The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment and/or retaliation while employed with Respondent in violation of Subsections 760.10(1)(a) and/or (7), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the definition found in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired as an employee of Respondent in July 1993, as an X-ray technologist ("tech") in the Radiology Department. She is an adult female and, as such, is a member of a protected class. During her employee orientation, Petitioner received and read a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook. Among other things, Respondent's Employee Handbook addresses the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. Respondent's policy strictly prohibits sexual harassment and states that Respondent "will not tolerate such action by employees." Respondent's policy also encourages any employee who feels that he/she is being subject to sexual harassment to discuss and/or make a complaint with the Human Resources Department. Any such complaint is handled according to Respondent's Policy No. 9510-17, in order to ensure appropriate investigation and action. Respondent's employees also receive computer-based training regarding sexual harassment and Respondent's policy prohibiting the same, every year. Petitioner received this computer-based training regarding sexual harassment. In October 2006, Petitioner started training to be a magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") tech. Petitioner was chosen to be cross-trained from an X-ray tech to a MRI tech by Greg Phillips, who was then the manager of Diagnostic Imaging. Phillips became her unofficial "mentor" at Respondent's facility. Petitioner received on-the-job training for an MRI tech from Chris Depelteau, Amy Brantly, and Lucinda Swales, all of whom were MRI techs at the time. In December 2006, Petitioner received a secondary job code which allowed her to work independently as an MRI tech part-time. Essentially this meant that she could "take call." That same month, Paul Licker was hired by Respondent as lead MRI tech. Depelteau had also applied for this job, but had not been chosen. Upon being hired by Respondent, Licker was also made aware of its policy regarding sexual harassment. As lead MRI tech, Licker was responsible for scheduling the MRI techs, ordering supplies, working on protocols, ensuring that patients were being properly scanned and treated, and following up with the MRI techs as they cared for patients. Therefore, Licker became Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Like all the other MRI techs, Licker also trained Petitioner in MRI. In training Petitioner, Licker often taught her different techniques or ways of doing things than the way she had been taught by the other MRI techs. Licker, on several occasions, sought to teach Petitioner his way of doing things on the computer, which was different from the others. In doing so, Licker invaded Petitioner's workspace and engaged in inappropriate touching, particularly by covering her hand with his while manipulating the mouse, to the point that she became uncomfortable. Licker also started implementing changes and different ways of doing things throughout the MRI department. As lead MRI tech, Licker had the authority to implement such changes. Also, during this same period, if Licker added patients or made other changes to her schedule, Petitioner would argue with or complain to him. In fact, Petitioner did not like Licker and also told Depelteau and other employees that Licker was a "bad supervisor." Licker himself recognized that Petitioner did not like the way he was supervising the department. A few weeks after Licker started working for Respondent, Petitioner approached Phillips complaining that Licker was calling her, other female employees, and patients, "Babe." For instance, Licker would say, "Babe, I need you to do this for me," when asking Petitioner to complete a task. Petitioner indicated that she thought that the use of this term was inappropriate and demeaning and that it made her uncomfortable. In fact, other employees who were friendly with Petitioner understood that Licker was using the term "Babe" the way another person might use the terms "Sweetie," or "Honey," i.e., in a non-sexual or non-derogatory way. However, understanding that Licker was a new supervisor who may not have understood that the term suggested something sexual in using the term "Babe," Phillips suggested to Petitioner that she speak directly with Licker to resolve this issue. Phillips also spoke to Licker directly regarding his use of the term "Babe." Specifically, Phillips advised Licker that he "needed to carefully choose his words around patients and employees." Phillips also advised Licker that some people did not like being addressed by "Sweetie or Hun or Babe," and that he should refrain from using these terms in the workplace. Licker understood Phillips' suggestion and tried to refrain from calling Petitioner, or anybody else, "Babe" or any word similar to the term. Petitioner did not complain about any other alleged inappropriate conduct by Licker to Phillips, or any other manager, until February 1, 2007. However, shortly after he started working for Respondent, Licker made an inappropriate comment in the cafeteria to Petitioner. Licker stated to other employees that he could not sit next to Petitioner because they were sleeping together. Licker made a similar inappropriate comment to Dana Keach when he first started employment at Parrish. He suggested that there was a lesbian relationship between Keach and another woman. This conduct was not reported until much later. Prior to February 1, 2007, it became readily apparent that the MRI department was suffering serious setbacks because the department employees were not working cooperatively together. The biggest problem in the MRI department appeared to be a lack of teamwork resulting from the staff's inability to communicate effectively with one another. Licker advised Gallacher that he was struggling in his "daily interactions" with Depelteau and Petitioner and that he simply "could not make the group happy, whether it was scheduling or time off or just getting through the day." MRI's problems grew to the point that Phillips and Gallacher both stepped in to try to improve communications and teamwork among Licker, Petitioner, Depelteau, and Shelly Hugoboom, the MRI CT assistant. The entire MRI department engaged in team-building meetings and even worked with the medical center's chaplain in an attempt to learn to work together. These department meetings were intense and discussion often became heated among the MRI staff members. In addition to these team-building meetings, Gallacher met with staff members individually to discuss their concerns. Gallacher also addressed the interpersonal skills issues between Petitioner and Hugoboom. Specifically, Gallacher met with the two employees together "to see if they could put [their issues] to rest and move on." In the midst of these efforts to improve the department, Petitioner came to Phillips on February 1, 2007, complaining that Licker was continuing to call her "Babe," and that he had also offered her some concert tickets. Phillips observed that Petitioner was extremely upset and immediately contacted Human Resources Manager Roberta Chaildin to start an investigation in regard to Licker's alleged behavior. Phillips and Chaildin spoke with Petitioner and Licker, individually, regarding Petitioner's claims. When questioned regarding the concert ticket, Licker explained that he had been looking to sell an extra ticket that he had. Licker advised Phillips and Chaildin that Petitioner had taken his offer to sell her the extra ticket "out of context," when she assumed that he was asking her to the concert on a date. Licker specified that he had asked Petitioner if she wanted to buy his extra ticket and "tag along" with him and his friends to the concert. Licker also offered his extra ticket to other people besides Petitioner. After speaking with Petitioner and Licker, Phillips and Chaildin determined that they were dealing with a "he-said- she-said situation and a misunderstanding." "He said, I was trying to sell the ticket or give it away. She said, he had asked me out on a date to a concert." Phillips and Chaildin determined that this was not a case of "sexual harassment" by Licker. They did, however, warn Licker that as a supervisor, he had to be "extremely careful" in how he spoke to his subordinate employees. Phillips and Chaildin advised Petitioner that they had investigated her claim and concluded that there was no evidence of sexual harassment. They encouraged her, however, to file a report if she continued to have issues with Licker. Over five months passed without a complaint or incident. Then on July 11, 2007, Licker verbally counseled Petitioner regarding her having accumulated nine tardy appearances ("tardies") at work since January 1, 2007. In speaking with Petitioner, Licker wanted to ensure that Petitioner understood that she needed to be on time in the future, as she had exceeded the number of tardies deemed acceptable by Respondent. To ensure that nothing said during the verbal counseling session was misconstrued by Petitioner, Licker had another supervisor, Boyd Wallace, serve as a witness. The tardies cited in Licker's verbal counseling to Petitioner were unrelated to instances when he would excuse her from work due to slower volume in the MRI department. On August 21, 2007, Licker observed Petitioner on the telephone being advised by security that she had parked in a "no parking" zone. During the conversation, Petitioner became agitated. Licker documented and filed the incident. Phillips personally addressed this incident with Petitioner. On October 10, 2007, the MRI department was working an already full schedule when Licker had to add a patient to the schedule due to an emergency situation. Petitioner objected to Licker adding another patient to the day and became withdrawn and resentful. Licker instructed Petitioner that she needed to change her attitude and become more cooperative. The evidence is not persuasive that Licker assigned Petitioner "menial tasks" after she complained about his having offered her the concert tickets in February 2007. In October 2007, Gallacher, Phillips and Chaildin met Petitioner and issued her a Decision Day disciplinary letter. A "Decision Day" meeting and letter is a management tool in which the employee is given a paid day off to contemplate whether they wish to remain an employee of Respondent. This resulted from Respondent's concerns regarding her "interpersonal skills." This was an issue that had been continuously addressed by Licker and other supervisors or managers at Respondent. The incident which prompted the progressive disciplinary action involved Debbie York, a relatively new employee who resigned from the MRI department, claiming that Petitioner and her interactions with other employees and with Licker was the reason for her leaving. During the Decision Day meeting, Petitioner stated that she was the "victim" and brought up the previous incidents of allegedly being sexually harassed. Petitioner was reminded that she had not complained of any other instances of alleged sexual harassment since she complained of Licker's offering her concert tickets in February 2007 and that the matter was investigated and resolved. From the point of view of management, the Decision Day meeting was intended to address Petitioner's on-going issues with her co-workers and her supervisor. However, Petitioner did not bring up any new incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Licker during the Decision Day meeting. Following the meeting, Petitioner took her Decision Day letter and returned to work. The Decision Day letter called for the creation of an Action Plan, which Respondent uses to help a struggling employee "become invested with the organization and with [his or her] team." Thereafter, Petitioner met with Gallacher to discuss what should be included in her Action Plan. On November 7, 2007, an Action Plan was drafted and signed. It included a number of initiatives designed to assist Petitioner in being "re[-]engaged" with the MRI department. Despite being placed on an Action Plan, Petitioner continued to have issues with Licker being her supervisor. On November 20, 2007, Licker verbally counseled Petitioner for her failure to discuss changes in her weekly schedule with him. Licker specifically identified Petitioner's "communication skills" as a continuing issue. On December 19, 2007, Petitioner was suspended without pay for two days for stating that Licker was being an "asshole," or something to that effect, in front of a co-worker. Petitioner accepted responsibility for her comment. Along with her suspension, Petitioner was also issued a written warning stated in pertinent part, "Upon your return [from suspension], you will be expected to demonstrate a high level of interpersonal skills towards your co-workers, management and this organization and work on completion of your Action Plan items. Any reports of less than acceptable behavior or performance or deviation from a Diagnostic Imaging or PMC policy or procedure will result in immediate termination." As a result of the written warning, Petitioner also lost 50 percent of her annual merit increase. In January 2008, management considered that the MRI department was still very "dysfunctional." Scott Hazelbaker, the new executive director of Diagnostics/Cardiovascular, met with all of the MRI employees as a group to discuss his "expectations of working together as a team." Hazelbaker also discerned that Licker lacked leadership skills to be an effective supervisor. In fact, none of the MRI employees had much respect for Licker's management style. On April 10, 2008, Hazelbaker, Gallacher, and Chaildin met with Petitioner to discuss her progress under the Action Plan. During the meeting, Hazelbaker reviewed Petitioner's history toward Respondent, explaining that her negative attitude could not be tolerated. Specifically, her negativity, failure to be a team player, and refusal to embrace or become engaged in Respondent's culture were detrimentally affecting the work of MRI as a whole. Hazelbaker continued by advising Respondent that as a result of her "track record," she could either resign from her employment or be terminated. Petitioner was advised that if she resigned, Respondent would pay her for two weeks in lieu of having her work through her notice period, pay her the balance of her personal leave bank, extend her health benefits for two weeks so that she could fill her prescriptions, and even designate her eligible for rehire in its system. At the end of the meeting, Petitioner tendered her resignation notice to Respondent. At no time during the meeting did Petitioner ask to leave the room or make a call in order to seek advice or legal counsel. Further, at no time during the meeting did Petitioner raise her past issues regarding Licker and the alleged sexual harassment she suffered. The evidence is persuasive that Licker did not influence the decision to terminate Petitioner. He had not asked for her to be terminated. In August 2009, more than one year after Petitioner resigned, Respondent received a complaint regarding Licker from then-X-Ray Tech Dana Keach, who claimed that Licker made sexually suggestive comments to her. Following an investigation, Licker was terminated, effective September 24, 2009, for "communication unsuitability between care partners." It does not appear that Licker was terminated for engaging in sexual harassment. The evidence is not persuasive that during the time he was employed by Respondent that Licker had inappropriate discussions in the workplace on numerous occasions in front of both male and female employees; nor that Licker would also discuss pornography in the workplace.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Lesa Burkavage's, claims of unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation against Respondent, Parrish Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether Elizabeth Stuglik ("Respondent" or "Stuglik") committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated August 9, 2010, and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for any discipline against her license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Stuglik holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1052905, covering the area of Foreign Language Spanish, which is valid through June 30, 2012. She graduated from college in May of 2007 with a Bachelor's of Science in secondary Spanish education from Indiana University. At all times material to this proceeding, Stuglik was employed as a Foreign Languages Spanish teacher at H.L. Watkins Middle School (Watkins) in the Palm Beach County School District. (School District). Her employment at Watkins was for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years. Stuglik started her teaching career during the 2007- 2008 year. Respondent taught seventh and eighth-grade Spanish. Her classroom was located in the chorus room in a stand-alone building apart from the main school building, across the courtyard area connected to the cafeteria. Stuglik's chorus room was adjacent to Heath Miller's ("Miller") classroom. He was the band teacher. An office divided the two classrooms, which both teachers shared. The shared office had two doors, and each was for entrance into the two classrooms. Each door had the capacity to be locked from the classroom side. The classroom doors could be opened from the office side, even though the classroom doors were locked from the classroom side. Miller and Stuglik saw each other on a daily basis. Stuglik felt that Miller started out their relationship by approaching her as a mentor, offering to assist her with anything she needed including discipline of the students. In the second or third week of school during August 2007, Miller told Stuglik that it was too bad she was married because it would be fun if they could get together. Stuglik failed to respond to the comment. She thought it was his way of being polite and giving her a compliment. Miller made other inappropriate unprofessional related comments to Stuglik afterwards and she never told him the comments were personally offensive or to stop. Miller also tried to grab Stuglik's buttocks quite of few times. The first time was in the shared office. Miller told Stuglik that he and his wife had an open marriage, and that his wife allowed him to have multiple sexual partners. As Respondent admitted in her deposition, Respondent had sex with Miller either three or four times at Watkins. Each time Miller took Stuglik by the hand without protest, took her to the storage room, undressed her by unfastening the top portion of her pants, lowered her pants and then she would cooperate with him by having providing sexual intercourse. Each sexual liaison Stuglik had with Miller was consensual.1 Neither Stuglik nor Miller used protection such as a condom, during sexual intercourse. Stuglik admitted that she wasn't concerned about getting pregnant because she was on birth control. The first sexual encounter took place one morning in September 2007. Miller went in Respondent's classroom before school while she was sitting at her desk, grabbed her hand, and led her "not in a hard manner" without protest to the storage room. Respondent also failed to resist when Miller undid her pants by undoing the buttons, took off her pants with her underwear, and she stepped out of her pants. Respondent, who was naked from the waist down, mounted Miller, who was sitting in a chair with his penis exposed, for the sexual act and hugged him as he instructed during sex intercourse.2 Respondent's response to Miller's actions while they engaged in sex were, "I'm married; I don't believe in this." And, "That's you; that's not me; I'm married; I don't do that." She never told him to stop what he was doing.3 Stuglik put on her clothes after sex with Miller and returned to her class and taught that day. Miller never threatened Stuglik or physically tried to harm or force her to have the sexual liaisons. At no time, did Stuglik refuse, fight, yell, or pull away forcefully during the encounters. Stuglik paused during a sexual liason but never said no or attempted to stop it. Stuglik also testified to a second sexual encounter with Miller. She admitted that several weeks later Miller got to school early again, grabbed Stuglik's hand, and led her back to the storage room where the two of them had sex again without any conversation. Respondent testified that she didn't say anything because she didn't know what was going to happen. At least a third sexual encounter occurred between Stuglik and Miller at either the end of October or the beginning of November. After the 2007 Thanksgiving break, Stuglik did not have sex with Miller again. Respondent never reported any of the sexual encounters with Miller to anyone until April 27, 2009. During the summer of 2008,, Respondent's husband divorced her. During Stuglik's 2008-2009 school year, Respondent taught sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade Spanish. She moved to a different classroom, the general music classroom, in the same music building. Stuglik was provided a key to the classroom that provided a lock for the door, which prevented anybody from entering the classroom without her allowing the individual inside. The principal informed Stuglik that Miller had asked for a key to her room, stating that he needed access to the storage room. The principal provided the option to Stuglik as to whether she provided Miller the key to Stuglik's classroom. Studlik requested that the principal provide Miller a key, which allowed Miller access to her classroom. Several times during the 2008-2009 school year, while Stuglik was working at her desk, Miller approached Respondent, sat on the desk in front of her, and put her hand on his penis. Each time he placed her hand there, he would say, "Let's do it again." During her second year teaching at Watkins, Stuglik volunteered to help with Miller's band activities on weekends and during the evenings, including going on field trips every couple of months or so. Respondent's social relationship continued with Miller and his wife. Stuglik had a discussion with Miller's wife regarding children. Miller's wife informed Respondent that she badly wanted to have a baby. Stuglik also initiated contact with Miller during the 2008-2009 school year and requested concert tickets from him after she heard he could get discounted tickets to see a show. Stuglik obtained the tickets by getting them from Miller's wife. Stuglik took her boyfriend to the concert for Valentines Day. She and her boyfriend sat next to Miller and his wife at the concert. Stuglik attended the Waterway Cafe, a restaurant bar, and socialized with a group of teachers including Miller and his wife. She went there several times. Stuglik had K.H. and T.B. in her second period class and, A.P. in her sixth-period class during the 2008-2009 school year. Miller would ask that K.H., the drum major, and T.B. come to his classroom from out of Stuglik's class. She would allow the female students to leave during her class core time and go with Miller. Other teachers also allowed Miller to remove female students from their classrooms during class and take them to his class. Approximately at the beginning of April 2009, Miller informed Respondent and several other teachers at lunch that there was a rumor that he was involved sexually with students. Respondent was shocked to hear the rumor and did not believe Miller would harm students. On or about April 16, 2009, district officials started an investigation into allegations that Miller had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a female student during the 2008-2009 school year. On Friday, April 17, 2009, K.H. came to Respondent's class crying and upset. Respondent had her step outside and wait while she took attendance. When Stuglik went in the hall to check on K.H., she was gone. When K.H. returned to Respondent's class, she didn't stay long before a person from the main office removed her. Stuglik never talked to K.H. about the crying incident. Friday was also the day Miller was removed from the school for allegedly having sex with female students. Stuglik was in Miller's classroom where he was about to update her on the rumor when the police arrived to remove him from the school. After Miller was removed from the school, he called Stulik on her cell phone at least one time at 4:16 p.m. on Friday; two times on Saturday at 10:11 a.m. and 3:53 p.m.; and one time on Sunday at 6:47 p.m. asking for information regarding the investigation. On April 21, 2009, during the investigative process, Respondent gave a sworn statement to the school detective, Vincent Mintus ("Mintus"), where he asked her, "did she date Miller" and "was she romantically involved with him." Stuglik responded no to both questions.4 Stuglik did not disclose that she had a sexual relationship with Miller during the interview. Subsequently, during the investigation, Mintus discovered that from September through November of 2007, Stuglik engaged in sex with Miller on the school campus during school hours. Stuglik admitted in her deposition that she didn't initially tell the investigator she provided about the sexual relationship with Miller because "I didn't want anybody to know." On April 27, 2009, Respondent provided a second sworn statement to Mintus where she was told by him that she was a victim, and she agreed. The Mintus interview included the following questions and answers: Q. And did it involve sexual intercourse? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was it here at school? A. Yes. Q. Yes? Um . . . are you . . .when did that occur? Now let me ask you . . .you are a victim in that. A. Yes. Q. Do you understand that? A. Uh-huh (yes) Q. That was against your will? A. Yes. *** Q. Okay, you understand you are a victim? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Um . . . and your . . . our explanation to me is that it was absolutely non-consensual. A. Yes. Q. So you were a victim of sexual battery. A. It's . . . don't know what the terminology is, but . . . Q. Okay, um . . . okay. It was non- consensual though, right? A. Correct. After the interview, Mintus contacted the Victim's Advocate of Palm Beach County for Stuglik and started a criminal investigation into her rape allegations. Stuglik went to see the Victim's Advocate after Mintus called them. The rape investigation required a third interview of Stuglik. Respondent only agreed to provide the statement with the assurance that Miller would not be criminally prosecuted for her allegations. On July 29, 2009, Almarie Thompson ("Thompson"), a Victim's Advocate for Victim Services, and an attorney went with Stuglik to her third interview with Mintus. During that sworn interview, Mintus asked Studlik if she were taken advantage of [by Miller]. She answered, "A little bit, yeah." Thompson referred Stuglik to Norma Asencia ("Asencia"), a licensed mental health provider with Palm County Victim Services. Asencia had an intake visit with Stuglik on December 14, 2009. Asencia did not diagnose Stuglik but determined that she had common symptoms of a rape victim and structured her remaining four sessions to deal with the symptoms.5 The last session was on March 3, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding Stuglik did not violate Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)9a), 6B-1.006(4)(b), and 6B-1.006(5)(m); finding that Stuglik did violate Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), and suspending her educator's certificate for one year followed by probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 30th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates the Best Western Admiral’s Inn and Conference Center in Winter Haven. Petitioner worked as a waitress in the hotel’s first floor restaurant from March 8, 2005, through March 18, 2006. Petitioner testified that she was sexually harassed “for months” by Marcus Owens, a cook who worked with her in the restaurant. According to Petitioner, Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually-explicit comments to her on a number of occasions while they were working together. Petitioner could not recall precisely when the harassment started, but she estimated that it started approximately two weeks after Mr. Owens started working at the restaurant. Mr. Owens started working in the restaurant on July 28, 2005, which means that the harassment would have started in mid- August 2005. Petitioner did not complain about the harassment until November 9, 2005, when she reported it to her supervisor, Cory Meeks. This was the first notice that Respondent had about the alleged harassment. Petitioner’s testimony that she complained to the hotel’s general manager, Jeffrey Vandiver, about the harassment several weeks prior to her complaint to Mr. Meeks was not persuasive. Petitioner and Mr. Meeks met with the hotel’s human resources manager, Lin Whitaker, on the same day that the complaint was made, November 9, 2005. Ms. Whitaker told Petitioner that she needed to put her complaint in writing for the hotel to take formal action. Petitioner refused to do so because she was scared of retribution by Mr. Owens, even though Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whittaker assured her that she would be protected from Mr. Owens. Petitioner asked Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker to address the situation with Mr. Owens without using her name, which they did. Mr. Owens denied sexually harassing anyone when confronted by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner again complained to Mr. Meeks about Mr. Owens. She told Mr. Meeks that the harassment had not stopped and that it had gotten worse through even more vulgar comments. Petitioner again did not want a formal investigation into the allegations, but Ms. Whitaker told her that an investigation was required by company policy since this was the second complaint. Mr. Owens was immediately suspended without pay pending the completion of the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Whitaker on December 7, 2005. They first met with Petitioner to get her side of the story. Then, they met separately with Mr. Owens to get his side of the story. Finally, they interviewed all of the employees who worked with Petitioner and Mr. Owens. This was the first time that Petitioner went into detail about what Mr. Owens had said and done. She stated that, among other things, Mr. Owens asked her whether she had “ever had a black man” and whether her boyfriend “is able to get it up or does he require Viagra.” She also stated that there were no witnesses to the harassment because Mr. Owens was "discreet" about making the comments to her when no one else was around. Mr. Owens again denied sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledged asking Petitioner whether she had ever dated a black man, but he stated that the question was in response to Petitioner asking him whether he had ever dated a white woman. (Mr. Owens is black, and Petitioner is white.) The other employees who were interviewed as part of the investigation stated that they had not witnessed any sexual harassment or overheard any sexually explicit conversations in the restaurant. Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Owens concluded based upon their investigation that “there is not enough evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Marcus Owens.” They decided to let Mr. Owens continue working at the hotel, provided that he agreed to be moved to the hotel’s second floor restaurant and that he agreed to attend a sexual harassment training program. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed the results of their investigation and their proposed solution to Petitioner. She was “fine” with the decision to move Mr. Owens to the second floor restaurant where she would not have contact with him. On that same day, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed their proposed solution to Mr. Owens. He too was “fine” with the decision, and he agreed that he would not go near Petitioner. Mr. Owens came back to work the following day, on December 9, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Owens was involved in an altercation with Stephen Zulinski, a dishwasher at the hotel and a close friend of Petitioner’s. The altercation occurred at the hotel during working hours. Mr. Zulinski testified that the incident started when Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually explicit comments and gestures about Mr. Zulinski’s relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Zulinski was offended and angered by the comments, and he cursed and yelled at Mr. Owens. Mr. Zulinski denied pushing Mr. Owens (as reflected on Mr. Zulinski’s Notice of Termination), but he admitted to putting his finger on Mr. Owens’ shoulder during the altercation. Mr. Owens and Mr. Zulinski were immediately fired as a result of the altercation. Petitioner continued to work as a waitress at the hotel’s first floor restaurant after Mr. Owens was fired. Petitioner received awards from Respondent for having the most positive customer comment cards for the months of October and November 2005, even though according to her testimony she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Owens during those months. She testified that her problems with Mr. Owens affected her job performance only to a “very small degree.” Petitioner had no major problems with her job performance prior to December 2005, notwithstanding the sexual harassment by Mr. Owens that had been occurring “for months” according to Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner was “written up” on a number of occasions between December 2005 and February 2006 because of problems with her job performance. The problems included Petitioner being rude to the on-duty manager in front of hotel guests; taking too many breaks and not having the restaurant ready for service when her shift started; failing to check the messages left for room service orders; and generating a guest complaint to the hotel’s corporate headquarters. Petitioner was fired after an incident on March 11, 2006, when she left the restaurant unattended on several occasions and the manager-on-duty received complaints from several hotel guests about the quality of service that they received from Petitioner that night. Petitioner ended up being sent home from work that night because, according to her supervisor, “she was in a crying state,” unable to work, and running off the restaurant’s business. Petitioner’s employment with Respondent was formally terminated on March 18, 2006. The stated reason for the termination was “unsatisfactory work performance” and “too many customer complaints.” None of the supervisors who wrote up Petitioner were aware of her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Owens. Petitioner claimed that the allegations of customer complaints and poor job performance detailed in the write-ups were “ludicrous,” “insane,” “almost a complete fabrication,” and “a joke.” The evidence does not support Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner admitted to having “severe” bi-polar disorder, and she acknowledged at the hearing and to her supervisor that she was having trouble with her medications over the period that she was having problems with her job performance. For example, the comment written by Petitioner on the January 27, 2006, write-up stated that she was “at a loss” to explain her job performance and that she “hope[d] to have [her] mental stability restored to what everyone else but [her] seems normalcy.” Petitioner worked 25 to 30 hours per week while employed by Respondent. She was paid $5.15 per hour, plus tips, and she testified that her biweekly take-home pay was between $200 and $250. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after she was fired. Respondent did not dispute the claim, and Petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation of $106 per week, which she received for a period of six months ending in September 2006. Petitioner has not worked since she was fired by Respondent in March 2006. She has not even attempted to find another job since that time. Petitioner does not believe that she is capable of working because of her bi-polar disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits based upon that condition, but her application was denied. Petitioner’s appeal of the denial is pending. Petitioner testified that one of the reasons that she has not looked for another job is her concern that doing so would undermine her efforts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Respondent has a general “non-harassment” policy, which prohibits “harassment of one employee by another employee . . . for any reason.” Respondent also has a specific sexual harassment policy, which states that “sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include verbal sexual conduct that “has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” The general non-harassment policy and the specific sexual harassment policy require the employee to immediately report the harassment to his or her supervisor or a member of the management staff. The Standards of Conduct and the Work Rules adopted by Respondent authorize immediate dismissal of an employee who is disrespectful or discourteous to guests of the hotel. The Standards of Conduct also authorize discipline ranging from a written reprimand to dismissal for an employee’s “[f]ailure to perform work or job assignments satisfactorily and efficiently.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Donald T. Ryce, Esquire 908 Coquina Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Nora E. Bartolone 119 Alachua Drive Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33884
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with Florida A & M University, as proposed in a termination letter dated August 19, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: In this employee termination case, Petitioner, Florida A & M University (FAMU), seeks to terminate the employment of Respondent, Calvin C. Miles, Jr., on the ground that he sexually harassed three female students and retaliated against two students in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Because FAMU is a part of the State University System, the Board of Regents was also identified as a Petitioner. Respondent has denied all allegations. FAMU has a non-discrimination policy and harassment complaint procedure codified in Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (6)(b) of the rule prohibits sexual harassment while paragraph (11)(a) prohibits retaliation. Respondent was subject to this policy and procedure, and on August 26, 1998, he signed a paper indicating that he had read and understood the same. On August 22, 1997, Respondent was hired as General Manager of WAMF, a radio station owned and operated by FAMU and which employed a number of FAMU students. Whether he was considered a non-instructional or instructional employee is not clear. In any event, the station had been without a full-time manager "for a while," and Respondent was told to come in and "put in place some policies and format . . . and move the station in the direction that [FAMU] thought it should go." He was also told that the station should be operated as a teaching facility. FAMU agrees that some of Respondent's decisions in implementing these directives "caused some people to bristle." Respondent's immediate supervisor was Dr. Hawkins, Director of FAMU's Division of Journalism. As such, Dr. Hawkins was required to prepare Respondent's annual evaluations. The first evaluation was prepared on September 29, 1998, and was transmitted to Respondent with a letter of the same date. In his letter, Dr. Hawkins concluded that Respondent's "first year here has been a mixed bag." While he acknowledged that Respondent had "turned up the level of professionalism at the station substantially and in rather quick fashion," he noted other matters of concern. Among these was a concern that at least three female students said that you had made inappropriate remarks to them. While none of these students have filed a complaint, I believe I have a responsibility to mention them now. In addition to the comments of these students, other female students have said that they just plan to stay away from the station so they do not have to be bothered. This is not the climate we want. This letter placed him on official notice that some female students perceived his conduct towards them as offensive and having an improper sexual connotation. In response to his evaluation, Respondent wrote Dr. Bryant a lengthy letter dated October 22, 1998. As to the allegations of sexual misconduct, Respondent "strongly suggest[ed] that the University conduct a thorough investigation of all complaints of this nature." During his tenure with FAMU, Respondent had two or three meetings with the Dean of the School of Journalism, Media, and Graphic Arts, Dean Ruggles, and his immediate supervisor, Dr. Bryant, regarding the foregoing complaints of sexual misconduct. Respondent was urged to use "extreme caution," to reassess his behavior with female students, and warned that "if these allegations were taken to the complaint stage" by a student and found to be substantiated, there would be severe consequences. In addition, on at least one occasion, Respondent met with the Director of FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs regarding a complaint by another student. Therefore, it is fair to infer that Respondent was well aware of on-going accusations being made against him, and that he should be extremely cautious in his behavior around female students. After formal complaints of sexual harassment were filed by three female students in February 1999, FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs conducted an investigation. On May 11, 1999, the President of FAMU notified Respondent that the findings of the investigation revealed that Respondent had violated Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, and that FAMU intended to terminate his employment. Respondent then availed himself of the right to have an "investigatory interview" by a University Personnel Committee on July 13, 1999. When the committee determined that no new facts had been presented, Respondent was dismissed from employment effective August 26, 1999. This appeal ensued. Although the termination letter does not identify the specific allegations which form the basis for the termination, in a Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, FAMU has alleged that Respondent "engaged in conduct and actions toward[s] [Symphony] Parson, [Deanna] McKinley[,] and [Jackeline] Pou that rose to the level of sexual harassment in violation of Rule 6C3- 10.103(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." FAMU further alleged that Respondent "exhibited behavior towards Ms. Parson and Ms. Maria Williams, a witness in this matter, that rose to the level of retaliation as set forth in [Rule] 6C3-10.103(11)(a), F.A.C." However, there was no evidence regarding retaliation against Maria Williams, who was not a witness in this case, and that portion of the charges has been disregarded. Parson, McKinley, and Pou testified at the final hearing, and although Respondent disputed the accuracy of their allegations, their testimony has been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues. Findings with respect to those allegations are set forth below. Deanna McKinley Deanna McKinley (McKinley) enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1996 and was a senior at the time of hearing. On September 1, 1998, McKinley began working at WAMF and hosted an Inspirational Gospel Morning Show using the on-air name of "Deanna Devine." Respondent was her supervisor. Throughout her employment at the radio station, McKinley felt "uncomfortable" around Respondent. This was because he would stare at her breasts, always place his hands on her shoulders when speaking to her, squeeze her shoulders, touch her hand in the Disc Jockey (DJ) booth, and stand extremely close to her while the two spoke. She was especially uncomfortable "being in the same studio with him, because the studio was in a different part of the building, it was locked, it was dark, [and] usually [she] was the only one there." Although she disliked Respondent's conduct and on occasion had told him that she disapproved of it, McKinley was under the impression that unless she tolerated Respondent's actions, she would not be allowed to continue as a DJ or "make progress" at the station. Besides the foregoing conduct, Respondent made personal remarks of a sexual nature to McKinley. For example, when she would bend over, he would say something like "Don't bend over like that, you will get someone excited." He also made a comment about how "adorable" and "kissable" she was, and that if he were her man, he "would just kiss [her] all the time." Once, when McKinley remarked ". . . little old me?", Respondent stared at her breasts and replied "Nothing on you is little, Deanna. But that's all right. It's all good." In January 1999, McKinley accidentally dropped something on the floor in the studio and bent over to pick it up. Respondent again stated "You should not bend over like that, Deanna, you may get someone excited." This latest incident triggered a decision by McKinley to leave the radio station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that McKinley perceived the radio station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 1, 1999, McKinley submitted her letter of resignation to the radio station. On February 11, 1999, she filed a complaint with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Symphony Parson Symphony Parson enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1997 with a major in broadcast journalism. She began working at WAMF that same year as a music director and on-air personality. Respondent was her supervisor. In April 1998, and while on duty at the station, Parson was taking a telephone message for the station secretary late one afternoon when Respondent came up behind her and began rubbing her shoulders and then moved his hand onto her breast. She told him to stop, "cursed him," and then left the station. In November 1998, Parson was in the station "writing on the file cabinet" when Respondent came up behind her and "brushed up against her" rubbing his shoulders against her. She again "cursed him out." A month later, he repeated the same conduct. According to Parson, she felt "violated" and "horrible" whenever this conduct occurred. Respondent also engaged in inappropriate conversations with Parson when she was on duty at the station. For example, he asked her if she was having sex with her boyfriend, and he told her how "cute" and "sexy" she was. These conversations made her feel extremely uncomfortable and led Parson to try to avoid Respondent whenever possible. At the same time, however, Parson felt that she had to tolerate this conduct to keep her position at the station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Parson found the station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 8, 1999, Parson filed a charge of sexual harassment against Respondent with the Equal Opportunity Office. A few days later, Respondent was placed on administrative leave. When he returned to his office to clean out his personal items, he passed by Parson and said "You're dead." Parson reported this to the police, was forced to get a cell phone out of fear for her personal being, and asked her parents to temporarily move into her apartment. Jackeline Pou Jackeline Pou (Pou) enrolled in FAMU's journalism program in August 1996. She began working at WANF in September 1997. Respondent was her supervisor. While working at the station, Respondent would sometimes brush his body against Pou or touch her shoulders, which made her feel uncomfortable. Almost on a daily basis, he would make comments about how pretty she was or make comments about her "eyes". When he spoke to her, he would stare at her breasts. Once, she observed him staring at her "behind when [she] was walking away." In the summer of 1998, and just after Pou finished speaking on the telephone with a friend, Respondent asked who she was speaking with. When Pou responded "It's none of your business," Respondent said, "It couldn't have been a guy or the seat would have been wet." Respondent's conduct made Pou feel intimidated and uncomfortable, and she disliked being alone in the radio station with Respondent during the evening hours. Besides creating a hostile work environment, such conduct also unreasonably interfered with Pou's educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 11, 1999, Pou filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Respondent's contentions Respondent has steadfastly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct since they first surfaced in 1997 or 1998. At hearing, Respondent contended that he was an unpopular figure among the students due to his strong disciplinary measures. While this may be true, it does not justify his actions towards McKinley, Parson, and Pou. He suggested that McKinley's complaint was motivated by her displeasure with his disciplinary measures and failure to obtain her a parking pass. Respondent further suggested that Parson bore him ill-will after he demoted her to a different position at the station. He also contended that out of revenge, the three women met and conspired to file false complaints in an effort to have him removed from the station. Finally, Respondent suggested that each of the complainant's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked specificity as to certain dates and times. These contentions have been considered by the undersigned and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida A & M University enter a final order confirming the dismissal of Respondent as an employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bishop C. Holifield, General Counsel Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Avery D. McKnight, Jr., Esquire Ruth N. Selfridge, Esquire Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Calvin C. Miles, Jr. 501 Blairstone Road, Apartment 123 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue Should Respondent's tenure status be removed and he be terminated from employment with Hillsborough Community College because of the matters set out in the Amended Statement of Charges and Petition For Dismissal filed in this matter?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Petitioner, Hillsborough Community College, was a public institution of higher education, with four campuses, two extension centers, three environmental centers, and several other operations located in Hillsborough County, Florida. Respondent, Professor Joseph P. Boyle, was a tenured faculty member on the instructional staff located at the Dale Mabry campus. He has been with the College for more than 20 years. The College's Board of Trustees ordinarily meets once a month at the Administrative Center on Davis Island. The meetings are open to the public, are publicized at least a week in advance, and are based upon a written agenda. Frequently, members of the public attend the meetings as do some faculty members, administrative staff and the press. The College President and the College Attorney also attend. At these meeting, the Board generally treats policy matters, expenditures, approval of consultant contracts, and audit reports, and there is also a provision for public comment. It is not at all unusual or inappropriate for Board members to be contacted by students, faculty members or the public about school matters. Joaquin M. Campo, the President and Chairman of a Tampa engineering firm, served as Board President from July, 1990 to July, 1991. He has been contacted by outsiders about matters and when that happens, he tries, as best he can, to follow up on the contact. It is his practice to respond to any personal contact and to any signed letter which, he immediately forwards to the College President for investigation. To the best of his recollection, Respondent had previously called him about something into which he made inquiry and thereafter, Respondent began to communicate with him regularly on a variety of matters. This did not annoy him at all, and in each case, he tried to get the answer to the Respondent's problem. On August 27, 1990, Mr. Campo received a letter from the Respondent complaining about comments purportedly made by President Paloumpis. If true, these allegations would be considered serious. Professor Boyle followed the first letter with phone calls and repeated additional letters, as a result of which, Mr. Campo asked him to come up with some hard evidence in support of his allegations. Campo made this request several times, and no such evidence was ever forthcoming. Finally, Campo asked the College's Auditor, Mr. Watkins, who reports directly to the Board of Trustees, to look into Boyle's allegations and report what he found. Mr. Campo chose the Auditor so there would be no chance of improper influence being asserted by anyone else. At the same time, Mr. Campo also contacted the Respondent and asked him to cooperate with Mr. Watkins. By letter dated September 13, 1990, he reiterated that request in writing. At no time did Professor Boyle indicate he would not cooperate with the Auditor. At the time he brought the Auditor in, Mr. Campo had not formed any opinion as to Boyle's allegations. Sometime later, in February, 1991, Mr. Campo received another letter from Respondent complaining about the mechanics of selection for appointment of the head of a department at the college. When he looked into these allegations, he found them to be untrue and, in fact, that that faculty member ostensibly appointed, Dr. Adams, had not been so appointed and had never applied for the position. Mr. Campo so responded to Mr. Boyle in writing and thereafter received another letter from the Respondent, dated February 22, 1991, which in a disrespectful and berating manner, scolded Mr. Campo for his reply and demanded an apology. Because this letter was incorrect and insulting, Mr. Campo advised Professor Boyle of his feelings. As it appears, however, this faculty member, Dr. Adams, was subsequently appointed Department head. Thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1991, Mr. Boyle requested Mr. Campo resign as Chairman of the Board of trustees, citing alleged dereliction of duty and referring to nonexistent secret letters. That same day, Mr. Campo wrote to Professor Boyle and again asked him to come forward with proof to support his allegations and set a deadline of March 22, 1991 for him to do so. In writing this letter, Mr. Campo was trying to do his duty as Chairman to either prove or disprove allegations of wrongdoing and put them to rest. He got no response to the letter or any of the proof requested. All during this time, Mr. Watkins also was having his difficulties in dealing with Mr. Boyle regarding the investigation he had been requested to undertake. Immediately after being asked by Mr. Campo to look into Boyle's allegations, Watkins received a call from Mr. Boyle in which Boyle said Mr. Campo had asked him to meet with Watkins and provide the information. Boyle agreed to do so, but after several days, Watkins still had not again heard from Boyle. Though Watkins tried to contact Boyle, he found Boyle had no home phone and was only on campus at certain hours. Mr. Watkins went to the Dale Mabry campus during Boyle's office hours. When he arrived at Boyle's office, he found the door closed but he could hear voices from within. He knocked twice and a voice called out, "Who are you and what do you want?" When Watkins identified himself, Boyle opened the door, finished the phone call he was engaged in, and spoke with him. Boyle said he had not had time to collect the background information but that his letter to Mr. Campo stated the facts. When Mr. Watkins pointed out these were not facts but conclusions, Boyle agreed to get facts and said he would get back with Watkins in one week. Their agreement called for Professor Boyle to come to Watkins office with the information, but one day before the scheduled meeting, Boyle called to postpone it. Nonetheless, he showed up the next day without any independent proof, reasserted his position that his allegations spoke for themselves, and questioned Mr. Watkins' authority to conduct the inquiry. When Mr. Watkins explained his charter, Boyle dropped the subject. Mr. Boyle never did come up with any supporting proof of his allegations even though Mr. Watkins gave him several extensions of time. In fact, Boyle failed to contact Mr. Watkins again and when Watkins tried to reach him and couldn't, he again went to Boyle's office to see him. After Watkins waited for a lengthy time during which Professor Boyle dealt with students, Boyle finally stated he didn't have any time to deal with him. He stated he had been told by an unnamed party not to talk with Watkins, and left. Mr. Watkins reported to Mr. Campo both orally and in writing regarding the results of his efforts. Mr. Campo advised Mr. Watkins not to pressure Boyle too much because they really wanted the information. Finally, on November 6, 1990, Mr. Watkins again wrote to Professor Boyle asking for documentation supporting his allegations. Mr. Boyle neither responded with the documents nor requested more time, and Mr. Watkins has never received any documentation from Boyle in support of his charges. While Boyle cooperated at first, his attitude deteriorated to the point he was arrogant and uncooperative, and considering Watkins was working at the direction of the Chairman, even insubordinate. Finally, on November 19, 1990, Watkins wrote to Mr. Campo outlining the results of his efforts and the problems he encountered dealing with Professor Boyle. Thereafter, he was released from this investigation and has not, to this day, received any supplemental information from Professor Boyle. By letter dated March 27, 1991, Mr. Campo ordered Mr. Boyle to meet with him on April 9, 1991 at 2:00 PM in the College Administrative Office on Davis Island and to bring whatever support he had for the charges he had made. Mr. Campo made it clear this was not an optional meeting, and the Respondent's failure to appear would be considered to be insubordination. Nonetheless, Professor Boyle did not appear for the meeting nor did he either call in advance to seek a postponement or provide a subsequent explanation for his absence. On April 11, 1991, Mr. Campo again wrote to Mr. Boyle, pointing out the failure to appear on April 9 was insubordination, asking for an explanation in writing, and directing him to appear in person at the Administrative Office on Davis Island on April 22, 1991 at 2:00 PM. This letter also advised Boyle that if he could not make it, he was to advise Campo by phone no later than noon on April 22. Boyle neither showed up nor explained. April 9, 19, and 22, 1991 were work days when Professor Boyle could be expected to perform his duties. As Chairman of the College's Board of Trustees, Mr. Campo had the authority to direct any college employee to meet with him. His directions to Boyle to meet with him on those days were, therefore, lawful orders. Mr. Campo was present at the time and place scheduled for the meetings which he directed Professor Boyle to attend. To this day, Boyle has not explained his failure to appear as directed. Campo sought those meetings with Professor Boyle to get the facts surrounding the allegations Boyle had made. They were not designed to create a situation for which disciplinary action to get rid of Professor Boyle could be initiated. As a result of Professor Boyle's failure to appear as directed, Mr. Campo asked President Paloumpis to look into the matter to see if any action was appropriate. As a result, in June, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis recommended to the Board of Trustees that action to remove Boyle for insubordination be initiated. Mr. Campo agreed. At the open Board meeting where this matter was addressed, the Board, pursuant to discussion of the matter which had been published in advance on the regular publicized agenda, unanimously approved the recommendation to dismiss Professor Boyle. The Board meeting was publicized in advance along with the agenda, and Professor Boyle had the opportunity to appear before the Board to defend or explain his actions. He failed to do so. There is no evidence of any attempt to discharge Boyle because of his outspokenness. When Dr. Paloumpis received the copy of Professor Boyle's letter of complaint which Mr. Campo sent to him, he, also, wanted the matter looked into. At no time did he attempt to impede Watkins' investigation or, in fact, to speak with Watkins about it. As an administrator, he has been accused by others before of making bad decisions and of being unfair. He never takes such accusations personally, nor did he act on this allegation. His initiation of disciplinary action against Professor Boyle was taken at Mr. Campo's suggestion because of Boyle's insubordination. He reviewed the investigation and the succeeding failures by Boyle to meet with Mr. Campo and satisfied himself that grounds for discipline existed. Only then did he set the wheels in motion. On April 30, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis wrote to professor Boyle directing him to come to Paloumpis' office at 8:30 AM on May 3, 1991, normal business hours, to provide a doctor's certificate because Professor Boyle had a habit of calling in sick or having someone do it for him. Under the terms of the contract between the College and the union, the College has the right to have the faculty member submit to an independent medical examination under certain conditions. He also directed Boyle to contact his department head, Dr. Adams, by May 3, 1991, to set up the appointment with the doctor. Professor Boyle did not show up at either place on May 3, nor did he contact Dr. Paloumpis or anyone on his staff about it. Thereafter, on May 6, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis wrote to Professor Boyle asking for an explanation of his failure to appear as directed by him and by Mr. Campo. In this letter, he also gave Mr. Boyle an order to contact Ms. Bone, an executive assistant in Dr. Paloumpis' office to set up a time, at Professor Boyle's convenience, to meet with Paloumpis at Paloumpis' office. He also warned Professor Boyle that if he failed to appear, he, Paloumpis would recommend Dr. Boyle's suspension as a disciplinary action. Professor Boyle has never responded to this letter or complied with the directions therein. Dr. Paloumpis thereafter prepared the Petition for Dismissal and Explanation of Rights form and tried to serve them on the professor by regular US mail, by certified mail, and by process server. That copy sent by regular US mail was not returned undelivered, but the copy sent by certified mail was not accepted. The process server was able to effect service of the Petition on Professor Boyle, at his home, at 1:20 PM on June 28, 1991. It must also be noted that some of the letters to Professor Boyle which requested meeting with him were, in addition to being sent by mail, included in the envelope with his individual pay checks. When these checks were cashed, it was clear indication that Professor Boyle had received the meeting notices. None of the letters, all of which were also sent by US mail, were ever returned undelivered except for the copy of the Petition sent by certified mail. In addition to all the above, in the Fall of 1991, Dr. Paloumpis learned that several students had complained about Professor Boyle's behavior. Paloumpis received a call from the Dale Mabry campus that complaints had been received which had been put in writing and referred to the vice president in charge of that campus. When he asked what was going on, the complaints were referred to him. As a result of these complaints, Professor Boyle's supervisors recommended to Dr. Paloumpis that Boyle be placed on administrative leave because the pattern and manner of his relationship with his students indicated it would be better were he out of the classroom. Dr. Paloumpis' primary concern was for the students, many of whom wanted to drop the course they were taking from Professor Boyle. To do so, however, would be, for many of them, a financial and academic harship. Paloumpis wanted to avoid this, and as a result, Professor Boyle was relieved of his teaching duties and an adjunct professor brought in to teach the remainder of the course. This solved the students' problems and the complaints stopped. As a result of this reported aberrant classroom behavior by Professor Boyle, Dr. Paloumpis prepared the additional charges which were incorporated in the Amended Petition to Dismiss which he also submitted to the Board of Trustees. By memo dated September 23, 1991, Dr. Paloumpis notified Professor Boyle he was being placed on administrative leave with pay and that the new charges were being added to the Petition. At the same time, he notified Professor Boyle of his right to attend the Board meeting at which the additional charges were to be discussed. The charges were made an agenda item which was published and distributed. Professor Boyle did not appear at the Board meeting but was represented by counsel, Mr. Merkle. The Board heard the evidence relating to the additional charge and the presentation by Mr. Merkle on behalf of the professor. It nonetheless voted unanimously to add the new charge to the Petition for Dismissal. At no time has Professor Boyle ever given Dr. Paloumpis or any representative of the College any explanation of his allegedly aberrant classroom behavior which prompted the additional charge, save the presentation by Mr. Merkle at the Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Professor Joseph P. Boyle be discharged from employment as a tenured faculty member at Hillsborough Community College for gross insubordination. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Breckenridge, Jr., Esquire 2502 Rocky Point Road, Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33607 Professor Joseph P. Boyle P.O. Box 327 Champlain, New York 12919 Robert W. Merkle, Esquire (Courtesy Copy) Merkle & Magri, P.A. 750 West Courtney Campbell Causeway, #1120 Tampa, Florida 33607 Martha K. Covington College Attorney Hillsborough Community College P. O. Box 31127 Tampa, Florida 33631-3127
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Pinellas County School Board, should suspend the Respondent, Dawn McIntyre, from her employment as a teacher for three days without pay on charges contained in the July 11,1990, letter from the School Superintendent, Scott N. Rose. 1/ The letter charges: (1) that, on one occasion during the 1987-88 school year, the Respondent pushed a teacher aide; (2) that on May 9, 1990, the Respondent struck another teacher aide with a lamp; and (3) that the Respondent also handled two students in a rough, punitive manner during May and June, 1990. The charging letter asserts that the Respondent's alleged conduct constitutes misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dawn McIntyre, has been a teacher at Safety Harbor Elementary School since the 1984-85 school year. Until this year, she taught pre-kindergarten emotionally handicapped children. For the 1990-91 school year, she accepted a smaller class of children with varying exceptionalities. She has an annual professional service contract, not a continuing contract. She is certified to teach early childhood, mental retardation and special learning disabilies. During the 1987-88 school year, the Respondent became involved in a confrontation with an aide at school. The seeds of this confrontation were sown when the aide and the teacher with whom she worked presented flowers to the school principal in appreciation for the efforts of the principal in saving the aide's job, which was in jeopardy of being eliminated for budgetary reasons. Shortly afterwards, in conversation in the teacher's lounge, the Respondent labeled the aide as a "[expletive deleted] brown-nose." This comment was reported to the aide by a participant in the conversation, and the aide was upset by it. She decided to confront the Respondent and explain the circumstances to demonstrate that the label was unfair. When she confronted the Respondent, the Respondent did not give her an opportunity to explain but rather pushed the aide on the shoulder with the palm of her hand and rudely insisted that the label fit. In January, 1990, the Respondent began working with a new aide. Although the new aide was unfamiliar with the work and needed some on-the-job training, the Respondent worked reasonably well with the aide until, in late April or early May, the aide volunteered to help another teacher who did not have an aide and needed assistance. The Respondent objected, taking the position that the Respondent needed all of the aide's available time to help in the Respondent's class. The Respondent told the aide that the aide's volunteering for another teacher would have to be put on her evaluation as an adverse comment. From that point forward, the Respondent began to treat the aide more and more poorly, and the Respondent's working relationship with the aide quickly deteriorated to the point that the aide felt compelled to seek the advice of her union representative on how to handle the situation. While the aide's handling of the situation may have contributed marginally to the deterioration of the working relationship between the two, the breakdown would not have happened without the Respondent's inappropriate behavior. On or about May 9, 1990, the Respondent instructed the aide to take only half of the children's hour rest period for lunch and use the rest to do paperwork in the classroom. After her lunch, the aide began to arrange a place to do the paperwork. The Respondent objected to the way the aide set a desk lamp on the table the aide was going to work at, thinking it threw too much light on where some of the children were sleeping, and she told the aide to move the lamp. When the aide did not move fast enough for the Respondent's liking, the Respondent rushed over to the table in disgust and snatched the lamp off the table before the aide could move it. In the process, she shouldered and elbowed the aide out of the way, knocking her temporarily off balance and accidentally grazing the aide's elbow with the lamp. Greatly upset by the way in which the Respondent handled the situation, together with the cumulative effect of the Respondent's prior inappropriate behavior, the aide immediately left the classroom without saying anything to the Respondent and reported the incident to the administration, in accordance with the advice of her union representative. The aide refused to continue to work with the Respondent and was reassigned. Two of the three other available aides also refused to work with the Respondent. One was the aide whom the Respondent had pushed and called a "[expletive deleted] brown-nose," and she refused to work with the Respondent partly because of the pushing incident. The other had not been involved personally in any unpleasant confrontations with the Respondent but was uncomfortable working with the Respondent in light of the incidents involving others that had been related to her. The third aide was only part-time and was too new to be thrust into the gap, in the opinion of the school principal. The principal had to go to the aides' union to force one of the other aides to work with the Respondent for the rest of the school year. As it turned out, the aide forced to work with the Respondent used sick leave so as to work with the Respondent as little as possible, and aides had to be put in the classroom on a rotating basis. On or about May 10, 1990, while in the process of escorting her class from the lunchroom back to the classroom, the Respondent walked up to one of her more difficult pupils, who had just spent most of the lunch period in "time- out," grasped him around the chin, with her thumb on one cheek and her fingers on the other cheek, applying more pressure than necessary to merely get his attention, and spoke to him sternly. This was done in the presence of the other children in the class and within sight of other children and adults in the lunchroom. On or about June 5, 1990, while again in the lunchroom, the Respondent walked up to another pupil from her class, who was sitting at the "time-out table," and reprimanded him sternly for untruthfully having told her that he had eaten his lunch. As she reprimanded the pupil, she squeezed his ear between her fingers and twisted it as part of the discipline. This, too, was done within sight of the children and adults in the lunchroom. Although perhaps technically corporal punishment in violation of School Board policy, the facts described in Findings 6 and 7, above, can be described as minor, or even marginal, violations. Neither child was injured, and neither complained to any adult that the Respondent had hurt them. (The child involved in the June 5th incident said that his ear hurt a little, but that was only when directly asked by one of the adults who witnessed the incident.) The "punishment" was so minor as to leave question whether it was punishment or just a case of overdoing an effort to get and keep the children's attention. By the time of the final hearing, all of the adult witnesses to these incidents were feuding with the Respondent in some form or fashion, and their testimony describing the incidents could have been slanted by the animosity between them and the Respondent. The Respondent has been and continues to be an effective teacher of pre-kindergarten children with learning disabilities. However, as reflected in the preceding Findings, she unfortunately has been susceptible to improper and unprofessional behavior which has hampered her working relationships with a significant number of her teaching colleagues and has created difficulties for the administration of the school. This has reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. The parties stipulated on the record of the final hearing that, if the charges are proven, a three-day suspension would be the appropriate discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and suspending her for three days without pay. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of December, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Anna Cline (Ms. Cline), is a fifty-two year old female who was employed by USBI Company (USBI) from 1985 until November 15, 1994. USBI refurbishes the solid rocket boosters for the space shuttle program at the Kennedy Space Center, Brevard County, Florida. It employs substantially more than fifteen full-time employees. Ms. Cline was hired for the position of technical illustrator, which position is responsible for drawing mechanical components, doing illustration and charts, and preparing manuals and documents that apply to the day-to-day work of the company. She was a good employee and had excellent technical skills, as reflected in her performance evaluations and numerous commendations. At the time that she left the company, she was in a position titled "senior technical illustrator." In early 1992 the company had some internal reorganization, and Ms. Cline and a group of employees were transferred from Management Services to Documentation Support. The job duties remained substantially the same, but the new group also had responsibility for the Routing of Documents (RODS) program, which involved the tracing of detailed technical drawings, to be used on a computer mainframe by the "techs" (engineers). Documentation Support generated technical documentation for the rockets, all technical manuals, standard procedures, testing, fliers and presentations - generally all of the paperwork used by the company, including verbiage and graphics. The supervisor of Documentation Support, then and now, is a woman, Monica Teran. Approximately seventy-five percent of Ms. Cline's work group were women. In June 1992, Richard Bowen was hired by USBI as a technical illustrator and was assigned to Documentation Support. He became a coworker of Ms. Cline and their assigned work stations were side-by-side without a partition. Richard Bowen's two main hobbies are photography and computers. He was generally accepted as the computer expert in the work group; when there were problems with the computers, Richard Bowen could often work them out. Bowen's interest in photography is also more than a casual avocation. He attended photography school in Chicago when he was younger and worked with a modeling agency. He holds an occupational license to conduct a photography business and performs commercial photography services that do not conflict with his 9-5 job: weddings, portraits, some modeling photographs and some work with a theme park in Orlando. He is a member of the Audubon Society and takes wildlife photographs and does computer work for the organization. The Photograph Incident Staff in the work group were interested in Bowen's photographs. He brought samples of his pictures to work to show off. He usually left the pictures on his desk, face up, so that people could come to his work area and look at them. Some time in the latter months of 1992, Bowen purchased an expensive special soft-focus lens that gives the subject a soft, romantic, mystical look and deletes the wrinkles or blemishes. He discussed the lens with a fellow photographer at work and brought in a sample of photographs he had taken with the lens. Most of the pictures among the twelve to fifteen which he brought on this occasion were wildlife; there also were a few photographs of a model. She was bare-breasted, but was not exposed from the waist down. While there is no clear description of her pose in the record, she was described by some as nude and others as partially nude. None described the photographs as sexually suggestive or pornographic. In the early morning before work started, some female staff members were shuffling through the photographs. Ms. Cline was part of the group looking on. Bowen said something semi-jokingly like, "You might not want to look at these; there's a bare-breasted model." One of the women replied that it was nothing that she had not seen before, and continued shuffling through the photographs. Ms. Cline saw the model's photograph, remarked that the girl had pretty eyes, and returned to her own work station. Several months later, after a workshop that management had initiated to deal with problems in the workplace, Ms. Cline reported the photographs to Carol DuBray, Director of Human Resources and Darryl LeCanne, the immediate supervisor of Monica Teran. Ms. Cline was embarrassed by the photographs. Management's Response As soon as Ms. Cline left Darryl LaCanne's office, he called Monica Teran, and the two supervisors met with Richard Bowen. They informed him that USBI had a policy of not tolerating nude photography or pin-up calendars in the workplace and that his bringing the photographs to work was unacceptable behavior. Darryl LaCanne told Richard Bowen that the next time severe disciplinary action would be taken. Richard Bowen was also called in to speak with USBI's director of security, Barry Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki informed him that nude pictures were prohibited by USBI's regulations. Mr. Bowen received the message in clear terms that the matter was very serious. Bowen never again brought nude or semi-nude photographs to work and Ms. Cline never again saw such photographs at work. Offensive Shop Talk Work stations in the Documentation Support unit were divided into cubicles, some separated by dividers, some (Richard Bowen's and Ms. Cline's) were side by side, facing a partition with two other workers on the opposite side. Workers interacted within a small space and moved about to use different computer equipment, printers, files, and similar work tools. Among some of the workers there was occasional bawdy banter and comment about boyfriends, weekends and vacations, and the like. It was sexually oriented in a sophomoric, adolescent schoolyard manner. It included terms like "shit" and "fuck" and included conversation about "blow jobs" or "hard-ons," and other slang words involving male genitalia. With one exception, the language was not directed to Ms. Cline. That exception was one occasion when Richard Bowen responded to her criticism of some work with the expletive "fuck." Both male and female workers engaged in the banter, which was overheard by Ms. Cline and others. Ms. Cline was particularly offended by banter between Bowen and a female worker, Anna Silvestri, who occupied a workstation on the other side of the partition in front of Ms. Cline and Mr. Bowen. Ms. Silvestri sometimes initiated this banter. In May or June of 1993 Ms. Cline reported to her supervisor, Monica Teran, that Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri used the word "fuck" and engaged in sexually explicit conversations. Ms. Teran went to her supervisor to see what to do about the complaint and Carol DuBray requested that Barry Wysocki conduct an investigation. Barry Wysocki interviewed and took statements from employees in the Document Support Unit, including Ms. Cline. She complained that Richard Bowen created a hostile environment; that she heard him say "fuck" on one occasion in the past two months and that she heard Anna Silvestri say the word on two occasions. Ms. Cline said that Bowen and Silvestri discussed Ms. Silvestri's sex life and that on one occasion Ms. Silvestri tried to discuss her sex life with Ms. Cline, but she cut her off with a comment that it was improper. Ms. Cline reported hearing Monica Teran and Beth Seaman use the word "fuck" in the work area. Bowen and Silvestri did not deny mild profanity and mildly sexual conversations. Other employees reported hearing some profanity, primarily "shit," "damn" and "bullshit." Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri were seriously reprimanded by Barry Wysocki, by Barry Smoyer, by Darryl LaCanne and by Monica Teran. Each supervisor impressed on the two employees that the use of foul language was not tolerated and was against company policy. Barry Smoyer gave the two employees a letter "for the record," documenting the counselling session and reprimand. Monica Teran moved Ms. Cline to Anna Silvestri's workstation on the other side of the partition from Richard Bowen. She moved Anna Silvestri two cubicles away, with several partitions between her and Mr. Bowen. And George Roberts was placed next to Richard Bowen in Ms. Cline's former workstation. The intent by the supervisor was to accommodate Ms. Cline's concerns and to separate the two prime offenders. In the two years that he worked for USBI, including the time that he worked next to Richard Bowen, George Roberts heard nothing more than "hell" or "damn" from Bowen. Nevertheless, around August 1994, during her performance review, Ms. Cline informed Monica Teran that the sexual conversations were continuing. Ms. Teran informed her supervisors and another investigation commenced, this time by USBI's new security director, Al Eastlack. Mr. Eastlack conducted an interview with Ms. Cline, among others, and took her formal statement in September 1994. Barry Smoyer reviewed a draft report of Mr. Eastlack's investigation and although he understood the results were "inconclusive," Mr. Smoyer renewed his admonishments to Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri in separate memoranda to the two, reminding them of USBI's intolerance of sexual harassment in any form and warning them that inappropriate language would result in disciplinary action. Alleged Threats After the photograph incident, but before she complained, Richard Bowen and Mary Anna Cline had a conflict over the use of some computer graphics software. Bowen was advocating one type of software that Ms. Cline opposed. Monica Teran had to intervene and instructed Ms. Cline to install the program and learn how to use it. After she complained about the photographs, Ms. Cline became convinced that Richard Bowen was going to retaliate. She complained to Monica Teran that she was afraid of Bowen but her complaints were non-specific. She began to complain of stress and sleep problems. Ms. Teran recommended that she go to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counsellor or to see her own counsellor or doctor. This was around the same time that Ms. Cline complained about the offensive language and conversations, and Ms. Cline took the recommendation to mean that Ms. Teran did not believe her, or that Ms. Teran felt Ms. Cline was at fault. Ms. Teran also commented to Ms. Cline that she should simply tell Bowen to stop talking like that. Another employee, Dorothy Stokey, who was offended by Bowen's use of "fuck" had told him to stop. Ms. Cline was too intimidated by him to confront him directly. Some time in the latter months of 1993, Monica Teran found Ms. Cline in the ladies' room crying and upset to the point of incoherence. Ms. Cline had overheard a conversation between Richard Bowen and Anna Silvestri involving a gun and made a connection between that and incidents of violence in the workplace and coworkers being shot. With the help of Barry Smoyer, Ms. Teran was able to get Ms. Cline out of the ladies' room and calmed down. Then, at Mr. Smoyer's direction, Ms. Teran called Ms. Silvestri and Mr. Bowen into her office to find out what had happened. Mr. Bowen did not have a gun at work and he had been discussing a gun show early that morning. Ms. Teran was satisfied that the discussion had been innocuous and reported her findings to Barry Smoyer. No other employee reported that Bowen had a gun or saw him with a gun. None, including Ms. Cline, ever complained that Bowen had threatened them with a gun. Alleged Retaliation Ms. Cline contends that USBI retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment. Specifically she claims that her job duties were shifted from work on RODS, which she liked, to word processing, which she disliked and with which she had difficulty, due to some dyslexia. It is undisputed that Ms. Cline was a very competent graphics illustrator. She and Mr. Bowen and a couple of other employees in the unit were considered the core of the illustration function, and other employees in the unit preferred and were more skilled in the word processing and language component of the unit's responsibilities. However, the work assignments were not so clearly divided between "illustration" and "word processing." The production and modification of company manuals required both types of work. Monica Teran was interested in cross-training her staff to do a variety of tasks. There was a time, after mid-1993, when Ms. Cline's assignments involved word processing. She also continued to do a substantial amount of RODS work, as evidenced by handwritten logs maintained by the employees. Monica Teran never instructed the staffperson responsible for making assignments to remove Ms. Cline from RODS or other graphics work. RODS was not considered high profile or creative work since it primarily involved tracing technical components repetitively. There was a period when RODS work was put on hold. There was another period when temporary employees, such as George Roberts, were taken in to work exclusively on RODS. At no time during her employment with USBI was Ms. Cline demoted in job title or pay. In 1993 and 1994 her employment evaluations reflected a need to improve communications and attendance, but she was still rated "excellent," "good" and "acceptable" in all categories, and overall "excellent" and "good." There is no evidence to indicate that anyone tampered with Ms. Cline's computer or sabotaged her computer, as she claimed. On occasion it was necessary for Monica Teran or other staff to work at Ms. Cline's and other stations, to see if programs were loaded or the machine was set up properly. Although certain equipment, such as a printer, was located at an individual workstation, other staff needed access to that equipment. Job-Related Stress Ms. Cline's attendance did suffer and she did experience job-related stress. She went to an EAP counsellor and to a psychiatrist. She was on medication and there were problems with adjusting the type and amount of medication. Ms. Cline experienced sleep disorders; she reported falling asleep at the wheel of her car and had a minor accident. She also experienced other physical phenomena such as pains in her chest and arms, or numbness. Her psychiatrist diagnosed her medical condition as "adjustment reaction of adult life with mixed emotions, basically depression and anxiety." (T-415) Accommodation and Resignation Monica Teran's staff was located in two buildings: the modular unit occupied by Ms. Cline, Mr. Bowen, Ms. Silvestri and others; and another separate building which also included other USBI employees. Ms. Teran's staff was moved around routinely, as new employees were added or other work space needs arose. In Fall 1993 USBI offered to move Ms. Cline to the other building, allowing her to retain her same position and duties; she declined, and the company did not insist that she move. Later, Ms. Cline was offered a lateral position at the same pay and position level. Carol DuBray met with Ms. Cline to discuss this attempt to accommodate her. Ms. Cline also rejected that offer. She explained at hearing that she was afraid she would have been in line for a layoff, if she transferred. However, there is no competent evidence to support that fear. Ms. DuBray explained to Ms. Cline in their meeting that she would retain all benefits, including seniority. In fact, USBI has no departmental seniority policy. Seniority is based on the date an individual is hired by the company, rather than time within a department in the company. On November 15, 1994, Ms. Cline voluntarily resigned, citing "continuing stress brought on by sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation and the flagrant disregard by USBI and its management in the handling of this problem. . . ." (Petitioner's exhibit no. 31) The Formal Complaints At the time she resigned Ms. Cline had already filed her complaint of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That charge is dated December 6, 1993. The charge of discrimination alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, by sexual harassment and retaliation. It does not cite the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to a worksharing agreement between EEOC and FCHR, the charge was sent to the Florida agency for initial investigation. That workshare agreement, which refers to the FCHR as the "FEPA," provides, in pertinent part: FILING OF CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION In order to facilitate the filing of charges of employment discrimination, the EEOC and the FEPA each designate the other as its agent for the purpose of receiving and drafting charges. The FEPA shall take all charges alleging a violation of Title VII, ADEA, EPA, or the ADA where the parties have mutual juris- diction and refer them to the EEOC for dual filing, so long as the allegations meet the minimum requirements of those Acts. Each Agency will inform individuals of their rights to file charges with the other Agency and to assist any person alleging employment discrimination to draft a charge in a manner which will satisfy the require- ments of both agencies to the extent of their common jurisdiction. As part of the intake duties, investigators are to verify with the charging parties if they have filed a charge of discrimination with other agencies prior to filing the charge. For charges that are to be dual-filed, each Agency will use EEOC Charge Form 5 (or alternatively, an employment discrim- ination charge form which within statutory limitations, is acceptable in form and content to EEOC and the FEPA) to draft charges. When a charge is taken based on disability, the nature of the disability shall not be disclosed on the face of the charge. * * * H. The delegation of authority to receive charges contained in Paragraph II. a. does not include the right of one Agency to determine the jurisdiction of the other Agency over a charge. * * * DIVISION OF INITIAL CHARGE-PROCESSING RESPONSIBILITIES * * * D. EEOC will not defer or refer any charge for the FEPA to process that is not jurisdictional on its face with both Agencies. If it is apparent that one Agency might have jurisdiction when another does not, then the Charging Party will be referred to the appropriate Agency. * * * (Petitioner's exhibit no. 41) (emphasis added) A notice dated December 20, 1993, on EEOC form 212, states that the FCHR has received the charge and will initially investigate the charge. The FCHR did investigate the charge and the FCHR investigator's report is dated July 13, 1994. A document styled "Determination: No Cause" is dated August 25, 1994 and has the apparent signature of FCHR's Executive Director. An accompanying document, with the same date, is styled "Notice of Determination: No Cause" and informs Ms. Cline as complainant of her right to file her petition for relief within 35 days. The petition for relief dated September 27, 1994, was filed with FCHR, and cites the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as well as Title VII. The petition alleges sexual harassment and retaliation. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 6, 1994. The amended petition for relief, filed on April 10, 1995, and referenced in the order and notice of hearing dated May 16, 1995 deletes any reference to Title VII and recites instead that the claims for relief are based on Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The amended petition does not claim constructive discharge nor does it mention that Ms. Cline left the company approximately five months earlier. Sexual Harassment Policy and Summary of Findings USBI has, and during the relevant period had a sexual harassment policy which provides: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's amended "Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex" include a section prohibiting sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is either an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment, or submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for an employment decision affecting the person rejecting or submitting the conduct, or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an affected person's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment is unacceptable behavior by any USBI employee or outside vendor. Any form of harassment, like any conduct contrary to common decency or morality, cannot and will not be tolerated. The company will take whatever corrective action necessary to prevent or deal with acts of sexual harassment in the work place. (Respondent's exhibit no. 61) The policy provides names and phone numbers for persons to report sexual harassment and states that reports at that point will be confidential. Employees are informed of the policy through annual letters from the company head, through posters on the facility walls and through mandatory workshops for managers and their staff. USBI responded appropriately to Ms. Cline's complaints. Its response as to the photographs was effective; the sexually-themed banter, however, continued. The banter did not constitute sexual harassment of Ms. Cline, nor did it create a sexually hostile work environment. No one at USBI ever made a sexual advance towards Ms. Cline; no one suggested or requested sex from her or asked her for a date. No one touched her inappropriately. The sexual banter was never directed to or about her. The banter overheard by Ms. Cline, and the use of the "f word," were occasional, not daily or even weekly. The banter was not directed solely to, or about women; it was engaged in, and was overheard, by men and women, alike. The work quarters were close; the unit which included Ms. Cline was in a small "modular" building with work stations divided by movable partitions. By necessity, workers moved around the office to use various equipment. Coworkers of Ms. Cline did not find the environment sexually hostile, offensive or intimidating. No one else of the primarily female group complained about a sexually hostile or intimidating work environment. According to both a friend and her psychiatrist, Ms. Cline was more sensitive than most to profanity and off-color language. Without question, Ms. Cline suffered from stress at work. The stress was manifest in the myriad physical symptoms which caused absenteeism and loss of performance. USBI appropriately offered to Ms. Cline accommodations which would have allowed her to continue working at the same job level and salary but outside of the environment she found intolerable. She rejected the offers and voluntarily resigned. The resignation was not urged, directly or indirectly, by the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Ms. Cline's complaint and petitions for relief in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5634 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 33; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 60. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted by implication in paragraph 60. Adopted in substance in paragraph 48. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 50. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 53. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Subparagraphs are addressed as follows: Adopted in substance: a (but not the date), b, c, h, i, m, n. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial or misleading: d, e, f, g, j, k, l. Rejected, as to the "escalation," as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence; adopted generally in summary in paragraph 17; but some of the specifics alleged were not established (for example, the "sucking" statement). Rejected as a mischaracterization of the incident, although use of the word, "fuck," was proven. 19.-22. Rejected as not credible. 23.-24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 25.-28. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraphs 39-41, but it was not proven that the stress was the result of a "hostile work environment," within the scope of gender-based discrimination. Rejected as unnecessary. 31.-32. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Accepted that she complained, but the dates and frequency were not established with competent evidence 35. Conclusion that the steps were "inadequate" is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 36.-41. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial, or misleading. 42. Rejected (as to characterization of "retaliation") as contrary to the weight of evidence and the law. 43.-46. Rejected as unnecessary, given the recommended disposition. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 48 and 49. 5.-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 54. 7. Adopted in paragraph 1. 8. Adopted in paragraph 55. 9. Adopted in paragraph 3. 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. Adopted in paragraph 5. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 4. 14.-15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 6. 18.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 8. 22. Adopted in paragraph 9. 23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 59. 24. Adopted in paragraph 61. 25. Adopted in paragraph 10. 26. Adopted in paragraph 12. 27.-28. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 11 and 12. 29. Adopted in paragraph 13. 30. Adopted in paragraph 27. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-35. Adopted in paragraphs 14 and 15. 36.-38. Adopted in paragraph 19. 39.-43. Adopted in paragraphs 20 and 21. 44. Adopted in paragraph 22. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46. Adopted in paragraph 23. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary. 49. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 50. Adopted in paragraph 24. 51. Adopted in paragraph 26. 52. Adopted in paragraph 28. 53. Adopted in paragraph 29. 54. Adopted in paragraph 31. 55. Adopted in paragraph 30. 56. Rejected as unnecessary. 57.-62. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 43 through 46. 63.-64. Adopted in part in paragraph 47; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 65.-72. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 32 through 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia E. Lowrey, Esquire Mark B. Roberts, Esquire STEEL HECTOR and DAVIS 1900 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Wayne L. Allen, Esquire 700 North Wickham Road, Suite 107 Melbourne, Florida 32935 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, (2010), by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of sex through the creation of a hostile work environment or through constructive discharge, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Department of Corrections (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the custody of inmates in state prisons. It operates the Reception and Medical Center in Union County, Florida, to process newly committed inmates into the state prison system and provide primary medical care to inmates. The Department employs over 15 employees. The Department has a policy, Procedure #208.052, which instructs all employees regarding the proper filing and processing of discrimination complaints. The Department has a Sexual Harassment Rule, Procedure or Policy, COER-1, which instructs all employees regarding their responsibility in reporting and filing discrimination complaints. The Department has a policy, Procedure #602.008, which instructs all employees on how to take appropriate action to report inappropriate inmate behavior. Ms. Stephanie Neff,1/ Petitioner in this case, is a woman who first began working for the Department as a Certified Nursing Assistant in March of 2008. On July 15, 2008, she submitted a letter of resignation because she was planning to leave her husband and return to South Florida due to marital problems. However, she and her husband sought marriage counseling and on July 24, 2008, she rescinded her resignation. She stayed on for over a year until she resigned in August of 2009. She was subsequently re-employed on March 19, 2010, as a clerk specialist for the period of employment at issue here, until she again quit her job on or about July 1, 2010. When Ms. Neff began her employment on March 19, 2010, she received an anti-discrimination information sheet, referencing the Department's Sexual Harassment Brochure, COER-1, and advising that complaints could be filed with the Senior Personnel Manager of Employee Relations at the appropriate service center or with the Supervisor of the Employee Relations and Program Section of the Bureau of Personnel, which she signed. When Ms. Neff began her employment on March 19, 2010, she also received and signed an Equal Opportunity and Anti- Harassment Statement advising that complaints could be filed with the Senior Personnel Manager of Employee Relations at the appropriate service center or with the assistant chief of the Employee Relations and Program Section of the Bureau of Personnel in Central Office, and advising her that complaints could also be filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When Ms. Neff began her employment on March 19, 2010, she received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and signed a receipt for those policies. Through Ms. Neff's receipt of the Sexual Harassment Brochure, COER-1, she became aware of her reporting responsibilities in relation to acts of sexual harassment in the workplace. When Ms. Neff commenced her employment on March 19, 2010, she received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding Non-Security Staff Instructions for Reporting Inappropriate Inmate Behavior and signed a receipt for those policies. As an employee of the Respondent, Ms. Neff had access to the Department's forms, rules, and procedures through the Department's computer system. Ms. Judith Nader was Ms. Neff's supervisor and next in her chain of command. Ms. Nader, retired from the Department at the time of the hearing, worked for the Department for over 18 years. When Ms. Nader commenced her employment with the Department she received Department policies detailing her responsibilities regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and signed a receipt for those policies. No responsibility is placed on supervisors to report harassment, but "management" is given such a responsibility. Ms. Nader received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding Non-Security Staff Instructions for Reporting Inappropriate Inmate Behavior and signed a receipt for those policies. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Nader had access to the Department's forms, rules, and procedures through the Department's computer system. Ms. Shea Dicks was Ms. Nader's supervisor and next in her chain of command. Ms. Dicks received Department policies which detailed her responsibilities regarding Non-Security Staff Instructions for Reporting Inappropriate Inmate Behavior and signed a receipt for those policies. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Dicks had access to the Department's forms, rules, and procedures through the Department's computer system. In addition to these formal notifications of Department policies on sexual harassment, employees had meetings at which the topics of sexual harassment and reporting procedures were discussed. The Department's sexual harassment policies have not been adopted by rule, are slightly inconsistent, and are not well understood or followed by the Department's employees. On March 26, 2010, Sgt. Patrick Pierce, a Corrections Officer employed by the Department, made comments to Ms. Neff which she has identified as inappropriate. On that day, about a week after Ms. Neff had begun her employment, she had gone outside with another person to smoke a cigarette. They did not have a lighter, so they went to "J-Dorm" (the infirmary) to borrow a lighter from one of the nurses. None of the nurses had one. As they were leaving, Sgt. Pierce asked them what they were looking for, and they replied that they were looking for a lighter. He did not have one, but got one for them from back in the inmate area. After using the lighter, they returned it and Ms. Neff went back to her office located in the portion of the hospital known as "Two West." Only a couple of minutes after Ms. Neff returned to her desk, the phone rang. She answered the phone, "Two West, Neff." The male voice on the telephone said, "Just who I was looking for." She said, "Who is this? How can I help you?" He replied, "You know who this is." She said, "No I don't. I'm really busy, how can I help you?" He said, "You need to bring that view back out here more often. You livened up the scenery." She said, "What are you talking about?" He said, "You need to bring that view back out here more often and if you'll back that ass up, I'll touch it. But you have to back it up because that's the only way I can touch it without getting in trouble." Ms. Neff replied, "The only person I back my ass up to is my husband. Have a nice day." She then hung up the phone. The comment to Ms. Neff on the telephone was sexual in nature and was inappropriate and unwelcome. Ms. Neff then called the J-Dorm nurses station to see if she could identify the caller. The nurse on duty told Ms. Neff that Sgt. Pierce was the only male on duty at the time. Ms. Neff testified at hearing that she immediately reported this incident to Ms. Nader and asked what she should do about it. She testified that Ms. Nader told her that that depended on how badly she wanted her job, telling her, "If you don't rile security they won't mess with you." Sgt. Pierce made one additional comment to Ms. Neff which she identified as inappropriate. Ms. Neff was sent back to J-Dorm to make some photocopies a couple of weeks later. Sgt. Pierce came in and went to the back desk to make a phone call. After the phone call, he closed the door, propped himself against the front desk and said, "So are you going to back that ass up to me now? I can smack it now. No one can see us, we are all alone." Ms. Neff now felt sure that Sgt. Pierce had made the earlier comments, because they were so similar. Ms. Neff testified that she said, "I forgot something" or offered some other excuse to leave the room, and went to the nurses' station. A nurse that was not busy accompanied Ms. Neff back to the room while she finished the copying. When they returned to the room, Sgt. Pierce left without saying anything. Sgt. Pierce's comments to Ms. Neff in the J-Dorm were sexual in nature and were inappropriate and unwelcome. Ms. Neff told Ms. Nader about the incident and asked Ms. Nader what she should do. Ms. Nader again advised Ms. Neff that if she wanted to keep her job, she should keep her mouth shut. She said, "Don't jack with security and they won't jack with you." Ms. Nader said she just would not send Ms. Neff back to J-Dorm anymore. Ms. Neff was the only source of income for her family; she needed her paycheck and decided not to report the incident. Ms. Nader did not report the incident to her superiors either. Ms. Nader's testimony at hearing was somewhat confused. She believed there was only one incident involving Ms. Neff and Sgt. Pierce, rather than two. She testified that at the time Ms. Neff told her about Sgt. Pierce's comment, she did not think that it constituted sexual harassment. She said that Ms. Neff did not seem that upset and that it appeared that Ms. Neff had appropriately handled the situation. Ms. Nader testified that she told Ms. Neff not to say anything because she was trying to protect Ms. Neff. She admitted advising Ms. Neff not to make an accusation against a Security Officer under the circumstances and further testified: Q: Is there an understanding at the DOC that you're not supposed to mess with security? A: There is in my book. There is – the way I look at it, if you don't mess with security . . . now, that's my understanding. Whether or not everybody else understands that, I don't know. But that is the way that I look at it. I can't tell you what other people think or don't think, but I would never mess with them. But, you know, I can't speak for the whole place. Ms. Nader went on to testify that had Ms. Neff stated that she had been sexually harassed, that then, whether Ms. Nader thought it was sexual harassment or not, "we would have sat down and pulled out the policies and procedures" and figured out what to do next. Ms. Neff was never physically touched by Sgt. Pierce and never witnessed him physically touch anyone else. Ms. Neff's total interaction with Sgt. Pierce involved two incidents: one on the telephone and one while she was making copies in J-Dorm. Petitioner was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment. Petitioner was the object of harassment because of her gender. A couple of weeks later Ms. Tammy Jo Laney, a temporary Health Support Aide at the Reception and Medical Center, called Ms. Neff from the parking lot. Ms. Laney told Ms. Neff that she did not want to go to work because she was scheduled to work in J-Dorm and the security officer that worked there was making comments to her that made her feel very uncomfortable. Ms. Neff advised Ms. Laney to go to work and say nothing. Ms. Neff told her it would not do any good to say anything, because they would just tell her that if she wanted to keep her job, she should keep her mouth shut. Ms. Laney did not follow Ms. Neff's advice. On April 23, 2010, Ms. Laney made a complaint of sexual harassment against Sgt. Pierce. The complaint was made to Ms. Dicks. Ms. Laney explained to Ms. Dicks that she wanted to talk about sexual harassment and then began to cry. Ms. Dicks immediately left the office and returned with a Health Services Administrator and Lieutenant Driggers to continue the meeting. Ms. Laney advised Ms. Dicks that Sgt. Pierce had told her she had pretty eyes and that that had made her uncomfortable. Ms. Laney told Ms. Dicks that a couple of days earlier when she had told Sgt. Pierce that she was going to the doctor, Sgt. Pierce had replied, "You are too sexy to be going to the doctor." Ms. Laney named numerous other women who had told Ms. Laney that Sgt. Pierce had made inappropriate sexual remarks or innuendos to them. Ms. Dicks called Ms. Emmelhainz, the Senior Personnel Manager, and put her on the phone with Ms. Laney, and then left the room so that Ms. Laney could have some privacy when talking with Ms. Emmelhainz. Ms. Laney then went to the Personnel Office to file a complaint with Ms. Emmelhainz. When Ms. Emmelhainz receives a sexual harassment complaint, she sends it to the Central Office Employee Relations Section, which turns it over to the Inspector General's Office for an investigation. The report then goes to the Warden. If discipline is warranted, the Warden then coordinates with Ms. Emmelhainz in the Personnel Office and with the legal office. Between April 23 and April 26, 2010, the Department moved Sgt. Pierce from the RMC Main Unit to the RMC West Unit. Following Sgt. Pierce's move from the Main Unit to the West Unit, Ms. Neff did not have to work with or see him again while working for the Department. After Sgt. Pierce had been moved to the West Unit, Ms. Nader again assigned Ms. Neff some clerking duties at J-Dorm in the evenings. On Monday, April 27, 2010, Ms. Neff was sent to J-Dorm to work. While she was there, Nurse Kristina Imler, LPN, told her about a conversation that Nurse Imler had had with a paraplegic inmate, Ernest Horton. As relayed by Nurse Imler, inmate Horton had asked Nurse Imler who Ms. Neff was. When Nurse Imler said, "That's Neff," inmate Horton replied, "Oh, my boy Pierce told me that she was the one who had turned him in." Nurse Imler further relayed to Ms. Neff that everyone was talking about her. There was some discrepancy between Ms. Neff's hand- written incident report of April 30, 2010, the audio recording she made on June 14, 2010, and her later testimony at hearing on June 1, 2012, as to exactly what she was told by Nurse Imler. Her two accounts from 2010 are more consistent with Nurse Imler's hearing testimony and with Nurse Imler's 2010 written statement. Ms. Neff's earlier accounts have been credited over Ms. Neff's testimony at hearing. Ms. Neff was concerned that inmate Horton believed she was the person who had reported Sgt. Pierce's conduct. She considered inmate Horton's remark as threatening, and advised Ms. Nader what she had been told. Ms. Neff testified that Ms. Nader told her that she would report it to Ms. Dicks. Ms. Nader did not recall talking with Ms. Neff about inmate Horton, but did remember telling someone that Ms. Neff did not have anything to do with turning in Sgt. Pierce, that it was somebody else, and that Horton "had his story wrong." Ms. Neff has never spoken directly to inmate Horton nor heard him make any reference to Sgt. Pierce. When Ms. Neff heard the statements allegedly made about her by inmate Horton she did not complete a Disciplinary Report. Meanwhile, after her meeting with Ms. Laney, Ms. Dicks had begun to contact the women that Ms. Laney had named who were also Ms. Dick's subordinates to ask them if they had also been subjected to inappropriate sexual comments from Sgt. Pierce. She contacted Ms. Neff and asked to talk with her. On April 28, 2010, Ms. Neff met with Ms. Dicks in her office and Ms. Neff told her about the telephone incident, the copier incident, and the more recent remark attributed to inmate Horton. Ms. Dicks told Ms. Neff that the advice Ms. Nader had earlier given her to stay silent to keep her job was not acceptable. Ms. Dicks told Ms. Neff to complete an Incident Report but to return it to Ms. Dicks rather than send it up the security chain. Ms. Dicks also advised Ms. Neff to call Ms. Emmelhainz because in addition to the comment from inmate Horton there was possible sexual harassment. Ms. Dicks did not advise Ms. Neff to fill out an actual Complaint for sexual harassment. When Ms. Nader next came on shift, Ms. Dicks talked to her about Ms. Nader's response when Ms. Neff had reported Sgt. Pierce's comments. Ms. Nader admitted telling Ms. Neff to just forget it and do her job. Ms. Dicks told Ms. Nader that Ms. Nader could not do that and told her that even if Ms. Neff did not want to come forward, that Ms. Nader, as her supervisor, had a duty to report such incidents. It was Ms. Dick's understanding that before inmate Horton became a paraplegic, he had been very violent. Ms. Dicks went to Nurse Imler and asked her to file an incident report regarding her conversation with inmate Horton. Ms. Dicks also talked with Major Willie Smith about the incident involving inmate Horton, and Major Smith told her that he would handle it. On or about April 29, 2010, Ms. Imler completed an incident report concerning statements made by inmate Horton. On or about April 29, 2010, an investigation was initiated into allegations that Sgt. Pierce sexually harassed the Department's employees, identified as Case No. 10-2-5291. Prior to April 29, 2010, and the initiation of the investigation into allegations that Sgt. Pierce sexually harassed the Department's employees, Ms. Neff did not do any of the following in accordance with Department Procedure 208.052: File a complaint of discrimination by contacting the Assistant Chief of Employee Relations and Programs Section in the Bureau of Personnel; File a complaint of discrimination by contacting the Florida Commission on Human Relations; File a complaint of discrimination by contacting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; File a complaint of discrimination through the Department's internal formal procedure; File a complaint of discrimination through the Department's internal informal procedure. On April 30, 2010, Ms. Neff filed an Incident Report alleging Sgt. Pierce sexually harassed her. Ms. Neff completed her Incident Report and brought it directly to Ms. Dicks, as she had been instructed. Ms. Dicks immediately delivered the Incident Report directly to the Warden's office. Warden Riedl did not sign off on the Incident Report at the bottom as he customarily does. Warden Riedl testified that he believed the Incident Report had been dropped off at his office, but that due to its confidential nature it had then been immediately faxed to Personnel and the Inspector General's office. Warden Riedl identified a FAX number printed on the top of the incident report as the FAX number from his office. Under Department Policies, as testified to by Warden Riedl, sexual harassment should not be reported using an incident report filed through chain of command channels, but rather should be filed as a discrimination Complaint with an "intake officer" through Personnel, and sent from there to the Inspector General to conduct an investigation. Ms. Neff testified that subsequently she overheard Corrections Officers talking about her. They would say things such as, "Oh, that's Neff. You have to watch out for her." She testified that officers would not go into stairwells with her or get into the elevator with her. She testified that she was being treated as if she were the one who had done something wrong. She testified that these comments upset her. She noted that she depended on Corrections Officers for security and that she was worried that they might not protect her if she needed their help. Petitioner stated that she did not want to go to work, that a job that she had once enjoyed became a job she hated. It became "just a way to earn a paycheck." On May 6, 2010, Ms. Dicks sent a memo requesting discipline of Ms. Laney for having 17 unscheduled callouts, 3 tardies, and for leaving early on 3 occasions from February through April. Ms. Dicks testified that she submitted documentation on each of the unscheduled call-outs along with her request for discipline. This information was supplied by Ms. Nader and others on the shift. Ms. Emmelhainz received the recommendation for discipline against Ms. Laney. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that the attached documentation had been made by various individuals at the time of the unscheduled call out or early departure, but had been forwarded to Ms. Dicks at later dates. All were signed by Ms. Dicks on dates after the complaint of sexual harassment had been filed. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that it was not unusual for a supervisor to accumulate notes and memos and send them up only when they were seeking discipline. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that 17 incidents over a 90 day period was "a lot." At the time she received the request for discipline on Ms. Laney, she remembered that Ms. Laney had filed a sexual harassment claim earlier. Ms. Emmelhainz remembered discussing with corrections officials whether or not Ms. Laney should be disciplined in light of the recent complaint: And I said if we would normally discipline the person, we should not let the sexual harassment complaint interfere with it. We're not going to treat anybody any different, but if we would – anybody else, if we would treat them and do discipline, then we need to do discipline on her. The sexual harassment complaints should not interfere with that. Ms. Emmelhainz testified that termination was appropriate for a temporary OPS employee with attendance problems such as those reflected in the documentation on Ms. Laney. On May 27, 2010, Ms. Laney received a Letter of Termination of her employment from the Florida Department of Corrections signed by Warden Riedl. In the Inspector General's Report of the investigation, it is recorded that Ms. Neff stated she "knows why Nurse Laney got fired but it was convenient that it happened like it did." Ms. Laney testified that she did not have 17 unexcused absences. She stated there were two occasions when she called in to say she was sick and could not come to work. Ms. Laney testified that she believed she was fired because she filed a Complaint about sexual harassment. On or about June 8, 2010, Inspector Marrell Sercy of the Inspector General's Office initiated his investigation into Ms. Laney's complaint of sexual harassment. He interviewed Ms. Laney on June 9, Ms. Dicks on June 10, Nurse Johns and Nurse Holmes on June 11, Ms. Neff and Nurse Imler on June 14th, Ms. McKee and Officer Prevatt on June 15, Sgt. Pierce on June 18, Warden Riedl on June 29, Officer Owens on July 19, and Nurse O'Neal and Sgt. Pierce again on July 21, 2010. Meanwhile, on July 6, 2010, Ms. Nader left a message for Ms. Neff on her cell phone because on July 1, 2010, Ms. Neff had left work early on a family emergency and had not been back since. Ms. Neff called back about 5:00 pm to say that due to her family situation and for her personal safety it was necessary for her to leave the state and that she would not be coming back to work. Ms. Neff said that she was sorry it had to be that way but that it was necessary. Ms. Nader then transferred the call to Ms. Dicks. Ms. Nader documented this phone conversation on a form DC2-610. Ms. Neff told Ms. Dicks that she had talked with a staff person on July 2, 2010, and told them she would not be in to work that day. She went on to say that due to a personal matter she was going to move out of state and that she was resigning from her job. Ms. Dicks documented this phone conversation on a form DC2-610. The investigation into Ms. Laney's complaint of sexual harassment was completed on or about July 22, 2010. As was usual in complaints of employment discrimination, no recommendation was made, but records of the interviews and information were compiled. Based upon information contained in the Inspector General's Office investigation into Ms. Laney's allegations of sexual harassment, Inspector Stacy Fish of the Inspector General's Office opened an investigation into whether or not Ms. Nader failed to report allegations of sexual harassment that had been made to her. Inspector Fish listened to the interview of Ms. Neff, but was unable to interview her again because she had resigned and no one had any information on how to contact her. On October 22, 2010, Inspector Fish interviewed Ms. Nader, who stated that she did not remember Ms. Neff ever reporting to Ms. Nader that she had been sexually harassed by Sgt. Pierce. Almost four months after Ms. Neff quit her job, and while Sgt. Pierce was still working in the West Unit, there was another incident involving Sgt. Pierce. On October 29, 2010, Sgt. Gillian Scott, a female Corrections Officer, filed a Department of Corrections Discrimination Complaint, form DC2-881, accusing Sgt. Pierce of sexual harassment. Sgt. Scott alleged that Sgt. Pierce had exposed himself to her and crudely asked her to perform sexual acts. On October 29, 2010, through letter signed by Warden Riedl, Sgt. Pierce was placed on administrative leave "pending investigation of charges which could result in your dismissal." Another Inspector General investigation, Case No. 10- 2-10464, was commenced against Sgt. Pierce based upon Sgt. Scott's allegations. Sgt. Pierce was issued a Permanent Status Career Service Extraordinary Dismissal Letter dated February 2, 2011. The Extraordinary Dismissal Letter to Sgt. Pierce stated that the investigation into complaint #10-2-5291 filed by Ms. Laney had determined that Sgt. Pierce made unwanted sexual comments and sexual innuendos to Tammy Laney, Stephanie Neff, Charity Johns, Elizabeth Holmes, Kristina Imler, and Barbara McKee. It further stated that investigation into complaint #10- 2-10464, filed by Sgt. Scott, had determined that Sgt. Pierce had exposed himself and crudely solicited Gillian Scott to masturbate him and engage in oral sex with him. The Extraordinary Dismissal Letter was signed by Warden Riedl. Ms. Neff filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on June 16, 2011. The complaint was in letter form, signed by the complainant and verified, and was sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action or practice complained of. The FCHR Charge Form was signed by Ms. Neff on July 26, 2011. The Commission issued a Determination of No Cause on January 13, 2012, and Ms. Neff filed her Petition for Relief alleging an unlawful employment practice on February 8, 2012. On February 10, 2012, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge. The hearing was held on June 1, 2012. In her testimony at hearing, Ms. Neff attempted to connect her references to "family situation" and "personal matter" that she gave as the reasons for her resignation in July 2010, to her subsequent complaint of sexual harassment. She stated, I no longer trusted the people I was supposed to trust to protect me. It was causing problems at home. The hang-up phone calls. The stress. The yelling at my kids because they were five minutes late walking from the bus stop. My husband told me it was either quit my job with the Department or our marriage was going to end. I quit my job with the Department. However, Ms. Neff's explanation at hearing that she had actually been referring to the sexual harassment at work when she explained why she was leaving was not credible, and Ms. Neff did not demonstrate that she resigned because work conditions were intolerable. The comments of Correctional Officers made in Ms. Neff's presence that "we need to watch out for her" or words to that effect were hurtful, but were not directly threatening. Under all of the circumstances, an objective person would not conclude that the Corrections Officers making them would not protect her if an inmate attempted to hurt her in some way. There was no evidence that any Corrections Officer other than Sgt. Pierce ever sexually harassed Ms. Neff or any other person at the reception and Medical Center. It is not reasonable to assume they were all guilty of such conduct and were therefore afraid of Ms. Neff also turning them in. An objective person would instead conclude that being unaware of the true facts about Sgt. Pierce's behavior, security personnel were concerned that they not be wrongly accused by Ms. Neff. Ms. Neff's belief that these security personnel were unhappy that Ms. Neff (as they erroneously thought) had turned in Sgt. Pierce for sexual harassment was reasonable under the circumstances; her further conclusion that they would therefore want her to be hurt and so would not do their duty to protect her against physical injury from an inmate was not warranted. At hearing Ms. Neff testified that she did not leave work early before the end of her shift on July 1, 2010. She testified that she did not leave for a family emergency. Ms. Neff testified that she left the State and went to Alabama with her daughter but without her husband. She stated, "He stayed in Florida and took care of our stepson and his pregnant girlfriend. She could not leave the state due to prenatal care. I had just met my biological father a year and a half before. My daughter and I went to vacation with him for the summer so I could get to know him." Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Sgt. Pierce's statements, the remark by inmate Horton, and the comments by Corrections Officers were constituent parts of one broader working environment. The sexual harassment Of Ms. Neff was not so severe or pervasive that it altered the interpersonal climate of the workplace or created an objectively abusive and hostile atmosphere. The facts do not support the conclusion that the Department of Corrections discriminated against Ms. Neff on the basis of sex.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2012
