The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible to enroll in the Developmental Disabilities Program administered by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administering and determining eligibility for services to developmentally disabled individuals pursuant to Florida's Developmental Disabilities Prevention and Community Services Act, Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Section 393.065, Florida Statutes (2001). The program developed by the Department is known as the Developmental Disabilities Program. Mr. Fernandez is 31 years of age and a resident of Miami, Florida. Mr. Fernandez submitted an application to the Department requesting that it enroll him in its Developmental Disabilities Program and provide him services as a developmentally disabled individual under the categories of retardation and autism. The Department evaluated Mr. Fernandez's application and determined that he was not eligible to receive services through the Developmental Disabilities Program under either category. In making this determination, the Department considered a Psychological Evaluation Report dated June 26, 2001, that was prepared by Hilda M. Lopez, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist to whom Mr. Fernandez was referred by the Department.2 To assess Mr. Fernandez's intellectual functioning and cognitive abilities, Dr. Lopez administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition ("WAIS"). According to her report, Mr. Fernandez attained a Verbal I.Q. score of 80 points, a Performance I.Q. score of 80 points, and a Full Scale I.Q. score of 78 points. These scores place Mr. Fernandez in the Borderline range of intellectual functioning. The Department considers persons who score 70 points or less on the WAIS to be mentally retarded. The mean score on the WAIS is 100 points, and the standard deviation is 15 points. To assess Mr. Fernandez's adaptive behavior, Dr. Lopez administered the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales ("Vineland"). Mr. Fernandez attained an Adaptive Behavior Composite score of 66, which indicates that his adaptive behavior is in the low range. His scores reveal deficits in the domains of Living Skills, Communication, and Socialization. Dr. Lopez also tested Mr. Fernandez for autism using the Childhood Autism Rating Scale. In the report, Dr. Lopez noted that Mr. Fernandez was rated by his father and by Dr. Lopez after observing, interacting, and interviewing Mr. Fernandez. Dr. Lopez reported that Mr. Fernandez's score was 26.5 points, which places him within the non-autistic range. Dr. Lopez observed in the report, however, that Mr. Fernandez "showed the following behavior problems: inappropriate emotional reactions, mildly abnormal fear and nervousness, resistance with [sic] changes in routine, mildly abnormal adaptation to change, and restlessness." A score of 30 points or more on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale is indicative of autism disorder. When Mr. Fernandez was a child of four or five years old, he was apparently diagnosed with autism, and he and his family took part in a behavior modification program in Boston, Massachusetts. As a result of the work done by Mr. Fernandez and his parents in this program, Mr. Fernandez learned to talk, although long after his peers, and improved his social skills. Based on her psychological evaluation of Mr. Fernandez, Dr. Lopez recommended the following: Mr. Fernandez will greatly benefit from a program geared at providing him with help to enhance his functional skills. Facilitation of social services to provide needed support and monitoring. Stimulation program oriented to develop his cognitive skills, to improve attention, memory, verbal communication and problem solving in order to achieve optimal capability. He will benefit from supported employment and referral to Vocational Rehabilitation Services for proper counseling and training. Mr. Fernandez was unable to produce any documents relating to his early diagnoses and treatment or his special education placements because these documents were destroyed in a fire that destroyed the Fernandez home. According to his father, Mr. Fernandez makes friends easily and communicates verbally very effectively. He worked for a while in a family business where his limitations were tolerated, and he flourished in this job. On the other hand, Mr. Fernandez is easily frustrated and confused, and he has difficulty following directions in simple matters. His father is seeking services on Mr. Fernandez's behalf that will teach him to live on his own and to become a productive citizen. The uncontroverted evidence presented by Mr. Fernandez establishes that he is in need of several of the services available through the Department's Developmental Disabilities Program. The evidence presented by Mr. Fernandez is not, however, sufficient to establish that he is eligible to participate in the Developmental Disabilities Program under the eligibility criteria established by the legislature for developmental disabilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application of Mikael Fernandez for enrollment in the Developmental Disabilities Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 28th day of June, 2002.
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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of discrimination against Petitioner when terminating him from employment as a firefighter due to a medical condition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jonathan Race, was employed by Respondent, Orange County Fire Rescue Department, since January 1989, and worked in the Operations Division as a Lieutenant/EMS Supervisor. In this role, he managed, coordinated, and performed firefighting and emergency rescue services. In the mid-1990s, Petitioner was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation which ultimately resulted, in July 2001, in his undergoing an open heart surgical procedure known as the "MAZE" procedure. Following the open heart surgery, Petitioner had a pacemaker installed in August 2001. Petitioner's cardiologist from 1997 to January, 2005, was Arnold Einhorn, M.D. Barry Portnoy, M.D., is a physician under contract with Orange County to perform annual physical examinations for members of the Orange County Fire Rescue Department. While Dr. Einhorn served as Petitioner's cardiologist, he had periodic conversations with Dr. Portnoy concerning Petitioner's cardiac condition. On May 20, 2003, Dr. Einhorn wrote a letter to Dr. Portnoy in which he stated that Petitioner, "continues to be on medical therapy with beta blockers and Digoxin and his underlying heart rate is in the 30s and this making him dependent on the pacemaker approximately 80% of the time." Dr. Einhorn concluded at that time that Petitioner needed to continue with his medications and use of the pacemaker. Petitioner, concluded, Dr. Einhorn, "is dependent on the pacemaker." On January 16, 2004, Dr. Portnoy conducted an annual physical for Petitioner. On February 6, 2004, Dr. Portnoy stated in his evaluation of Petitioner: "Classification deferred pending additional information. . . . Employee may continue in his/her present duties for no more than 30 days while awaiting further evaluation." On June 4, 2004, Dr. Portnoy completed his evaluation of Petitioner, imposing a restriction of "No functioning as a member of a team or independently where sudden incapacitation could result in harm to himself, risk to others, or mission failure." Dr. Portnoy placed Petitioner on light duty, which resulted in his assignment to an office job at fire headquarters. Respondent's policy dictates that, when an employee is placed on light duty, a medical review is conducted. After being placed on restricted or light duty, a medical review of Petitioner was commenced in June 2004. Respondent's medical review committee requested that Petitioner obtain from his cardiologist, Dr. Einhorn, information concerning Petitioner's cardiac condition. On January 5, 2005, Dr. Einhorn, at Petitioner's request, sent a letter to Dr. Portnoy in which he stated, in part, "We have been trying to wean the patient off beta blockers and Digoxin to see if the patient is still pacemaker dependent. He is now not on any Digoxin and Toprol and interrogation of his pacemaker revealed 30% atrial paced with 16 runs of atrial fibrillation." Based upon the information received from Dr. Einhorn by Dr. Portnoy, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated February 17, 2005, which stated that Respondent had determined there was a preponderance of evidence that restrictions placed on Petitioner by Dr. Portnoy would continue indefinitely and that Petitioner would not be able to return to his position in the Operations Division as Lieutenant/EMS Supervisor. Respondent concluded that under Article 34.11 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Petitioner would be medically separated from his employment with the County, effective March 26, 2005, at 19:30 hours. While on light office duty, Petitioner was given additional time to pursue other jobs with Orange County. Petitioner did not find another job with Orange County. On March 10, 2005, after Petitioner had received the February 17 letter from Respondent, Amish Parikh, M.D., wrote a letter "To Whom It May Concern", in which he stated that Petitioner "is now pacing only 0.8% of the time and it is not considered pacemaker-dependent. I believe the pacemaker is not a limiting factor in his ability to perform his job and he should be permitted to return to full duty without restrictions." Nothing in this letter makes reference to any medications Petitioner would be required to take in the future. On April 15, 2005, after Petitioner had been terminated from his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was examined by another cardiologist, Sunil M. Kakkar, M.D., who concluded that Petitioner was not pacemaker dependent and could return to full duties with Respondent. Neither Dr. Parikh nor Dr. Kakkar testified at the hearing. Their written reports appear to be based upon one visit by Petitioner with each of them. On March 23, 2005, Dr. Portnoy reviewed the March 10 letter from Dr. Parikh. Dr. Portnoy did not change his determination that Petitioner was pacemaker dependent after his review of Dr. Parikh's letter. Dr. Portnoy did not lift the restrictions he had imposed on Petitioner. At the time of hearing, Petitioner continued to take medications, both aspirin and Toprol, for his cardiac condition. David Hart worked as a firefighter with Respondent from March 16, 1981, through his voluntary retirement, with the rank of Engineer, on February 10, 2005. Mr. Hart was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in 1992 and was treated for the condition with medications for the ensuing six years. Mr. Hart had a pacemaker implanted in October of 1998, and had the pacemaker in place through his retirement. While still employed by Respondent, Mr. Hart's private cardiologist, Dr. Filart, provided Respondent and Dr. Portnoy with information concerning the pacemaker, and determined that Mr. Hart was not pacemaker dependent. Based upon Dr. Filart's determination that Mr. Hart was not pacemaker dependent, Mr. Hart was not removed from duty or placed on restricted duty due to his pacemaker. Mr. Hart agreed that the decision with respect to pacemaker dependency should be made by the patient's cardiologist. Petitioner claims that he was discriminated against by Respondent due to disparate treatment between himself and David Hart. He alleges he is not pacemaker dependent, is similar to Mr. Hart, and, therefore, should not have been medically separated from his employment with Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan A. Race 1081 Dean Street St. Cloud, Florida 34771 Gary M. Glassman, Esquire Orange County Attorney's Office Litigation Section 435 North Orange Avenue, 3rd Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner because of his alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Charles H. Miller, was employed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, for approximately 15 years. In October 1999, Mr. Miller injured his ankle in a work-related accident. He experienced chronic pain and mobility limitations as a result of the accident and continually received medication and psychological and/or physical therapy to help relieve the symptoms of his condition. Mr. Miller wore a brace on his injured foot and took various narcotic pain relievers. On May 2, 2001, Petitioner began seeing Lewis Fabrick, Ph.D., a licensed clinical social worker. Dr. Fabrick determined that Mr. Miller was suffering from depression, anxiety and stress that resulted partly from the pain from the physical injury and partly from the side effects of the medication. However, the Department was not aware of the nature or extent of Mr. Miller's mental or emotional issues. Prior to December 2000, Mr. Miller reported directly to Thomas Malerk, the State Materials Engineer. At that time, Mr. Miller was acting as the data center manager and supervised several other employees. Around November 2000, Mr. Malerk assigned another employee to supervise Mr. Miller and eliminated Mr. Miller's supervisory responsibilities. Mr. Miller's pay and benefits were not affected by this change. Mr. Malerk took this action to correct problems with the data center that had resulted in complaints about Mr. Miller and the data center. Mr. Miller's physical condition was not a factor in Mr. Malerk's decision to change Mr. Miller's job. In December 2000, Mr. Miller complained to the Department's ombudsman that coworkers were making fun of his ankle brace and physical limitation. Mr. Miller alleged that Mr. Malerk had joked about Mr. Miller needing a boot on the other foot to match and that the personnel officer, John Cooper, would pretend to "draw like a cowboy" in a manner that ridiculed Mr. Miller's condition. Mr. Miller also alleged that another co-worker, Gale Page, was harassing him by making fun of his physical limitations. Neither Mr. Cooper or Mr. Page had any supervisory responsibility over Mr. Miller. After receiving Mr. Miller's complaint, the ombudsman contacted Mr. Cooper and Mr. Malerk to inform them of Mr. Miller's concern. At approximately the same time, Mr. Miller also told Mr. Cooper that he was being harassed by Mr. Page, Mr. Malerk, and Mr. Cooper. When Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Miller to specifically identify the harassment that had occurred, Mr. Miller only specifically reported that Mr. Page had made fun of his walk or his leg. Mr. Cooper then informed Mr. Malerk of Mr. Miller's complaint and approached Mr. Page. Mr. Cooper told Mr. Page that he should refrain from making comments about Mr. Miller's condition. When Mr. Malerk learned of Mr. Page's remark to Mr. Miller, he reprimanded Mr. Page and requested that he apologize or otherwise clear the matter. Mr. Malerk also discussed the matter with Mr. Miller. Mr. Malerk apologized to Mr. Miller for anything he might have said that was insensitive and asked Mr. Miller if he had made any inappropriate remarks. Mr. Miller told Mr. Malerk that they did not have a problem and that he considered the matter with Mr. Page closed. Other than the incident with Mr. Page, and the accompanying accusations involving Mr. Malerk and Mr. Cooper, neither Mr. Cooper or Mr. Malerk had any reason to believe that any Department employee might be harassing Mr. Miller or making jokes about his injury or condition. Contrary to Mr. Miller's claim, the evidence does not indicate that either Mr. Malerk or Mr. Cooper even made fun of Mr. Miller's condition. Mr. Miller and Mr. Malerk have known each other since 1997 and were friendly with each other. On May 22, 2001, the Department dismissed Mr. Miller. The decision to dismiss Mr. Miller was based upon a number of violations of the Department's conduct standards, including Mr. Miller's insubordination, absence without authorized leave, display of an uncooperative or antagonistic attitude, and a violent outburst by Mr. Miller on May 21, 2001, when he was advised of the Department's intention to dismiss him. The issues relating to Mr. Miller's dismissal were fully litigated in a proceeding before the Public Employees Relations Commission, which culminated in a Recommended Order and Final Order upholding the Department's decision to dismiss Mr. Miller for violation of the Department's conduct standards. Mr. Malerk was responsible for requesting Mr. Miller's dismissal. Mr. Malerk requested Mr. Miller's dismissal for the violations of the Department's conduct standards that were included in the dismissal letter and was not motivated to request his dismissal in any part by Mr. Miller's physical problems.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
The Issue The sole issue for determination is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) has jurisdiction under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2003), to determine if there is reason to believe that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex or disability.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner is a preoperative transsexual woman. Respondent employed Petitioner as an "RV technician" from sometime in August 1999, until January 7, 2002, when Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. On October 25, 2003, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission. In relevant part, the Charge of Discrimination alleges that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex and disability. On February 11, 2004, the Commission issued its Determination: No Jurisdiction (determination). The determination raises issues of law and fact. The Commission determined, as a matter of law, that Petitioner's transsexualism is not a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Commission also determined, as a matter of law, that the prohibition in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2001), against discrimination on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or transsexuality. The foregoing conclusions of law involve matters over which the Commission has substantive jurisdiction within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2003). The Commission further determined the Charge of Discrimination was legally insufficient to allege facts showing that Petitioner's transsexuality impaired her major life activities or that Respondent regarded Petitioner as disabled. A determination of the legal sufficiency of allegations is not a matter over which the agency has substantive jurisdiction. The Charge of Discrimination does not allege that Petitioner's transsexuality impaired her major life activities. The Charge of Discrimination merely alleges that Petitioner has a medical condition identified as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and receives medical treatment for her condition. The Charge of Discrimination is sufficient to allege that Respondent regarded Petitioner as disabled. In relevant part, the Charge of Discrimination alleges Petitioner informed Respondent that Petitioner had a medical condition that required medical treatment. Petitioner allegedly "took vacation at Christmas time" and returned to work in her new gender on December 29, 2001. On January 7, 2002, Respondent allegedly terminated Petitioner's employment because Petitioner was a distraction to other employees and to some customers and because "it was not good for the company." The Commission may have based its determination, in part, on findings of fact. The Commission apparently found Petitioner failed to show that Respondent regarded Petitioner as disabled or that Petitioner suffered symptoms of a disability separate and apart from transsexuality; such as depression, suicide ideation, situational alcohol abuse, or other symptoms of poor health (a separate disability). In relevant part, the Commission's determination stated: The Commission conducted an investigation of this matter, which has been reviewed and approved by the Commission's office of General Counsel. The Commission's investigation appeared to be a factual investigation. The determination differentiates the Commission's investigation from matters of law. In relevant part, the determination states: The Office of General Counsel has reviewed the case file, investigative materials, and applicable case law. . . . * * * . . . the file contains no evidence which substantiates the disability discrimination claim. As a result, Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability. . . . (emphasis supplied) The ALJ conducted the administrative hearing, in part, to provide an opportunity for Petitioner to submit evidence to support her claim that Respondent regarded her as disabled. The administrative hearing also provided an opportunity for Petitioner to submit evidence showing that Petitioner suffered from a separate disability. Petitioner submitted no evidence to show that Respondent regarded her as disabled or that Petitioner suffers from a separate disability. The trier of fact makes no findings on either factual issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine if it has cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex or a disability. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2004, 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 22nd day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen M. Doering, Esquire National Center for Lesbian Rights 3708 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609-4522 Richard McCrea, Esquire Luisette Gierbolini, Esquire Zinober & McCrea, P.A. Post Office Box 1378 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800 Tampa, Florida 33601-1378 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether, as alleged, Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her sex, thereby violating Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. If that violation occurred, the remaining issue is what relief is appropriate. Petitioner contends that she should have received disability benefits during her pregnancy from July 21, 1987 through September 10, 1987 and that Respondent's refusal to pay constituted discrimination.
Findings Of Fact In their joint prehearing statement, filed at hearing, the parties stipulated to the following: During the calendar year 1987 the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent at its Melbourne, Florida, plant. During 1987 the Respondent provided weekly income benefits for non-occupational disability pursuant to the provisions of a document entitled "Addendum to Weekly Income Benefits for Non-Work Related to Disability." (Exhibit R-4) The Petitioner was off from work for the Respondent from April 21, 1987 through October 26, 1987. The Petitioner delivered a child on September 10, 1987. The Petitioner received weekly income benefits of $189.33 for the period from April 21, 1987 through July 21, 1987 and from September 10, 1987 through October 23, 1987. On Monday October 26, 1987, Petitioner returned to work with Respondent at her regular position and rate of pay. Respondent (Acopian) is a manufacturer of electronic components with a plant in Melbourne, Florida. Commencing in October 1979, and at all times relevant, Petitioner was employed by Acopian as an assembly worker. Her assigned duties required her to assemble and solder personal computer boards, a task performed primarily in a seated position and requiring little physical exertion. When she was hired, Ms. Faith was instructed regarding the company's benefit plan by Evan Martin, Vice President for the company. Mr. Martin is responsible for overall operations of the plant and for personnel matters. Ms. Faith filed the requisite forms and received disability benefits under the company's plan between November 9, 1981 and January 18, 1982, when she was unable to perform her duties due to pregnancy and childbirth. Sometime prior to April 20, 1987, Ms. Faith learned that she was pregnant again. Her treating physician was Dr. Eugene F. Wawrzyniak, an obstetrician with offices in Palm Bay, Florida. On April 20, 1987, Ms. Faith was given a note by her physician stating that she should be excused from work until the estimated date of her delivery, October 8, 1987. Ms. Faith's mother took the note to Acopian, delivering it to Doris Hayden, Evan Martin's Administrative Assistant, and the person responsible for maintaining the personnel files and disability claims. Ms. Faith was given the claim forms and completed portions of the form on May 10, 1987, indicating that her period of disability was to commence April 22, 1987. She also indicated on the form that her sickness or injury arose out of the course of her employment. Because of that, Ms. Hayden submitted the form to the state worker's compensation agency. She understood that the agency required forms be sent anytime an employee claims a work- related illness or injury. On May 18, 1987, Ms. Faith received notice of denial of the worker's compensation claim based on no injury arising out of employment. On June 15, 1987, Acopian received another note from Dr. Wawrzniak indicating that Ms. Faith must remain home due to threat of a miscarriage. Dr. Wawrzniak also completed the physician's portion of the disability claim form on June 15, 1987, indicating that Ms. Faith would be disabled from April 21 through six weeks post-partum. The condition he listed was "pregnancy with threatened spontaneous abortion." (Respondent's Exhibit 7.) Ms. Faith completed her portion of the form on June 19, 1987, and this time did not indicate the condition arose out of her employment. Evan Martin routinely reviews all claims for non-work related benefits. The company is self-insured as to that benefit plan. Mr. Martin had never seen a case at Acopian where a physician stated so early in pregnancy that the patient would be disabled for virtually the entire term of pregnancy. Because he was confused as to Dr. Wawrzniak's statement, he sent the doctor a letter, dated July 17, 1987, requesting medical facts in support of his diagnosis. Although Dr. Wawrzniak later testified, at his deposition on December 1, 1988, that his clinical impression in 1987 was that Petitioner could not have returned to her duties at Respondent after July 18, 1987, his response to Mr. Martin dated July 18, 1987 was not consistent with that conclusion. Specifically, he indicated in his July 18, 1987 correspondence that: Gerda Faith is a 27 year old white female, G- 3, P-1, who had a natural delivery in 1981 with a miscarriage of June 1986. She was seen in this pregnancy on 2/13/87 initial visit with a positive pregnancy test. She subsequently followed in the next two months with post coital bleeding and lower abdominal cramping. This would suspect [sic] a threatened abortion or miscarriage at this time and [sic] was told to rest and work would have to be curtailed. Otherwise, presently in the pregnancy on 7/28/87 she was examined fetal size [sic] approximately 30 weeks gestation which is consistent with her due date of 10/8/87. She is doing well and there is no sign of threatened [sic] miscarriage at this point in time, otherwise, there is no vaginal bleeding as in the first trimester of pregnancy and the patient is doing well. (Emphasis added) (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Insofar as there appeared to be inconsistencies between this latest report and Dr. Wawrzyniak's statements as to the period of anticipated disability, and no supporting medical documentation was provided, Mr. Martin again requested medical evidence from the physician on August 31, 1987. Mr. Martin's August 31, 1987 correspondence stated in pertinent part that: It appears to us while Gerda had difficulties during the first trimester of her [sic] pregnancy, thereafter she could have returned to work until some time in late September, 1987. This is based upon your statement that she is now doing well, and there is no sign of threatened miscarriage at this point in time. However, this appears to be inconsistent with your statement on Gerda's health insurance claim form that she would be continuously and totally disabled and unable to work from April 21, 1987 through six weeks after the birth. (Emphasis supplied) We would appreciate it if you could provide the medical evidence upon which you relied in stating that she was continuously disabled and unable to work for the entire period of time rather than after the first trimester had passed and the threat of miscarriage had subsided. This information is necessary so that we may evaluate further whether to provide disability payments for the entire period claimed. (Respondent's Exhibit 11.) By letter dated September 1, 1987, Dr. Wawrzyniak responded as follows: In regards to your most recent letter on August 31, 1987 in relation to Gerda Faith, my last letter stated that she was doing better after 30 week gestation in which was written on 7/18/87. I felt that at this point and [sic] time there was no sign of threatened miscarriage and that she did not have any complaints regarding these symptoms of second or third trimester bleeding. Presently, she is doing well and I feel that under the circumstances she has approximately 5 weeks to go in her pregnancy and her due date is October that she can go back to work. She is physically fit and is out of danger in regards to her pregnancy at this stage. Mind you that this may change dramatically from week to week and if I so chose [sic] to have her out of work I shall write you a personal letter. (Emphasis supplied) (Respondent's Exhibit 12.) On September 9, 1987, Ms. Faith went into labor prematurely and delivered her child on September 10, 1987. It is undisputed that she was out of work from April 21, 1987, through October 23, 1987. She was initially paid benefits for the post-partum period and was later paid for the period April 21, 1987 through July 21, 1987, when Acopian was told by her doctor that there was no sign of threatened miscarriage. She claims she is owed benefits between July 21, 1987 and her delivery. Ms. Faith acknowledges that under Acopian's plan an employee is not automatically entitled to disability benefits simply because she is pregnant. The non-work related disability benefits under Acopian's plan are available to male and female employees alike for a wide range of medical conditions. Since 1983, payments have been made to at least seventeen women, including Ms. Faith, for pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions. It is not unusual for Acopian, either through Evan Martin or his assistant, Doris Hayden, to seek clarification in medical documentation for both males and females. In such instances the physician usually cooperates fully.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 19th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick J. Deese, Esquire Post Office Box 361937 Melbourne, Florida 32936-1037 Edward H. Feege, Esquire Post Office Box 2165 Lehigh Valley, PA 18001-2165 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
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 violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 24, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda J. Coonrod, was employed by Respondent, Baptist Hospital (the hospital), since approximately 1993. She became a unit coordinator in approximately 2002 and remained in that position until she was terminated from employment effective September 4, 2007. Petitioner is a licensed practical nurse. Her position as a unit coordinator required her to perform such tasks as answering the phone, coordinating doctors' appointments and doctors' orders, and performing various tasks using a computer. Petitioner’s regular work schedule was Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Thursday, August 30, 2007, and Friday, August 31, 2007. However, she did not report to work on either August 30 or 31. Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled on August 30 and 31, 2007, because she had been admitted as a patient to the emergency room of the hospital on the evening of August 29, and remained a patient at the hospital on August 30 and 31, 2007. She was discharged on September 1, 2007, a Saturday. Melanie Kuzma is a registered nurse and is employed by Respondent as the clinical manager of the medical floor. Ms. Kuzma was Petitioner’s supervisor when Petitioner was employed at the hospital. Unfortunately, Ms. Kuzma did not know why Petitioner did not report for work as scheduled on August 30 and 31. Petitioner was being treated at the hospital for chest pain and was given several medications while a patient there. She could not or did not notify Ms. Kuzma of her admission to the hospital and her resulting unavailability to report to work as scheduled. Petitioner did not ask her treating nurse, her treating doctor, or anyone else to inform Ms. Kuzma of her whereabouts. No one else contacted Ms. Kuzma as to Petitioner’s whereabouts. In any event, Ms. Kuzma was not aware of why Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled. While in the hospital as a patient, Petitioner was not in the same unit in which she worked as an employee. Ms. Kuzma was not a supervisor over the area of the hospital where Petitioner was a patient. When Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled on August 30, 2007, Ms. Kuzma called Petitioner’s home. No answering machine or voice mail was available to leave a message, so she and the unit coordinator continued to call Petitioner’s home throughout the day with no success. When Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled the following day, Ms. Kuzma and the unit coordinator continued to call Petitioner’s home. Again, they did not reach Petitioner and had no way of leaving a message. Attempting to call a person who fails to report to work as scheduled is standard practice at the hospital. A person who fails to report to work as scheduled and fails to call in is referred to by the hospital as a “no call, no show.” Ms. Kuzma notified Venus Jones, the Employee Relations Manager for the hospital, that Petitioner had not reported to work as scheduled and failed to call in for two days. Ms. Jones informed Ms. Kuzma that when an employee had two days “no call, no show,” that it would result in discharge from employment with the hospital. Petitioner reported to work on Monday, September 3, 2007, which was a holiday. It was then that Petitioner told Ms. Kuzma that she had been admitted as a patient in the hospital on the evening of August 29, and remained a patient on August 30 and 31, 2007. Ms. Jones has terminated the employment of other employees for “no call, no show” for a two-day period. Ms. Jones does not consider anything unique about Ms. Coonrod’s situation. Ms. Jones did not consider Petitioner’s reason for her “no call, no show” to work to be adequate. On September 11, 2007, Ms. Jones sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her employment was terminated for failure to report to work and failure to notify her department of her absence. Petitioner acknowledged that her heart problem which precipitated her hospitalization at the time in question was not a disability. This medical condition did not prevent her from working and did not limit her from doing everyday tasks such as getting dressed, driving, brushing her teeth, or other normal life activities. When questioned at hearing about her medical condition, Petitioner responded, “I’m not disabled. I don’t have a handicap because of it.” Further, there is no evidence in the record that anyone employed by Respondent perceived Petitioner to have a disability.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda J. Coonrod 40487 Audiss Road Milton, Florida 32583 Russell F. Van Sickle, Esquire Beggs & Lane. LLP Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2950 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
