evidence of the County's female employees working together to eliminate white, male candidates. Petitioner maintains that Ms. Morales, a Hispanic female, favored another Hispanic (nondisabled) female (Ms. Rivera) for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales rigged the process and discriminated against Petitioner. At the final hearing, the County did not dispute that, while the OMB initially considered Petitioner for the Analyst Position, it quickly decided not to interview him for the job. The County also confirmed that the OMB did interview, and ultimately hire, Ms. Rivera to fill the Analyst Position. Regarding the County's decision not to interview Petitioner, after the initial phone call, Ms. Morales testified that she was quite startled by Petitioner's rude and unprofessional conduct. She immediately reported the conversation to her supervisor, Sharon Chauharjasingh, who is the Director of the OMB. Ms. Morales expressed to Ms. Chauharjasingh how shocked she was by Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Morales further relayed that because Petitioner was "in a rush," he did not provide her his availability for a telephone interview. Consequently, she had no information which would allow her to schedule him for an interview on Friday. Ms. Morales's testimony describing the telephone interaction with Petitioner was credible and is credited. Petitioner admitted to parts of Ms. Morales's versions, including that fact that he was in a rush and that he yelled, "what do you want?" Other than the two phone calls with Petitioner on Thursday, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales was not involved in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner or to hire Ms. Rivera. (Those decisions belonged to Ms. Chauharjasingh.) Ms. Morales did not participate on the interview panel for either Ms. Rivera or Mr. Lower. Ms. Morales further testified that at no time during her phone calls with Petitioner did he inform her that he had a disability, or that he needed an accommodation to participate in the interview process. Ms. Chauharjasingh also testified at the final hearing. Ms. Chauharjasingh initially explained that the OMB is tasked with preparing the County's annual budget of approximately $1 billion. The person who fills the Analyst Position will work in the OMB. The duties of the Analyst Position include reviewing the budgets of the different County departments, as well as assisting those departments with budget questions and preparation related tasks. The Analyst Position will also review budgetary impacts and projections, and be prepared to personally discuss these issues with County representatives. In addition, the Analyst Position will interact daily with other staff members and occasionally contact outside companies and the public. Regarding the hiring of Ms. Rivera, Ms. Chauharjasingh disclosed that, because she oversees the OMB, she was responsible for selecting the person to fill the Analyst Position. For this opening, Ms. Chauharjasingh was the individual who narrowed down the applicants to the shortlist of three individuals including Petitioner, Ms. Rivera, and Mr. Lower. In selecting these candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh looked at each applicant's past experience as a budget analyst, as well as their aptitude to efficiently assume the job duties. Based on their resumes, Ms. Chauharjasingh believed that each finalist was qualified for the Analyst Position. After selecting the three candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh asked her assistant, Ms. Morales, to call each applicant and set up an interview. Ms. Chauharjasingh asked Ms. Morales to schedule the interviews for either Friday, October 25, 2019, or Monday, October 28, 2019. At the final hearing, Ms. Chauharjasingh represented that the County routinely interviews job applicants by telephone. Ms. Chauharjasingh further testified that the decision not to continue the interview process with Petitioner was hers. Ms. Chauharjasingh recounted that on Thursday morning, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales came into her office looking "shaken up." Ms. Morales reported that she had just spoken to Petitioner, and he yelled at her and was rude and unprofessional. Ms. Chauharjasingh had never heard of a job candidate reacting the way Ms. Morales described. Ms. Morales has never complained to her about any other applicant. Based on Ms. Morales's interaction with Petitioner, Ms. Chauharjasingh immediately decided to remove Petitioner from consideration for the Analyst Position. She therefore directed Ms. Morales to "move on" from Petitioner and not to communicate with him any further. Instead, Ms. Morales was to only schedule interviews with the other two candidates (Ms. Rivera and Mr. Lower). The County's panel of five interviewers, which included Ms. Chauharjasingh, conducted an in-person interview of Ms. Rivera on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Lower was interviewed, in person, on Monday morning, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Following the interviews, the panel ranked the candidates, and then sent the list to Ms. Chauharjasingh. Ms. Chauharjasingh extended the offer of employment to Ms. Rivera, who was the top-ranked candidate. Ms. Chauharjasingh concluded her testimony by asserting that Petitioner's disability played no role in her decision not to interview him. Ms. Chauharjasingh explained that, at the time she decided to terminate the interview process with him, neither she nor Ms. Morales had any knowledge or information regarding Petitioner's disability. Instead, the sole basis for removing Petitioner from the shortlist was Ms. Morales' interaction with him during her initial phone call. Ms. Chauharjasingh testified that, based on the specific responsibilities of the Analyst Position, personal traits such as good communication skills, decorum, and telephone etiquette are very important. For example, the Detailed Job Posting for the Analyst Position includes a Physical Demand Requirement of "Expressing or exchanging ideas by spoken word or perceiving sound by ear." Consequently, upon hearing Ms. Morales's description of Petitioner's attitude and behavior during the telephone call, Ms. Chauharjasingh decided that the County did not need to consider Petitioner's application any further. In her testimony, Ms. Colon expressed that she had no part in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner. She became involved in this matter only after she received Petitioner's email, addressed to her as the County's ADA coordinator, on Friday morning, October 25, 2019. Ms. Colon stated that after she read Petitioner's email, she did not immediately respond because she first wanted to determine what exactly had transpired between Petitioner and Ms. Morales the previous day. Ms. Colon spoke with both Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh on Friday. From these conversations, Ms. Colon heard that Petitioner was "rude" during Ms. Morales's first telephone call. Further, Petitioner was so "abrupt" that Ms. Morales was not able to offer him an interview time. Ms. Morales also informed Ms. Colon that Petitioner did not mention a disability or request an accommodation during either of their calls. Regarding her own phone call with Petitioner on Friday afternoon, Ms. Colon described an experience very similar to Ms. Morales's. Ms. Colon testified that the conversation was "not pleasant." As with Ms. Morales, Ms. Colon recounted that Petitioner was "agitated," loud," and "extremely unprofessional." During the exchange, Petitioner also threatened to sue her and the County. Regarding her email to Petitioner on Monday evening, October 28, 2019, in which she wrote that, "The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th," Ms. Colon stated that the decision not to schedule Petitioner for an interview was made on October 24, 2019. Specifically, after talking with Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh, Ms. Colon learned that Ms. Chauharjasingh had decided not to interview Petitioner immediately after Ms. Morales reported to her regarding Petitioner's rude and unprofessional interaction with her during their first phone call. As a final witness, Ms. Fatima Lozano testified regarding her participation on the interview panel for the Analyst Position. Ms. Lozano described herself as a Human Resources "generalist" with the County. Ms. Lozano has taken part in a number of interviews of applicants for County employment. She relayed that the County routinely conducts telephonic interviews. Ms. Lozano repeated that, when hiring employees, the department responsible for the position sets up the interviews and selects the winner. For the Analyst Position, the OMB selected the applicants who would interview for the job. Regarding scheduling the interviews for the Analyst Position, Ms. Lozano testified that, on October 21, 2019, she received a calendar invite requesting her availability. The interviews then took place on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. and Monday, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. While the above findings chronical the key aspects of Petitioner's discrimination claim, Petitioner also raised several other complaints against the County. Petitioner was exceedingly frustrated by the County's failure to schedule his interview through the www.governmentjobs.com website. At the final hearing, Petitioner elicited testimony from several County employees that, although the County pays a hefty annual fee to recruit employees through governmentjobs.com, the County only uses the website to solicit applications. Petitioner was "shocked" to learn that the County did not take advantage of the website's functions to schedule interviews with candidates. Petitioner was also "stunned" at the County's attempt to schedule his interview with less than one day's notice. Petitioner found the practice unprofessional and unacceptable. Petitioner represented that the standard process used by governmentjobs.com is to email a notification to the job applicant at least four to seven days prior to the agreed interview time. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the County discriminated against Petitioner based on his disability (handicap), race, or national origin. Instead, the credible evidence establishes that the decision not to interview Petitioner was made without knowledge of his disability prior to his request for an accommodation, and without regard to his race or national origin. The decision to not interview Petitioner was based solely on his own behavior, considered rude and unprofessional, effectively disqualifying him from the job. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that the County committed an unlawful employment practice against him in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, did not prove that Respondent, Osceola County, committed an unlawful employment practice against him, and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert Finley Cameron 1 Churchill Street, Apartment 10 St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L25 2-P3 C (eServed) Frank M. Townsend, Esquire Osceola County Attorney's Office 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007),2 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Omni, advertised as "Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate," is a golf resort located in the Orlando tourist corridor near Walt Disney World. The Omni is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Suhra Merdanovic, is a Bosnian female, and her first language is Bosnian. She speaks and understands English, but is more fluent and comfortable using her native language. Ms. Merdanovic was employed by the Omni from approximately August 22, 2006, to October 9, 2006. Ms. Merdanovic worked in the kitchen of the Broadway Deli, a sandwich shop located in the resort. The Broadway Deli was one of several restaurants in the Omni complex. During the brief period of Ms. Merdanovic's employment, the Broadway Deli did not have a full-time manager. Ms. Merdanovic reported to Silvio Rosalen, the sous chef at Teri's Restaurant, near the Broadway Deli in the Omni complex. Mr. Rosalen reported to Robert Fohr, the assistant food and beverage manager for the Omni. The Omni has established a policy that prohibits harassment in the workplace. The policy defines harassment as: ny unwelcome verbal, non-verbal, physical or other conduct or behavior relating to an individual's race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or any other categories protected by state, federal or local law, that is made a term or condition of employment, is used as the basis for employment or advancement decisions, or has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. The policy "strictly prohibit[s]" employees, supervisors, and members of management from harassing other employees, supervisors, or members of management. The policy directs an employee who has a complaint of harassment to report that complaint to any manager or supervisor, the human resources director, the general manager, or the regional vice president of operations. The complaint triggers a formal investigation, usually conducted by the human resources director. The Omni's harassment and equal employment opportunity policies are set forth in the Omni's Associate Handbook, which is provided to all employees. The handbook is reviewed during an orientation session that all newly hired Omni employees must attend. Ms. Merdanovic attended an orientation session on August 26, 2006, and testified that she was familiar with the harassment policy. The Omni calls the first 90 days of employment an "introductory period." The Associate Handbook describes the introductory period as follows: During this time you will have a chance to see whether you like your job and Omni Hotels will have an opportunity to evaluate your performance and suitability for your position. If Omni Hotels concludes that your job performance and/or suitability have been unsatisfactory, you may be dismissed at any time during the introductory period at Omni Hotels' complete discretion. You may also be dismissed at any time after the introductory period at the sole discretion of Omni Hotels. Both during and after the introductory period, all associates are associates at will. If an employee's manager determines within the first 90 days of employment that an employee's job performance and/or "suitability" is unsatisfactory, the manager will meet with the employee to review the manager's concerns. After this meeting, the employee's job status is "suspended pending investigation" while the manager confers with the human resources department to review the issues. If the manager and the human resources department agree that the employee should be terminated, then human resources will advise the employee of the decision. Ms. Merdanovic testified that two Hispanic co-workers, Erica Torres and Charlotte Ruiz, harassed her because of her nationality. Ms. Torres asked her what she was doing in America and refused to go into the kitchen with her. Both women made jokes and laughed about Ms. Merdanovic being from Bosnia. Ms. Merdanovic testified that her co-workers also disliked her, because she refused to give them free food from the Broadway Deli's kitchen. Ms. Merdanovic did not complain to a manager, supervisor, or any other Omni employee about the harassment she claimed to have experienced. Mr. Rosalen testified that he received numerous complaints about Ms. Merdanovic's job performance from her co- workers. The co-workers told him that Ms. Merdanovic failed to follow instructions, argued with guests and co-workers, interrupted co-workers who were trying to explain how to complete job tasks, gave guests the wrong order at least twice, and failed to comply with the posted work schedule. Mr. Rosalen personally observed Ms. Merdanovic's performance deficiencies on several occasions. The guest complaints were most significant to Mr. Rosalen. On one occasion, the guest had ordered a turkey sandwich, but was served a pastrami sandwich by Ms. Merdanovic. Rather than correcting the order immediately, Ms. Merdanovic attempted to convince the guest to keep the pastrami sandwich by telling him it was good and he would like it. On a second occasion, a guest ordered a milkshake and was served iced coffee.3 At the hearing, Ms. Merdanovic testified that she was unaware of any complaints about sandwiches. She stated that she has worked in kitchens for years and understands how to make sandwiches in a deli. She did complain that she was never trained to operate the "front of the store" equipment such as the milkshake machine or coffee machine, yet was expected to somehow be able to operate them. Mr. Rosalen orally counseled Ms. Merdanovic on multiple occasions regarding her performance deficiencies, but he never observed any improvement. Pursuant to the process for terminating employees during their introductory period, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr decided to meet with Ms. Merdanovic to discuss her performance deficiencies and to advise her not to return to work until she heard from human resources. After this meeting, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr would meet with the human resources director to discuss whether to terminate Ms. Merdanovic's employment. Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr prepared a "Problem/Solution Notice" form, dated October 2, 2006, that set out the performance deficiencies and possible corrective actions for Ms. Merdanovic. This notice was intended to be the outline for discussion during the meeting with Ms. Merdanovic. Under the heading "Specific Nature of Problem" were various categories, including absenteeism, tardiness, violation of company policies, and unsafe actions. Ms. Merdanovic's problem was categorized as "Performance Below Standards." The specific performance problems were set out as follows: There have been numerous complaints about Suhra Merdanovic's job performance from several of her co-workers. These complaints include: Does not follow training of food preparation techniques and quantities. Does not follow food, coffee and drink recipes. Does not know what all the ingredients are to be able to make recipe. Looses [sic] tickets for orders. Has become argumentative with employees and guests when told that the product is wrong. Has tried to convince guests that mistakenly prepared food is good and tried to get them to take it. Does not understand the schedule after repeatedly having it explained. Interrupts employees and does not let people finish talking when trying to explain how a task needs to be completed. Is not a team player. The notice set forth the following under the heading, "Expected performance or conduct/corrective action required": Suhra must adhere to the following guidelines: Must be receptive to and accept training in all facets of Broadway Deli culinary operations with a positive attitude. Must follow all standard recipes without deviation to achieve a consistent product. Must produce orders in timely fashion in accordance to [sic] the guest's specifications. Must never become argumentative with a guest and try to force a guest to take a product they do not want. Must get along with and assist teammates with all guest needs. The notice concluded that the "disciplinary action taken" would be "Suspension/Termination." On October 2, 2006, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Ms. Merdanovic in Mr. Fohr's office to review the contents of the Problem/Solution Notice. When her supervisors began reviewing her performance deficiencies, Ms. Merdanovic interrupted to argue with them. Mr. Fohr pointed out that this was the same sort of conduct that led to this counseling session in the first place. Before Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr could present her with the notice and commence the formal suspension/termination process, Ms. Merdanovic began to cry in a way that Mr. Rosalen described as "almost hysterical" for several minutes. Ms. Merdanovic then walked to the kitchen of the Broadway Deli. Mr. Rosalen followed her, both to make sure she was all right and to escort her off the Omni property. Ms. Merdanovic again began crying and saying that she could not breathe. She described her condition as "couldn't breathe, couldn't think, couldn't stay." Mr. Rosalen called in the Omni's security team, which also acts as the resort's first responder in medical emergencies. The entry of the security guards threw Ms. Merdanovic into a greater panic. Eventually, at Ms. Merdanovic's request, the Omni called an ambulance service, which transported her to Florida Hospital in Orlando. Ms. Merdanovic was diagnosed with high blood pressure and discharged after an overnight stay in the hospital.4 After the incident leading to Ms. Merdanovic's hospitalization, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Lisa Borde- Christie, the Omni's human resources manager, to discuss their meeting with Ms. Merdanovic, the complaints about her from guests and co-workers, and Mr. Rosalen's observations of her performance deficiencies and his previous attempts to correct them. Ms. Borde-Christie agreed that Ms. Merdanovic was not meeting the Omni's performance expectations for her position. In light of Ms. Merdanovic's failure to improve her performance despite Mr. Rosalen's several attempts at verbal counseling, Ms. Borde-Christie, Mr. Fohr, and Mr. Rosalen agreed it was unlikely that Ms. Merdanovic's performance would improve in the future. They decided to terminate her employment. On October 9, 2006, Ms. Borde-Christie and Mr. Rosalen met with Ms. Merdanovic to tell her that her employment was terminated and to review the performance deficiencies that caused her termination. When Ms. Borde-Christie attempted to review the performance issues, Ms. Merdanovic became argumentative, stating that these issues were all lies and that her co-workers did not like her. Ms. Borde-Christie testified that Ms. Merdanovic said nothing about her national origin being an issue in the workplace. Ms. Merdanovic produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. The Omni's management did not become aware of her allegations of harassment due to her national origin by her co-workers until Ms. Merdanovic filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, more than two months after her dismissal. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination all related to her job performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Omni Hotel Resort did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
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 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 Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in Petitioner's charge of discrimination and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been since June 2008, employed as a "per diem" switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital. She was employed as a part-time switchboard (PBX) operator in University's PBX Department from July 25, 2005, until she resigned on October 26, 2008.6 As a University switchboard operator, Petitioner was responsible for answering and appropriately handling and routing, with dispatch, incoming calls (including "codes," which are emergency calls) to University's switchboard during her shift. The manager of University's PBX Department when Petitioner was hired was Eleanor Dingus. At no time did Ms. Dingus have occasion to discipline Petitioner, nor did Ms. Dingus ever receive any complaints from other operators about Petitioner's "performance on the switchboard." Gloria Gonzalez replaced Ms. Dingus as the PBX manager in July 2006, and has held that position ever since. At all times material to the instant case, directly under Ms. Gonzalez in the chain of command in University's PBX Department was Cathy Hudson, the PBX supervisor. Reporting to Ms. Hudson were three switchboard operators who served as "team leaders," one of whom was Miriam Reyes. At the bottom of the chain of command were Petitioner and approximately three other non-"team leader" switchboard operators. The PBX Department provided switchboard services on a 24-hour per day, seven-days a week, basis. At all times, there was either one operator or two operators (each using separate "consoles") taking calls. When there were two operators on duty, one operator's not picking up calls, or "staying on a call for an unusually long amount of time," would result in the other operator's having "more calls to pick up." Petitioner primarily worked the evening shift. "Sometimes she worked alone," and sometimes she worked a shift with another operator. In August 2007, Petitioner received a merit pay increase to $11.90 per hour (from $11.55 per hour) based upon an annual performance appraisal Ms. Gonzalez had completed on July 10, 2007. The appraisal contained the following "Evaluation Summary": Evaluation Summary Strengths/accomplishments: Gladys is a good operator. Very responsible and always on time. Areas for growth: Gladys needs to [acc]ept our Departmental changes in a much more positive manner and not get caught up with the small stuff or negativity in our Dept. This was the last annual performance appraisal that Petitioner received prior to her resignation on October 26, 2008, notwithstanding that, pursuant to written University policy, University employees were supposed to "receive an evaluation at least annually, normally twelve months from their anniversary date (date of hire) or last change of position date (promotion, lateral move, and demotion) . . . in order . . . to monitor adherence to performance standards to manage, develop and motivate individual performance." Prior to her 2007 annual evaluation of Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez had started receiving complaints about Petitioner's performance from operators who had shared shifts with Petitioner. Over time, the complaints became more numerous. According to what the operators had told Ms. Gonzalez, Petitioner had been "slow answering [calls]"; kept "the switchboard on busy"; "take[n] her time getting to the switchboard at times"; and on occasion, "stay[ed] [on] too long with a caller." These were things that Ms. Gonzalez herself had personally observed. Initially, Ms. Gonzalez just verbally counseled Petitioner about these issues. Petitioner "would sometimes get upset" during these counseling sessions. In November 2007, Petitioner was formally disciplined for "unsatisfactory performance regarding receiving calls." The discipline she received was in the form of a "written warning" contained in a Notice of Corrective Action prepared by Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor and Ms. Gonzalez's second-in- command) and approved by Ms. Gonzalez. Petitioner was given a 30-day (probationary) period to improve her performance. The decision to place Petitioner on probation was made jointly by Ms. Gonzalez and Jennifer Lindsey, University's human resources operations manager. Ms. Gonzalez monitored Petitioner's performance on the switchboard during her probationary period and determined that it had improved sufficiently to warrant Petitioner's return to non-probationary status, without the imposition of any further disciplinary action. Unfortunately, Petitioner's performance deficiencies subsequently "resurfaced." On May 20, 2008, after receiving a complaint about Petitioner from Ms. Reyes (one of Ms. Gonzalez's three "team leaders"), Ms. Gonzalez prepared and gave to Petitioner a Notice of Corrective Action, reflecting that she was issuing Petitioner a "verbal warning" for "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner." The following "details of the . . . infraction" were given in the notice: Gladys was informed that she would take over the switchboard at 4 pm on 5/12/2008 for a department meeting. She did not turn her switchboard on at that time and calls started to accumulate. Miriam asked Gladys to take over the switchboard and Gladys did not do so with a sense of urgency. The expectation going forward is that Gladys will answer the switchboard as soon as it buzzes. The notice also contained the following "Corrective Action Plan": [On] 11/21/07 [Petitioner] was given 30 days for performance improvement and although the plan was completed on 1/9/08, previous performance concerns have resurfaced with the timely answering of the switchboard. It is our expectation that within 30 days we will be able to review her performance with answering calls and be able to notice significant improvement. When presented with the notice, Petitioner wrote on it, under "Employee Comments," the following: "This was one incident on our meeting day. I do remember when it occurred." The notice had been presented to Petitioner by Ms. Gonzalez at a meeting between the two at which Ms. Lindsey had also been present. As University's human resources operations manager, it was Ms. Lindsey's responsibility to make sure that employees met the physical requirements of their position and were otherwise fit for duty. One of the physical requirements of the position Petitioner held was to "[h]ear alarm, telephone/tape recorder/normal speaking voices." During the May 20, 2008, meeting at which Petitioner was presented with the Notice of Corrective Action, Ms. Lindsey "asked [Petitioner] if [Petitioner had] heard the switchboard." Petitioner "perceived th[is] as a statement of age discrimination by Ms. Lindsey"7 (albeit one that did not "affect [her] job"). Despite what Petitioner may have believed, in making such an inquiry, Ms. Lindsey was simply seeking to find out if the reason for Petitioner's not "timely answering . . . the switchboard" was that she had a hearing problem. Petitioner responded to Ms Lindsey's question by telling Ms. Lindsey that "she did hear the calls, but that . . . the calls pile up all the time." Ms. Lindsey required Petitioner to review a Position Minimum Requirement[s] Checklist. After reviewing the document, Petitioner signed it, indicating that she believed that she met all of the requirements of her position. Some time after the May 20, 2008, meeting, Ms. Gonzalez heard from Ms. Hudson that Ms. Reyes had reported being asked by Petitioner, in a confrontational manner, whether it was Ms. Reyes who had complained about Petitioner's "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner" on May 12, 2008. Ms. Gonzalez thereafter personally contacted Ms. Reyes to find out what had happened during this post-May 20, 2008, incident involving Ms. Reyes and Petitioner. Ms. Reyes, when contacted, told Ms. Gonzalez that Petitioner had "threatened" her. The matter was brought to the attention to Ms. Lindsey, who made the decision to suspend Petitioner for three days. The suspension was "for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding investigation" to determine whether Petitioner, in her dealings with Ms. Reyes, had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy (HR-2000-009), which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: POLICY University Hospital and Medical Center is committed to providing a safe workplace for all employees, patients, physicians and visitors. Workplace violence of any type committed by or against employees, patients, physicians or visitors will not be tolerated. PROCEDURE A. To ensure safe and efficient operations, University Hospital and Medical Center expects and requires all employees to display common courtesy and engage in safe and appropriate behavior at all times. * * * The following list of behaviors, while not all inclusive, provides examples of conduct that is prohibited. * * * Making threatening remarks; Aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress; * * * Reporting Procedures Any potentially dangerous situation must be reported to a Supervisor, Security Department or Human Resources. Reports can be made anonymously and all reported incidents will be investigated. Reports or incidents warranting confidentiality will be handled appropriately and information will be disclosed to others on a need-to-know basis only. All parties involved in a situation will be counseled and the results of the investigation will be discussed with them. Employees are expected to exercise good judgment and to inform Security and/or Human Resources if any employee, patient or visitor exhibits behavior which could be a sign of a potentially dangerous situation. Such behaviors include but are not limited to: * * * Displaying overt signs of extreme anger, hostility, resentment or stress; Making threatening remarks; * * * e. Display of irrational or inappropriate behavior. * * * During the investigation, Petitioner submitted to Ms. Lindsey a "rebuttal" statement, dated May 29, 2008, which read as follows: This serves as notification that I am in complete disagreement with any claims made about my work performance as stated by Gigi Gonzalez. Gigi stated on 5/20/08, with Jennifer Lindsey in HR as witness, that a team leader Miriam Reyes said there were two calls backed up on the switchboard when we were changing shifts on Monday 5/12/08. She had already signed off and was abruptly leaving the office without checking if I was logged in before she signed off. Both calls were answered without problem or complaint by the callers. It is a normal occurrence when more than one call comes in at once for them to be what she referred to as "backed up." Miriam signed off the switchboard before checking if I was signed on. I received a 30 day probation disciplinary action and she did not. Per our work instruction, an operator is not to leave the position before a relief operator is available. I find the comment made by Jennifer "can you still hear the phone" a discriminatory reference to my age of 76-years-old. Furthermore, I was called at home by Jennifer Lindsey on 5/29/08 [and] put on involuntary suspension without pay for 3 days. Jennifer claimed that since I asked Miriam what she said about the incident that it was inappropriate. I was not asked about the situation. Rather I was interrogated. I have a right to know what is causing a disciplinary action . . . on my record. I also have the right to dispute or state my complaints without retaliation. Unpaid suspension without a proper investigation was undue hardship and a measure of retaliation. Since I was told I must sign the probation notice whether I agree with it or not, I request this to be in my personnel file and sign[ed] as received and reviewed by my supervisor as previously stated orally in the said meeting on May 20, 2008. This claim is unwarranted and causes undue financial hardship. Following the completion of her investigation, Ms. Lindsey determined that there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude that Petitioner had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy. Petitioner was put back on her normal work schedule and paid for the three days she had been suspended (and had not worked). Ms. Lindsey's "insufficien[cy]" determination was set forth in the following written statement Petitioner was given (and which she signed) on June 5, 2008: After an investigation was conducted on the incident that occurred on May 23, 2008, it is concluded that a discussion between Gladys and a co-worker did take place regarding Gladys' verbal warning for performance on May 20th. Gladys does admit to questioning her co-worker regarding information she may have provided to the manager of PBX regarding her performance. There is insufficient evidence to support that Gladys threatened her co-worker or that she was verbally abusive in any way. In the future Gladys will restrict her conversations with Miriam to business- related activities. This means only communication that must take place for her to perform the functions of her job. Any unnecessary communications or interactions may result in disciplinary action. In the future it is expected that Gladys will follow the Employment Dispute Resolution policy HR 2006-416 to express any disputes or state any complaints that she may have. A copy of this policy is being presented to Gladys today for reference. Gladys will be paid for the days that she was suspended in order to conduct this investigation. In late June 2008, in accordance with the "Corrective Action Plan" set forth in the Notice of Corrective Action she had given Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez reviewed Petitioner's performance in the area of "answering calls." Ms. Gonzalez, in a document that she prepared and presented to Petitioner on or about July 18, 2008, described the "results" of that review as follows: Operator Gladys Norris has completed her performance improvement plan as of Sunday 6/29/08. In the course of the 30 days, I have been able to observe Gladys on the switchboard. Gladys has improved greatly. She has answered the board much more quickly. She did not let the board pile up. She put the callers on hold and then came back to the calls. I am confident that Gladys understands and is taking seriously her switchboard duties. She is very much aware that whenever possible, we should not let the calls pile up as emergency codes come through the switchboard. At around this same time (mid-July 2008), Petitioner learned that she needed to have emergency vascular surgery, and she so informed Ms. Gonzalez via an e-mail message, sent the evening of July 17, 2008, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * . . . . But last week I had to have some tests done rather quickly and unfortunately have to have an unexpected urgent surgery performed (vascular nature). The doctor called me late this afternoon and said he has scheduled me for next Wednesday July 23rd. At this writing I cannot say how long I will be out from work but he did say at least three or four weeks for recovery. I will keep you apprised of my situation. You may have me on medical leave also. I will not be working anywhere during my recovery period so I cannot list any hours right now. Petitioner was granted leave for this "unexpected urgent surgery," as well as for her "recovery period." When she returned to work from leave, Petitioner was given her work schedule for September, which had her working the hours and days she "usually worked." Her schedule for September, however, was subsequently changed and, to her displeasure, she had to work three "overnight," Saturday night/Sunday morning shifts (from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) that month. She had never before, as a University employee, worked an "overnight" shift. When Petitioner asked Ms. Hudson why she had to work these "overnight" shifts, Ms. Hudson responded, "That's just the way it is." Up until September 18, 2008, throughout her employment at University, Petitioner had used a University-provided headset when working at the switchboard. On September 18, 2008, her headset and those of the other employees in the PBX Department were taken away in anticipation of their being replaced by new headsets (from Verizon). That same day, Petitioner and the other switchboard operators received the following e-mail from Ms. Gonzalez, informing them that they would soon be experiencing an uptick in call volume: Subject: Pavilion[8] Calls Ladies, Please note that starting Tuesday morning, we will be getting all the Pavilion[']s calls. There will be more Ext: 2221. Please make sure that you go over all Ext and Pavilion info. Keep in mind that call volume is going to increase. So do not spend a long time on any one call. Remember the time allowed for each call is 24 seconds per call. The Hospital wants a live person to answer at all time[s]. Also make sure that you know how to page all Pavilion calls over head. So ladies, when you clock in, and enter the PBX office, you must be ready to log in and start to work immediately. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Due to delays, it was not until November (approximately two months later) that all of the old headsets were replaced by new ones. The first new headsets came in a group of three.9 They arrived in the first half of October and were given to Ms. Gonzalez (the PBX manager), Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor), and Ms. Reyes (one of the three "team leaders"). On October 15, 2008, Ms. Gonzalez held a departmental meeting at which she discussed "what was going on with the headsets." Petitioner was at the meeting. From September 18, 2008, until her resignation on October 26, 2008, Petitioner had to use a "hand-held phone," instead of a headset, to answer calls coming in to University's switchboard. Approximately two weeks after she had started using the "hand-held phone," Petitioner began experiencing pain in her wrists, arms, shoulders, neck, and lower back. She visited her primary care physician, Greg Sherman, M.D., for treatment of the pain. The pain went away five or six weeks after she had stopped working at University. All told, the pain lasted no more than ten weeks. Based on what she had been told by Dr. Sherman,10 Petitioner attributed the pain she was experiencing during this period to her using a "hand-held phone" when working the switchboard at University. Despite the onset of the pain, Petitioner continued to work and perform her job duties at University for approximately three or four weeks until she felt she could do so no longer and resigned. During this period, she made her supervisors aware that she was in pain. On the morning of October 2, 2008, during a telephone conversation, she told Ms. Hudson that her "wrist, arms and neck hurt." Ms. Hudson did not ask Petitioner for any further details, and Petitioner did not provide any. Two weeks later, on October 16, 2008, at 10:34 p.m., Petitioner sent Ms. Hudson the following e-mail: Dear Cathy, Regarding my PTO [Paid Time Off] request for Nov 13, 14, 15, 16 (Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun) I am wondering when I will know if it has been approved. Also do you know when my headset will arrive? I went to the doctor yesterday because I have had pain for a week now in my shoulders and wrists. I explained that I have been working without my headset for the past four weekends. He stated that that was likely the cause of the strain. I do hope the headset will arrive soon. A week having passed without Petitioner's having received a reply from Ms. Hudson, Petitioner, at 9:34 p.m. on October 23, 2008, sent the following e-mail to Ms. Gonzalez, to which Ms. Gonzalez never replied: Re: Waiting for an e-mail answer Hello Gigi, I sent an e-mail to Cathy regarding the headsets on Oct 14th.[11] I have not received a reply as of today. I understand a few operators have already received their headsets. Shouldn't we all have them as we work the same consoles? Working without my headset for the past 4 weekends has caused problem[s] in my wrists and shoulder/neck which I had to see a doctor [about] last week. After taking off earlier in the week because of the pain she was experiencing, Petitioner "tried to come in" to work at University on October 26, 2008, but she did not stay her entire shift. Because she did not know when she "was going to get a headset" and she had experienced "a lot of pain" working without one, Petitioner decided to resign her position at University. At 11:05 a.m. on October 26, 2008, she gave notice of her resignation by sending Ms. Lindsey the following e-mail: I hereby give notice that today, Sunday October 26, 2008 will be my last day at University Hospital. I have used a headset since the first day of employment in July 2005 when on PBX. Over the past five weeks I have been forced to work without my headset. My physical condition has been aggravated to the point I am forced to resign. Management has been uncooperative in this problem as well as many others I have addressed that have gone unanswered. Despite the pain she was experiencing at the time, Petitioner continued working, without interruption, as a switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital, where she had the use of a headset. To date, University has not filled the position from which Petitioner resigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding University not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner in her charge of discrimination and dismissing the charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of April, 2010.
