The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied training, subjected to unequal terms of employment and denied promotion to three jobs including the position of Lead Custodian with the Respondent in the Physical Plant Department in 1993, on the basis of his gender (male) and race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a custodian in the Physical Plant Department since July 1989 and during the relevant period of time including 1993 and 1994. Petitioner is a male African-American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner applied for a promotion to three different positions at the college between August 26, 1993 and December 6, 1993. In late August, 1993, Petitioner applied for the part-time position of House Manager at the college theatre. Petitioner was not selected because his present work schedule would overlap the position at the theatre and his prior work experience was not relevant to the position. In addition, another candidate possessed better interpersonal and communication skills, and his education and work experience was more relevant to the position than the Petitioner's. In early October, 1993, Petitioner applied for the position of HVACR (heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration) apprentice. The position is a learning position which requires working with a lead mechanic. Part of the job requirement for the apprentice position was the ability to attend trade school in HVACR. During the employment interview Petitioner expressed reservations about attending the HVACR training because he was presently enrolled in night classes at Rollins College. In addition to Petitioner, two white males and a Hispanic male applied for the position. A Hispanic male was selected for the position who had better qualifications. Thereafter, the racial make-up of the HVACR Department consisted of two whites, one black and one Hispanic male. On October 14, 1993, three vacancies for the newly created position of Lead Custodian in the Physical Plant Department was advertised by Respondent. Petitioner was one of nine applicants for the position. The nine individuals who applied for the position of Lead Custodian consisted of four African-American males, three African-American females and two Caucasian females. Following the review of each persons application and file and a personal interview, two African-American males and one African-American female were selected for the positions. Petitioner was not recommended for one of the vacancies. The selection process was based on relevant work experience and work history, and was not based on improper or discriminatory race or gender considerations. Petitioner was not denied training based on his race or gender. Petitioner applied for and attended six seminars covering a variety of subjects over the last several years. Respondent's stated reasons for its promotion and training decisions 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 24th day of October, 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 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in substance: paragraphs: none Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Ann Banks, Esquire BAKER & HOSTETLER P. O. Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Ulysses B. Williams 1020 Polk Avenue Orlando, Florida 32303-4149 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 The issue in these cases is: a) whether the Department of Education is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the Rushton case (DOAH Case No. 89-1551) and b) if so, whether such fees and costs should include those incurred in the prosecution of a rule challenge styled, Florida Education Association/United and Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Lewis Rushton is a person within the meaning of Section 760.02(5), Florida Statutes. Mr. Rushton is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.10(1). The Department of Education ("DOE") is a personwithin the meaning of Section 760.02(5). The School Board of Seminole County, Florida ("School Board"), which is also a person within the meaning of the same statute, was at all material times Mr. Rushton's "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6). At all material times, Mr. Rushton was employed as a bus driver by the School Board, which removed him from this position on April 19, 1988. The reason for the School Board's action was that the continued service of Rushton, who was over 70 years of age, was contrary to Rule 6A-3.0141(a), Florida Administrative Code, which required mandatory retirement of bus drivers at age 70 years ("Rule"). The other Petitioners were similarly situated to Mr. Rushton. The only difference is that they were employed by different district school boards. The School Board gave Rushton the option to continue in employment as a bus monitor, which was a lower-paying job than bus driver. Rushton accepted this reassignment and experienced the resulting reduction in pay beginning the 1988-89 school year. At all material times, DOE, which promulgated the Rule, maintained standards affecting the ability of Rushton to engage in his occupation or trade within the meaning of Section 760.10(5). The Rule was part of these standards. On January 29, 1987, Rushton filed a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5616, against the School Board. The Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissed this complaint on November 11, 1988. On May 3, 1988, Rushton timely filed and prosecuted a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5703, against DOE. On September 7, 1988, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a Notice of Determination--Cause. The Notice of Determination names as the sole respondent the School Board, which had employed Mr. Rushton prior to requiring him to retire at age 70. After DOE filed a Request for Reconsideration on September 16, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued on January 12, 1989, a Notice of Redetermination--Cause. The Notice of Redetermination names DOE as the sole respondent. The Notice of Redetermination states that DOE's "assertion that [the Rule] is an established 'bona fide occupational qualification' for employment has not been upheld." The quoted statement in the Notice of Redetermination is to a final order issued December 14, 1988. The final order found the Rule to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final order was the culmination of a Section 120.56 challenge to the Rule that had been prosecuted against DOE by two unions representing the Petitioners. This rule challenge was styled, Florida Education Association/United v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R ("Rule Challenge"). The Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association was an intervenor on the side of the petitioner in the Rule Challenge. Lorene C. Powell represented the petitioner in theRule Challenge, and Vernon T. Grizzard, of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard, and the law firm of Egan, Lev & Siwica, represented the intervenor. As the final hearing in the Rule Challenge approached, DOE requested abatements of the pending cases in which individual bus drivers had sought relief under Section 760.10. At that time, the cases of all Petitioners except Mr. Rushton were pending in the Division of Administrative Hearings. The grounds for the abatements were that the decision in the Rule Challenge "would substantially affect the outcome" of the pending individual cases. Each case was abated. The parties in the Rule Challenge stipulated that various counties, due to the Rule, had not rehired bus drivers who would have been rehired but for the fact that they had attained the age of 70 years. The parties also agreed that Sections 760.10 and 112.0444 [sic], together with cited federal law, "do not permit an age limitation on employment with the exception of where such an age limitation is based on Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The stipulated issues for determination in the Rule Challenge included "whether the 70-year old age barrier . . . is a [bona fide occupational qualification] and thus a valid exception to the state and federal ban on age discrimination based solely on chronological age." By memorandum dated January 11, 1989, DOE informed school board superintendents of the final order invalidating the Rule. By letter dated February 9, 1989, the School Boardnotified Mr. Rushton that DOE was no longer requiring enforcement of the mandatory retirement rule and he could return to work as a bus driver if he could meet certain lawful requirements. Each Petitioner was so notified by his respective school board. By Petition for Relief filed March 21, 1989, Mr. Rushton sought relief against the School Board and DOE, including a finding that mandating his retirement due to age was an unlawful employment practice, an award of back pay and associated benefits, and an award of attorneys' fees in the prosecution of the subject proceeding and such other proceedings as were necessary or appropriate to obtain the relief and apportioning the fees between the School Board and DOE. With the filing of the Petition for Relief on March 21, 1989, John Chamblee of the law firm of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard entered his appearance for Mr. Rushton. Mr. Chamblee had been retained for Mr. Rushton by his union, the Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association. On or shortly after May 1, 1989, the School Board settled with Mr. Rushton by agreeing to compensate him for back pay, interest, and other benefits constituting relief otherwise available under Section 760.10. Similar settlements between the other Petitioners and their respective school boards resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the various school boards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in the above-styled cases. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Chamblee, Jr. Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, FL 33606 Vernon T. Grizzard Chamblee, Miles & Grizzard 116 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie III General Counsel Carl J. Zahner Assistant General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Lorene C. Powell, Assistant General Counsel FEA/United 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Sun Bank Building, Suite 22 Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772 Tobe Lev Egan, Lev & Siwica P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 Norman Smith Brinson, Smith & Smith 1201 W. Emmett St. Kissimmee, FL 32741 ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of May, 1990. William H. Vogel, Assistant Superintendent Personnel and Administrative Services P.O. Box 1948 Kissimmee, FL 32742-1948 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Whether this case is properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2004, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) forwarded a packet of papers, as more fully described below, to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division). At the request of the parties, a disputed- fact hearing was scheduled for June 30, 2004 through July 1, 2004. The Charge of Discrimination in this cause bears a signature date of April 23, 2002. It states that the most recent alleged discrimination occurred in December 2001, and alleges race, color, and religious discrimination and retaliation. The copy of the Charge sent to the Division in the Commission's referral packet bears a Commission date-stamp of December 2, 2002. However, Respondent has provided a copy of the Charge, showing that it was first filed with the Commission on November 19, 2002, and the parties are in agreement that November 19, 2002, was the date of actual filing of the Charge with the Commission. The Charge filed with the Commission was accompanied by a cover letter dated November 14, 2002, and a "confidential" affidavit also dated November 14, 2002. On December 6, 2002, Respondent received the Commission's Notice of Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. Thereafter, Respondent submitted its position statement with attachments to the Commission. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions but were unable to come to terms.1/ On November 20, 2003, the law office representing Petitioner notified the Commission that settlement was not possible and that Petitioner's attorney wanted to be advised of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case number assigned to the same allegations of discrimination by the EEOC, pursuant to the Commission's work-sharing agreement with that Federal agency. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner's attorney's law office again wrote to the Commission requesting the EEOC case number and stating, "[W]e may take our client's issues up in the judicial arena."2/ Petitioner filed with the Commission on February 10, 2004, an Election of Rights signed by her attorney on February 9, 2004, on which the following option had been checked: More than 180 days have elapsed since I filed my charge of discrimination. I wish to withdraw my charge and file a Petition for Relief to proceed with an administrative hearing as provided for under Florida Statutes Section 760.11(4)(b) and (8). On February 16, 2004, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner's attorney confirming its receipt of the Election of Rights on February 10, 2004, and reciting the foregoing reason stated therein. The Commission attached to its letter a blank petition for relief with instructions that the petition should be completed and returned to the Commission within 20 days. Twenty days from the Commission's February 16, 2004, letter would have been March 8, 2004. By a letter dated March 16, 2004, Petitioner's attorney wrote the Commission advising that for purposes of the EEOC claim, "March 23, 2002," should be used as the last date of discrimination. March 23, 2002, is a date four months after the date alleged in the Charge of Discrimination which had been filed with the Commission. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Apparently, the Commission filed the EEOC complaint with that federal agency on March 18, 2004. By a March 18, 2004, form letter, the Commission advised Petitioner, via her attorney, that the EEOC claim had been filed and given a number. The Commission's form advises that Petitioner need do nothing with the EEOC until the Commission has made its final findings in the case before the Commission. The March 18, 2004, EEOC complaint is virtually identical in all respects to the Charge filed by Petitioner with the Commission on November 19, 2002, except for the date of alleged discrimination. (See Finding of Fact No. 9.) On March 29, 2004, Petitioner's attorney signed a second Election of Rights, checking the same reasons as were given in the February 10, 2004, Election of Rights. (See Finding of Fact No. 7.) The second Election of Rights was filed with the Commission on March 31, 2004. On April 1, 2004, the Commission sent a second letter to Petitioner via her attorney, confirming receipt of Petitioner's second Election of Rights dated March 29, 2004, and stating that it had been filed on March 30,[sic] 2004. This Commission letter again reiterated the option requested by the Petitioner. (See Finding of Fact Nos. 7 and 13.) The April 1, 2004, letter from the Commission attached a second blank petition for relief for Petitioner to complete, and further advised: The initial letter dated February 16, 2004 included the Petition for Relief to be filed with the Commission within 20 days of the dated letter. We have not received the Petition for Relief to date; therefore I am enclosing another Petition for Relief to be completed. Forward the original Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings and mail a copy to the Division. The Election of Rights Form will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for case assignment as requested. On April 1, 2004, the Commission filled out a Transmittal of Petition form, which it forwarded to the Division, attaching only the Commission's April 1, 2004, letter to Petitioner's attorney, a copy of the original Charge of Discrimination incorrectly date-stamped as filed with the Commission on December 2, 2003 (see Finding of Fact No. 3), and a copy of Petitioner's Election of Rights, dated March 29, 2004, which had been signed by her attorney. (See Finding of Fact No. 13.) Petitioner admits that at no time within 20 days of either the Commission's February 16, 2004, letter or the Commission's April 1, 2004 letter, did Petitioner file a Petition for Relief either with the Commission or the Division. Not until after Respondent had moved to dismiss before the Division on June 15, 2004, did Petitioner file a Petition for Relief. On June 24, 2004, that Petition for Relief was filed with the Division, without prior leave of an Administrative Law Judge of the Division. The Petition was not on a Commission form. As of June 25, 2004, the date of oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and Response thereto, the free-form Petition for Relief had only been filed with the Division and had never been filed with the Commission. On the basis of the record before the Division, it appears that Petitioner has never filed with the Commission a Petition for Relief, also known as a request for administrative hearing. It is undisputed that no Petition for Relief or request for administrative hearing was filed by Petitioner with the Commission within 215 days of filing the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, which would have been 180 days plus 35 days; nor within 35 days of February 16, 2004, the date of the Commission's first letter advising Petitioner to timely file a Petition for Relief with the Commission; or within 35 days of April 1, 2004, the date of the Commission's second letter advising Petitioner to timely file a Petition for Relief with the Commission.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss this case, which exists only by the Charge of Discrimination, and a late-filed petition before the Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2004, 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 29th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Gabriel C. Gaudio (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male over 50 years of age. On or about May 9, 2009, a company located in North Carolina hired Petitioner to work as a Technical Publications Clerk. Petitioner was over 40 years of age at the time of his employment. Prior to March 2012, Petitioner relocated to Florida to continue employment with the company that then became known as AAR Airlift Group, Inc. Respondent does business in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and has over 15 employees, one of whom was Petitioner. At all times material to this matter, Respondent employed Steve Lane (Lane) and Melvin Zahn (Zahn) as supervisors with the company. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent had policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and any other reason prohibited by law. Any employee who believed discrimination had occurred was directed to report to the local Human Resources Department or to the Corporate Vice President of Human Resources. Respondent’s employees are considered “at will.” Respondent reserves the right to involuntarily terminate any employee for any reason or for no reason unless to do so would violate law. Petitioner maintains he was terminated in retaliation for a complaint he submitted because of his age, or because of his disability. All of the actions complained of occurred between March 2012 and June 2012 (when Petitioner was terminated). It is undisputed that Petitioner’s age would establish he is a member of a protected class. It is undisputed that Petitioner was terminated after he submitted a complaint against his co-workers. Although Petitioner asserted he is disabled, Petitioner presented no evidence to establish the nature of his disability or that Respondent required him to perform tasks contrary to his physical or mental limitations. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to accommodate any claimed limitation Petitioner might have had. In April 2012, Respondent issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to Petitioner to outline areas of his job performance that needed improvement. It was anticipated that Petitioner would address the areas of concern and make improvement within 90 days. Upon receipt of the PIP Petitioner filed a claim of hostile work environment with the company’s human resources office. More specifically, Petitioner claimed two employees, Zahn , technical publications manager, and Rachel Grygier (Grygier), a technical publications librarian, had disparaged him regarding his age and disability. To address Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent initiated an internal investigation of the claim. As part of the investigation process, Respondent directed Petitioner not to disclose or discuss the accusations of his claim with anyone. Respondent sought to resolve the matter without having the allegations discussed among employees before individual statements could be taken. Contrary to the directive, Petitioner discussed his complaint against Zahn and Grygier with at least one other employee. That employee (Barnett) e-mailed support for Petitioner to JoAnne Paul (Paul), Respondent’s human resources compliance manager. When Paul confronted Petitioner as to whether he had discussed his complaint with Barnett, Petitioner falsely denied knowing Barnett. Paul took Petitioner’s failure to maintain confidentiality regarding his complaint to Lane, Respondent’s director of quality assurance and internal evaluations. Together, Paul and Lane decided to terminate Petitioner. The basis for the termination was two-fold: the failure to follow a directive not to discuss the complaint; and the lack of truthfulness when asked about knowing Barnett. Petitioner maintains that his termination was in retaliation for his complaint against Zahn and Grygier and that the company wanted him out. Petitioner presented no evidence that after his termination he was replaced with a younger employee. Even though Petitioner did not establish the nature of his disability, Petitioner presented no evidence that he was replaced by a non-disabled person or that his handicap caused Respondent to terminate him. Further, Petitioner did not establish that any area of concern noted in his PIP related to his disability. Neither Zahn or Grygier had anything to do with Petitioner’s termination. Finally, Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that filing a complaint against Zahn and Grygier was the genesis for his termination. Petitioner was a long-time employee with the company. He had started in North Carolina and moved to Melbourne with the company. Had Respondent wanted to terminate him for any reason it could have done so prior to the move or after the move. Petitioner’s claim that his complaint against Zahn and Grygier caused the termination is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabriel Gaudio 259 Abernathy Circle, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Chelsie J. Flynn, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP Suite 1300 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was discriminated against by Respondent, K.D.P., Inc. d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, on the basis of handicap, constituting an unlawful employment practice. Whether Petitioner has established a basis for, or entitlement to, an award of damages if, in fact, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: K. D. P., Inc., operated a restaurant known as Western Sizzlin Steak House in Bradenton, Florida, which business was established prior to the alleged incident of July 1990. This business has continued in operation to the current time under the same management and with many of the same employees, although the restaurant has subsequently become known as Cattle Company Cafe. The Respondent, K. D. P., Inc., d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, now known as Cattle Company Cafe (KDP), owned by Jack Parrish, has been managed by Kevin Wreford for approximately twelve years. Parrish relies on Wreford for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and firing decisions, and supervisory responsibility. The Petitioner was employed from December 1989 through February 1990 by Upjohn Health Care on a part-time basis as a respite worker. While she was physically able to do that job, Petitioner chose to leave that employment as it had little work available for her with that agency and Petitioner wished to work at a location closer to her home. Petitioner applied for employment with KDP by way of written application on August 2, 1990. Petitioner's employment application did not indicate any physical handicap, disability or limitation. Wreford interviewed Petitioner for the position of part-time cashier in early 1991. During the interview, Wreford discussed with the Petitioner the duties of the position for which she had applied. Those duties included taking payment from customers at the cashier's stand, overseeing the salad and sundae bar, checking the women's restroom, cleaning glass in the area of cashier's stand and watching for walkouts (walkouts being customers who walk out without paying for their meals). Petitioner advised Wreford that she was capable of performing these duties but was concerned about her lack of experience in working with cash and making change. Wreford hired Petitioner as a temporary, part-time cashier, and Petitioner began work in that capacity for Respondent on February 3, 1991. Petitioner continued in the employment of the Respondent in the capacity of part-time cashier through July 17, 1991. At the time Petitioner was hired by Respondent on February 3, 1991 there was a large wooden bar stool located behind the counter where the cashier took payments for meals. All cashiers working for the Respondent, including Petitioner, were allowed to sit on this stool at times when they were not waiting on customers (cashiers were required to stand while waiting on customers) or performing other assigned duties as set out in Finding of Fact 6. Sometime around July 1, 1991, Wreford discussed with the cashiers, including Petitioner, his concerns about the cashiers not performing their other assigned duties when they were not waiting on customers. Performing other assigned duties required the cashiers to be away from the cashier's area. At this time, Petitioner made Wreford aware of her knee problem and advised him that she may have difficulty standing for long periods of time. There had been no mention of this problem previously nor had Petitioner experienced any problem with her knee previously. Likewise, Petitioner did not experience any problems with her knee in carrying out her assigned duties during the next two weeks. In fact, both Wreford and Parrish were pleased with Petitioner's performance during this period. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish's wife who had become involved in the management of the restaurant advised Parrish that the stool needed to be removed from the cashier area because: (a) the stool was showing its wear and tear and was aesthetically unpleasing; (b) the stool was taking up too much room resulting in the cashiers not being able to perform their duties properly, particularly looking for walkouts and; (c) to prevent a certain cashier (not Petitioner) from abusing the privilege of the stool by sitting on the stool for extended periods of time and not performing her other assigned duties. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish removed the stool from the caahier's area and placed it in his office where it remains today because the stool has a sentimental value in that Parrish used the stool in his first restaurant. On or about July 13, 1991, when Petitioner arrived for work and noticed the stool had been removed she met with Parrish and Wreford and advised them that she could not work without the stool because of her knee. Parrish and Wreford offered to accommodate her problem by allowing Petitioner to sit at a table adjacent to the cashier area when she was not waiting on customers or performing her other assigned duties. Petitioner advised Parrish and Wreford that she could not work under those conditions but that she would stay on until a replacement was found. Parrish and Wreford accepted Petitioner's resignation but encouraged Petitioner to continue her employment until she could determine if the accommodation would be satisfactory. Petitioner continued to work for Respondent until July 17, 1991, and was able to function without any problems with her knee under the accommodations provided by Respondent. However, after Petitioner resigned she never asked to be reinstated even though she was able to function under the accommodations provided by Respondent. Although Petitioner alleged that she had a physical disability/handicap because of problems she had related to an alleged right knee replacement done some years earlier, there was no medical evidence or other documentation establishing any physical handicap or restrictions/limitations in her ability to work. There were other cashiers employed by Respondent who had conditions similar to Petitioner's conditions who were able to function with the same accommodation offered Petitioner. One of those was the person hired by Respondent to take Petitioner's position. Petitioner collected unemployment compensation after leaving Respondent's employment, as well as other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Additionally, after leaving Respondent's employment Petitioner developed "female problems" and is not seeking employment even though she attended computer school. There was no evidence as to the amount of damages suffered by Petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of a handicap by Respondent or that any unlawful employment practice occurred. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for the action taken by Respondent in removing the stool and providing other accommodations for the cashiers, including Petitioner. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent's articulated reasons for its action were pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was not discharged due to her handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3903 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 13 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 32 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Norma J. Nolan, Pro Se 1109 Harvard Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34207 Donna L. Derfoot, Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasse, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Jupiter Medical Center committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations grant Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is from the Philippines and is a Filipino citizen. He is now, and has been since approximately February 2000, a legal resident of the United States. JMC operates a 156-bed hospital (Hospital) located in Jupiter, Florida, which has a medical laboratory (Laboratory) that is "open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week." At all times material to the instant case, Kathleen Rogers was the director of the Laboratory and Sherry Miller was the assistant director of the Laboratory. Petitioner was hired by JMC in October 2000, as a medical technologist to work in the Laboratory. He worked in the Laboratory as a medical technologist, under Ms. Rogers' supervision, from October 2000, until his employment was terminated on June 6, 2003 (Employment Period). During the Employment Period, Jeanne Wiley also worked as a medical technologist in the Laboratory under Ms. Rogers' supervision. Ms. Wiley did not exercise any supervisory authority over Petitioner, nor was she part of the JMC management team. Ms. Rogers was responsible for Petitioner's hiring. She "hired him at the maximum [salary] that anybody coming in at th[at] level could be paid" under JMC's race/religion/gender- blind pay scale. Petitioner received pay raises during the time that he worked for JMC. There were other Laboratory employees who were paid less than Petitioner. None of these employees was Asian. John Lambiase was hired by JMC as a medical technologist to work in the Laboratory in 2003, shortly before Petitioner's termination. At the time of his hiring, Mr. Lambiase had less education and experience than did Petitioner. Nonetheless, Mr. Lambiase's starting salary of $17.80 per hour was $0.38 per hour more than Petitioner was making.2 This disparity in pay was the product of market conditions and had nothing to do with either Mr. Lambiase's or Petitioner's race. The position that Mr. Lambiase filled had been vacant for approximately eight months despite JMC's recruiting efforts. "[D]esperate" to fill the vacancy, Ms. Rogers requested and obtained from JMC's human resources department "special permission" to hire Mr. Lambiase at the going market rate. During the Employment Period, JMC had a human resources administrative policy and procedure manual (Manual), which was made available to all employees, including Petitioner. The Manual contained, among other things, an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy, a grievance procedure, a "Time and Attendance" policy, and a progressive discipline policy. The progressive discipline policy stated, in pertinent part, substantially the following with respect to "Verbal Warning[s]," "Written Conference Records," and terminations: Verbal Warning: "Informal counseling" will be regarded as a daily on-going process through which management may communicate necessary information to his/her staff. Such information may include both positive comments and/or areas in need of improvement. In either case, management may wish to utilize "Employee Action Assessment" for the following purposes: To justify pay for performance adjustment decisions and to confirm performance appraisal accuracy. To document excellence for promotional opportunities. To document "reoccurring" performance/behavior/work habit problems that individually do[] not yet require formal documentation, (i.e.) "Written Conference Record." Employee Action Assessment entries will be shared with the employee within a reasonable time of management's observation or date of discovery. Employee Action Assessments need not be shared with Human Resources but rather maintained by the appropriate manager to be used as outlined above. Written Conference Records: Unless immediate suspension pending investigation or termination is necessary, an employee will receive a documented "Written Conference Record" which will delineate steps toward correction of the problem. The completed Written Conference Record process should take place within (3) three business days of the date of discovery, unless the employee has been temporarily suspended pending investigation or if interrupted by a Medical Center holiday. In the case of the latter, the process should be completed by the next business day. The Chief Human Resource Officer or Assistant Director of Human Resources will review and approve all "Written Conference Records" prior to management meeting with the employee. All employee "Written Conference Records" shall be documented on a Jupiter Medical Center "Conference Record" form and ultimately filed in the Human Resources Department. The employee is encouraged to review and record personal comments and sign the form. While employees are encouraged to respond [to] and sign the form, responding to, or signing the form merely indicates that the action was discussed with the employee, not that the employee agrees or disagrees with the corrective action. All completed "Written Conference Record" forms should be received by the Human Resources Department within (3) business days. A completed "Written Conference Record" form will be appropriately signed and dated by the manager, employee, if agreeable, and a managerial witness from the same department. A witness's signature will acknowledge that the information was thoroughly discussed with the employee in an appropriate manner. Any combination of three appropriately documented "Written Conference Records" within an eighteen-month (18) period will constitute grounds for termination unless otherwise noted on the "Written Conference Record." In such instances, fewer than (3) repetitions of some violations may [warrant] termination. . . . No department, other than the Human Resources Department will maintain formal "Written Conference Records" in their files. Informal documentation such as "employee action assessments" and/or employee attendance record may be kept within individual department files. A "Written Conference Record" should be available to support any performance appraisal standard scored as "needs improvement." Suspension and Termination: * * * 5. Terminations reviewed and approved by the Senior Manger will be forwarded to the Chief Human Resource Officer or the Assistant Director of Human Resources for review and final approval. A letter of termination must be coordinated through the Asst. Dir. of Human Resource[s] outlining all documentation used to justify the termination and to act as a notice to the terminated employee regarding [his or her] grievance rights and need to return certain Medical Center property. * * * Petitioner's employment with JMC was terminated, consistent with the above-referenced progressive discipline policy, because, in less than 18 months, he had accumulated three "Written Conference Records" (all of which were given to him by Ms. Rogers and, before becoming a part of Petitioner's permanent record, were reviewed and approved by JMC's human resources department). Petitioner's race played no role whatsoever in his receiving these three "Written Conference Records"3 or in his being terminated. There has been no showing that any other employee at the Hospital received three "Written Conference Records" within an 18-month period and remained employed. Petitioner received the first of these three "Written Conference Records" in September 2002. It read as follows: REASON FOR CONFERENCE: . . . . On August 23, 2002, Ramuriel reported out a 7.3mmol/L potassium result.[4] Ramuriel did not meet laboratory competency standards because he did not follow the attached laboratory procedure: NOTIFICATION OF LABORATORY VALUES. Procedures specifically not followed are: -2.1.1 "Verify the quality of the specimen" and "Recollect specimens immediately if specimen is suspect" 2.1.3 "Notify the physician/patient care personnel when patient is outside the hospital." Ramuriel failed to meet Human Resources 6.7a, a Class II violation, "Performance of duties below standard that continue after a reasonable period of appraisal and training." ACTION PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT: . . . Ramuriel will immediately improve his technical skills and follow all laboratory policies, especially G.4.2 "Notification of Laboratory Values." Failure to meet JMC standards of competency will lead to further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Ms. Rogers learned of the violation cited in this "Written Conference Record" as a result of a "physician complaint" (and not from Ms. Wiley).5 In giving Petitioner this "Written Conference Record," she did not treat him any differently than she treated other medical technologists who committed similar violations. Petitioner did not grieve his receipt of this "Written Conference Record," nor did he write anything on this "Written Conference Record" in the space provided for "[e]mployee [c]omments." The next "Written Conference Record" Petitioner received concerned an on-duty verbal altercation Petitioner had in January 2003, with another medical technologist working in the Laboratory, Susan Goldstein. Ms. Goldstein also received a "Written Conference Record" from Ms. Rogers for her participation in the altercation. Petitioner's "Written Conference Record" read as follows: REASON FOR CONFERENCE: . . . . On January 17, 2003, Ariel requested another employee to work in the coagulation section. The fellow employee stated she was busy helping a new employee with chemistry. The workload did not justify his request (see attached report). The coworker stated Ariel called her lazy when she refused to leave chemistry. Coworkers and supervisors do not feel Ariel is a patient focused team player and are unable to discuss workflow and cooperation with him. It is the policy of the Laboratory and Jupiter Medical Center to complete all tasks and work as a team to the benefit of our patients. Ariel violated Personnel Policy 6.7 group II.y "Other actions determined by management to not be in the best interest of the Medical Center." ACTION PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT: . . . Ariel will immediately put the patient first, and remain focused on patient testing. The evening shift must work together as a team, and Ariel needs to be a member of this team. Petitioner grieved his receipt of this "Written Conference Record." Petitioner's grievance was ultimately presented to JMC's Chief Operating Officer, who reached the following "conclusion," which she reduced to writing on March 25, 2003: This investigation has revealed substantial agreement about the facts of the incident itself by all parties. The facts regarding the incident do merit a Written Record of Conference in accordance with Jupiter Medical Center Policy. The Record should be amended to show that the lack of teamwork referenced was agreed by the Department Man[a]ger to be primarily limited to the one employee involved in this incident and does not extend to the entire Department. With the amendment, the Written Record of Conference should be a permanent part of the employment file of Mr. Orlino. Following his receipt of the Chief Operating Officer's written "conclusion," Petitioner took no action to "continue with [his] grievance." As a result, pursuant to the grievance procedure set forth in the Manual, the Chief Operating Officer's written "conclusion" became the final resolution of Petitioner's grievance. The last of the "Written Conference Records" Petitioner received was for repeatedly violating, after being warned on "multiple occasions" to stop,6 that portion of JMC's "Time and Attendance" policy, which provided that "employees will not badge in more than seven minutes prior to the start of their shift." This "Written Conference Record," which was given to Petitioner on June 6, 2003, read as follows: REASON FOR CONFERENCE: . . . . See attached list of dates and times of Ramuriel's timeclock punches. Beginning on March 17, 2003 through May 24, 2003, Ramuriel has failed to badge in at the correct time. Ramuriel is establishing an unacceptable pattern of badging in for work early and leaving early. Ramuriel has violated Human Resources Policy 6.7.a, "Insubordination- refusal or failure to follow instruction or established practices of the Medical Center," a Class I violation. Ramuriel was informed of the correct badging practice verbally on March 3, 2003 and by mailbox on March 17, 2003. Again the policy was reviewed at the April 2, 2003 general laboratory meeting, which Ramuriel attended, and [he] reviewed and initialed the minutes which included the time clock policy. ACTION PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT: . . . See associated letter. There has been no showing that any other Laboratory employee engaged in similar insubordinate conduct and did not receive a "Written Conference Record." Petitioner did not grieve his receipt of this "Written Conference Record" because he knew that he was in the wrong; nor did he write anything on this "Written Conference Record" in the space provided for "[e]mployee [c]omments." The "associated letter" in the "Written Conference Record" was a June 6, 2003, letter to Petitioner from Ms. Rogers, advising Petitioner of his termination. It read as follows: On August 23, 2002, you failed to meet laboratory competency standards or follow laboratory procedure. This is a Class II violation of Human Resources Policy 6.7- Discipline (a) "Performance of duties below standard that continue[s] after a reasonable period of appraisal and training." On October 23, 2002, you failed to meet laboratory competency standards or follow laboratory procedure. This is a Class II violation of Human Resources Policy 6.7- Discipline (a) "Performance of duties below standard that continue[s] after a reasonable period of appraisal and training."[7] On January 17, 2003, you failed to work as part of a team. This is a Class II violation of Human Resources Policy 6.7- Discipline (y) "Other actions determined by management to not be in the best interest of the Medical Center." Beginning on March 17, 2003 through May 24, 2003, you failed to badge in at your scheduled time, which is a violation of Human Resources Policy 6.7- Discipline, "Insubordination - refusal or failure to follow instructions or established practices of the Medical Center." Mr. Orlino, as a result of your actions, as denoted above, Jupiter Medical Center is terminating your employment effective immediately. You have the prerogative to utilize Jupiter Medical Center's grievance procedure; human resource policy 4.1, if you feel your termination is unjust. If you decide to grieve such a decision should be made within five (5) business days of June 6, 2003. In your absence, Jupiter Medical Center has elected to hand deliver this correspondence to ensure your complete understanding of the above events. Any compensation that you are eligible to receive will be paid to you on the hospital's next regularly scheduled payday. Please be aware that any hospital property, such as your ID badge, employee handbook, keys, uniform, etc. should be returned to the Human Resources Department. The final decision to terminate Petitioner was made, in accordance with JMC policy, by JMC's human resources department. Ms. Wiley did not provide any input in the making of this decision. Petitioner did not grieve his termination. At no time during the Employment Period did Petitioner ever utilize the procedures available to him under the Manual to complain that he was being discriminated against or harassed on the basis of his race; and there is no indication in the evidentiary record that, as a JMC employee, he was ever the victim of race-based discrimination or harassment.8 On May 24, 2005, almost a year after his termination, Petitioner filed an employment discrimination charge with the FCHR, alleging for the first time that he was the victim of anti-Asian discrimination. There are currently three or four Asian employees working in the Laboratory. They were all hired by Ms. Rogers following Petitioner's termination. None of these employees has received a "Written Conference Record."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding JMC not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
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 finding CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
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 The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of handicap under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, or disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by failing to award him the physical science/chemistry teaching position at Nease High School.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for a position in 2002 and renewed the application in 2003. As a result of the 2002 application, Petitioner was offered a job, which he declined before attending orientation. On the 2002 application, Petitioner fully disclosed that he had been found guilty of DUIs in 1986 and 1988. In 2004, Petitioner became aware of a teaching position as teacher at Nease High School in the Respondent's school system. He was very interested in the position, called about the position, and was told that he must update his application on-line, which he hurriedly did. He was interviewed by Robert Corson, who was then the vice principal of Nease, who found that he was well qualified as a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with a degree in engineering who had taken three or four courses in physics. Petitioner was not certified, but there would have been no problem in getting him a temporary certificate that would permit him to teach while taking education courses to qualify him for certification in Florida. Corson observed that there were not a large number of quality applicants for hard science positions today, and Petitioner was the best qualified of the three candidates who applied. Just before orientation, Respondent's Human Relations (HR) office called and advised Corson that there was a problem with Petitioner's application because he had failed to report an arrest. It was normal for HR to tell the school the nature of the problem. HR told them that they would have to repost or re- advertise for the position, which they did. Corson reported that he failed to establish contact with Petitioner, but that the HR office was able to stop him at the orientation as he entered, and have Petitioner call the HR office. When Petitioner called, the HR office advised him that the employment offer was withdrawn. Petitioner first went to Corson. Petitioner wanted to see the principal of Nease, Mr. Schiavone, but Petitioner was so upset that Corson told him that he would not help himself unless he calmed down. Petitioner and Corson discussed the fact that Petitioner reported the arrests on the initial application, and Corson explained that it was out of his hands, and was an HR issue. Petitioner told Corson that he was going to the HR office. Petitioner went to the HR office and spoke with Mr. Springfield, the head of HR. Ms. Geiger, the head of the Instructional Employees' branch of HR sat in on the meeting. From the testimony of Mr. Springfield, it is fairly certain that he presented the problem as a matter of Petitioner lying on his application. This was the term that Springfield used in testifying at hearing. Petitioner explained that, while he may not have completed the on-line application correctly, he certainly did not intentionally misrepresent the matter of his arrest because he had reported them in his initial application. Ms. Geiger looked in the files under O'Brien's previous job offer, and found his initial application, which reported the DUIs as Petitioner had stated. Therefore, Springfield knew on the day the offer of employment was withdrawn that there had been no intent by Petitioner to misrepresent his qualifications. There was testimony presented by the Board about its procedures, and the superintendent's requirement that all job offers be withdrawn when a background check failed to agree with an applicant's application. After the matter of the "lie" had been resolved, the position of Springfield was that Petitioner would have to reapply for the position. This Petitioner did on that afternoon. There was no conflict regarding the correctness of his second application, which did report the DUIs. It is at this point that conflicts develop in the testimony, and there is a departure from normal procedures. Springfield testified that he could not remember if Petitioner was told that he must provide proof of "treatment" with regard to the DUIs. Geiger, who was present at the meeting, testified that Petitioner was told that he must provide proof of "treatment." Petitioner did not testify. Geiger testified that she did not follow the normal procedures of writing a letter to Petitioner outlining what he must do in response to the problems with his first on-line application because he was told these things at the meeting. Geiger made a memo to herself to follow up on Petitioner's application and on July 22, 2004, sent him an e- mail "reminding" him to submit proof of treatment. On July 27, 2004, Petitioner brought his Navy medical records to Geiger for her review and based thereon she and Springfield cleared him making him an "active" applicant. Unfortunately, Nease filled the position on July 26, 2004, by hiring Ms. Nall, a certified science teacher, who was presumably not handicapped. Petitioner asserts that the withdrawal of the job offer and denying him the position was discriminatory and based upon perceived disability. The Respondent asserts that it was just following standing procedures.
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 its Final Order directing that the Respondent cease and desist in the practices mentioned; that the Respondent be directed to hire the Petitioner upon his submitting an application for employment. Jurisdiction is retained for factual consideration of the damages to include costs and fees upon entry of the Commission's final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 29th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen J. Gallagher Qualified Representative 124 North Cove Drive Ponte Vedre Beach, Florida 32082 Thomas J. Leek, Esquire Kelly V. Parsons, Esquire Cobb & Cole Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 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
