The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC (Superior), wrongfully terminated Petitioner, James Walker, and refused to rehire him based on his disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner was hired as a laborer by Superior in March 2016. During his tenure with Superior, Petitioner also worked as a flagger and a roller machine operator (roller operator). Superior is a construction company specializing in roadway and highway improvement projects. Superior was Petitioner’s employer as defined by the FCRA. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked for Superior on a construction assignment known as “15901 Wekiva Project” (Wekiva Project). Oscar Matson, Superior’s superintendent at the relevant time, was Petitioner’s ultimate supervisor and made day-to-day decisions regarding equipment and staffing. Mr. Matson made all employment decisions with regard to Petitioner, including his hiring and job assignments. Jose Gomez, the project manager at the relevant time, oversaw the administrative side of Wekiva Project and supervised the engineering staff. Mr. Matson consulted with Mr. Gomez regarding the construction staff, and Mr. Gomez was familiar with all of the employees working on this project, including Petitioner. The parties stipulated Petitioner suffers from a disability. Relevant Policies Although Superior offered evidence of its Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP), there is no evidence it provides protections for applicants or employees with disabilities. The EOP states in relevant part: Statement of Policy To further the provisions of equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal opportunity through a positive continuing program[,] it is the policy of Superior Construction Company to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin. * * * N. Handicapped Relative to direct federal contracts, we shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of a physical or mental handicap in regard to any position of which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. There was no evidence whether the Wekiva Project was federally funded or part of a federal contract. Although there was no evidence of a written policy, there was testimony that Superior had a reasonable accommodation process that allows an employee who requires an accommodation to request one through his or her supervisor or through a Human Resources hotline. This process was followed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s Accommodations Petitioner began working for Superior as a laborer with the primary duties of shoveling dirt and cleaning roads. The laborer position was physically demanding and required standing, climbing, crawling, and lifting up to 40 pounds. The position also required constant walking and moving within the project site. Petitioner worked ten-hour shifts on weekdays and eight-hour shifts on weekend days. In April 2016, approximately a month after he was hired, Petitioner was hospitalized for a toe injury incurred at work. Although he was injured on the job and knew he was obligated to report the injury to his supervisors, Petitioner did not. He failed to report the incident to Mr. Matson or anyone else because he did not want “a workman’s comp” issue. On or around April 19, 2016, Petitioner brought medical documentation titled “Work/School Status” to Superior indicating that his work duties should be modified until May 10, 2016. The medical documentation indicated Petitioner should be limited to “light duty.” It also indicated Petitioner could perform the following activities: “Limit[ed] standing/walking” and “Light weight activity.” As a result, Mr. Matson initially placed him in a “flagger” position. This position involved directing traffic in one place, and was considered “light duty” because it did not involve heavy lifting or continuous walking. Although the timing is unclear, Mr. Matson later placed Petitioner in the position of roller operator, where he operated a large piece of equipment. As a roller operator, Petitioner was not required to stand, walk or lift. There was no evidence Petitioner complained to Mr. Matson regarding the assignment to either the flagger or roller operator position, nor did he request further accommodation. The undersigned finds Superior accommodated Petitioner’s request for “light duty.” Petitioner had no attendance, disciplinary, or other issues from April 2016 through the summer of 2016 in the flagger or roller operator position. On August 12, 2016, Petitioner was admitted into a medical facility and was out of work. Upon his return on or about August 18, 2016, Petitioner gave Mr. Matson medical documentation titled “Disability Certificate.” That document certified that Petitioner was “unable to return to work” and was “not able to work until further notice.” As a result of the August 18, 2016, meeting, Mr. Matson prepared Petitioner’s termination paperwork. What triggered the termination paperwork on August 18, 2016, is in dispute. Petitioner asserts when he returned to Superior, Mr. Matson told him he was concerned about his health and fired him. Superior counters that Petitioner informed Mr. Matson he had to quit because he was unable to work due to his medical condition, and Superior advised Petitioner to reapply when he was ready. For the reasons below, the undersigned finds Superior’s version of the facts is more consistent with the credible evidence and testimony. First, Superior’s version of events is corroborated by Petitioner’s own sworn statements made in his Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination, in which he states Superior “advised me to come back to work when I was ready.” Second, Mr. Matson’s testimony that Petitioner told him he was unable to work is consistent with the Disability Certificate provided by Petitioner and with Mr. Matson’s work notes made on August 18, 2016. Those notes indicate Petitioner “said he had to quit because he has austioprosis [sic]. We filled out a termination paper for him.” Although Petitioner challenges the reliability of these notes because he actually had “osteomyelitis,” it is plausible that Mr. Matson mislabeled or misspelled the illness given his unfamiliarity with it and the phonetic similarity between the two terms. Third, Petitioner’s assertion that he was fired is inconsistent with statements he made on subsequent applications when asked the “reason for leaving” Superior. In one application he answers “no work”; in another he lists “medical reasons.” Nowhere does he disclose or state that he was fired or terminated. Finally, based on Petitioner’s demeanor and the inaccuracies and inconsistencies between his testimony and the other evidence, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony less credible than that of Mr. Gomez and Mr. Matson. Petitioner was unable to recall specific dates or details about alleged conversations or his work/medical status. Petitioner admitted he lied to Superior about the injury causing him to go out on leave in April 2016. He blamed discrepancies between his hearing testimony and sworn statements in the documents submitted to the Commission on his attorney; he blamed inconsistencies in the statements made in his disability benefits paperwork on the insurance company; and he explained misleading statements in subsequent job applications as necessary white lies. The undersigned finds Superior’s explanation that it processed Petitioner’s termination after it was clear he could not work and there was no date certain as to when he could return, and its version of facts surrounding Petitioner’s separation more credible. Regardless, however, of whether he quit or was fired, Petitioner was not qualified to work on August 18, 2016. He offered no evidence, nor is there anything in the record, indicating that his inability to work had ever changed, or that the restrictions and limitations set forth in the Disability Certificate were ever lifted. As such, the undersigned finds Petitioner could not perform his job duties and could not work as of August 18, 2016. Petitioner’s Reapplication Petitioner claims he reapplied for a position with Superior numerous times after August 2016. Other than a July 2017 application, it is unclear how often or what other times he reapplied. Petitioner claims Superior did not rehire him because of his disability. As proof, he states Mr. Matson and Mr. Gomez made comments inquiring about his health. The undersigned finds these comments were innocuous and were expressions of concern for his well-being, rather than related to his specific disability. Petitioner’s attempt at reemployment with Superior is also suspect. There was no admissible evidence to prove that Superior was actually hiring in July 2017. In fact, there was evidence Petitioner only reapplied for work at Superior to better his legal position for future litigation; Petitioner admitted he reapplied for a position at Superior “because my attorney said to reapply to see how they would react.” Petitioner also made statements in disability insurance applications that he was unable to work at the time he reapplied for work at Superior. Specifically, as of July 17, 2017, the date of Petitioner’s Social Security Application for Disability Insurance, Petitioner indicated he could not work and had been unable to work since September 1, 2016. Irrespective of Petitioner’s motives, Superior asserts it did not consider his disability when Petitioner reapplied, but rather that it did not rehire Petitioner because it had no vacancies. Mr. Matson credibly testified that in July 2017, the Wekiva Project was coming to an end and he was struggling to keep the staff occupied until the next assignment. Mr. Matson explained, “we were long on help at that time.” Mr. Gomez also met with Petitioner in July 2017 regarding his reapplication. At the time Superior was working on another project, Project 16903. Mr. Gomez told Petitioner that he would be eligible for the next project, Project 17904, but that project was not starting until late 2017 or early 2018. This is consistent with Petitioner’s application dated July 5, 2017, which has a handwritten notation: “Consider Rehire for 16903 per Jose G. till 17904 Ready.” Mr. Gomez was not responsible for Project 17904, nor was there any evidence that the person hiring for Project 17904 was aware of Petitioner’s disability. Superior never rehired Petitioner. The undersigned finds Superior did not consider Petitioner’s disability, but rather, based its decision not to rehire Petitioner on the fact it did not have any vacancies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, James Walker, did not prove that Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC, committed an unlawful employment practice against him; and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 4th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon a disability in violation of section 760.10(a), Florida Statutes (2017); and, if so, what remedies are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The original complaint filed with FCHR states in pertinent part: “I am a disabled female. I have been discriminated against based on disability. On 8/17/2017, I told my CEO (Mr. David Yokeum) that I had to leave the office due to my disability. I was feeling dizzy and needed to take my medication. . . . Respondent knew I had a previous injury on my arm/hand and that I couldn’t use my hand in an excessive amount. I re-injured my hand while cleaning and went to the Emergency Room. I was placed on medical leave until I was cleared by Hand Surgeon. . . . I was told I was no longer needed because I couldn’t clean. The Petition for Relief filed after the FCHR’s Determination of No Cause states in pertinent part: “discriminated, treated unfairly due to anxiety disorder; wrongfully demoted to cleaning person resulting in further aggravation of an injury.” No mention of the anxiety disorder appears in the original complaint. Melissa Bruno is a single mother with two sons. Her father, Thomas Tegenkamp, owns a local business in the Sunrise area. Mr. Tegenkamp has enjoyed a long-standing friendship with David Yokeum, the chief executive officer of WCA USA, Inc. (WCA). There was little, if any, evidence presented about WCA, except that Mr. Yokeum was the chief executive officer and that, at the time of Petitioner’s employment, there were approximately 25 employees. At some point, Mr. Yokeum mentioned to Mr. Tegenkamp that his company was looking for an employee for the office.1/ Mr. Tegenkamp told Mr. Yokeum that his daughter was looking for a job. No evidence was presented regarding her qualifications for the job at WCA-–her past training and job experience was as a cosmetologist. It appears from the evidence that she was hired primarily because of her father’s friendship with Mr. Yokeum. Petitioner was hired by WCA in July 2014 as a receptionist. Initially, her duties included answering the phone and the door, ordering supplies, and helping around the office. Her position was a salaried, as opposed to an hourly, position. About four months after Petitioner was hired, she was given responsibility for the UPS program. The UPS program is a billing function that needed to be completed each week, and involved downloading approximately 20,000 lines of data regarding shipping charges, separating the lines by “members,” and invoicing those members for their shipping costs. Matthew West is the regional director of North America for WCA, and has been with the company for approximately six years. He performed the duties related to the UPS program previously, in addition to several other responsibilities, and performed these duties after Petitioner’s departure. He believes that the UPS program can be completed by one person and is not a full-time job. He was not informed by Petitioner or anyone else that Petitioner had any type of disability. Sudkhanueng Bynoe has worked for WCA for 16 years in a variety of capacities, and currently serves as the company’s office manager. She participated in Petitioner’s hiring, and performs the company’s human resources functions. She remembered that, at some point, Petitioner told her that Petitioner had G.A.D. (generalized anxiety disorder), but she was not familiar with the acronym, and Petitioner did not explain what G.A.D. meant. Petitioner did not ask for any modification of her work based on her anxiety. She acknowledged that she did not advise Ms. Bynoe that her generalized anxiety disorder limited her ability to perform tasks, and did not ask for an accommodation. Both Petitioner’s brother and father testified at hearing. When asked at hearing, neither identified any disability from which Petitioner suffered while working at WCA. Both knew she took medication, but did not know what kind of medication or the basis for taking it. Neither identified any activity of daily life that was impaired by any type of disability. In late 2014, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). She claimed that the reason for the arrest was that she was overmedicated for her anxiety disorder. She notified her employer about the DUI, and had a conference with Mr. Yokeum and Ms. Bynum about the legal requirements she needed to fulfill with respect to the DUI. None of the documents related to the DUI were admitted into evidence, and the specific requirements were not identified. However, it is undisputed that WCA allowed her time off to attend whatever court dates she had, and that she was allowed to come in late and leave early for an unspecified length of time because she needed to get a ride from her father to and from work. Mr. West described Petitioner as someone who tried very hard, and put in a lot of hours. However, her performance was not up to par. The UPS program needed to be completed each week, and her timeline for completion was way too long. She was often as much as a week behind. He recalled her having a couple of “meltdowns” while with the company, but was never informed that she had a disability. In addition to the length of time that it took Petitioner to complete her work each week, she developed a problem with attendance. When she did come to work, she was frequently late, and took lengthy breaks during the day. Mr. West testified that employees started with five vacation days at the beginning of employment, which would progress to ten days. He testified that there was no specific time allotted for personal time in addition to the vacation days. Ms. Bynoe indicated that employees were allotted ten days each year for vacation, and ten PTO (personal time off) days. Respondent believed that she had ten days for vacation and ten days for PTO, for a total of 20 days each year. Assuming that the attendance policy in fact allowed both vacation days and PTO days, Petitioner’s absences exceeded what was allowed. For example, in 2015, Ms. Bruno took nine days of sick leave, 15.5 days of PTO, and nine days of vacation, for a total of 33.5 days. She was allowed to work from home an additional five days, although working from home meant that someone else had to perform her receptionist duties. In 2016, she took 14 days of sick leave, 10.5 of PTO, and nine days of vacation, again for a total of 33.5 days. She came in after 10:00 a.m. an additional six days and worked from home an additional three days (two full days and two half days).2/ Petitioner had hand surgery in June 2016, which accounted for at least some of her absences. In 2017, from January 1 until August 31, Petitioner took six days of sick leave, 6.5 days of personal leave, and one day of vacation. She worked from home on 8.5 days, and was late (coming in after 10:00 a.m.) 13 times. She was also absent from the office an additional 11 days, of which ten were attributed to her suspension as of August 17, 2017. There were two occasions, although the dates were not specified, where Petitioner did not come into work and did not call to say that she would not be coming in. In short, Petitioner was late or absent more times than anyone else in the company. Because of her absenteeism, there was a meeting at some point in 2017 with Ms. Bynoe and another employee, where Ms. Bynoe requested that Petitioner sign in when she came to work and sign out when she left. She was the only employee required to sign in and out, but the procedure was implemented because of her excessive absences that other employees did not share. Petitioner’s absences were related to a variety of problems, including her mother’s passing, an anxiety disorder, dental work, hand surgery in June 2016, a partial hysterectomy, and ovarian cysts. Petitioner also had some issues with one of her sons, which increased her stress. However, the greater weight of the evidence does not indicate that she had a disability as is contemplated under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The evidence also does not establish that Petitioner ever asked for an accommodation based upon a disability. The greater weight of the testimony established that WCA made several attempts to assist her, by having people help her with carrying supplies and allowing her to occasionally work from home, even though that impeded her ability to perform her receptionist duties. In 2017, issues related to Petitioner’s performance came to a head. Mr. West had several discussions with Petitioner during the last six months of her employment, because she was often as much as a week late completing each week’s invoices. She was also often late in the mornings, and while she testified that when she came in after 10:00 a.m., it was because she was picking up supplies for the office, she did not notify her supervisor at the time that that was what she was doing. As noted above, she was allowed to work from home several times during her last year of employment. A few months before her termination, Petitioner came to work with a cast on her arm, and told Mr. West that she had dropped a couch on it at home. She had broken her wrist. However, she did not ask for a less strenuous job because of her hand, and did not ask for help with the UPS program. Other employees helped her with carrying supplies and other manual tasks. Petitioner was aware that she was behind in her work. On August 16, 2017, she spoke directly with Mr. Yokeum and told him she needed additional help. The next morning Petitioner reported to work, but had to leave for the day shortly after she started, because she was dizzy and “twitching,” and was afraid it would evolve into a panic attack. Once again, Petitioner texted Mr. Yokeum to advise him of her absence and the reason she had to leave the office. Mr. Yokeum was not her direct supervisor. On August 17, 2017, Petitioner was advised by letter from Mark Mairowitz, WCA’s Executive Vice President, that she was being suspended from the office until at least September 1, 2017, due to her office attendance. The letter she received states in part: Hello Melissa David Yokeum called me to his office this morning to express his displeasure at your office attendance record as he has grown very concerned. Because of his relationship with your father, he has asked me, as WCA Executive Vice President, to interact with you and to let you know that you are NOT to contact David from now on. He has no desire to hurt your family and so he has turned all matters regarding your employment over to me. Again, you are NOT to contact David in any way. Doing so will jeopardize your continued employment at WCA. You are only to deal with me from this day forward. Your attendance record has been examined by David and myself and we find a disturbing pattern of absence, with far more days/hours out of the office than other WCA employees. We are concerned for your health and your safety in getting to and from the office and before you can return to the office, you will be required to undergo a complete medical evaluation/examination and obtain a “clean bill of health” letter from a physician before you can return to work. Furthermore, as David will be out of the office until September 1st, he prefers you NOT be in the office until his return. So, consider yourself on suspension until that date. Mr. Mairowitz’s letter also requested that Ms. Bruno return her office computer and cell phone until she was reinstated, and advised her that her salary would be unaffected by the suspension. However, it is unclear from the letter what health issue Mr. Mairowitz is referencing. In early September 2017, Ms. Bruno returned to the office. At this time, she was relieved of her responsibilities related to the UPS program and reassigned to cleaning in addition to stocking the office and breakroom. The cleaning consisted of vacuuming, mopping the floor, and taking out the trash. From management’s point of view, this assignment would allow her to have flexible hours and less responsibility, while not suffering any reduction in pay. From Petitioner’s point of view, the change in job responsibilities was demeaning and humiliating, and meant to embarrass her. Ms. Bruno cleaned the office once, over Labor Day weekend, and did not do so again. She testified that after cleaning the office that weekend, she experienced significant pain in her hand and had to go to the emergency room to have it examined. While she testified that the emergency room sent her home with a work release for two days or until cleared by her hand surgeon, no documentation from the emergency room was submitted at hearing, and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the emergency room records were provided to WCA.3/ Ms. Bruno advised Mark (presumably Mark Mairowitz) that she hurt her hand and could not clean the office the way it needed to be cleaned. She did not report back to work at WCA. There was some testimony that the office was closed for a period in September related to a hurricane that hit the area, but there was no evidence as to how many days the office was closed. Petitioner’s employment was terminated as of September 29, 2017. Petitioner saw her hand surgeon on or about September 26, 2017. She submitted documentation from the Vanguard Aesthetic Plastic Surgery which is, for the most part, illegible, but is clear enough to confirm that she was seen as a patient and received some instructions. She did not report to Ms. Bynoe that she had gone to the emergency room, and did not inform her that she was unable to perform work cleaning and organizing the office because of her hand or because of any other disability. Petitioner did not testify that she was unable to perform the duties of cleaning and organizing the office because of her G.A.D. Petitioner did not establish by the greater weight of the evidence that she has a disability. However, she did establish that toward the end of her employment, WCA perceived her as having some sort of disability, as evidenced by Mr. Mairowitz’s letter to her requesting that she get a doctor’s clearance to return to work. Despite evidence that there were concerns, it is not at all clear whether WCA’s perception is based upon problems with her hand or problems caused by her anxiety disorder. Petitioner did not establish by the greater weight of the evidence that she requested an accommodation from her employer based on a disability. Likewise, she did not establish that WCA ever denied a request from Petitioner for an accommodation. Petitioner did not establish that WCA treated persons without a disability differently. No evidence was presented regarding any employee with a similar position and a similar attendance history, much less that such a person was treated differently than Petitioner. If anything, the evidence supports the view that WCA went to great lengths to accommodate Petitioner, in large part because of her father’s relationship with Mr. Yokeum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 January, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”) on or about September 9, 2014, and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and probative facts: TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER, CARYL ZOOK Petitioner, a 61-year-old female born in 1954, worked as a private chef for Mr. Friedkin, owner of Respondent. She began in 2007 and was an “at will” employee, there being no written employment contract. Her duties included providing dinners and other meals at Mr. Friedkin’s residence, catering or assisting him with some events, and overseeing some of the other staff members at his residence. Petitioner was in an auto accident in 2011 and suffered neck injuries. Petitioner required physical therapy, acupuncture, steroid injections, and several x-rays. After Petitioner was terminated from Respondent in September 2013, she underwent surgery to remove several bad vertebrae from her neck area. Due to her neck injury and pain, Petitioner testified that she needed to park close to Mr. Friedkin’s house to carry groceries as a reasonable accommodation. Other than the inference drawn from this scant evidence, there was little, if any, direct or circumstantial evidence presented to prove that Respondent had knowledge of a qualifying disability by Petitioner.1/ Petitioner characterized Mr. Friedkin’s behavior over the years as insulting and abusive, and she endured it for many years. There was an arrangement between Petitioner and Friedkin for him to purchase a home for her to live in. She would repair or remodel the home, and at some point, he would transfer the mortgage and home to her.2/ For the Yom Kippur holiday, Mr. Friedkin contacted Petitioner and instructed her to prepare a dinner for his family and to have it ready at 3:00 p.m. that day. Typically, meals were prepared by Petitioner at Mr. Friedkin’s home. However, this one was prepared at Petitioner’s home because, as she testified, it “needed to be brined” in her refrigerator in advance. Petitioner was admittedly running late and did not have the meal prepared by 3:00 p.m. Mr. Friedkin called her while she was driving to his house but she did not answer the phone. When she arrived at his house, Mr. Friedkin was in his vehicle blocking the driveway. After she parked on the street, Mr. Friedkin got out of his vehicle and began ranting and raving at her, accusing her of being late. He was very upset. He continued yelling and told her that, “Next week you better start looking for a new job.” Petitioner went into the house and left the food in the refrigerator. It was undisputed that the food (a turkey breast) was not given to Mr. Friedkin outside the home because it was not carved or ready for consumption. TESTIMONY OF SHEREE FREIDKIN Mr. Friedkin’s wife testified that Mr. Friedkin had made it clear to Petitioner that he wanted her to prepare a turkey meal and that they would pick it up at 3:00 p.m. at the residence. When she and her husband arrived at their home at 3:00 p.m., Petitioner was not there. They went inside, looked in the refrigerator, and saw that the food was not there. They called Petitioner on her cell phone but she did not answer. They waited for some period of time for her, all the while getting very frustrated and agitated.3/ After waiting more than 30 minutes for Petitioner to arrive, they decided to go to Whole Foods to buy a turkey meal at around 3:40 p.m. On their way, Petitioner phoned them. She said she would be at the house soon, and so, they decided to drive back and meet her. After they arrived back at their residence they had to continue to wait for her to arrive. She finally arrived, sometime after 3:40 p.m., and got out of her vehicle eventually. (Apparently, Petitioner waited in her car for some period of time.) When she got out, Petitioner was in shorts, a sloppy shirt, and her hair was in curlers. Mr. and Mrs. Friedkin found this inappropriate, particularly since Petitioner usually wore an apron and dressed more appropriately in their presence. Mr. Friedkin was very upset and demanded that she give him the food because they were running late to their family function. Petitioner refused, claiming the turkey needed to be sliced. Mr. Friedkin was very angry and used several unnecessary expletives during the course of his conversation with Petitioner. Mr. Friedkin told her something like, “you’re fired” and “don’t show up Monday for work.” Mrs. Friedkin overheard no age, disability, or retaliation-related comments during this heated exchange. TESTIMONY OF MONTE FRIEDKIN He confirmed that Petitioner was his chef and also did some assorted chores and supervision around his house. He directed Petitioner to make a meal and have it ready for them to pick up at his residence by 3:00 p.m. on the day in question. He testified that Petitioner always cooked any food for his family at his residence. When they arrived around 3:00 p.m. at the house, Petitioner was not there, and there was no food. He tried to call her and had to leave a message. They decided to go to Whole Foods to buy the meal. They departed for Whole Foods around 3:40 p.m. His description of the event was consistent with his wife’s testimony. In addition to the delay caused by Petitioner, Mr. Friedkin testified that it was important to him that she was presentable at all times around him and his family. During the confrontation in the driveway, he terminated her employment. He testified that he had experienced some other performance issues with her over the months preceding this event and that she had begun to respond to questions and directives from him in increasingly insubordinate ways. As far as her termination was concerned, he unequivocally denied that her age, a disability, or retaliation was ever considered or motivated his decision. He admitted that Petitioner told him that she had a car accident in one of their vehicles sometime in 2011. However, she continued to work for him for approximately two years after the accident without incident. She did complain to him, at some point, of some neck pain. He denied that Petitioner ever gave him any medical documents verifying or stating that she was disabled. On cross-examination by Petitioner, Mr. Friedkin elaborated that, during the months preceding the food incident, she had become more and more insubordinate, and there was a growing problem with her not following instructions he gave her. In his words, the incident at his residence involving the turkey dinner was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.” On redirect, Mr. Friedkin denied ever considering any disability and said he did not even know she was “disabled.”4/ TESTIMONY OF ROSARIO DIAZ Another witness, Mrs. Diaz, testified that Mr. and Mrs. Friedkin arrived at the residence at around 3:00 p.m. and came into her office. They wanted to know whether or not Petitioner was there with the food, and whether or not she had called. Diaz told him that she was not there and did not call. Mr. and Mrs. Friedkin then departed. Approximately 30 minutes later, Petitioner came into her office upset and said that she could not believe what had just happened and that Mr. Friedkin had just fired her. Ms. Diaz commented to her that maybe they were upset because she was late. Mrs. Diaz had worked for Mr. Friedkin for nearly 30 years. She interacted with Petitioner at the residence frequently. She testified that Petitioner never complained to her about age, disability, or other discriminatory remarks or comments by Mr. Friedkin. She also testified that she never overheard any comments by Mr. Friedkin about Petitioner’s age or disability, or how either may have affected Petitioner’s work performance. At Petitioner’s request, recorded portions of an unemployment compensation hearing, conducted by an appeals referee from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), were played. Petitioner represented that the purpose was to show that Mr. Friedkin had made several statements during that hearing that were inconsistent with his present testimony. The DEO hearing was to determine whether or not Petitioner was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. DEO ruled in Petitioner’s favor and found that she was not disqualified from receiving benefits and that no “misconduct” occurred on the job as a result of the Yom Kippur meal incident.5/ The undersigned finds that Mr. Friedkin did not make any materially inconsistent statements during the DEO hearing bearing upon his credibility as a witnesses in this case. There was insufficient proof offered by Petitioner to show that Respondent’s proffered explanation for her termination (poor work performance) was not true, or was only a pretext for discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief and find in Respondent’s favor. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert L. Kilbride Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Flagler County School Board discriminated against Petitioner by failing to hire Petitioner based on his disability.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the local government agency responsible for oversight of the public schools of Flagler County, Florida. Petitioner applied for two positions with the School Board. In December 2009, Petitioner applied for a job opening as a bus aide for handicapped students (Transportation Handicapped Aide position). On January 29, 2010, he applied for a lawn maintenance position at Flagler Palm Coast High School (Maintenance/Turf Care Worker position). On February 1, 2010, Petitioner received a letter from the School Board thanking him for his interest in the Transportation Handicapped Aide position, but informing him that the School Board had selected another applicant. On or about May 31, 2010, Petitioner received another rejection letter from the School Board, informing him that he had not been hired for the Maintenance/Turf Care position. Petitioner alleges that Respondent did not hire him for either position because he is “qualified deaf.” Prior to actually applying for the two positions, as part of the application process, Petitioner completed an on-line employment application with the School Board. Petitioner listed eight previous positions on his on-line application, including: dishwasher, assembler, part-time stacker, dock worker, warehouse/driver, part-time delivery driver, warehouse associate, and warehouse forklift operator. The previous positions listed on Petitioner?s on-line application did not involve working with children or lawn care. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he had been around deaf and blind students while attending the Florida School for Deaf and Blind. He also testified that he thought he could learn the lawn care maintenance position while on the job. Petitioner conceded, however, that his prior employment positions and experience did not involve working with children or lawn care maintenance. Qualifications the School Board required for the Transportation Handicapped Aide position included prior experience or training in the care of children, as well as knowledge of and ability to use crisis intervention and prevention techniques, CPR, and first aid. The Maintenance/Turf Care Worker position was not a beginning position where qualifications could be met by on-the- job training. Rather, the position required a state-certified pest control operator's license for lawn and ornamental plants or the equivalent, and a working knowledge of the rules and regulations on safe handling and application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The position also required knowledge of athletic field dimensions and striping, and the ability to maintain a commercial irrigation system. Review of Petitioner's on-line application, in light of the qualifications for the two positions sought, reveals that Petitioner was not qualified for either position. In contrast, the successful applicants who were hired for the two positions possessed the required qualifications and experience. Ms. Parrella testified that, as secretary to the School Board's Director of Human Relations, it was her responsibility to monitor the applications for employment submitted for the two positions for which Petitioner applied. According to Ms. Parrella, Petitioner was not hired because he did not possess the required qualifications for the positions. Ms. Parrella further testified that the School Board would not discriminate against a person who was deaf if he had the qualifications for the position. She further explained that Petitioner's handicap or disability played no role in the decision not to hire him for the two positions. Ms. Parrella's testimony is credited. Petitioner testified that, at the time he filed the Complaint, he suspected that he had not been hired by the School Board because of his disability because he could not think of any other reason he was not hired. He admitted, however, that he had no personal knowledge as to the reasons why he was not hired. Petitioner also admitted during the final hearing that he did not list or possess all of the certifications or qualifications required for either of the two positions. In sum, Petitioner did not show that the School Board discriminated against him by failing to hire him because of his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 17th day of May, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edward Willison Carroll, III, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a Credit Life, including Credit Disability Insurance Agent; General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Agent; General Lines - Motor Vehicle Physical Damage and Mechanical Breakdown Agent; Ordinary Life, including Health Insurance Agent; Health Insurance Agent; and Automobile and Inspection and Warranty Association Salesman. On March 10, 1980, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as a General Lines Agent (Property, Casualty, and Miscellaneous Lines) . Question number 13 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. On May 28, 1982, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent. Question number 15 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. Respondent's answers to question 13 on the March 10, 1980, application and question 15 on the March 28, 1982, application were false. On December 11, 1970, the State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, filed an information with the circuit court which charged that respondent did on December 3, 1970, in Leon County, Florida ... knowingly commit a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of Alice Leigh Divita, a female child under the age of fourteen years, to-wit: of the age of six years, without intent to commit rape upon said child, contrary to Section 800.04, F.S. On March 9, 1971, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of fondling, as charged in the information. The court withheld adjudication of guilty and imposition of sentence, and placed respondent on probation for a period of three years. At hearing, respondent conceded that he had been charged with the aforementioned felony. He averred, however, that his failure to disclose such charge on his applications was not intended to be deceitful but was premised on his belief that he could properly answer no to such inquiries because adjudication of guilty had been withheld. While respondent may reasonably have believed that he could respond in the negative to an inquiry concerning felony convictions, his contention that he held an honest belief that he could also respond in the negative to inquiries about whether the had ever been charged with a felony is not persuasive. But for the foregoing charge, respondent has not been charged or convicted of any other felonies. Nor, has the respondent been shown to have engaged in any improprieties as an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for three months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. 7 & 8 Addressed in paragraph 6. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 11. Addressed in paragraph 9. 12-14. Rejected as not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas L. Neilson, Esquire 105 West Fifth Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of his medical disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as Amended (FCRA of 1992).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 41-year-old man who began his employment with Respondent in April 2006. Petitioner has been continuously employed in Respondent's Power Quality Services Division (PQSD) since April 2006. However, he has been on either short term disability (STD) since January 25, 2010, or long term disability (LTD) beginning on July 25, 2010. Respondent is an international power service-related company. Respondent's PQSD has customer service engineers (CSE) throughout the nation who perform similar jobs in ten different geographic regions. Petitioner is located in Orlando, Florida, and worked in Respondent's southeast region, Central Florida division. Sedgwick is the claims administrator for Respondent's STD, LTD, and workers' compensation programs. Employees who are in the STD or LTD programs need to communicate with and keep Sedgwick apprised of their disability and related physician directives. Respondent's employees are to contact Sedgwick to file the requisite claim(s) for STD or LTD benefits.5/ Prior to his disability leave, Petitioner worked for Respondent as a CSE. Petitioner's position required him to perform scheduled maintenance (SM), emergency maintenance (EM), preventative maintenance (PM) on uninterruptible power supplies (UPS), start-up projects that included the installation of electrical equipment, and other related service activities. Part of Petitioner's job was to perform PM to catch issues before they became major problems for the customers. Petitioner also performed other field work that included emergency service calls, customer visits, and battery assessments of various UPS units. Respondent's standard CSE's job description6/ included the following areas: primary function, specific functions, dimensions, specialized knowledge, and additional information. In the additional information section, all CSEs had the following "Working Conditions" enumerated: Be able to lift up to 75 lbs Occasional over-night travel may be required Scheduled and unscheduled overtime required 24/7 on call position Petitioner and Brian Irish (Mr. Irish)7/ both agreed that this job description was an accurate description of a CSE's job. Further, Petitioner agreed that, in order "[t]o do 100 percent of the [CSE] job," a person has to be able to lift up to the 75 pounds as required. Petitioner provided a spread sheet to demonstrate his PM activities for 2009. The spread sheet highlighted the seven battery PM jobs that required a battery lift and tray puller8/ in order to perform the service, the 29 battery PM jobs that did not require a battery lift, and the 74 UPS PM jobs that did not require a battery lift. The spread sheet failed to include Petitioner's scheduled maintenance work, the start-up jobs, or any of his EM or emergency work done in 2009. Thus, the spread sheet does not provide a complete picture of Petitioner's 2009 work performance. Petitioner's duties made multiple physical demands of his body: from carrying his tool bag (with various screwdrivers, wrenches, sockets, drills and other assorted items), his laptop computer bag, and safety gear bag to the work site; to sitting on a stool or the floor to hookup his laptop in order to run the requisite diagnostic tests; to moving cabinet doors in order to actually work on the equipment. There were times when Petitioner used a two-wheeled dolly to transport the equipment that he needed to perform his duties.9/ Petitioner routinely carried his computer laptop bag with his laptop computer, some small hand tools, and assorted communication cables to download the UPS information into work sites. He also carried a cordless drill, a charger and/or a back-up battery, a Fluke multi-meter,10/ leads for the meter, various sockets and adapters, a vacuum cleaner (if found to be necessary), a flashlight, a torque wrench (for battery jobs), an infrared gun,11/ and safety gear. Petitioner estimated the weight of the tools he typically used on a job at 14 to 15 pounds. Petitioner also estimated that his laptop bag with the laptop (which was an essential piece of equipment) weighed between 12 to 16 and one-half pounds. Petitioner did not offer a weight on the safety gear bag he was required to use; however, based on the demonstration provided, that gear weighed at least five pounds, if not more.12/ On a routine service call, Petitioner would need to carry at least 26 to 31 pounds of equipment in order to perform the service call. Then he would have to actually perform the required service, which could entail additional physical demands. Petitioner (as well as other CSEs) could remove the outer doors to the UPS cabinets which housed the various battery trays used in the computer system. Petitioner would use the steel toe of his boot to lift the outer door of the cabinet off its hinges. He would then put that edge of the door on the ground, pull his steel-toed boot out, and slide or shift this outer door to a safe location. Petitioner would repeat the process with the second outer door. He would then remove the inner doors ("dead front") in order to perform the required service. The two dead fronts were not as heavy as the outer doors. To replace the outer doors (after replacing the dead fronts), Petitioner would lift the outer door up on one end, place his steel-toed boot under the door edge, then slide or shift this outer door back to the cabinet front, raise the door up, and guide the door back on to its hinges. He would repeat the process with the second outer door. Petitioner had to use his body to physically push, pull, slide, and/or lift and direct the outer doors to their appropriate resting location, as well as back on the hinges. There was credible testimony that these outer cabinet doors to the units that Petitioner serviced can weigh between 26 and 50 pounds per door. Respondent provides leased vehicles to its active CSEs. Such vehicles could include a service van, a mini-van, a truck, or some other large vehicle that is easily adapted to carrying the equipment a CSE uses. CSEs pay approximately $120.00 a month for the unfettered use of the leased vehicle.13/ Petitioner estimated that he used his leased vehicle 90 percent of the time for Respondent's business purposes and only ten percent for personal use. Respondent initially provided Petitioner with a van. At the time he went on STD, Petitioner was driving a leased heavy-duty Dodge Ram truck, with a camper top enclosure. During the calendar work year for 2009, Petitioner met his performance measures and was rated a perfect five on Respondent's performance scale. That high performance evaluation rating is undisputed. Respondent provides merit pay increases to active employees who receive high performance marks for the preceding year. Respondent provides training courses to active employees for them to maintain and/or obtain requisite training on the UPS models being offered at the time. On or about November 19, 2009, while on his honeymoon, Petitioner suffered a back injury. Although Petitioner returned to work in late November, his work schedule for the remainder of 2009 was very light based on the multiple holidays and the difficulty in actually scheduling the various maintenance appointments. Between his return to work in late November 2009 and January 13, 2010, Petitioner only completed two service calls in 2009 and a standby service call.14/ Petitioner was contacted, around Thanksgiving 2009, about a customer wanting "standby service," and no one was available to take the call but Petitioner. Petitioner contacted Robert Costantino (Mr. Costantino), his immediate supervisor, telling him that Petitioner had hurt his back while on his honeymoon, but that Petitioner was willing to take the call. Mr. Costantino, who did not know the specifics of Petitioner's back injury, nor did he have any written medical restrictions regarding Petitioner, cautioned Petitioner "to be very careful." Petitioner completed the standby service call without incident. Sometime in early January 2010, Petitioner again spoke with Mr. Costantino and expressed that he (Petitioner) was not getting any better, that he was in a significant amount of pain, and that it was becoming difficult for him to do the job. Mr. Costantino suggested Petitioner see a doctor. On January 13, 2010, Petitioner was examined by an orthopedic physician. Petitioner provided this orthopedic physician's work status note to Mr. Costantino, who provided it to Respondent's human relations (HR) department. This work status note placed "LIGHT DUTY RESTRICTIONS" on Petitioner's movement for six weeks and limited his "lifting/pushing/pulling" to no more than 25 pounds. This work status note also contained the following directive that, "[i]f light duty is not available with the listed restrictions, the patient is to be temporarily kept off work until the next office visit," which was also six weeks later. After forwarding Petitioner's work status note to Respondent's HR department, Mr. Costantino consulted with the HR personnel. It was determined that it was not safe for Petitioner to continue to work as a CSE. Mr. Costantino contacted Petitioner, expressed concern for his injury, and directed Petitioner to contact Respondent's HR department to file a claim for STD. Mr. Costantino directed Petitioner to cancel his pending service calls for the remainder of January 2010. Although Petitioner contended he could perform PM, or performance checks, Mr. Costantino indicated that Respondent could not allow Petitioner to continue to work based on the belief that the standard job requirements could be detrimental to Petitioner's health. As Petitioner started his STD, he was advised that he could apply for any available positions for which he was qualified on Eatonjobs.com, the internal job website available only to Respondent's employees. Petitioner did not avail himself of this, as he thought it was Respondent's duty to find him a position. Dianne Higgens (Ms. Higgens) was the manager of compensation, employee rehabilitations, and community involvement for Respondent's PQSD until May 2011, when she retired. In April 2010, Ms. Higgens took a special assignment in Respondent's HR department, when that manager went on maternity leave. During her service in the HR department, Ms. Higgens spoke with Petitioner on numerous occasions regarding his disability and the issues he was having with Sedgwick regarding his disability payments. Ms. Higgens had multiple, lengthy telephone conversations with Petitioner. Ms. Higgens's perception during these calls was that Petitioner was in a great deal of pain, as he mentioned that in the majority of their telephone conversations. Ms. Higgens's testimony is found credible. Ms. Higgens authored several letters to Petitioner seeking information regarding his medical condition and/or attempting to secure necessary medical documentation regarding Petitioner's disability and when he could return to work fulltime. Specifically, in November 2010, Ms. Higgens sent Petitioner a letter asking for his physician to complete a return-to-work status form. Petitioner did not initially get that form to Respondent, but did provide it in January 2011. The form indicated Petitioner was to have surgery in February 2011 and would be able to return to work six to eight weeks thereafter.15/ It is appropriate to note that Respondent has in place a return-to-work process for employees who return from either STD or LTD to ensure that their health restrictions or conditions are properly and adequately addressed. Ms. Higgens encouraged Petitioner to search Eatonjobs.com to locate a position that he desired. She offered that, if Petitioner found a job opening that he was interested in, he should apply for it and let her know of his application. She would then contact the appropriate HR person. Petitioner never notified Ms. Higgens of any applications. Further, Ms. Higgens attempted to assist Petitioner in finding work for him within Respondent's organization. For the one possible position that she found in a 50–mile radius from Orlando, Florida, Petitioner could not fulfill the job requirements because he was medically restricted in how much weight he could lift. Respondent did not and does not have permanent or regular light-duty positions. On April 13, 2010, Petitioner was examined by another physician. Petitioner provided this physician's work status note to Respondent. This work status note reflected that Petitioner "MAY NOT return to work," but could return to "regular duty on MAY 13th 2010." Although this work status note indicated Petitioner could return to work on May 13, 2010, Respondent did not receive any physician's directive or release that Petitioner could, in fact, return to work. In fact, Petitioner's condition declined to such an extent that he, on his own volition, started using a cane in June 2010. Further, in a January 4, 2011, letter, yet another physician documented Petitioner's need to use a cane.16/ Towards the end of Petitioner's STD period, Mr. Costantino and Petitioner talked via telephone about possible options for Petitioner to pursue. Petitioner continued to express interest in three types of jobs that he felt he could perform: the administrative job of scheduling PM and other service calls, a triage job, and a technical support job. The first two positions were at a lower salary than Petitioner's CSE position. The technical support job was at a higher salary. All three positions were located in Raleigh, North Carolina. At that time, all three positions were filled with active employees of Respondent and, thus, were unavailable for Petitioner. Mr. Costantino suggested to Petitioner that he search Eatonjobs.com for any open positions. Mr. Costantino also provided Petitioner with the names and contact information for the managers in both Respondent's triage and technical support sections. Petitioner could contact those managers to discuss any openings. Mr. Costantino was unaware of any contact by Petitioner with those managers. Mr. Costantino told Petitioner he could not attend Respondent's training classes because he was on disability leave, and there was a possibility that Petitioner could jeopardize his disability benefits if he participated in some compensable activity for Respondent. Mr. Costantino also discussed the 2009 merit increase award with Petitioner. Respondent's stated policy is that, in order to receive a merit increase award, the employee must be an active employee at the time the merit increase award is effective. Respondent's company-wide 2009 merit increase award was not effectuated until July 2010. As set forth in Respondent's Merit Planning User Guide, employees who are "on a leave of absence (LOA) cannot be planned for during the merit [award] planning process, unless they return to work before the plan cycle is over." Thus, Petitioner did not qualify for the merit raise in 2010, as he was either on STD or LTD at that time. There was credible testimony that, once Petitioner returned to work for Respondent, he would receive that merit increase award, not retroactively, but moving forward. In late summer of 2010, Mr. Costantino discussed Respondent's leased truck usage with Petitioner. As Petitioner was out on LTD, he was not actively working for Respondent, and he did not need the leased vehicle. Following his previously- scheduled vacation trip in 2010, Petitioner returned the leased truck to Mr. Costantino. When he returned Respondent's leased truck, Petitioner obtained a motorcycle for transportation. Mr. Leung is a CSE from Respondent's Northeast 9 region, specifically working in three New York boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan. Mr. Leung sustained two hand injuries, a fractured wrist in 2007 and a severely burnt right hand in 2008. Following his fractured wrist in 2007, Mr. Leung was put on LTD because he had to undergo surgery. Mr. Leung was out of work a couple of months; however, he sufficiently recovered and returned to his regular CSE duties. In March 2008, Mr. Leung suffered second-degree burns to his right hand while he was working for Respondent at St. Peter's Hospital. He was initially treated at St. Peter's Emergency Room, but was later transferred to a different hospital that had a burn unit. Mr. Leung received instruction on his hand bandaging/care and was told to return to the hospital for care. He thinks he had his hand in a bandage/dressing for a month. Mr. Leung thinks he was placed on workers' compensation following this accident. Exactly what treatments or job-related activities Mr. Leung performed following his 2007 and 2008 hand injuries are suspect as his memory of these activities was unclear.17/ Petitioner would have one believe that a burnt hand injury is equivalent to an injured back. The undersigned cannot agree. Petitioner attempted to demonstrate that, following Mr. Leung's 2008 hand injury, he participated in Respondent- sanctioned training and work duties. While it appears that Mr. Leung did participate in some training and work for Respondent, the extent to which he trained or worked was not clearly addressed to establish that Respondent provided Mr. Leung with a position different than his CSE duties. Additionally, Mr. Leung's 2008 circumstance is unhelpful in Petitioner's cause as no testimony was offered regarding the similarities or differences between the workers' compensation program Mr. Leung thinks he was engaged in and the STD or LTD programs in which Petitioner participated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding Eaton Corporation not guilty of the alleged unlawful discriminatory employment practices alleged by James Patrick Overly, II, and dismissing his Petition for Relief in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 24th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Operation Par, Inc. (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Lydia Breedlove (Petitioner), on the basis of handicap.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the definition of chapter 760. Respondent operates prevention, intervention, and treatment programs for individuals who are addicted to, or are at risk of addiction to alcohol, drugs, or other substances. Petitioner was employed by Respondent on or about October 27, 2003, and was assigned to different duties within Respondent’s business organization. Petitioner worked on Respondent’s Emergency Response Team (ERT) in 2008. Work with the ERT required Petitioner to travel to clients’ homes and conduct interviews and evaluations. Subsequent to her assignment with ERT, Petitioner voluntarily transferred to the Cornerstone of Success and Achievement (COSA) program. The COSA assignment did not require travel, and allowed Petitioner to be stationed within an office setting. During her time with ERT, Petitioner was counseling at a client’s home when she fell ill and was unable to continue her assignment. From the client’s home, Petitioner was transported to the hospital, and was absent from work from April 14, 2008, through May 19, 2008. Petitioner used her sick leave or personal leave time for this absence. Petitioner obtained a medical excuse for the absence and was able to return to work after the incident described above. In October 2008, Petitioner again fell ill and missed two days of work. Following this absence, Petitioner obtained a doctor’s excuse that allowed her to return to work. It was following the October illness that Petitioner sought and was given a transfer to the COSA program. Petitioner hoped that the COSA program would better suit her medical issues. Shortly after the assignment to COSA, Petitioner again fell ill, and was hospitalized and placed in an intensive care unit (ICU). During this time, Petitioner was not able to perform her work duties. Because she was to be out of work for an extended time, Respondent facilitated Petitioner going on FMLA leave. Because she exercised this option, Petitioner was allowed twelve weeks of leave to afford her an opportunity to regain her health. Petitioner attempted to return to work in February 2009, but once again fell ill. This time Petitioner was hospitalized and unable to perform her work duties. From February 6, 2009, until February 20, 2009, Petitioner did not contact Respondent to explain the latest round of illness. Petitioner was unable to perform her work duties during this time and could not obtain a doctor’s excuse to return to work. During the February illness, Petitioner did not seek an accommodation that would allow Petitioner to return to work. In fact, as of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was unable to work. Subsequently, Respondent facilitated obtaining disability benefits for Petitioner. The company health and life insurance plans allowed Petitioner to continue her life insurance at no cost, and allowed her to receive approximately 60 percent of her wages while she was unable to work. Later, Petitioner also qualified for and received Social Security disability benefits. Petitioner became upset because Respondent terminated her employment with the company on or about February 20, 2009. Petitioner’s life insurance and disability benefits were not terminated. As Petitioner was unable to perform her job duties, Respondent was obligated to employ someone who could get Petitioner’s work assignments completed. Respondent considered Petitioner a valued employee, and had she been able to return to work, she would have been allowed to do so. Regrettably, Petitioner’s health did not permit her to return. Should Petitioner become able to work, Respondent would be willing to consider her for future employment. Petitioner’s job with Respondent required that she engage in interpersonal relations. Further, given the nature of the job programs, Petitioner’s work required that she handle stressful situations. According to her disability claim, Petitioner is unable to handle stress. Additionally, Petitioner’s physician verified that she is unable to return to work due to the stressful nature of the work, and her need for rehabilitation. Petitioner’s medical condition caused her to be limited in the scope of activities she can perform. Petitioner mistakenly believed Respondent was not interested in helping her when, in fact, the company assisted in the procurement of benefits for Petitioner. Petitioner may apply for a job with Respondent whenever she is able to return to work. To date, she is not able to do so. Respondent’s programs (ERT and COSA) were negatively impacted by the shortage of support when Petitioner was not able to work. The best interests of the company and its clients required that an employee who could perform the work be placed in the job. Petitioner claimed that the assignment to COSA negatively impacted her health; however, such assertion is not supported by medical evidence. It was Petitioner’s conjecture that the assignment to the COSA site caused her subsequent illness, because she had to work in a converted garage with only a space heater for heat. The latter claim is not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Finally, it is determined that Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment based upon the company’s need to complete work assignments that were critical to the business operations of the entity. Petitioner timely filed a complaint with the FCHR, and alleged that her termination by Respondent was based upon her disability. Respondent articulated and proved business considerations that required the termination. Such considerations were not a pretext for an otherwise impermissible act. Further, Respondent did not terminate Petitioner’s employment in retaliation for Petitioner’s use of FMLA leave, or because she alleged the work environment contributed to her medical condition. To the contrary, Respondent assisted Petitioner in claiming FMLA leave so that she could document her extended absences from work. Respondent allowed Petitioner to return to work on every occasion she presented a doctor’s excuse for her absence. Petitioner was not able to perform her work duties at the time of the termination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s claim against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esquire 625 East Twiggs Street, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cynthia Lee May, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 625 East Twiggs Street, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lydia Breedlove 305 Belleair Place Clearwater, Florida 33756 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Solutia, Inc., discriminated against the Petitioner Darlene Fitzgerald, by allegedly denying her employment because of her hearing impairment. Embodied within that general issue is the question of whether, under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and other relevant law, the Respondent is an "employer"; whether the Petitioner is handicapped or disabled; whether the Petitioner is qualified for the position for which she applied; whether the Petitioner requested a reasonable accommodation from the alleged employer; whether the Petitioner suffered an adverse employment decision because of a disability; and whether the Petitioner has damages, their extent, and whether the Petitioner properly mitigated any damages.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darlene Fitzgerald, is a 34-year-old woman who alleges that she applied for a "carpet walker" position with either the Respondent or "AmStaff" in March 1998. The Respondent, Solutia, Inc. (Solutia), is a company which owned and operates a manufacturing plant that manufactures fibers and carpet in Escambia County, Florida. A number of independent contractors operate at the Solutia plant, performing certain phases of the manufacture and related services and operations there, including "AmStaff" and "Landrum." AmStaff is a contractor which operates a tire yarn plant and a Kraft plant at the Solutia facility. AmStaff hires its own employees to work in its operations at the Solutia plant. It is solely responsible for all hiring, counseling, disciplinary and termination decisions concerning its employees. AmStaff has its own payroll, does the Social Security withholdings for its employees, pays workers' compensation premiums on its employees and provides retirement benefits to its employees. Landrum is a staff leasing company which is responsible for certain jobs at the Solutia plant, including carpet walkers. Landrum is solely responsible for all of its hiring, counseling, disciplinary and termination decisions concerning its employees. Landrum has its own payroll, does its own Social Security withholdings for its employees and pays workers' compensation premiums on its employees. A carpet walker is a person who tests carpet for wear and tear. A carpet walker is required to work 40 hours per week and to walk approximately 18 miles a day testing carpet. Neither Solutia nor AmStaff employs carpet walkers. The Petitioner has never been to Solutia's facility or offices and has never gone out to the Solutia plant to apply for a job. She has had no contact with anyone representing or employed by Solutia concerning a job. All of the Petitioner's contacts concerning employment in March 1998, were with either AmStaff or Landrum. The Petitioner testified that she saw a newspaper ad that AmStaff was taking job applications, but never produced a copy of that ad. The Petitioner went to AmStaff to fill out an employment application. AmStaff's office is not at the Respondent Solutia's plant. The Petitioner gave conflicting testimony as to the date she allegedly applied with AmStaff for a carpet walker position. First, she testified that she applied for the position on March 15, 1998, which was a Sunday. After that was established by the Respondent, as well as the fact that AmStaff was closed on Sundays, the Petitioner then maintained that she applied for the carpet walker position on March 19, 1998. This date is incorrect, however, as evidenced by Respondent's Exhibit two in evidence, which is AmStaff's "notification of testing." According to the Petitioner the company name printed on the employment application she filled out was AmStaff. The Petitioner was then scheduled for testing by AmStaff on March 12, 1998, at Job Service of Florida (Job Service). The notification of testing clearly indicates that the Petitioner applied for a job with AmStaff. While at the Job Service, the Petitioner spoke with an individual named Martha Wyse. The Petitioner and Robin Steed (an interpreter who accompanied the Petitioner to the job service site), met Martha Wyse, who never identified her employer. Subsequent testimony established that Martha Wyse was AmStaff's recruiting coordinator. Martha Wyse has never been employed at Solutia nor did she ever identify herself as being employed by Solutia. All applicants with AmStaff must be able to meet certain physical requirements, including, but not limited to pushing and pulling buggies weighing 240 to 1,080 pounds; lifting 50 to 75 pound fiber bags, lifting 60 pound boxes, stacking and pouring 55 pound bags and working indoors in temperatures of up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The Petitioner admitted that she could not push or pull buggies weighing 240 pounds; could not lift 50 to 75 pound fiber bags, could not lift 60 pound boxes nor stack and pour 55 pound bags or work indoors in temperatures in the range of 100 degrees. Additionally, the Petitioner admitted that her obstetrician and gynecologist had restricted her, in March 1998, to no lifting or pushing. On September 24, 1998, the Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident. Her doctors restricted her to lifting no more than 25 to 30 pounds as a result of the injuries sustained in the automobile accident. Because of the injuries sustained in the automobile accident, the Petitioner was unable to work and applied for Social Security disability. Apparently she was granted Social Security disability with attendant benefits. AmStaff employees must work around very loud machinery. There is noise from the machines themselves, combined with that of the air conditioning equipment. Horns blow signaling that forklift trucks are moving through the employment area. The machinery also emits a series of beeps that are codes to let employees know to do different things at different times regarding the machinery. Although the Petitioner stated that she had no restrictions concerning her hearing and could hear everything with the help of her hearing aid, she also stated that she could not stand loud noises generated by machines. In addition to the physical requirements, AmStaff employees were required to work rotating shifts. The employees had to rotate between a 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., shift and a 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., shift. The Petitioner did not want to work from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Additionally, AmStaff's employees were required to work 36-hour weeks followed by 42-hour weeks on alternating week schedules. The Petitioner did not want to work more than 20-hours per week in 1998, and in particular the months of April through September 1998. She did not want to work more than 20-hours per week, as she did not want to endanger her Social Security income benefits or have them reduced. Landrum did not have an opening for a carpet walker position at the time the Petitioner allegedly applied for that position. The Petitioner did not ask AmStaff or Landrum for any disability accommodations. If an employee is not entirely aware of the sounds and signals emanating from a plant and the machinery within the plant, that employee cannot respond immediately or accurately to situations that may cause problems with the machinery and ultimately could cause injury to the employee or to other employees. If a bobbin is not seated properly on a machine, for example, the machine will begin to produce a clanking noise. If the noise is not heard by the operating employee and the bobbin is not re-seated properly it can become detached from the machine and be thrown by the force of the machine potentially striking either the operator or anyone who happens to be moving through the machine aisle nearby at the time. Further, there are over 300 alarm boxes throughout the plant. These alarms are used in emergency situations. The alarms indicate the type of emergency, the location of the emergency and its severity. There are different types of warnings for vapor clouds and evacuations. All warnings come through that alarm system. An employee must listen for the type of sound or blast, the number of sounds or blasts and the sequence of the sounds or blasts in order to determine the type of emergency and to know how to react to it. The Petitioner was unemployed from September 24, 1998 until April 2000, when she became employed at Walmart. She left her employment at Walmart in July of 2000. After leaving Walmart the Petitioner has not been employed and has not looked for work. She apparently worked at Popeye's Fried Chicken for an undetermined period of time after March 1998. From April to September of 1998, she voluntarily restricted her work to no more than 20-hours per week in order to keep from reducing her Social Security disability benefits.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Danny L. Kepner, Esquire Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, P.A. 226 South Palafox Street, Ninth Floor Pensacola, Florida 32501 Erick M. Drlicka, Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice, specifically whether Respondent failed to accommodate Petitioner's alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Dollar General in December 2006 as the second shift Human Resources (HR) Representative I for Dollar General's Alachua Distribution Center. As the second shift HR Representative I, part of Petitioner's responsibilities was to interact with the employees who worked on the second shift. Petitioner's immediate supervisor throughout her employment was Donna Myers, Senior Human Resource Manager. Ms. Myers interviewed and hired Petitioner. Petitioner's job as a HR Representative required her to conduct interviews, drug tests, participate in committees, interact with employees, transfer employees, and other employee- related duties. Petitioner was qualified for the position as HR Representative, having a master's degree in human resources management. Some concern existed among management as to whether Petitioner could be as effective in her job if she were to use a golf cart. The concern was whether she would be less approachable by employees when driving around rather than walking up to the areas where they worked. Since there was an "open door" policy for employees to approach Petitioner, she could always meet them in her office if they had enough time during a break. Company policy dictates that at least 10 percent of the HR Representative's time should be spent "walking the floor." Petitioner understood the walking requirement to be at least an hour per shift. Dollar General maintains and enforces an Anti- Discrimination and Harassment Policy, which prohibits, among other things, discrimination based on an employee's disability. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy also contains a provision which provides, in pertinent part, that it intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy includes a procedure that allows and urges any employee who believes that that he or she is the subject of or has been the subject of discrimination to report the alleged discrimination by contacting a toll-free number. Ms. McIntosh was an employee of Dollar General, was aware of Dollar General's policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the workplace based on disability, and acknowledged receipt of Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy applies to all employees. As an employee, Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy applied to Ms. McIntosh. All of Dollar General's management team, who testified at hearing, were aware of the company's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy instructs employees to speak with their supervisor or to call the Employee Response Center to request an accommodation or report any type of discrimination. Ms. McIntosh took medical leave in October 2007. In the October 25, 2007, certification for her medical leave, Ms. McIntosh's treating physician estimated that the probable duration of her condition was one to two weeks. Further, in the November 15, 2007, recertification, Ms. McIntosh's physician estimated that the probable duration of her condition was two to three months. Effective November 24, 2007, Ms. McIntosh's physician released her to return to work without any restrictions. The release does not indicate that Ms. McIntosh was unable to climb stairs or walk for extended periods of time. Ms. McIntosh was physically able to do her job when she returned from medical leave. Ms. McIntosh identified the disabilities for which she requested accommodations as arthritis in hips and knees, a dislocated disk, and a pinched nerve. Ms. McIntosh claims that her disabilities limited her ability to walk, stand, and climb stairs. Petitioner recalls making her first request for an accommodation to her direct supervisor, Donna Myers, to use the golf cart to tour the million-square-foot facility, and to be excused from climbing in September 2007 after being diagnosed with arthritis in her hips and knees. Petitioner reports being told that the golf carts were no longer allowed for use by HR personnel. Ms. Myers denied this exchange taking place, and testified that the golf cart was available for Petitioner's use at any time. Robert Barnes, the distribution center manager, confirmed Petitioner's understanding that the designated HR golf cart was no longer used in HR. Petitioner also reported her October 2007 injury to Ms. Myers. Petitioner was even seen at the emergency room by Mr. Barnes. The medical leave paperwork was submitted to Ms. Myers by Petitioner. Dollar General had knowledge of Petitioner's injuries and medical condition. Upon her return to work in December 2007, Petitioner again asked Ms. Myers about using the golf cart and decreasing the amount of time she was required to spend on the floor of the distribution center. This request was denied. Again, Ms. Myers denied that this exchange took place between Petitioner and her. Petitioner began to use a cane or walking stick to help her get around the distribution center. Ms. Myers acknowledged seeing Petitioner walking with aid of the stick. Petitioner is firm in her testimony that she informed her supervisor and others up the chain of command of her condition and her need for an accommodation. Nevertheless, Ms. Myers denies that Ms. McIntosh asked to use a golf cart, to be relieved of her responsibility to walk the facility to interact with employees, or to be excused from walking up and down the stairs to meet with employees. A series of correspondence and emails supports Petitioner's claim that Dollar General's management was aware on some level of the seriousness of her physical limitations. Medical records that were submitted to Ms. Myers in October 2007 by Petitioner describe her knee pain and inability to walk up stairs. Those records estimate two weeks before Petitioner's return to work. The October medical report led to a November 9, 2007, letter from Ms. Myers to Petitioner requesting an updated medical certification. Petitioner complied and provided a medical certification showing the knee injury to be more serious than first thought and accompanied by a herniated disc. This report evidenced a return to work time of two to three months after physical therapy and additional diagnostic procedures. Finally, Dollar General received a Fitness for Duty form from Petitioner's health care provider stating a return to work date of November 24, 2007. Petitioner convinced her physician to clear her for work under the belief she had to be qualified at 100 percent in order to return. Prior to raising the issue of her medical condition, Petitioner had a stormy relationship, at times, with her supervisor, Ms. Myers. An exchange of emails occurred in March and April of 2007 between Petitioner and Mr. Harbison detailing Petitioner's issues with Ms. Myers. Petitioner did not ask Mr. Harbison, who was in her direct chain of command, to modify the responsibilities of her job in any way, nor did she mention -– until her suspension in March 2008 -– that she allegedly requested and was denied a reasonable accommodation. Petitioner did not call Dollar General's Employee Response Center to request an accommodation for her medical condition. Petitioner believed that hotline to be only for hourly employees, although Dollar General's written policies did not dictate any such restriction. When Petitioner returned to work in December 2007 after receiving treatment for her knee and back injuries, she experienced difficulties in standing for extended periods, in walking, and in climbing stairs. The pain she experienced was intense when engaging in any of these activities. She was able, despite the pain, to perform tasks of daily living, such as bathing and dressing herself, which allowed her to go to work. In addition to not being permitted to use the golf cart to perform her job, Petitioner had a broken chair in her office which made it more difficult for her to get relief when she was not walking the distribution center floor. She was first able to get a chair from the office next door to hers, and then Mr. Arrendell allowed her to bring in a chair from the conference room. Petitioner recalls many instances of interaction with her supervisors and managers about her physical limitations, including discussions about her inability to walk in a Christmas parade and her inability to stand up without leaning against a wall during a staff presentation she made. Dollar General's witnesses were not able to recall the substance of these interactions, except for remembering that Petitioner had an issue of some sort regarding the parade. Petitioner was suspended in early March 2008, pending an investigation, and her employment was ultimately terminated on March 11, 2008, for conduct unbecoming of an HR professional. No evidence was produced at hearing as to the circumstances leading to her dismissal. Petitioner did not have surgery related to her back or knee conditions until after she left the employ of Dollar General. She received pain management until she had surgery on her back. She received a consultation for her knee injury, but never had surgery performed. Upon leaving her employment, she had no insurance to cover her medical bills. The medical bills amounted to approximately $200,000, with the hospital bill for her surgery being $106,000 by itself. Petitioner has suffered financial losses which led her to borrow money for food, for her electric bill, losing her truck, losing her home insurance, and becoming three months behind on her mortgage. Petitioner has suffered emotionally as well. She suffers anxiety attacks and has had suicidal thoughts. Petitioner tried to return to work after leaving Dollar General. She secured a manager's job with Cato, a women's fashion store. The job did not require any heavy lifting or climbing of stairs. Her salary there was approximately half of her $43,000 salary at Dollar General. She worked at Cato for less than six months, earning gross pay of $11,600. She left when she suffered pain that required a trip to the emergency room which resulted in her having her back surgery. She did not return to work at Cato. Petitioner's only other earnings after leaving Dollar General were unemployment compensation benefits of $498 every two weeks, plus a $25 bonus from the federal stimulus package. Petitioner could have performed the essential functions of her employment if a reasonable accommodation had been made for her physical limitations. Dollar General has made accommodations for employees with physical limitations in the past, generally in the context of a workers' compensation injury.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred; that Respondent should have provided a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner's disability; awarding attorney's fees to Petitioner in accordance with a Title VII action and costs; and such other relief as the Commission shall deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Melanie A. Mucario, Esquire Mucario, McHugh & Dowdel, PLLC Post Office Box 781847 Orlando, Florida 32878-1847 Alva Cross Hughes, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602 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 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
