The Issue Whether Appellant on February 6 and 7, 1977, violated Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Personnel Rules and Regulations 2.1C and Florida Highway Patrol General Order 19, paragraph 11, as specifically alleged in the disciplinary letter of March 14, 1977. Whether the Appellee's suspension of Appellant should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Appellant Jerry Shores is employed by the Appellee Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Florida Highway Patrol, in Troop B, Orange County, Florida, with the rank of Trooper. He was so employed on December 26, 1976, and on February 6 and 7, 1977. A letter dated March 14, 1977, sent by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested was mailed to Appellant Shores notifying him that he was being suspended for sixteen (16) hours without pay based on the violation which is the subject of this hearing. The letter was signed by J.E. Beach, Colonel, Director, Florida Highway Patrol and was approved by Ralph Davis, Executive Director of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The Appellant Shores appealed this suspension. 3 Documentary evidence and testimony of the witnesses for the Appellee established that on February 6, 1977, during his regular patrol duty hours, Trooper Shores stopped at a "Seven-Eleven" store at 8:30 a.m. without checking in and out of his station by radio then proceeded to his home at 8:40 a.m. where he stopped and went inside without checking out, then left his home at 9:00 a.m. without checking back in by radio, and at 9:30 a.m. stopped at a plant nursery without checking out by radio. At 9:50 a.m. Trooper Shores, while at the nursery, received a call to investigate and assist a disabled vehicle. Trooper Shores did not leave the nursery to attend to the disabled vehicle and while still at the nursery the Patrol Station called him at 10:15 a.m. advising him to work an accident. Trooper Shores then radioed that the reason that he did not get to the disabled vehicle was that he was busy with another disabled vehicle. On Tuesday, February 8, 1977, the Patrol Station called Trooper Shores on the radio during his regular patrol duty hours at 3:50 p.m. The station did not make radio contact although several attempts were made until 4:20 p.m. when Trooper Shores advised he was out of the patrol car. On December 26, 1976, Trooper Shores received a written reprimand from Sergeant J. C. Rique because he was out of his patrol car at the Hilton Inn on West State Road 50 without either checking out by radio or by telephone. Trooper Shores had depended upon another person to check him out.
Recommendation Sustain the penalty of sixteen (16) hours without pay. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1977. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Enoch J. Whitney, Esq. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jerry Shores Route 2, Box 526-C Apopka, Florida 32702
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent from employment as a bus driver, a non-instructional position.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades kindergarten through 12) in Hernando County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school-aged children in the county. § 4(b), Art. IX, Fla. Const. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a bus driver, a position she held for approximately 16 years. Bus drivers are considered educational support or non-instructional employees. The School Board has adopted a Safe Driver Plan that applies to all bus drivers. All bus drivers receive a copy of the Safe Driver Plan annually, and are required to sign the Safe Driver Acknowledgement Form indicating that he/she has reviewed and understands the plan. The Safe Driver Plan specifically provides guidelines for assignment of points based on alleged driving-related incidents and maximum number of points that may be assigned for each violation. A recommendation for disciplinary action is based on the number of points assigned during a 12-month time period. Under the Safe Driver Plan, the recommendation for disciplinary action for the designated points within a 12-month period is as follows: 1-4 points, a documented warning; 5- 6 points, a one-day suspension without pay; 7-9 points, three days’ suspension without pay; and 10 points, recommendation for termination. Pursuant to the Safe Driver Plan, the Review Board “assesses points for any violation or incident/crash from 0 through 10 following the approved point system outlined in the plan.” Specifically, the Review Board, made up of five members, as designated by the Safe Driver Plan, is responsible for reviewing driver incidents, determining whether the incidents were preventable or unpreventable, listening to any evidence provided by the driver regarding the incidents, and assessing points pursuant to the Safe Driver Plan. The Review Board does not have discretion regarding the recommendation made to the driver’s site administrator. Regarding assignment of points, the Safe Driver Plan provides in relevant part: If court action is required to determine fault in an incident/crash, and the assignment of points would be five (5) points or less, the driver shall not be assigned points until court action is taken. Effective date of points assigned shall be the date of the violation. * * * If a driver is assigned points, he/she will be informed of the assignment of points by the Safe Driver Review Board in writing. The driver may then accept the point assignment or he/she may appeal the assignment of points to the Coordinator of Safety and Security. When points are assessed by the Review Board, the driver who is the recipient of the points has an opportunity to appeal the decision. The Safe Driver Plan includes an appeal process which provides, in relevant part, the following: The driver must inform his/her supervisor in writing of their decision to appeal within five working days of notification of assigned points. The request shall state the driver’s objections to the assignment of points in detail. The supervisor shall then forward the request for appeal to the Coordinator of Safety and Security. A driver who chooses to appeal the assignment of points will be given a copy of all accident information for their review by the investigator prior to the date of the meeting. This will give the driver the opportunity to review all information that will be presented at the hearing and prepare for the hearing in order to rebut any of the information that will be presented. It will also give the driver the opportunity to present testimony and information to the Coordinator of Safety and Security or to offer an explanation of mitigating circumstances prior to points being upheld. After the Safe Driver Review Board’s final recommendation of administrative action is made and any driver’s appeal is heard, all disciplinary action taken by the driver’s supervisor must follow the School Board approved disciplinary policy. For purposes of this matter, the driver appeals the assignment of points to William Hall, the manager of fire, safety, and security. Mr. Hall testified that he reviews all of the information submitted by the driver, and if there is additional evidence or mitigating circumstances that were not before the Review Board, he would meet with the driver for a hearing. If there is no new evidence or mitigating circumstances, Mr. Hall then unilaterally determines the appeal based on the documents. After a driver has exhausted the appeal process, a driver, who is facing a potential suspension or termination based on the accumulation of points, may appeal the coordinator’s decision by using the School Board’s approved complaint process. For purposes of this matter, that appeal goes to the supervisor of professional standards, Matthew Goldrick, who serves as the designee for the superintendent and handles the driver’s predetermination meetings. At the predetermination hearing, the driver is given an opportunity to present any information that she wants prior to any decision being made for a suspension or termination. The superintendent then decides whether to proceed with a recommendation for discipline. The School Board has adopted policy 6.37, which establishes standards for the separation, discipline, and discharge of non-instructional employees, including Respondent. Paragraph (5)(d) recognizes three categories of offenses and a guide for recommended penalties. Relevant to this proceeding are the offenses and recommended penalties for Group III. The penalty for Group III offenses carry a recommended penalty of "up to discharge" for the first violation. The School Board has charged Respondent with violating the Safe Driver Plan by accumulating 10 points within a 12-month period, which results in a recommendation of termination. Respondent was also charged with a violation of a Group III offense, namely accumulating disciplinary actions, no one of which standing alone would warrant discharge. The accumulation of points resulted from four driving violations, which are discussed further below. Driving Violations On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, Respondent was issued a traffic citation for careless driving while operating her bus. Respondent did not immediately report the citation as required by the Safe Driver Plan. On January 6, 2016, the Review Board reviewed Respondent’s December 8, 2015, incident. The Review Board assessed Respondent with a violation for “[f]ailure to report an incident/crash or citation, no matter how minor, while operating a School Board vehicle immediately during regular working hours and as soon as reasonably possible after working hours,” a Category 3 violation. The Review Board determined the incident was preventable and assigned Respondent 10 points. Respondent appealed the Review Board’s assignment of 10 points for the December 8, 2015, incident. On January 21, 2016, a Safe Driver Appeals Meeting was held before Mr. Hall. As a result of the appeal, Respondent’s assigned points were reduced to four points. On April 25, 2016, Respondent was involved in an accident while operating her bus. The Review Board met and assigned Respondent the maximum of two points for improper backing, a Category 25 violation of the Safe Driver Plan. The assessment brought Respondent up to six points in a 12-month period. Respondent did not appeal this assessment of points. On May 23, 2016, Respondent was issued a citation for running a red traffic light signal. On September 14, 2016, the Review Board reviewed Respondent’s alleged violation from May 23, 2016, at which time the Review Board listened to Respondent’s evidence and reviewed the available video. The Review Board determined that the video reflected that Respondent failed to obey the red light traffic signal, a Category 13 violation of the Safe Driver Plan. While such a violation could result in a maximum of four points under the Safe Driver Plan, the Review Board assigned Respondent two points for the violation. The Review Board’s assignment of points placed Respondent at an accumulated eight points for the past 12-months. Mr. Handzus and Mr. Goldrick credibly testified that court action was not necessary to determine fault because the video clearly depicted Respondent failing to obey the red light. On September 14, 2016, Respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Hall seeking to appeal the assessment of two points for failure to obey the red light traffic signal. In the appeal letter, Respondent indicated her objection to the assessment in detail by stating that she ran the red light, because she “had almost no choice but to go through it.” Mr. Hall denied her request for an appeal.1/ Respondent was brought in for a predetermination hearing as part of the disciplinary process because her eight points in a 12-month period would result in a three-day suspension. After the predetermination hearing, and listening to Respondent’s arguments, the recommendation was made to suspend Respondent for three days without pay. Respondent did not appeal the disciplinary action resulting in the three-day suspension.2/ On October 26, 2016, after having been reinstated from her suspension, Respondent was involved in an incident on Deer Run Road where she backed her school bus into a mailbox. On November 7, 2016, the Review Board assigned Respondent the maximum two points for improper backing, a Category 25 violation of the Safe Driver Plan. This was Respondent’s second violation for improper backing. On November 7, 2016, Respondent timely sent a letter to Mr. Hall timely requesting an appeal of the assessment of two points for the October 26, 2016, incident. In the letter, Respondent explained in detail her objection to the assessment of the points by stating that on “[t]he morning of 10/26/2016 at 5:30am . . . I hit a mailbox” and that “[w]hile backing up [she] hit the mailbox.” Mr. Hall reviewed the appeal letter and denied the request for appeal. Mr. Hall testified that he denied the request for appeal because there was no information in the letter that would mitigate Respondent’s conduct and there was an admission regarding the violation. However, Mr. Hall’s actions were a direct contradiction to the appeal process as expressly written in the Safe Driver Plan. The Safe Driver Plan does not provide Mr. Hall the authority to unilaterally deny a driver’s “request for an appeal” or exercise discretion in granting or denying an appeal. Ms. Rodgers was entitled to an appeal so long as she made that request in writing within five days of notification of the assigned points. Respondent complied with that requirement. The appeal process also provides that Respondent would be entitled to a copy of all information for review prior to the date of the meeting to prepare for hearing and given an opportunity to present testimony and mitigation before the points are upheld. Mr. Hall testified that he considered the comments in Respondent’s letter as mitigation. However, under the Safe Driver Plan appeal process, mitigating evidence would be offered at the hearing, not in the notice of appeal letter. Further, the driver checklist in items 7 through 9 restates the procedure as outlined in the appeal process. Simply put, the appeal request letter is only required to include details regarding any objection, nothing more. Mr. Hall did not properly comply with the appeal process in the Safe Driver Plan as written. Pursuant to the Safe Driver Plan, “[c]hanges to the plan may not be implemented without Board approval.” There was no evidence offered at hearing that the written Safe Driver Plan had been changed. Mr. Hall improperly denied Respondent’s request for an appeal and, thus, improperly upheld the Review Board’s decision to assess the two points for the October 26, 2016, violation. Based on the alleged accumulation of 10 points within a 12-month period, Respondent appeared for a predetermination meeting regarding the recommendation for termination of employment. At the predetermination meeting, Respondent was provided the opportunity to offer any mitigating circumstances to the recommendation for termination. The recommendation for termination included the assessment of the two points for the October 26, 2016, incident. Mr. Goldrick considered Respondent’s arguments and determined that there were no mitigating circumstances that would warrant discipline short of termination. The record does not include evidence regarding the mitigation considered by Mr. Goldrick. Following the predetermination meeting, on January 3, 2017, the School District’s superintendent notified Respondent by letter of the recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment for misconduct. Respondent timely disputed the allegations in the Notice and requested a hearing to appeal the recommendation of termination. By letter dated January 20, 2017, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective January 25, 2017, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the January 24, 2017, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. The evidence at hearing demonstrates that Mr. Hall improperly denied Respondent’s request for an appeal of the October 26, 2016, violation. However, given the procedural posture of this case the undersigned has considered whether the Review Board appropriately assigned the two points for the October 26, 2016, incident. The undersigned finds evidence of mitigation in the record. The record demonstrates that on October 26, 2016, Respondent had been driving a new, unfamiliar route for approximately two days before the incident. Respondent stated in her request for appeal letter that it was “pitch-black outside” and her ability to turn was impeded by an oncoming vehicle using its high beam lights. After considering the above mitigating factors, the undersigned finds that the evidence in the record does not warrant a deviation from the Review Board’s assignment of the standard two points for the October 26, 2016, improper backing violation. The evidence supports that the assignment of two points against Respondent for the October 26, 2016, incident was appropriate. The mitigation did not warrant reduction of the points assessed. As a result, the record correctly demonstrates that Respondent accumulated 10 points. Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Mildred Rodgers as a bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 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 30th day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer, holding certificate number 08-90-002-02, which was issued December 7, 1990. Respondent was born June 12, 1966. He was raised in the Harlem area of Clewiston. Everyone knows each other in the Harlem area, which contains a predominantly black population of 3000-4000 persons. Since he was six years old, Respondent's best friend was John Gowdy. They are the same age and grew up in the same neighborhood. Together, they went to school, worked, and played sports. Respondent was a well-known football player when younger. Respondent and John entered the military at about the same time. Once he finished high school, Respondent realized that there was not enough money for him and his sisters to go to college, so he joined the Air Force. He served for nearly six years without any problems and received an honorable discharge. He immediately entered the Florida Highway Patrol academy. In the meantime, John Gowdy had entered the banking profession and moved to the Miami area. Respondent successfully completed the academy on December 7, 1990. He was immediately assigned to the Florida Highway Patrol post in Ft. Myers and began the required one-year probationary period. On August 14, 1991, about eight months after joining the Florida Highway Patrol, Respondent's sister told him that their mother was ill with heart trouble. Respondent had been working evenings, so, after work, he drove from Ft. Myers to Clewiston, arriving at his mother's house in the morning. After taking her to the doctor's office and getting her medicine, Respondent was at home with her when Shelton Gowdy drove up and asked if he could service the transmission on Respondent's car. Shelton was John's younger brother. Shelton has twice served time in prison. Though they were not friends, Respondent allowed Shelton to earn some money by working on Respondent's car whenever he was in Clewiston visiting his mother or the mother and family of Shelton and John Gowdy. Respondent told Shelton he could take Respondent's car and service the transmission. Shelton drove the car to his mother's house to work on the car. Later in the day, Respondent went to the home of Shelton's mother and checked on his car. Shelton said that he needed a light bulb to fix a parking light, so Respondent allowed Shelton to drive the car downtown to get the bulb. In the meantime, Respondent talked to Shelton's mother and sister, with whom Respondent has remained close over the years. Respondent watched television with them and was not particularly concerned that Shelton was gone several hours with the car. While driving Respondent's car, Shelton picked up Norman Banks and, while cruising, noticed a white couple driving a pickup truck in the Harlem area, near the home of Respondent's mother. Respondent, Shelton, and Mr. Banks are black. The white couple were undercover deputies of the Hendry and Collier County Sheriff Departments. The pickup truck and Respondent's car pulled over to the side of the road, side by side. Respondent's car was mostly still in the road. The two vehicles were about three or four feet apart. The driver of the truck remained in his seat, which was considerable higher than the seats of the passenger car. The driver of the truck was closest to the car's front passenger window. Shelton got out of the driver's side of the car, walked behind the car, and approached the driver of the truck. Quickly, they negotiated the sale of crack cocaine from Shelton to the undercover deputy. Just as quickly, the transaction ended and the deputy drove away. The deputy driving the truck later identified Respondent as the passenger in the car driven by Shelton. The deputy on the passenger side of the truck could not see Shelton's passenger. The lighting was poor. The deputy driving the truck could not closely scrutinize the passenger because he had to remain alert to possible trouble from the approaching driver, as well as possible unseen assailants elsewhere in the vicinity. The deputy who identified Respondent did not seem credible as a witness. He seemed ill at ease and nervous while testifying. He originally identified Respondent in a photo lineup. When shown a photocopy of the same photo lineup during his deposition, the deputy declined to identify Respondent, though he claimed that the quality of the photocopy did not prevent him from identifying Respondent. Even after being assured by Respondent's counsel that Respondent would not hold the deputy liable for a misidentification, the deputy continued to refuse to make the identification and insist on the original photographs, despite claiming that he recognized the passenger from the photocopies of the photographs. Although the deputy who identified Respondent denies seeing a baseball cap on the passenger, someone besides Respondent mentioned a cap to the Florida Highway Patrol internal investigator who later conducted the internal investigation. He recalls that someone said that the passenger wore a baseball cap, possibly turned around backwards. Mr. Banks typically wears a baseball cap backwards. The internal investigator reports reliably that Respondent was very nervous during an interview. However, Respondent was still on probation and aware that he was under investigation for some offense, but he was unsure of the nature of the offense. The internal investigator reports less reliably that Respondent was evasive during the interview. In fact, Respondent's inability to recall what he was doing on August 14 was because he had not been previously told of the specific allegations, including the date of the alleged offense. The important facts of the case are that the passenger in the car with Shelton was very dark skinned. Respondent is very dark skinned. The identification by the white deputy, in poor lighting, is further undermined by the different heights of the vehicles, the brevity of the transaction, and the urgency of remaining alert to possible dangers from any direction. The identification by the deputy is also undermined by his refusal to identify Respondent in a photocopy of the photo lineup, despite saying that he could do so. The uneasiness of the deputy during testimony could be due to any of a number of factors, such as growing concern over the accuracy of the identification. Respondent's testimony was straightforward and honest. His alibi witnesses were obviously biased in his favor and may have supplied facts that they never knew or no longer recall. For instance, they both testified that Shelton returned before 9:00 pm when the transaction likely did not take place until shortly after 10:00 pm. Petitioner's case is not aided by the general circumstances. Respondent does not appear to have gotten into much trouble during his life, including for nearly six years under close supervision in the Air Force. To the contrary, by all indications, he appears to have been an honest, hard-working, and purposeful young man. Yet, Petitioner suggests that Respondent, having recently become a Florida Highway Patrolman, would sit as a passenger in his own car, allowing a twice-convicted person to drive in search of a drug deal. Moreover, Petitioner suggests that Respondent, with his side window open, would accompany Shelton on his criminal errand in the neighborhood where Respondent's mother lives and where Respondent is known to most of the residents. Petitioner never deals with the incongruity of this proposed behavior by a person of Respondent's apparent character. A person so stupid or disturbed as to attempt what Petitioner suggests almost surely would have stumbled much earlier in life.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. ENTERED on April 21, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 21, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-5: rejected as subordinate. 6-7 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. (last sentence): rejected as irrelevant as this fact was not known to Respondent. (except last sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 8 (last sentence)-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as subordinate. 14 (first sentence and first clause of second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 14 (remainder)-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and recitation of testimony. 17: adopted or adopted in substance. 18-23: rejected as subordinate. 24: adopted or adopted in substance. 25: rejected as subordinate. 26: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 27: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29-34: rejected as recitation of evidence. 35-36: rejected as subordinate. 37: adopted except to the extent that she and Respondent were together during the time of the drug deal watching television. 38 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 38 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and recitation of testimony. 39: rejected as recitation of evidence. 40: rejected as subordinate. 41-43: adopted or adopted in substance except that the evidence is that he was nervous but not evasive. The information received indirectly from Officer Gary was enough only to alert Respondent that he was in some sort of trouble, not enough to alert him to the specifics of the allegations so that he could have been prepared to rebut the charges. By this time, Respondent probably knew that Shelton had used Respondent's car for a drug transaction and thought that Respondent would be in trouble for that. 44-55: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 56: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57-58: rejected as irrelevant. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10-11: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 12-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-17: rejected as subordinate. 18-19: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 20-22: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Ramage Acting General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Attorney Nancy C. Waller Regional Legal Advisor Florida Department of Law Enforcement 4211 North Lois Ave. Tampa, FL 33614-7774 Douglas L. Wilson The Wilson Law Firm 680 Sanctuary Rd. Naples, FL 33964-4837
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), was the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Respondent, Kenneth E. Beck, was a police officer, certified by the Petitioner, and employed by the City of Clearwater Police Department. In September, 1988, Joyce Ann Cooper Horten, currently of Easley, S.C., was residing in Clearwater, Florida. At that time, she was approximately 16 years old. On the evening in question, two of her friends, a boy and girl, had "egged" a neighbor's apartment and the neighbor called the police. In response to this call, the Respondent came to the scene and was talking to Ms. Horten's friends in back of the house. When he had completed his conversation with them, he told Ms. Horten he had to search her for a knife, and took her into a hallway where he put his hands up under her shirt and around her shoulders and sides. In addition, he touched her legs by putting his hands on both sides of each leg, running them all the way up to the crotch. After this search, Respondent took Ms. Horten into her apartment where he searched for the knife in the kitchen. Finding nothing, he took her into the bedroom, went into her closet, and looked through her clothes as well as through her chest of drawers. Finding nothing, Respondent then had Ms. Horten roll up her skirt from both the back and the front and when she did so, pulled her panties out from the front. When he did this, he could observe her pubic area though he did not touch her there. He then had her roll up her shirt, both in the front and the back. Since she was not wearing a bra, when she rolled up her shirt front, her breasts were exposed to his view. After finishing his search, he gave Ms. Horten his card, with his name on it, and went back outside to talk to the other young people. Ms. Horten did not think that what Respondent was doing to her was appropriate, but claims that since she was not familiar with the law, she did not know she could resist. Nonetheless, she later told her mother and the neighbor who had initially called the police. This neighbor apparently filed a report with the police and Ms. Horten thereafter taped a statement as to the matters previously discussed, a typed copy of which she subsequently signed under oath. At approximately 3:50 AM on April 16, 1989, Tara D. Grey, then a 17 year old college student, was driving her car eastward on Drew Street in Clearwater, Florida when she was pulled over by the Respondent who was in a police cruiser and in uniform. Initially he did not tell her why he had stopped her, but asked for her driver's license and registration, which he took back to his cruiser. After approximately 5 minutes, he came back and told her that her license did not check out and asked for additional identification which, he claimed, did not check out either. Finally, she gave him her social security card which seemed to satisfy him. After an extended series of questions regarding her drinking, her use of illegal drugs, or her prior arrest record, all of which she denied, he required her to get out of her car, after which he administered a sobriety test to her. He then asked if he could search her car, to which she consented. While he conducted the initial search, he asked her to stand behind the car, but then requested her to take the numerous items which were on the car floor out so he could see what he was doing. At time she was wearing a miniskirt and boots, along with a sweater, and when she did what he asked of her, she had to bend over and her skirt came up in the back, giving him a broad view of her posterior. When she finished cleaning out her car to his satisfaction, Respondent asked her with whom she lived and why she had other clothing in the car. After several other questions, he finally told her, after about 45 total minutes of interview, that she had been stopped because she was speeding. He then indicated he would have to follow her to her friend's home, (the place to which she was in progress when stopped), and kept her license while he followed her there. Before he allowed her to go into the house, he indicated he would have to frisk her, and in doing so, had her put her hands up on the top of his car. He then ran his hands across her shoulders and across her hips and bottom, but did not touch either her pubic area or her breasts. He also checked her socks and in doing that, felt her legs down in that area but did not run his hands up over her bare legs. After finishing the frisk, he drove off and Ms. Grey went into her friends's home. In April, 1990 Louise Ann Frattaruolo, Respondent's former mother-in- law, received a letter through the mail which, when opened, indicated that her husband had broken his word and must pay the penalty. The letter then went on to indicate that all the Frattaruolos must die. This letter was unsigned, but Mrs. Frattaruolo turned it over to her daughter, a police officer, who released it to the Clearwater Police Department. A latent fingerprint was developed on the envelope in which the letter was sent, which was subsequently analyzed and determined to be that of the Respondent. From the date of the postmark on the letter, the day it was mailed, to the day the fingerprint identification was made, there was absolutely no opportunity for Respondent to have handled either the letter or the envelope. Therefore, it is concluded that the envelope containing the letter was at least touched by the Respondent prior to mailing, and was most likely mailed by him. On October 30, 1990, Patrick J. Lombardi was working as a security officer at the Clearwater Mall and was approached by a man and lady who pointed out an individual allegedly exposing himself on a bench within the mall. Mr. Lombardi got his supervisor, Mr. O'Dell, and both officers observed an individual, subsequently identified as the Respondent, sitting on a bench, wearing bright yellow jogging shorts that were split up the sides. They observed him sitting in such a manner whereby whenever a woman or a group of women walked by, he would open his legs and then slap them together, and both officers observed that when he did this, his genitalia, which had been released from the inner lining of his shorts, would fall out onto the bench. To insure they were not making a mistake, the two officers went to one of the jewelry stores in the mall and contacted Janine M. Edwards, a clerk who they asked to walk by the individual and tell them what she observed. When she did so, she observed the Respondent open his legs and expose himself to her. She noted that the liner of his shorts had been pulled to one side allowing his penis and testicles to be fully exposed. She also observed Respondent do this in front of a couple, and she is convinced it was not accidental. Respondent appeared nervous and when she first saw him, he was hunched over. When he saw her, however, he turned toward her and opened his legs to show her his private parts. It is concluded, therefore, that his actions were intentional. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was observed by a mall employee leaving the mall and getting into a blue Ford automobile. The employee got the license number of the vehicle which was subsequently traced to the Respondent. Thereafter, Sgt. Joseph Tenbieg, of the Clearwater Police Department, put together a package of 5 or 6 photographs of individuals, including Beck, all of whom resembled the Respondent, which he showed, independently, to Officers O'Dell and Lombardi, as well as to Ms. Edwards. All three identified the photograph of the Respondent, which was taken from his police personnel records, as the individual who was exposing himself in the mall.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered revoking the Respondent, Kenneth E. Beck's certification as a law enforcement officer. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 29th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez-Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kenneth E. Beck 28 Valencia Circle Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel FDLE P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Thomas K. Morgan was a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol and was certified as a law enforcement officer by Respondent. On April 28, 1984, Brenda Liles, a 22-year-old woman, was returning to her home in Ruskin when she ran out of gas and pulled off on the shoulder of U.S. 41 in a rural area. Before leaving from her departure point, she realized her gas gauge was on empty and she called her father to ask him to come look for her if she was not home in 15 minutes. Trooper Morgan saw the AMC Concord parked along U.S. 41 and pulled up behind the car. Miss Liles was in the car with the doors locked and the windows rolled up. When Respondent approached her car he shined his flashlight inside the car to look for weapons or anything suspicious. Seeing the trooper, Miss Liles lowered the window to tell him she had run out of gas but her father would be along momentarily. Respondent stayed alongside Miss Liles' car and they held a general conversation for several minutes before Mr. Liles arrived. Miss Liles was dressed in shorts and tee shirt. When her father arrived he found his daughter calm and he suggested she get into his pickup truck and he would return for the AMC the following day. Respondent told Liles that he (Morgan) had a gas can he could borrow to get gas and the car could then be driven away rather than be left alongside the highway all night. Liles took the gas can and departed. He planned to stop by his home for a funnel but, even so, the round-trip for gas was expected to take no more than ten minutes. When Liles left, Respondent continued talking to Miss Liles and suddenly started shining his flashlight over her body and said, "Pussy, pussy, let me see that pussy," or "I want that pussy; open it up," or words of similar import. Miss Liles initially did not understand him and asked him what he had said. He repeated the words while shining his flashlight over her body. She immediately rolled up the window through which they had been talking (the doors had remained locked) and became very frightened and started crying. Respondent returned to his patrol car and started filling out reports. Approximately five minutes later Mr. Liles returned with the gas, saw his daughter was crying, and that she was visibly upset. After putting gas in the car, he returned the gas can to Respondent and asked his name and badge number. When the AMC was started Liles told his daughter to follow him and he drove to the sheriff's substation in Ruskin. Although Liles did not ask his daughter what had happened, he sensed it had something to do with Respondent. Upon arrival at the Sheriff's Office they encountered Trooper Donna L. Middleton who was told by Liles that they wanted to make a complaint. At this time Miss Liles was either still crying or showed visible evidence of having been crying and was quite upset. Trooper Middleton took father and daughter into an office to inquire as to the nature of the complaint. Miss Liles was having some difficulty getting the words out so Mr. Liles excused himself and went outside. Trooper Middleton gave Miss Liles complaint forms and asked her to write down what had happened. She assisted Miss Liles in the correct spelling of some of the words. As soon as she realized the nature of the complaint, Middleton called her supervisor to come to the Ruskin office. The Lileses remained at the substation until the then-Corporal Shriver arrived approximately one hour after the Lileses had arrived. At this time Miss Liles still gave the appearance of being upset and of earlier crying. Shriver took custody of the statement and the Lileses returned home. The complaint was duly processed by the Florida Highway Patrol, referred to the investigation branch, and investigated by Lieutenant Brown. Brown interviewed all the parties above named including Respondent. Following this investigation Respondent was dismissed from his employment with the Florida Highway Patrol. Respondent presented his wife and a female friend of his wife to testify that they had never heard Respondent make comments about the anatomical parts of the female body, and that such comments would be inconsistent with their impression of Respondent's character. In his testimony Respondent confirmed all of the testimony of the Lileses except Respondent's use of the language complained of, which he denied. Although all witnesses had testified that the weather was mild on the evening in question, Respondent testified Miss Liles rolled up her window because she was cold and he then returned to the patrol car. Respondent also testified that he had always been interested in work as a law enforcement officer and was very proud of his position as a trooper in the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles E. Nelson, was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on February 23, 1990, and issued certificate number 99509. Based on what Officer Nelson told a fellow officer, he had previously worked in law enforcement for 20 years in Toledo, Ohio. On December 12, 1992, Sergeant Charles Anthony Wall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and Dale Wayne Vermillion, a reserve police officer, responded to a call, reporting that a man and a woman were fighting near a convenience store. Officer John Michael McKim also responded to the call, in a separate vehicle, to serve as Sergeant Wall's backup. Tommy Goode and Teresa Pickens were found in a wooded area near the convenience store and were arrested for disorderly intoxication. Because Goode and Pickens were arguing with each other, they were placed in separate police cars. Goode was handcuffed and locked in the back of Sergeant Wall's caged police car, while Pickens was placed in Officer McKim's car. While Sergeant Wall was sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle completing certain paperwork, including an arrest docket, Officer Nelson arrived in a third vehicle. From the back of Sergeant Wall's car, Goode was yelling offensive comments to all of the officers. After Officer Nelson, who is Black, approached the car, Goode included racial epithets, including the word "nigger," in his continuing offensive comments. Officer Nelson responded to Goode's taunting by saying words to the effect: "I'm not like the rest of these people, I don't need my job. I'll come back and get you." Officer Nelson unlocked the back door of Sergeant Wall's car, leaned in, grabbed, choked, and shook Goode. The reserve officer who could see Goode's face during the attack described it as follows: And when Officer Nelson went into the vehicle, I was standing looking in through the window, and Officer Nelson grabbed Mr. Goode around the neck with his hand and was choking him to a point that I had not seen a human's eyes extend out of their eye sockets so far, so he was choking him pretty hard and kind of shaking him back and forth. Transcript p. 24 Because of Officer Nelson's size and strength, Sergeant Wall needed the assistance of Officer McKim to pull him off Goode and out of the car. In the following excerpt of his testimony, Sergeant Wall described his response to Officer Nelson's actions: So I told him, you know, hey, "What are you doing, get off of him," something to that effect. And that didn't work, so I began to try to pull him off, me and Officer McKim. And it took great effort to get him off, and I don't know if I actually -- he let go, or the effort that it took to pull him off that got him off, I just remember that when he came out of the backseat, that he was like a wild man. I mean, I thought at one point he was going to jump on us. Transcript p. 10 Goode had red marks on his neck when Sergeant Wall transported him to jail. The Sheriff's Department initiated both criminal and administrative investigations of Officer Nelson's attack on Goode. Officer Nelson was first reassigned to a desk job and, ultimately, left the department. Officer Sandra M. Pike participated in the internal investigation of the incident by the Sheriff's Office. When she interviewed Officer Nelson, he told Officer Pike that he lost control and that he intended to shut Goode up. The force used by Officer Nelson was unnecessary. Goode was not posing a threat or trying to escape. The conduct of Officer Nelson constitutes a criminal offense and demonstrates a failure to maintain good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, revoke certificate number 99509, issued on February 23, 1990, to Charles E. Nelson. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Amy J. Bardill, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire 214 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1 by retaliating against Petitioner because he engaged in protected activity.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired by the Department in 1978 as an Examiner I in Bartow and has continuously worked for the Department since his hiring. He held various positions within the Department through the years, including Supervisor I and Assistant Regional Administrator. In 1998, Petitioner held the position of Hearing Officer in the Bureau of Administrative Review. In February 1998, Petitioner suffered a heart attack and underwent open heart surgery for the placement of two stents to repair the blockage to his arteries. On April 7, 1998, Petitioner submitted to Tommy Edwards, assistant director of the Division of Driver Licenses, a letter requesting a voluntary demotion from Hearing Officer to a word processing position, in order to reduce the stress and pressure of his employment. Petitioner's request was granted. Later in 1998, Petitioner's health improved and he began applying for promotions, but was consistently passed over. He learned that for one Examiner I position, he had been the top candidate, but was not selected because of the letter he had written to Mr. Edwards and because Mr. Edwards had expressed concerns about placing Petitioner in a high stress position. Petitioner wrote a second letter to Mr. Edwards, dated February 9, 1999, to clarify that his physician had given him a clean bill of health, with no restrictions as to the type of job he was able to handle. This situation led to Petitioner's filing a complaint against the Department in 2000, in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Polk County, Case No. GC-G-00-0141, based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act. On July 8, 2003, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release resolving this litigation. As a condition of the settlement, Petitioner agreed to release all claims against the Department connected with his complaint. The Amended Employment Charge of Discrimination, filed on October 26, 2004, with the FCHR, alleges that the Department has denied Petitioner promotions and transfers in retaliation for his previous complaint. At the final hearing, testimonial and documentary evidence was elicited as to Petitioner's applications for six positions within the Department. The selection processes for four of the positions, 903481, 2333, 902315, and 2986, occurred after the Settlement Agreement and Release was signed and less than 365 days before the Amended Employment Charge of Discrimination was filed. The Selection processes for two of the positions, 5350 and 5234, occurred after the Settlement Agreement and Release was signed, but more than 365 days before the Amended Employment Charge of Discrimination was filed. Evidence concerning the latter two positions was admitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the Department. The Department's selection process for an open position commences with advertising the opening. Applications are received, and a Department employee conducts an initial screening of the applications to determine which candidates meet the minimum qualifications for the position in question. Those applications passing the initial screening are then subjected to a detailed screening in which they are scored according to work experience and the knowledge, skills and abilities pertinent to the position, as well the state-mandated veterans' preference. The Department personnel in charge of filling the position set a cutoff score to ensure an adequate pool of interviewees, then a panel conducts interviews of the selected applicants. These interviews are scored, and the highest scoring candidate is generally offered the position. The Department does allow the second highest scoring candidate to be selected, if his or her score was within 10 points (on a 100-point scale) of the highest ranked applicant. The applicant interviews are not free-form, but are conducted according to a process dictated by the Department. For the positions in question, the Department provides the interview panel with a list of five questions. Each candidate is given the list of questions and has fifteen minutes to read them and prepare a response. The interview panel then meets with the candidate, asks each question and listens to the answers. The interviewers then score the responses according to an answer key provided by the Department, which contains several "correct" answers to each question. A candidate may receive full or partial credit for his responses, depending on how many of the correct answers he provides. The candidates may also be given written exercises that are graded and scored by the interview panel. Each candidate for a given position is provided the same set of questions and written exercises. The entire selection process, from initial screening of all applicants to final interview scores and selection of the successful applicant, is recorded on a spreadsheet document called the Applicant Selection Guide ("ASG"). Department policy provides that an existing ASG may be used to fill a subsequent comparable position, provided the second position is filled within six months of the process that generated the ASG, and the candidate who fills the second position is the highest ranked candidate remaining on the ASG, or is within 10 points of that candidate. The first position Petitioner applied for was position 5350, a compliance examiner position in Pinellas County for the Division of Motor Vehicles. The application deadline was June 4, 2003. Out of 162 applicants, five were selected for interviews, including Petitioner. At the conclusion of the interview process,3 the highest scoring candidate was Gary Konopka. Petitioner and Allen Shaffer tied for second. The position was offered to Mr. Konopka, who declined it for personal reasons. The position was then offered to Mr. Shaffer, who accepted it.4 Richard Roth was the regional administrator for the Division of Motor Vehicles at the time position 5350 was filled. He retired in August 2003, shortly Mr. Shaffer was hired. Mr. Roth testified that he made the decision to hire Mr. Shaffer, but had no present recollection of how he decided to break the tie between Petitioner and Mr. Shaffer. Mr. Roth had no knowledge of Petitioner's complaint of discrimination, or of his lawsuit against the Department. Assistant Bureau Chief Edwin Robcke, Bureau Chief Charles Gowan, and Margaret Lamar, the senior consultant in the office of employee relations, who investigates discrimination charges within the Department, all testified that they were unaware of any Department-established procedure for breaking tie scores between applicants. Petitioner next applied for position 5234, an operations analyst5 position in Hillsborough County for the Division of Driver Licenses' Bureau of Administrative Reviews. The application deadline was October 31, 2003. Deborah Todd, the program manager who would be the direct supervisor of the employee hired to fill position 5234, performed the detailed screening of the applications. Out of 113 applicants, five were selected to be interviewed, including Petitioner. Ms. Todd conducted the interviews along with Eileen Bishop, an operations analyst in the bureau of administrative reviews. Stephen Walter was the top scoring candidate, but a recent disciplinary action in his current job rendered him ineligible for the promotion that position 5234 would have offered. Ms. Todd made the decision to offer the position to Deborah Leto, who had the second highest score. Ms. Leto accepted the position. Petitioner finished fifth out of the five candidates interviewed,6 and was notified by letter dated January 2, 2004, that he had not been selected for the position. At the hearing, Ms. Todd testified that Petitioner's interview was "fair," in the sense of "not bad." His answers to the oral questions were too short, but he did receive the maximum points possible for his written work exercise. Ms. Bishop likewise testified that Petitioner did "fair" on his interview. Ms. Todd testified that she had not met Petitioner before the interview and had no knowledge of his prior lawsuit against the Department. Petitioner next applied for position 902315, a compliance examiner position in Orange County for the Division of Motor Vehicles' Bureau of Field Operations. The application deadline was March 4, 2004. The ASG for position 902315 indicates that the interview process was conducted by Department employees Donn Lund and Marie Smith of the Winter Park office. Neither Mr. Lund nor Ms. Smith was called to testify in this proceeding. The ASG indicates that approximately 125 people submitted applications and that 11 applicants were interviewed. Petitioner had the highest screening score of any candidate. However, it appears that once again Petitioner's interview was less than impressive. The successful applicant, Esteban Capo, received a score of 90 out of a possible 100 points. Petitioner received a score of 37 points, placing him in a tie for last place among the candidates interviewed. At the hearing, Petitioner's recollection of his interview for position 902315 was lacking in detail. He simply testified that he recalled nothing untoward occurring during the interview that would account for his low score. Petitioner next applied for position 2333, a compliance officer position in Hillsborough County for the Division of Motor Vehicles' Bureau of Field Operations. The application deadline was June 16, 2004. Out of 190 applicants, five were selected for interviews, including Petitioner. In the detailed screening, Petitioner scored 83 points, which tied him for the high score with Lina Botero. Ms. Botero had the high score for the interview process, scoring 82.08 points, was offered position 2333, and accepted the position. Thomas Thayer had the second highest score, with 74.96 points. In August 2004, the ASG for position 2333 was used by region administrator Gary Konopka to fill the opening for position 5350 created by the promotion of Allen Shaffer to a field supervisor position. Position 5350 was offered to Mr. Thayer, who accepted the position. In the interview process for position 2333, Petitioner scored 60.84 points, finishing fourth out of the five applicants interviewed. The interviewers for position 2333 were Mr. Konopka, field supervisor Clyde Schmitz, and Kelly Cook, who no longer works for the Department and did not testify in this proceeding. Mr. Schmitz testified that he had no recollection of Petitioner's interview for the position. Mr. Konopka recalled that Petitioner's answers to the interview questions were "very curt, very brief, almost as if he were going through the motions." In contrast, Ms. Botero was extremely animated and very talkative. Mr. Konopka pointed out that the scoring criteria award points for multiple responses from a candidate, and, thus, Ms. Botero was better served by speaking more. As Mr. Konopka put it, "the more you talk, the better off you are because you may stumble into the answer." Mr. Konopka recalled that Mr. Thayer was a little nervous, but, like Ms. Botero, he gave several answers during the oral questions. Mr. Konopka characterized Mr. Thayer's written submissions as "superb." Mr. Konopka testified that he knew nothing of Petitioner's complaint against the Department at the time of the interviews for position 2333 and that none of the members of the interview panel discussed Petitioner's complaint. Petitioner next applied for position 2986, a senior highway safety specialist position in Orange County7 for the Division of Motor Vehicles. The application deadline was June 29, 2004. Out of 31 applicants, five were selected to be interviewed. Petitioner was not selected for an interview. Dennis Valente, chief investigator of the Division of Driver Licenses, conducted the screening for position 2986. Mr. Valente testified that, after an initial screening to make sure the candidates met the bare minimum qualifications for the job, he then conducted a detailed screening to ascertain the candidates' education, experience, and special knowledge, skills and abilities. After the detailed screening was completed, Mr. Valente set a cut-off score to ensure that five to seven candidates were interviewed. Mr. Valente did not know Petitioner and was not aware that Petitioner had filed a complaint against the Department.8 For position 2986, the cut-off score was established as 88 out of a possible 100 points and five candidates were interviewed. Petitioner's score on the detailed screening was 72 points. Mr. Valente recalled that Petitioner received maximum scores for four out of five of the "experience" factors on the detailed screening, but that he received no points for education. Petitioner is a high school graduate and points were available only for post-secondary education.9 The successful applicant for position 2986, Clark Brookstone, had a master's degree in mass communication, in addition to his bachelor's and associate of arts degrees. Petitioner next applied for position 903481, an operations and management consultant position in Hillsborough County for the Division of Driver Licenses' Bureau of Administrative Reviews. The application deadline was July 6, 2004. Out of 66 applicants, seven were selected for interviews. Petitioner was not selected for an interview. Danny Watford, chief of the Bureau of Administrative Reviews, performed the screening, then conducted the interviews for position 903481 with Deborah Todd. Mr. Watford testified that he performed no initial screening, and that every candidate received a detailed screening. At the time of the screening, Mr. Watford did not know that Petitioner had filed a complaint of discrimination. Mr. Watford set the cut-off for obtaining an interview at 40 points. Petitioner received 24 points on his detailed screening. Mr. Watford testified that Petitioner was minimally qualified for the job, but that the job opportunity announcement stated a preference for a candidate with a bachelor's degree. The successful candidate, Gordon Brown, had a bachelor of science degree from California State University at Fullerton. As noted above, Petitioner is a high school graduate. At the final hearing, Petitioner listed eight other positions for which he applied and was not offered the job. These positions were not applied for or filled within the time frame pertinent to this proceeding. Petitioner conceded that there was no direct evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent on the part of the Department employees who conducted these employment screenings and interviews. In fact, those Department employees who were familiar with Petitioner spoke highly of his work. Charles Gowan, Bureau Chief of Field Operations, testified that Petitioner has done a good job as an employee in his bureau.10 On August 8, 2003, Mr. Gowan awarded Petitioner with a letter of commendation for Petitioner's work as temporary office manager for the Lakeland driver license office. Patricia Connery, a senior highway safety specialist with the Department, testified that Petitioner had done a good job as her supervisor in 1994. Ms. Connery also testified that she obtained her current position through a telephone interview, without going through a formal application and interview process. Petitioner contends that this incident, coupled with the unexplained method used to break the tie between Petitioner and Mr. Shaffer for position 5350, and the alleged subjectivity of the interview process, demonstrates that the Department's selection process is a sham designed to allow the Department's administrators to hire whom they please without regard to the candidates' merits. In this instance, Petitioner alleges, the sham process was employed to retaliate against him for having brought a discrimination complaint and lawsuit against the Department. The evidence established that there were minor variations among the Department's offices as to the precise methodology employed in the hiring process. However, the evidence also established that the process was internally consistent, i.e., any local variations in the process were uniformly applied to all applicants for a given position. Ms. Connery's internal promotion by means of a telephone interview was an aberration and was unrelated to any position for which Petitioner was a candidate. Petitioner contends that someone in the Department's central office in Tallahassee was the real decision maker for these positions, and in each case insured that Petitioner was not the successful applicant. The evidence did not support this contention. In each instance, the hiring decision was made by the senior employee on the interview committee at the district level. While it is true that those decisions were submitted to Tallahassee for ratification, in no instance was the district-level decision overturned. Petitioner did not establish that any of the interview panel members or candidate screeners was aware of his discrimination complaint or lawsuit at the time their respective decisions were made. Mr. Gowan was aware of Petitioner's lawsuit at the time of the interviews for position 2986, but Petitioner was not interviewed for that position. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, while Petitioner was at least minimally qualified for the positions in question, Petitioner's lack of a college degree and his indifferent interview skills were the chief reasons for his failure to obtain any of the positions for which he was interviewed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Department personnel conducting detailed screening of applicants considered only Petitioner's application and accompanying materials submitted by Petitioner in determining whether, or not Petitioner should be interviewed. Petitioner's applications were treated no differently than the applications of other candidates.
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 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles did not commit any unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2006, 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 10th day of October, 2006.
