Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a laundry attendant in the Laundry Department. Petitioner was hired originally as a cashier in one of the restaurants but was transferred shortly thereafter. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from June 1990 through June 14,1994. Petitioner is a female Hispanic American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner was born and raised in Puerto Rico and her first language is Spanish. Although she has lived and worked in the United States since 1979 and speaks English well, her reading and writing skills in English are not well developed. On June 25, 1990, as part of the application process, Petitioner was given a medical questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire contained 25 questions relating to Petitioner's past and present physical condition. Question 23 reads: "Have you ever had any occupational disease or serious injury resulting in a worker's compensation claim?". Petitioner checked "no". Question 24 reads: "Have you had any other serious accidental injuries?". Petitioner checked "yes" and explained "arm operation". Petitioner misread question no. 23. She thought that the question was asking if she was receiving worker's compensation benefits at that time, which she was not. She did not ask for assistance in completing the questionnaire because she believed that she had read and understood the questions correctly. Petitioner did receive worker's compensation benefits for an elbow injury which occurred in 1984. During her four year employment at the Dolphin Hotel, Petitioner had several supervisors who rated her work performance as average/satisfactory in her annual performance review. During her employment, her pay had been increased for a starting salary of $5.65 per hour to approximately $6.75 per hour, plus overtime. At the time of her termination, Petitioner's job performance was rated as good by her immediate supervisor On June 9, 1994, it came to the attention of the Respondent's Human Resources Department that Petitioner had filed a claim and received worker's compensation benefits in the early 1980's and had not acknowledged it on her application. Following a conference between Petitioner and Human Resources personnel, Respondent made a determination that Petitioner had falsified information on her employment application. She was terminated on June 14, 1994. Respondent's policy is that falsification of records is an offense which requires termination of the employee. There are no exceptions. Over the four year period, 1990-1994, Respondent determined that between 12 and 15 employees had falsified information on their employment application and all had been terminated. Petitioner failed to prove, as she alleged, that the real reason for her termination was due to her speaking Spanish with other co-workers while on the job. Respondent demonstrated that of the 45 people working in Petitioner's department most were minorities, including 20 who were Hispanic including Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Respondent's stated reasons for its decision to terminate Petitioner were not proven to be pretextual.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Armida Ramos 181 La Paz Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Carl Maada Division of Labor Relations Walt Disney World Dolphin Hotel 1500 Epcot Resort Boulevard Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Age Discrimination Petitioner, Ila Sharpe, was employed by FCHR from June 28, 2002, until February 6, 2006. Regina Owens is the housing investigations manager for FCHR. In approximately May 2004, Ms. Owens hired Petitioner into the housing unit upon the suggestion of the deputy director, Nina Singleton. Ms. Owens placed Petitioner in a vacant Senior Clerk position under her supervision in the housing unit. At the time, Ms. Owens became Petitioner’s supervisor, Ms. Owens was 51 years old. Petitioner was approximately 50 years old at that time. After Petitioner was in the Senior Clerk position for six or seven months, Ms. Owens promoted Petitioner to the position of Investigation Specialist I. Ms. Owens waived the requirements of a college degree and investigative writing experience for this new position, because Petitioner already worked for FCHR and had expressed an interest in moving up. The Investigator Specialist I position is a Selected Exempt Service position which included investigating cases, as well as “intake” duties. Ms. Owens explained to Petitioner that she would be doing investigations after about four months on the job. Petitioner was promoted to this position in January 2005. Ms. Owens sent Petitioner to Washington D.C. for training on three occasions in 2005: February, June, and December. Each training session lasted about a week and was conducted by the National Fair Housing Training Academy. After attending the February week-long training session, Petitioner continued to perform solely “intake” duties. Following the February training, Ms. Owens asked Petitioner if she was ready to take on an investigative caseload. Petitioner indicated that she was not ready to do so at that time. After Petitioner attended the June 2005, training session, Ms. Owens again spoke to Petitioner and determined that Petitioner was still not ready to take on investigative duties, although she had been in the position more than four months. In September 2005, Ms. Owens had e-mail communications with Petitioner, which gave her cause for concern that Petitioner might not know the answers to matters on which she had received training. In particular, Ms. Owens was concerned that Petitioner’s e-mail responses to her indicated that Petitioner was confused as to whom an investigator should be dealing with in a particular situation. Petitioner attended the third week-long training session in December 2005. After a discussion with Petitioner, Ms. Owens was still concerned about Petitioner’s reluctance to take on investigative duties despite her training and length of time on the job. Petitioner had been in the investigator specialist position for nearly a year but never investigated a case. In late December 2005, Ms. Owens developed a test for employees of the housing unit. The purpose of the test was to test employees’ working knowledge of the HUD manual and research skills in using the manual, specifically regarding the intake process. The “Housing Unit Intake Test” was based on the HUD manual, which is the book that all investigators have and use. The test was similar to the test the investigators had to take in Washington during training. The test developed by Ms. Owens is now given to all new investigators during their training. On January 5, 2006, Petitioner was first given the test using a “closed book” administration. The test pertained to the HUD manual materials, and Petitioner was given an hour to complete the closed book test. The purpose of the closed book administration was to assess the employee’s working knowledge of the subject matter. Petitioner scored ten correct answers out of 34 test questions. On January 6, 2006, Ms. Owens again gave Petitioner the same test questions. However, this second administration of the test was “open book” with two hours allowed to take the test. The open book administration was designed to assess the employee’s ability to do research, find the answers in the HUD manual, and to answer the questions correctly. Petitioner scored 11 correct answers out of 34 test questions. Also on January 6, 2006, Ms. Owens administered the same test to investigation specialist Julina Dolce. Ms. Dolce’s score on the closed book test is unclear from the record. However, on the open book test, Ms. Dolce received a score of 27 correct answers out of 34 test questions. After taking the test, Petitioner spoke to Ms. Dolce about what was on the test. However, there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Owens was aware that Ms. Dolce had a “heads up” on the test content prior to taking the test. The test was also given to Marshetta Smith on January 6, 2006. At the time she took the test, Ms. Smith was a senior clerk who did not do much intake work, and was approximately 30 years old at the time. While not an investigator, Ms. Smith was given the test to assess her working knowledge and research skills for potential upward mobility. Ms. Smith had 11 correct answers out of 34 test questions. Ms. Smith has since been terminated from employment with Respondent. About two weeks after administering the first test, Ms. Owens administered a different test, the “55+ exam”, which pertained to housing regulations for older persons. Petitioner scored 14 correct answers out of 20 test questions on the closed book administration and 16 correct answers out of 20 test questions on the open book administration of the test. Based upon her reluctance to take on an investigative caseload and upon her poor performance on the intake test, it was determined that Petitioner would be demoted to a senior clerk position. A meeting was held on January 26, 2006, with Ms. Owens, Petitioner, and the human resources manager, informing Petitioner of the intended demotion to be effective February 10, 2006. On January 30, 2006, Petitioner submitted her letter of resignation to Ms. Owens effective February 6, 2006. Her resignation was accepted, effective the close of business February 6, 2006. Consequently, the demotion did not take place as Petitioner resigned from employment with Respondent prior to the effective date of the intended demotion. After Petitioner’s resignation, Respondent moved Ms. Dolce into Petitioner’s position of investigation specialist. At that time, Ms. Dolce was 31 years old. While making a vague assertion that Ms. Owens made innuendos regarding younger people “some time ago”, Petitioner acknowledged that Ms. Owens never said anything derogatory to Petitioner about her age. Sherry Taylor began working at FCHR in 1999 as a senior clerk. She moved into an investigator position in April 2000. When Ms. Owens came into the housing unit in 2004, Ms. Taylor was an investigator II. Ms. Taylor was demoted in the fall of 2006 to an investigator I because the quality of her work “went downhill." At the time of her demotion, Ms. Taylor was 30 years old. There is no competent evidence that FCHR used age as a criterion in its decision to demote Petitioner. Timeliness Petitioner sent a document entitled “Technical Assistance Questionnaire for Employment Complaints” to the EEO Office, which alleged that she had been discriminated against by FCHR on the basis of her age. The fax cover sheet shows a date of January 19, 2007, but no “received” stamp appears on the document. The document included a request from Petitioner that the “complaint” not be forwarded to FCHR for investigation. Despite this request, the EEO office forwarded the completed questionnaire to FCHR on January 31, 2007. This date is confirmed by the date stamp indicating receipt, as well as the fax transmittal notation at the top of each page. However, the investigation was conducted by the EEO Office. The Determination: No Cause dated July 30, 2007, issued by FCHR to Petitioner states in part that “the timeliness and all jurisdictional requirements have been met.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2008.
The Issue Is the Petitioner handicapped? Was the Petitioner capable of performing her duties satisfactorily? Did Respondent take adverse personnel actions against the Respondent? Were the adverse personnel actions which were taken against the Petitioner based upon her disability? Did the Respondent have a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for taking the adverse actions against Petitioner? Were the reasons articulated by the Respondent pretextual? Did the Respondent provide reasonable accommodations for the Petitioner? To what relief is the Petitioner entitled if she prevails? Are the Petitioner's rights limited by her status as a non-tenured employee on annual contract status? Is the Petitioner entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys fees?
Findings Of Fact Dr. Tony Mason was employed by the School Board of Leon County, Florida, as the Coordinator for Diagnostic Services on January 2, 1986. As is done with all employees of the School Board, she was recommended for employment by the board by her immediate supervisor, Dr. Ruth Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell supervised from four to six coordinators of units similar to the Diagnostic Services during Petitioner's tenure with the Respondent. Each of these units was headed by an individual who was not handicapped and who had an educational background similar to that of the Petitioner. The position requirements for the position of Coordinator for Diagnosis Services were a background in physiology, social work, or a related field as well as educational and administrative background or experience. Dr. Mason holds the following degrees: Bachelor of Arts and Social Studies, English and Speech, Masters Degree in Counselling and Physiology, a doctorate in Administration and Supervision, and an Educational Specialist degree. She was employed by the U. S. Department of Education for several years in an administrative capacity. The Petitioner was well qualified for the position of Coordinator of Diagnostic Services Unit. At the time the Petitioner was hired she was handicapped. Her primary impairment is cerebral palsy. The Petitioner has suffered from this condition since the age of three. This condition is readily apparent from talking with and observing the Petitioner. The Petitioner also has had a partial gastrectomy. This latter condition is not observable. During her employment, she advised her supervisor, Dr. Mitchell, of the nature, symptoms, and problems associated with both conditions. Both impairments significantly limit Petitioner's major life activities. Cerebral palsy, a neuromuscular disease, impedes Petitioner's ability to walk, and causes her to speak slowly. In addition, her speech is distorted although very understandable. A partial gastrectomy is a surgical removal of a portion of one's stomach. Both of the Petitioner's disabilities are negatively impacted by extreme stress. Extreme stress causes the Petitioner's muscles to contract and lock causing intense pain. Inordinate stress causes the Petitioner to "dump" requiring her to go to the nearest restroom as quickly as she can. Both the Petitioner's disabilities are not affected by normal, everyday stress. There was no evidence presented that the Petitioner's disabilities in any way impaired her intellectual capacity or mental abilities. The Petitioner had never been terminated or asked to resign from any position prior to working for the Respondent. While working for the Federal Department of Education and completing her doctorate in 13 months, both of which are stressful activities, the Petitioner did not suffer stress induced impacts on her disabilities. The Petitioner performed the duties of Coordinator for Diagnostic Services for almost two years without difficulty. As Coordinator for Diagnostic Services, Dr. Mason was responsible for the administration of this unit which employed eight social workers and ten physiologists. They were responsible for testing students within the school district and preparing reports based upon their testing to determine the eligibility of the students for participation in various educational programs. The Diagnosis Services Unit (DSU) also employed two secretaries and, at various times during the Petitioner's employment, additional interns and part-time employees. The Petitioner was also responsible for preparing staff papers on matters related to Diagnosis Services for presentation to the School Board together with budget requests, schedules, preparations of grants, and other special reports which were from time to time requested by the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, or Petitioner's immediate supervisor. To assist her in the preparation of these reports, the Petitioner was initially assigned a secretary. This secretary also filed the unit's paperwork and generally assisted the Petitioner. The work load of the DSU was consistently high as the unit was responsible for evaluating approximately 2,000 students each year. There has been a steady increase in the work load of the DSU since 1976, and the work load continued to increase through the period of the Petitioner's tenure at the DSU and thereafter. The DSU had suffered from high work load and limited resources prior to and during the Petitioner's employment in the unit. A psychologist working in the unit testified that she suffered severe depression as a result of the stress created by the workload in the Unit. For assistance in preparing reports, the DSU could send draft reports to the word processing unit. However, the word processing unit was slow and not suited to the particular needs of the DSU because the word processing personnel were not familiar with the technical terminology used in the psychological and social work reports, and did not accurately transcribe the material which the DSU sent to them. This resulted in reports having to be returned to the word processing center for corrections. Because the Petitioner's unit was only third in order of priority for using the word processing center, the DSU's turn-around time was lengthy. One school psychologist had to wait an entire summer to receive materials she had sent to the word processing center, and then found it necessary to return them for corrections. The lack of adequate secretarial support adversely impacted the work of the DSU and the Petitioner's personal performance. Dr. Mitchell, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, forbade the Petitioner to use her secretary for typing Petitioner's written reports because of the backlog in the unit. The Petitioner was forced to print her own work by hand. This was slow and adversely affected by her disability. Because the Petitioner could not use the secretaries who were assigned to and physically located in her unit, the Petitioner had to walk to the word processing center, where obstructions and uneven steps in the area of the unit's office made Petitioner's walking more difficult. This caused further delay. The practice of assigning short suspense projects made the absence of adequate secretarial support worse. The Petitioner paid for secretarial services to prepare various reports for the Respondent paying in one year over $900.00 for secretarial support to meet the demands of her job. The Petitioner made verbal requests for a secretary to her supervisor, Dr. Mitchell, and these requests were denied. The Petitioner made requests to the Superintendent and other members of the School Board Staff, and caused a letter to be written by her physician to the Board explaining the need for secretarial assistance as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Although the Respondent denies that Petitioner made a request for a secretary as a reasonable accommodation for her disability, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, a memorandum to William Wolley from the Petitioner dated May 4, 1989, which specifically addressed other issues references the aforementioned physician's letter as follows: There is also a letter from a physician earlier relative to that issue in requesting some reasonable accommodation in terms of secretarial assistance that was an attempt to get my Secretary III reinstated . . . [.] The Respondent never assigned a secretary to assist the Petitioner in doing her work although the timeliness of the Petitioner's work was the primary complaint regarding the Petitioner. The school board's yearly payroll was in excess of $110 million. The salary for a secretary varied between $15,000 and $20,000 a year. At the time of Petitioner's employment, the Petitioner walked without the use of a walker although she walked slowly and with some difficulty. The Petitioner wanted to postpone using a walker to assist her in walking because use of a walker causes certain muscles to become dysfunctional and atrophied. Although the Petitioner had a walker in her office restroom and in her car, she avoided use of a walker wherever possible because, as stated above, they can cause the muscles to become dysfunctional, and because they can cause the individual to trip by catching on the uneven surfaces. In late spring or summer of 1988, Dr. Mitchell, the Petitioner's supervisor, told the Petitioner that she wanted the Petitioner to use a walker around the office complex. Dr. Mitchell made the Petitioner's use of a walker a condition of continued employment after Petitioner fell outside the Board's offices when she tripped over an uneven joint in the sidewalk and landed on a piece of broken curbing. A coworker, who is an R.N., was aware of how Petitioner felt about being asked to use a walker and explained to Dr. Mitchell that victims of cerebral palsy strive to maintain the maximum independence and postpone the use of such devices. Dr. Mitchell advised the coworker that if Petitioner wanted to work for the Respondent that she would have to use the walker. The Petitioner felt that Dr. Mitchell's demand was unwarranted, improper, not in her best interest, and refused to use a walker in the absence of a physician's recommendation. The Respondent never referred Petitioner to a physician for evaluation. Subsequent to Dr. Mitchell's demands that the Petitioner use a walker and Petitioner's refusal, Dr. Mitchell made derogatory comments to staff about how slow Petitioner walked. At this time, the professional relationship between Dr. Mitchell and the Petitioner became strained. Dr. Mitchell arranged to have a study done in early 1988 by Case Management Services Inc. Dr. Mitchell requested that Dr. Mason participate in this study which was presented to Dr. Mason as an assessment of the work environment of the board offices; however, the report prepared by the consultant appears to address not the work area, but Dr. Mason personally. The purpose of this report was to support Dr. Mitchell's demand that Dr. Mason use a walker. Notwithstanding the findings by the consultant that there were architectural and facilities maintenance problems which posed a danger to the handicapped, the consultant's first recommendation primarily addressed Dr. Mason's use of a quad-cane (walker). The second recommendation, "occupational therapy evaluation to determine means for enhanced functioning among campus architectural problems," appears to be limited to the Petitioner. In the spring of 1989, Dr. Mitchell gave Petitioner her first unsatisfactory annual performance evaluation. In addition, Dr. Mitchell only extended Dr. Mason's service contract for three months beyond the existing contract and denied Dr. Mason an increase in salary. Dr. Mason appealed Dr. Mitchell's evaluation and Dr. Mitchell reevaluated Dr. Mason's performance as satisfactory. Dr. Mitchell told Dr. Mason that this was the last time she would amend her evaluation of Petitioner pursuant to an appeal. Although not readily apparent from the file, Dr. Mason's employment contract was extended for an entire year and pursuant to that contract she was evaluated again in June of 1990. At that time, Dr. Mitchell evaluated Dr. Mason as unsatisfactory and extended her contract for only three months. During the year 1989-90, Dr. Mitchell documented every instance in which Dr. Mason appears to have departed from school board procedure or failed in any way to meet Dr. Mitchell's expectations. Dr. Mitchell contacted other supervisors of other activities within the school system and requested that they provide her with any information related to the failure of DSU to meet their expectations. See the memorandum of Dr. Mitchell to Beverly Blanton dated June 19, 1989. Dr. Mitchell required Dr. Mason to perform additional work unrelating to any specific program or project, and announced her intention to attend Dr. Mason's staff meetings, to hold weekly meetings to review Dr. Mason's logs and summaries of activities, and to work with Dr. Mason on staff development. (See memorandum Dr. Mitchell to Dr. Mason dated April 10, 1989, subject: Suggestions for improvement in evaluation.) These requirements, placed upon Dr. Mason under the guise of improving her performance, formed the basis for additional criticism of Dr. Mason while at the same time taking up more of her time and undercutting Dr. Mason's authority with her subordinates. Dr. Mitchell also requested access to Dr. Mason's medical records, a request she did not make of any other employee. Dr. Mitchell demonstrated an amazing lack of tact with Dr. Mason. Dr. Mitchell advised Dr. Mason on one occasion when Dr. Mason was hospitalized for burns suffered in an accident while on school business that Dr. Mason had picked an extremely bad time to be injured, and when Dr. Mason was recuperating at home from a severe fall, Dr. Mitchell threatened to bring a television crew to Dr. Mason's house for an interview if Dr. Mason could not come to work. One of the major complaints against Petitioner by Dr. Mitchell was the quality of the reports provided by Dr. Mason's unit to Ray King. A complete file of these reports was provided to Dr. Mitchell by Mr. King's staff as a result of a memorandum from Dr. Mitchell. (See Tab 6, Respondent's Exhibit 3.) The first of these 103 reports is dated May 18, 1988 and the last of these dated December 15, 1989. There were 97 reports returned from Mr. Ray's to Dr. Mason's section between 5-18-88 and 4-20-89. There were six reports returned from Mr. Ray's section after 4-20-89. Contrary to the assertions made by Respondent, the number of reports kicked back by Mr. King during the period following Dr. Mason's initial unsatisfactory evaluation were significantly reduced. The Respondent attempted to justify its denial of a secretary as a reasonable accommodation to Dr. Mason by stating that it was having fiscal problems, and by providing Dr. Mitchell with a computer. Because of Dr. Mason's handicap, she is unable to utilize a computer to prepare her own work. Further, notwithstanding Dr. Mason's inability to use a computer, Dr. Mitchell required her to be conversant in the operation of a computer so she could utilize the computerized data base. Contrary to the Respondent's assertion that Dr. Mason was only required to be knowledgeable about the computer's capabilities, Dr. Mitchell required Dr. Mason to demonstrate use of the computer to her secretary, and was harshly critical of Dr. Mason's inability to do so. Although additional memoranda purportedly documenting additional failings on the part of Dr. Mason and the DSU were introduced, Dr. Mason's explanations are adequate, and these secondary reasons for the adverse personnel action are not meritorious. Because of budgetary constraints in 1990, Dr. Mason's requests for authorization to fly to St. Petersburg to make a presentation at an educational conference was denied. Dr. Mason was told to drive to the conference or not to attend because attendance at the conference was not a part of her normal duties and responsibilities. Presentations at such conferences are considered professionally beneficial both to the individual and to the board. However, Dr. Mason admitted that she had not requested air travel as reasonable accommodation due to her handicap which makes long trips by car very painful and debilitating. On September 22, 1990, the Petitioner received a memorandum from Dr. Mitchell that her contract would not be renewed, and that Petitioner should leave all records in her office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: The Respondent reinstate the Petitioner to a position comparable to the position from which she was terminated (or in which the Respondent denied the Petitioner employment), The Respondent pay the Petitioner backpay, to include insurance and retirement benefits less $25,241, in accordance with this order, The Respondent pay the Petitioner's reasonable attorney fees and costs, and The Respondent be enjoined from further discrimination against the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6043 Proposed findings of both parties were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings: Para 1-9 Adopted. Para 10 Irrelevant. Para 11-14 (1st sentence) Adopted. Para 14 (2d sentence) Contrary to best evidence. Para 15,16 Adopted. Para 17 Irrelevant. Para 18-42 Adopted. Para 43 Subsumed in 44. Para 44-45 Irrelevant. Para 49-54 Adopted. Para 55 Irrelevant. Para 56-80,82 Adopted or Subsumed. Para 81 Irrelevant. Para 83-92 Irrelevant. Para 93-99 Adopted. Para 100-118 Adopted. Respondent's Findings: Para 1-3 Adopted. Para 4-5 Irrelevant. Para 6 Contrary to best evidence. Para 7-11 Irrelevant. Para 12-13 Contrary to best evidence. Para 14 Irrelevant. Para 15 Contrary to best evidence. Para 16-17 Irrelevant. Para 18,19 Contrary to best evidence. Para 20, 21 The letter was not considered. Para 22-24 Contrary to best evidence. Para 25-27 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn Hathaway, Esquire 924 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Leslie Holland, Esquire Suite 800 2800 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33167 Deborah J. Stephens, Esquire Graham C. Carothers, Esquire 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Merrick, Superintendent Leon County School Board 2757 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2907 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination against Respondent on the basis of her age and gender (female).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female. Petitioner initiated her retirement from Respondent employer in February 2005 at age 65. No evidence was presented at the disputed-fact hearing to establish the number of persons employed by Respondent at any material period of time. However, because Respondent has acknowledged in its Proposed Findings of Fact that Petitioner is an "aggrieved person," as that term is defined in Section 760.02(10), Florida Statutes, and has further acknowledged that at all times material to this cause, Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes, and Respondent is hereby found to be a statutory employer under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner began part-time employment as an Order Entry/Mail Clerk with Respondent in July 1983. At the same time, and dating from May 30, 1983, Petitioner was also employed part-time with Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears). In 1984, Petitioner accepted full-time commission sales employment with Sears and continued to work part-time for Respondent Employer. She worked full-time for Sears and part- time for Respondent until July 1996. Between 1983 and 1996, Jack Barber, president and CEO of Respondent Employer, repeatedly asked Petitioner to come to work full-time for Respondent. In July of 1996, Petitioner accepted full-time employment as Chief Finance Officer/Human Relations Director of Respondent Employer. At the time of her transition to her new, full-time position with Respondent, Petitioner was doing accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, and general ledger bookkeeping. Petitioner was qualified for all positions she held while employed by Respondent. At all times material, Petitioner was an exemplary employee. Petitioner testified that, as an inducement to give up her full-time Sears employment with its vested pension and excellent pay and benefits, Mr. Barber "guaranteed [her] in writing a five percent yearly increase in salary with no end date." It was Petitioner's position that between July 1996 and February 2005, when she retired, Respondent had a written employment contract with her, which contract had been negotiated in July of 1996, and that this contract provided for Petitioner to receive a raise equivalent to five percent of her base pay; one week of vacation in 1996; three weeks of vacation in 1997 and 1998; three days compensatory time (personal holidays) in 1996; six days of compensatory time (personal holidays) in 1997 and 100 percent medical insurance. The document she represented as her contract of employment was admitted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit One. Petitioner's Exhibit One is not dated. It also states no ending date and does not contain the signature of either Petitioner or Mr. Barber. It resembles arithmetic computations without setting out in sentences either Petitioner's or Respondent's obligations one to the other. It only lists the years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with regard to salary; only 1996, 1997 and 1998, as to vacation; and only 1996 and 1997 as to "comp. time." It bears the expression: "$150,000.00 + - 5 yrs." Furthermore, Petitioner testified that the exhibit does not encompass the whole of the parties' oral understanding at that point-in-time, because she believes that Mr. Barber also orally assured her that the five percent annual salary increases would continue as long as she was employed by Respondent, that vacation time and personal holiday time would accrue annually based upon Petitioner's original date of hire in 1983; and that Respondent company would institute a retirement plan in the near future. Mr. Barber testified that he had intended his notes and computations in 1996 on Petitioner's Exhibit One to only show that he anticipated if Petitioner came to work for Respondent in 1996: that he would guarantee Petitioner a term of employment up to at least five years; that there would be at least three years (1997, 1998, and 1999) with a five percent increase for her each year; and that, based on the foregoing prognosis, Petitioner could expect to earn at least $150,000.00 over a five-year period. Mr. Barber never intended Petitioner's Exhibit One to be a contract of employment. Petitioner candidly admitted that Respondent granted her five percent pay increases in January 1997, 1998, and 1999. Petitioner calculated that, without bonuses, she was paid half of $27,300.00 in 1996 because she started in July; $28,665.00 in 1997; $30,097.60 in 1998; and $31,720.00 in 1999. Petitioner accepted Respondent's figures that her annual W-2 compensation 1999 (including bonuses) was as follows: $33,635 2000 $31,720 2001 $32,830 2002 $33,015 2003 $32,330 2004 $31,720 Therefore, Petitioner's income without bonuses from Respondent for her first five years of employment (1996-2000) may have been less than $150,000.00. It was Petitioner's further position that the Respondent Employer had "contracts" similar to Petitioner's Exhibit One with other employees, specifically Greg Barber and Rob Humphrey (both younger male employees), which were honored by Respondent and that Petitioner's "contract" was not honored by Respondent. Petitioner claimed that Jack Barber's honoring the younger men's contracts, and not hers, constituted the acts of age and gender discrimination she complains of here. No contract between Respondent Employer and Greg Barber was presented for comparison with Petitioner's Exhibit One. No contract between Respondent employer and Rob Humphrey was presented for comparison with Petitioner's Exhibit One. Petitioner maintained that she "performed many of the same duties as Barber and Humphrey who were younger than she was at all times material and that she received less compensation." Greg Barber is the son of President/CEO Jack Barber. Since March 1985, Greg Barber has been the company's general manager and sales manager. Greg Barber also acts as co-CEO with his father. At all times material, he received a base salary plus commission based on total company sales. Greg Barber's responsibilities also included overseeing order entry personnel, accounts receivable/payable personnel, purchasing/inventory control personnel, mailroom personnel, shipping/warehouse personnel, service department personnel, and the receptionist. He also answered customer service calls and took phone orders. Rob Humphrey is the salesman responsible for Respondent's United States and Canadian sales. At all times material, he was paid a base salary plus commission based on Respondent's sales in the United States and Canada. Mr. Humphrey's responsibilities included training and overseeing a staff of two or three phone order entry/customer service personnel while also taking phone orders himself. At all times material, Petitioner was a salaried, non- commission employee. Petitioner claims that she performed many duties outside her job description. Specifically, she contends that she assisted both Rob Humphrey and Greg Barber in doing their jobs. Specifically, she described sharing responsibility with Greg Barber for making decisions regarding copy writing, marketing, in-putting of advertising materials, and direct marketing mailings. No witness corroborated Petitioner's assessment of her assistance to Greg Barber or Rob Humphrey, but at most, Petitioner only irregularly assisted these commissioned salesmen with their clerical or office tasks. She did not sell product. Despite Petitioner's contention that she performed some of the same services that Greg Barber and Ron Humphrey performed, it appears that the majority of the services she performed for Respondent were very different from theirs. It further appears that Humphrey and Barber performed services that were different from each other. Greg Barber had far more authority and responsibility than either Mr. Humphrey or Petitioner, and because of his position, Greg Barber received a commission out of Rob Humphrey's commission. In other words, as Mr. Humphrey's sales manager, Greg Barber received a percentage commission of all sales by whomever the sale was made and this increased Greg Barber's overall income. Likewise, Mr. Humphrey's responsibilities, particularly the necessity for him to deal with Canadian sales and marketing problems, varied greatly from Petitioner's responsibilities, which were primarily clerical or financial and home office based, and differed from Greg Barber's responsibilities, which were concentrated on home office management and sales in the United States. Petitioner maintained that other employees received raises when she did not. However, Respondent demonstrated that the annual base wage for Petitioner from 1999 through and including 2004, was $31,720.00; for Mr. Humphrey was $13,000.00; and for Mr. Barber was $47,840.00. Respondent further demonstrated that the base wages for all three employees remained constant from 1999 through 2004, and that Messrs. Barber and Humphrey, the commissioned employees, had fluctuations in their total gross wages during the five years from 1999 through 2004, due to fluctuations in the company sales and their resultant commissions. Rob Humphrey's W-2 compensation was below Petitioner's W-2 compensation from 1999 to 2001 and slightly exceeded hers from 2002 through 2004. Greg Barber's W-2 compensation exceeded Petitioner's W-2 compensation consistently from 1999 through 2004. Respondent demonstrated that in the year 2003, Respondent company suffered substantial losses, which affected the salesmen's commissions, and thus their overall income, but Petitioner's and everyone else's base wages remained the same, regardless of business conditions. How bonuses were calculated is unclear from the evidence, but in 1999, Petitioner's bonus was higher than either Mr. Humphrey's or Greg Barber's bonus. In 2000, no one got a bonus. In 2001, Greg Barber's bonus was $2,360.00; Mr. Humphrey's bonus was $540.00; and Petitioner's bonus was $1,110.00. In 2002, Greg Barber's bonus was $2,500.00; Mr. Humphrey's bonus was $665.00; and Petitioner's bonus was $1,295.00. No one received a bonus from 2003-2004. One of Petitioner's responsibilities while employed by Respondent was to assist Greg and Jack Barber in writing an employee handbook. This handbook clearly states that all of Respondent's employees are "at will" employees. That means that no guarantee of continued employment existed for any employee. Petitioner acknowledged that she had read that part of the handbook. The handbook also provides a reasonable procedure for someone, who believes that he or she is being discriminated against, to report that allegedly discriminatory treatment. Petitioner acknowledged that she never complained of sex discrimination or age discrimination while employed by Respondent. Petitioner also was aware she could file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. She never did this either. Petitioner did complain to Jack Barber that her job was of greater importance than that of Greg Barber or Rob Humphrey, and she did repeatedly lodge her concerns with Jack Barber that her pay in comparison to theirs was inappropriate. Although denied by Mr. Barber, Petitioner is more credible that she asked for a five percent increase each year. In response to one of her complaints, Jack Barber "evened out" a bonus for her. In early 2005, Petitioner again approached Jack Barber regarding what she considered to be her "promised five percent annual increases." Petitioner and Jack Barber met several times during the months of April and May 2005. When their negotiations were not fruitful, Petitioner gave notice of retirement and left Respondent's employ on June 3, 2005, at age It had been her prior intent to continue working full-time for Respondent through the end of the year 2005. She hoped to continue working for Respondent part-time for several years beyond 2005. Petitioner testified that all employees received a retirement plan in 2001, but that she was not granted the promised yearly five percent increase in January 2000 and was not provided any reason or explanation for the decline in her base pay after that. She calculated that if the five percent per year increase had been given her, she would have received an additional $63,798.47, provided she had worked to the end of 2005, as she had intended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kay F. Kelley Post Office Box 559 Center Hill, Florida 33514 Timothy Shea, Esquire 800 North Ferncreek Avenue, Suite 9 Orlando, Florida 32803 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied promotion to the position of Secretary III with the Respondent in the Environmental Services Department on or about June 10, 1992, on the basis of her race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a constitutionally created school district charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools in Brevard County, Florida, and is an employer under the Florida Human Relations Act of 1977, as amended. Petitioner was employed by the Brevard County School District as a Clerk-Typist in the Environmental Services Department during the relevant period of time including April 1992. Petitioner is an African-American, and a member of a protected class. She is the only African-American who is assigned to work in the Environmental Services Department. During April of 1992, Petitioner worked as a Clerk Typist in the Environmental Services Department, and the Secretary III position was held by Sylvana Wall. Subsequent to April of 1992, Sylvana Wall resigned, creating a vacancy in the Secretary III position in the Department. In the interim period from the time Sylvana Wall resigned, and the date the position was filled in July of 1992, Petitioner undertook to perform the duties of the Secretary III position, and in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining agreement, was paid for said period of time in the higher classification. Following creation of the vacancy, a job vacancy announcement was posted and advertised. Applications were received and reviewed by a selection committee composed of Irma Reinpoldt, Department Director, and Michael Rogers, Environmental Engineer. Petitioner submitted application for the vacant position. Subsequently, applicants except Petitioner, were interviewed by the committee, and a decision was made to employ applicant Rhonda Steward, a white female, for the Secretary III position in the Environmental Services Department. Petitioner was not personally interviewed for the Secretary III position by the committee. They based their decision on the fact that Petitioner had been working for the department as a clerk typist for a number of months, and she had also filled in as the Secretary III for several months when the vacancy was created until the position was filled. Both members of the committee knew the Petitioner, her capabilities and qualifications, and considered it "redundant" to interview her. There was no School Board policy, custom, or practice that required the employer to personally interview all applicants for vacancies. The candidate selected, Rhonda Stewart, was fully qualified to fill the Secretary III position. The evidence showed that during the relevant period there were certain conflicts in the Department, not related to race. There was evidence of personality disputes, such as name calling, and unwillingness by Petitioner to do secretarial functions for certain members of the Environmental Services Department, particularly an Environmental Specialist who was dyslexic. In addition, certain co-employees did not get along with the Petitioner and vice versa. However, there was no indication from the sworn testimony that race played a part in the decision made by the Respondent to hire someone else for the position. It was the practice of Respondent that the immediate supervisor and department head determine who was the best qualified for a job vacancy, subject to any review by the Personnel Division. The Petitioner presented no testimony including her own, that she did not get promoted to the Secretary III position because of her race, or that there was disparate treatment of African-Americans by the Respondent in the hiring or promotion of minorities.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2650 The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(in part), 9, 10(in part), 11 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 8(in part), 10(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Cislyn Stephenson Emil Stephenson Qualified Representative 2298 September Street Melbourne, Florida 32935 Bill Walker, Esquire School Board of Brevard County 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, G & B Products/Bates File Company, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner, Leona Sanders, a black female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by unlawfully failing to consider her for employment based on her race. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record complied herein, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Petitioner timely filed her complaint and Petition for Relief with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Chapter 9D-9.08, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Leona Sanders, is a black female who filed an application for employment with the Respondent, G & B Products/Bates File Company, for a factory worker's job on July 13, 1978. 1/ The Respondent, having employed fifteen (15) employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks during times material herein, is an employer within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. Petitioner satisfied Respondent's listed requirements for the position of factory worker and sought factory employment based on the advice of her doctor. Petitioner was unable to obtain a personal interview from Respondent when her application was originally filed inasmuch as Respondent's Personnel Director and Executive Secretary, Dorothy Russell (Director), was then on vacation. Petitioner was informed by a Personnel employee that she would be scheduled for an interview when the Director returned from vacation on July 17. Petitioner, after having waited until Wednesday, July 19, without receiving a call from Respondent, called the Director, since in her opinion the Director would not be granting her request for an interview without some prodding on her (Petitioner's) part. Petitioner was unable to schedule an interview with the Director on the following day, Thursday, July 20, at which time she was told by the Director that a full complement of employees had been hired. The Director assured Petitioner that she would be called during the following week should any vacancies occur. Petitioner was assured that in any event she would be notified if she would be hired by July 25. During the interview, Petitioner expressed a desire in being considered for work on the first and second shift inasmuch as she had four children who ranged in ages from ten to sixteen. However, she advised the Director that she would accept a position on any shift. From the date of the interview, July 20, through August 7, Petitioner was not called or otherwise notified of any vacancies for factory workers by Respondent. While reading the employment section of the classified ads in the local newspaper on August 7, Petitioner noted an advertisement by Respondent's Personnel Office for factory workers. Upon reading the ad for the factory workers, Petitioner immediately visited Respondent's factory and reported to the Personnel Office in hopes of being employed. Petitioner was again told by Respondent's Personnel Director that a full complement of workers had been hired but that she would be notified should any vacancies occur. Respondent hired sixteen non-black females as factory workers during the period July 15 through August 23. All of the sixteen newly hired employees made application for employment after Petitioner, i.e., July 15. Respondent, in completing the final phase of its heavy seasonal hirings, hired its first black factory worker on approximately August 28, 1978. Petitioner has suffered from hypertension in the past. As stated, she was encouraged to seek factory work by her physician. Petitioner has an automobile to commute from her home to Respondent's factory if offered a position. Petitioner passed a test designed to measure dexterity and aptitude. Results of the tests were provided to the Personnel Director. Petitioner has sought, and continues to seek, employment from neighboring employers. The list of employers she has applied to for employment includes St. Joseph Medical Center, The News Press, R. L. Polk & Company, and all local nursing homes. Petitioner's interim earnings during times material amount to $968.16. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent's Personnel Director testified that the number of applicants greatly outnumbered the available factory worker positions. Director Russell considered Petitioner better suited for employment at a hospital, nursing home or for clerical work and suggested that she seek employment in those areas. According to Director Russell, Petitioner displayed a poor attitude during the interview since she attempted to dictate the hours that she was willing to work and she concluded that Petitioner would not work out satisfactorily in the factory based on her expressions as to the hours and positions for which she wanted to be considered for employment.
Conclusions The Florida Commission on Human Relations, a Section 706 deferral agency for the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, administers the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. The intent of the Human Rights Act of 1977 (Act) is to eradicate employment discrimination based on certain protective classifications, including race. Chapter 23.167(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent is an employer subject to the guides of the Act. Respondent, as an employer, has an established affirmative action policy and employee selection plan which guides it in its search of employees on an equal opportunity basis. Respondent also has a policy of attempting to hire those employees with children to work on the first shift. (Testimony of Director Russell.) During the months of July and August, Respondent repeatedly placed ads for employees in the local newspaper. Petitioner, during this period, repeatedly sought employment at Respondent's factory, as well as with other employers. As reflected by all the available criteria required by Respondent for its selection of employees. Despite Petitioner's continuing efforts to be selected for employment with Respondent, she was repeatedly told that a full complement of employees had been selected. On the other hand, Respondent continued to advertise for factory employees. Given the above factors which reveal that Petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria for employment selection as required by Respondent; Petitioner's continued efforts to be selected for employment with Respondent; Respondent's continued search for employees by the placing of ads in the local newspaper and the rejection to Petitioner based on the claim that the full employee complement had been selected, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against by Respondent in violation of Section 23.167(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1979). I shall so recommend. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and in order to effectuate the purposes of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order requiring Respondent, G & B Products/Bates File Company, to: Cease and desist from discriminatorily denying or limiting Petitioner's employment opportunities. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended: Make Petitioner whole by: Reimbursing Petitioner for the difference in wages between what Petitioner would have earned as a factory worker and what she earned in other employment from July 13, 1978, plus interest until Petitioner is offered employment by Respondent as a factory worker. Back pay is to be computed in accordance with Schedule "A" attached here. Offer to Petitioner the next available factory worker position on the first shift. Post, for a period of sixty (60) days, in Respondent's facilities in places where notices to employees are usually posted, copies furnished by the Commission to the effect that Respondent will not discriminate because of race in affording equal employment opportunities and terms and conditions of employment to all its applicants and employees. Report to the Commission, within thirty (30) days of the Commission's order, steps taken by it respecting the fulfillment of the above conditions. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1980.
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 discharged petitioner on account of his national origin? Whether respondent refused to rehire petitioner on account of his national origin and/or because he filed a complaint alleging discrimination?
Findings Of Fact Born in Uvalde, Texas, petitioner Nicasio Guadalupe Ramos, 42 years old at the time of the hearing, is an American citizen of Hispanic or Mexican race, ancestry, heritage and national origin, who, since 1971, has lived in Defuniak Springs, county seat of Walton County, Florida. Walton County's written personnel policies refer to a "PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT" and to a "personnel department . . . under the direction . . . of the personnel director," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but other County employees or county commissioners themselves effectively decide before the Commission officially hires and fires. Responsibility is diffuse. E.g., T.284, 309. Hard Worker Mr. Ramos started work at the Walton County landfill on February 2, 1988, at $3.35 an hour. At first he spent most of his time picking up stray paper, opening the gate for garbage trucks, and "tripping" trailers to unload the garbage. Like other landfill employees, Mr. Ramos worked more or less steadily while the landfill supervisor, Clinton Earl "Frog" Ward was at the landfill. After three or four months, Mr. Ward, Clarence Johnson and John "Big John" Curry began teaching petitioner to use heavy equipment including the excavator or "pan," the "chipper" and the "dozer" ("how to work the blade, how to spread the dirt.") T.237. According to a co-worker, Mr. Ramos performed "different jobs like all the rest of us." T.31. When the sign maker quit, Mr. Ramos was assigned that job. If "somebody was missing on the dump truck or the garbage boxes," (T.240) he filled in there. He never turned down requests to work as a night guard, requests that sometimes came only near the end of a full day's work. He once operated the excavator every day for two successive work weeks. On September 16, 1988, he was promoted to "Landfill Equipment Operator." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. He became a "permanent" instead of a "temporary" employee, and his wages increased to $5.15. T.240. A cost of living increase in the fall of 1988 raised his wages to $5.35 an hour. T.258. Unfriendly Overseer With one exception, Mr. Ramos got along well with his fellow workers, none of whom was Hispanic. "Nick was one of the boys." T.44. The exception was James Ellis, the assistant landfill supervisor who had moved to Walton County from Lake Placid, Florida. Mr. Ellis once expressed the opinion that "the only thing [Mexicans are] good for is to knock their heads [off]." T.255, 280. He referred to Mr. Ramos as a "gook," a "dago" (T.85) and "that Mexican." T.96. A "long time before" (T.42) it happened, Billy Franklin Reynolds heard Mr. Ellis "say that he was going to get rid of Nick Ramos as soon as he got in a position to do that." T.42. Another co-worker, Harold Ross Daughtery, heard Mr. Ellis say that "whenever he got to be in charge . . . the first one he would fire would be Mr. Ramos." T.44. Harold Eugene Floyd heard Mr. Ellis say "if he ever got to be boss, he would run [Mr. Ramos] off." T.68, 74. Mr. Curry, who heard Mr. Ellis make such remarks (T.77-8) four or five times (T.82), "didn't figure he was joking." T.83. Unlike Mr. Curry (or Mr. Floyd who was uncertain), Messrs. Reynolds and Daughtery testified that they did not take seriously Mr. Ellis' threat to get Mr. Ramos fired. But, in this regard, events proved Mr. Ellis' sincerity. 1/ Mr. Ellis' used racial or ethnic epithets repeatedly to refer to petitioner. Perhaps that is what led Mr. Ramos to ask him one day why he did not like him. When, in the course of the same conversation, Mr. Ramos asked Mr. Ellis whether he had "ever met any Mexicans that [he] like[d]," (T.256) Mr. Ellis answered abusively, in the negative. If Mr. Ward left Mr. Ellis in charge of the landfill, many of the men loafed inside a shed while Mr. Ramos continued working, doing "the dirty stuff" (T.256) that Mr. Ellis assigned him. On such occasions, Mr. Ramos was often "the only one picking up papers or being in the pit, pulling tires out" (T.255) of garbage. T.86. At hearing, nobody except Mr. Ellis had anything unfavorable to say about Mr. Ramos' job performance. In fact, Mr. Ramos did a good job despite the unfair treatment he received at Mr. Ellis' hands. Petitioner was never disciplined, counseled or warned about his work performance even by Mr. Ellis. T. 251. Highly reliable, he "worked in the tire pit" (T.252) the day after the doctor drained his knee. On another occasion, to avoid infection, he wanted to follow his doctor's advice to take "a couple of days" (T.252) off after he had some "lumps" surgically excised. But, even though he arranged to swap shifts with Dewey Collinsworth, Mr. Ellis refused to allow the exchange, and Mr. Ramos reported for work. Reduction In Force In the summer of 1989, the Walton County Commission decided to reduce expenses by discharging County employees. T.11. It fell to Charles R. "Ronnie" Hudson who, as Walton County's public works director for the last three and a half years, reports directly to the Walton County Commission, and is responsible for (among other things) the County's landfill, to lay off landfill workers. Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Ward, the landfill supervisor, to list four employees he could do without (T.151) and to "make an evaluation on the men . . . [explaining] that there was going to probably be a layoff." T.91. The "next day probably," (T.216) Mr. Ward gave Mr. Hudson a written list and evaluation, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, and "told him [he] could get by with three men laid off, but . . . couldn't get by with any more than that." T.220. They talked about the three men Mr. Ward had selected. When Mr. Ward handed Mr. Hudson the list and evaluation, he understood Mr. Hudson to agree that "there needed to be three men laid off" (T.220) instead of four. On one page and a fraction of another (T.153) from a legal pad, Mr. Ward had written: Clarence Hobbs Harold Daughtry Earl Robinson NO COMPLAINT Earl Griggs ON THESE MEN John Mann KEEP THESE MEN Dewey Collinsworth Nick Ramos E.B. Phillips Billy Reynolds Clarence Hobbs truck driver Harold Daughtry operator Earl Robinson operator Earl Griggs clerk and signs maker Dewey Collinsworth clerk and sign maker John Mann operator Nick Ramos operator John Curry truck driver or Lee S. Campbell I need to keep 8 of these men until something changes need men [fo]r now Johnny Peters E.B. Phillips night guards Billy Reynolds I need to keep these men for now if I use another man to replace one of the Night Guards it will short me to[o] bad. We can let 3 men go but any more than that will short me to[o] much when something change[s] I can get by with less men Harold Floyd - operator Not dependable calls in sick a lot and has been siding around on roads and don't give notice until the day he is going to be off and won't do any thing unless we tell him to do something and don't look after the equipment at all John Curry - operator a good worker but keeps confusion between the other men and that causes lot of trouble he has already got one complaint form turned in on him Lawton Mathews - garbage truck he is a good worker and reports to work but he is old enough to retire he is failing fast he works with Clarence Hobbs on Garbage truck Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On what may have been the other part of the second or evaluation sheet of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, see Appendix A, 2/ Mr. Ward wrote: Lee S. Campbell Garbage truck he has been parked at his house on truck when he was on job it takes him to[o] long to go from box to the other and don't see after his truck to[o] good but he shows up to work good Johnny Peters - Night Guard he has had one complaint form turned in on him becuase there was about 48 or 50 gallons of Fuel went missing out of the DU cat ? on the night he was there Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Whatever Respondent's Exhibit No. 2's origin, Mr. Ward did not give it to Mr. Hudson. Mr. Ward did not and would not have recommended Mr. Ramos' layoff, even if convinced that four men had to be laid off. If Mr. Hudson had asked him to suggest a fourth candidate for a layoff, Mr. Ward would have suggested John Scott Mann, (T.214) or so he testified at hearing. 3/ Later on, when Mr. Ramos asked, Mr. Ward told him not to worry about being laid off. Having "heard there was a layoff coming" (T.244), Mr. Ramos also spoke to Walton County Commissioner Wilson Holley, and asked him if there were vacancies on the road crew he supervises. Commissioner Holley, who had known Mr. Ramos for several years and had employed him on a road crew for about a week once, when over 16 inches of rain fell and "they needed some help," (T.242), told petitioner "that he had been checking up on [him], that [he] was doing good out there and not to worry about it." T.244. Meanwhile, without discussing the matter with Mr. Ward, Mr. Ellis also prepared and furnished Mr. Hudson a list of names and evaluations. Three of the evaluations had a familiar ring but the fourth was all Mr. Ellis' work: Harold Floyd: Not dependable. Days out of work, and when he is out, he does so without notice. In my opinion when he is at work, he don't give 100%. His work ability if fair. John Curry: He keeps confusion among the men and also between the foreman and the asst. foreman. He has also been written up once concerning the matter. His work ability is good. Nick Ramos: Was hired on as a laborer, then transferred to chipping machine, then to sign machine. He's been on the sign machine four weeks now, and he's not catching on to it very fast. I have tried him on the equipment, and he didn't catch on to it either. His work ability is fair. Lawton Mathews: He is eligible for retirement. He has talked about retiring. His work ability is fair. We may talk to him about cutting back and he may go ahead and retire. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Hudson recommended that the Walton County Commission let all four men go. Mr. Ramos did not stop to pay for his coffee on his way out of the restaurant to see Ronnie Bell the morning the news broke. Like other men who were fired, Mr. Ramos first learned about the decision when he read about it in the newspaper on July 12, 1991. Not Rehired Mr. Bell, Walton County's administrative supervisor, had nothing to do with the decision to discharge Mr. Ramos, and told him as much. Mr. Ramos then left Mr. Bell's office in the courthouse annex for the landfill where Mr. Ward assured him he had not recommended his layoff. When he tried to talk to Mr. Ellis about it, "he walked off and he mumbled something." T.247. Mr. Ramos and the three other landfill employees laid off at the same time received official notification in letters dated July 13, 1989, that their employment would end on July 31, 1989. Mr. Mathews decided to retire. The letter to Mr. Ramos stated: Please be advised that if any openings become available in the future for which you are qualified, you will be one of the first considered to fill that opening. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Mr. Ramos again sought out Commissioner Holley to ask for work, and also approached Commissioner W. F. "Rabbit" Miles, asking him if work was available. Some weeks after the layoff, Commissioner Holley telephoned with news of an opening for a night guard at the landfill. The next day, petitioner spoke first to Mr. Bell then to Mr. Hudson, to whom Mr. Bell referred him, about the position. Mr. Hudson said he knew nothing about an opening, but suggested Mr. Ramos check back. Mr. Ramos returned that afternoon, the next morning and every morning thereafter "for about a week." T.161, 247. Each time Mr. Hudson professed ignorance of the job vacancy, until the last time, when he told Mr. Ramos that "they had done hired Harold." T.249. Not only was Mr. Hudson in fact aware of the opening, he was actively recruiting to fill it. He offered the job to John Curry (T.184), who turned it down because he had found other, better-paying work. "Why don't you call Nick?" Mr. Curry asked Mr. Hudson at the time. "I wouldn't hire him back," was Mr. Hudson's answer. T.87. Harold Floyd got the job. T.163. Complaint Filed Mr. Ramos retained a lawyer who wrote the Walton County Commission on August 4, 1989, requesting petitioner's reinstatement, or in the alternative, a grievance hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. (The request was never honored, although a like request by a non-Hispanic employee was.) Harold Burkett began work as a night guard on September 13, 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. On November 8, 1989, Mr. Ramos filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The number of "personnel at the landfill now [not counting prisoners assigned to work there after County employees were laid off (T.270)] is roughly fifty per cent of what it was at the time of Nick and them's layoff." T.175 But Walton County has "replaced, . . . transferred . . . [and] hired," id., employees at the landfill since then, rehiring Harold Floyd temporarily and adding Harold Burkett, Danny Burgess, Timmy Ray Jones and Russell Floyd, all "white Americans" given jobs for which petitioner is qualified, or would have been (T.257) but for his wrongful termination. Messrs. Burgess, Jones and Russell Floyd began work after County officials learned that Mr. Ramos had complained to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Asked why petitioner was not offered the job given to Mr. Burgess, who was hired as an equipment operator, Mr. Hudson testified that there was no reason "that I know of, you know, other than - - well, no one ever said anything about Nick, you know, being interested . . . ." T.172. In fact, Mr. Hudson was well aware that petitioner wanted a job with Walton County government, as were Mr. Ellis, who succeeded Mr. Ward as landfill supervisor, Mr. Bell and more than one county commissioner. Asked why petitioner was not offered the job Mr. Russell Floyd was given, Mr. Hudson said he knew of no reason. T.173. Commissioner Miles told Mr. Ramos 4/ that Commissioner Sam Pridgen "wouldn't hire [him] back . . . since [he] had filed a complaint against the County." T.284-5. Commissioner Holley testified, "Nick has a record of suing people that he's worked for and that weighs heavy on people's mind, I would imagine." T.310. (No Walton County Commissioner ever said anything to petitioner about his race. T.285.) Lost Wages County employees got a four percent raise on October 1, 1989, another four percent raise on October 1, 1990, and a three percent raise on October 1, 1991. The County made unspecified contributions to the Florida Retirement System at all pertinent times. For single employees, the County paid monthly insurance premiums of $120.10 in 1989, $123.66 in 1990 and $132.12 ($126.62 + $5.50) in 1991. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Assuming no promotions and only cost of living raises, if petitioner had continued working for the County in the same position through the date of the final hearing, he would have received pay and insurance benefits totalling $33,015.60. Instead, after Mr. Ramos lost his job, he mowed grass, cut trees down, painted houses, washed cars and did other odd jobs to make what money he could. T.251, 282. He earned about $2,000 from such jobs in the last five months of 1989. His 1990 income was more than $2,800 but less than $2,900; and his 1991 income was "three thousand." T.282. He has been unable to find regular employment, but has "never been on food stamps or any kind of assistance." T.251. Before the final hearing began, one of petitioner's two attorneys, Mary Koch Polson, had reasonably expended 14.95 hours, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, pursuing this claim, and costs aggregating $234.49 had reasonably been incurred. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. Ms. Polson bills her time at $125 an hour, and the reasonableness of this rate was not called into question. (Mr. Ramos paid his first attorney $1500, but the reasonableness of this fee was not stipulated and has not been established by evidence.) Aside from the first attorney's fees, prehearing costs and fees aggregate $1868.75.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR enter a final order (a) directing respondent to rehire petitioner as soon as an opening arises that he is qualified to fill that pays at least $5.95 an hour plus benefits; (b) awarding back wages (net of offsets) in the amount of twenty-five thousand, two hundred fifteen dollars and fifty- nine cents ($25,215.59) plus interest; (c) awarding costs and fees in the amount of eighteen hundred sixty-eight dollars and seventy-five cents ($18,868.75); and (d) awarding such additional amounts as are necessary to compensate him for lost wages including interest until he returns to work with the County or spurns a suitable offer, plus attorney's fees and costs reasonably incurred since the final hearing began. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1992.
The Issue What is the amount of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by Steven B. Feren and the City of Sunrise in connection with the appeal in The Fourth District Court of Appeal Case Number 94-03008, including services rendered in connection with motions for rehearing.
Findings Of Fact On October 18, 1995, The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, entered an order granting Petitioners, City of Sunrise and Steven B. Feren's, motion for attorney's fees in Case No. 94-03008. A scrivener's error in the order was corrected by order dated November 9, 1995. The corrected order stated: ORDERED that the motion for attorney's fees filed by Stuart Michelson, counsel for appellees, is hereby granted, and pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(b), upon remand of this cause the amount thereof shall be assessed by the trial court upon due notice and hearing, subject to review by this court under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(c). If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection therewith, including but not limited to preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee; . . . . Attorney Samuel Goren (Goren) was retained by the Petitioners to testify at the final hearing on the reasonable amount of attorney's fees incurred by Petitioners. Without objection, Goren was qualified and accepted as an expert on the subject of determining reasonable attorney's fees. Prior to rendering an opinion on the reasonable amount of attorney's fees incurred by Petitioners, Goren reviewed the following documents relating to these proceedings: two volumes of pleadings, Stuart Michelson's correspondence file, unfinished drafts of Stuart Michelson's brief, and eight statements from Stuart Michelson (Michelson) for legal services rendered. Goren is familiar with the case of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) and Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5. Goren also interviewed Michelson regarding the work he performed. Based on the foregoing, Goren rendered an opinion on the reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable numbers of hours for the work performed and, consequently, a reasonable legal fee for the services rendered. Michelson charged an hourly rate of $125.00 for his services and $40.00 for the services of paralegals. Goren opined that based on Michelson's skill, experience and reputation, that the hourly rates for attorney's services were very reasonable for the community. Additionally, Goren opined that the rate of $40.00 per hour for paralegal services was also reasonable for the community. I hereby find that the hourly rate of $125.00 for Michelson's services and the hourly rate of $40.00 for the services of a paralegal are reasonable. The services of the Michelson law firm relating to the appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the motion for rehearing were performed from October 17, 1994, through November 13, 1995. The reasonable amount of attorney hours for the appeal of the final order of the Ethics Commission to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, including services in connection with Colon's motion for rehearing is 88.2. At $125.00 per hour, this amounts to a reasonable fee of $11,025.00. The reasonable amount of paralegal hours for the appeal of the final order of the Ethics Commission to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, including services in connection with Colon's motion for rehearing is 15.45. At $40.00 per hour, this amounts to a reasonable fee of $618.00. The services of the Michelson law firm relating to the determination of the amount of the fees was performed from December 18, 1995 through the date of the final hearing. In addition there will be additional time which will be necessary to bring the proceeding to a Final Order. Michelson submitted invoices to Petitioners dated February 9, 1996 and May 16, 1996. A review of the invoices indicates that some of the services provided did not relate to the fee hearing but to other matters including a lien. Based on the invoices the following dates appear to be for services related to the fee hearing: December 18, 19, 21, and 30, 1995; January 10, 18, 19, and 25, 1996; May 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, 1996; and May 8 and 9, 1996, excluding lien services. Based on these invoices the reasonable amount of attorney hours for the determination of the amount of fees through May 16, 1996 was 12.5, which equates to $1,562.50. Goren opined that an additional 20 to 25 attorney hours will be needed to bring this case to final conclusion with a final order being entered by the Ethics Commission. A reasonable number of attorney hours necessary to bring this case to final conclusion from the date of the final hearing to the entry of a final order by the Ethics Commission is 25 hours and a reasonable rate for the attorney's time is $125 per hour. The reasonable amount of fees that would be incurred from the final hearing to the entry of a final order by the Ethics Commission is $3,125.00 The attorney and paralegal services and costs contained in the December 8, 1995, statement from the Michelson law firm deal with a petition for certiorari and are not within the scope of the order by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The amount of reasonable costs incurred by Petitioners in this proceeding and the appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal is $896.70. Goren charged the Petitioners $350 for services as an expert witness in connection with these proceedings from October, 1995 through April 30, 1996. Goren spent an additional 9.7 hours on this matter through the final hearing. Goren's hourly rate of $125 is reasonable. The number of hours spent by Goren is reasonable. Goren's fee of $1,562.50 is a reasonable fee for an expert witness in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED a final order be entered awarding Petitioners, Steven B. Feren and the City of Sunrise $18,789.70 for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-6181FE To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted. Paragraphs 4-6: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 7-8: Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The Respondent's Recommended Order did not contain findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart R. Michelson, Esquire 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 517 Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154 Mr. Bill Colon 11640 Northwest 30th Place Sunrise, Florida 33323 Carrie Stillman, Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
