The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners' layoffs from employment by the Respondent were lawful and if not, what remedies should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that their positions were recommended for transfer from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. On July 1, 2001, the Petitioners' positions were transferred from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. Prior to Special Legislative Session C of 2001, the Department's Office of Prevention and Victim Services consisted of 94 positions, organized into four bureaus: the Office of Victim Services; the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services; the Prevention Office; and the Intensive Learning Alternative Program. During Special Legislative Session C, the Florida Legislature passed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2-C, which reduced appropriations for state government for fiscal year 2001-2002. This special appropriations bill was approved by the Governor on December 13, 2001, and was published as Chapter 2001- 367, Laws of Florida. As a result of Chapter 2001-367, 77 positions were cut from the Office of Prevention and Victim Services budget entity. The appropriations detail for the reduction from the legislative appropriations system database showed that the reduction of positions was to be accomplished by eliminating the Intensive Learning Alternative Program, which consisted of 19 positions; eliminating the Office of Victim Services, which consisted of 15 positions; eliminating the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services, which consisted of 23 positions; and by cutting 20 positions from the Office of Prevention. Seventeen positions remained. Immediately after conclusion of the Special Session, the Department began the process of identifying which positions would be cut. A workforce transition team was named and a workforce transition plan developed to implement the workforce reduction. The workforce reduction plan included a communications plan for dealing with employees; an assessment of the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the residual program; a plan for assessment of employees, in terms of comparative merit; and a placement strategy for affected employees. Gloria Preston, Stephen Reid and Carol Wells were Operations and Management Consultant II's and worked in the Partnership and Volunteer Services Division. According to the budget detail from Special Session C, all of the positions in this unit were eliminated. Titus Tillman was an Operations and Management Consultant II and worked in the Prevention and Monitoring division. According to the budget detail provided from Special Session C, 20 of the positions in this unit were eliminated. On December 7, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that effective January 4, 2002, each of their positions were eliminated due to the Florida Legislature's reduction of staffing in a number of Department program areas during the special session. Petitioners were provided with information regarding what type of assistance the Department would provide. Specifically, the notices stated that the employees would be entitled to the right of a first interview with any state agency for a vacancy to which they may apply, provided they are qualified for the position; and that they could seek placement through the Agency for Workforce Innovation. The notice also provided information regarding leave and insurance benefits, and identified resources for affected employees to seek more clarification or assistance. At the time Petitioners were notified that their positions were being eliminated, Florida Administrative Code Rules 60K-17.001 through 60K-17.004 remained in effect. These rules required agencies to determine the order of layoff by calculating retention points, based upon the number of months of continuous employment in a career service position, with some identified modifications. However, by the express terms of the "Service First" Legislation passed in the regular session of 2001, the career service rules identified above were to be repealed January 1, 2002, unless otherwise readopted. § 42, Ch. 2001-43, Laws of Fla. Consistent with the legislative directive new rules had been noticed and were in the adoption process. On January 4, 2002, each of the Petitioners were laid off due to the elimination of their positions. At the time the layoff became effective, new rules regarding workforce reductions had been adopted. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60K-33, effective January 2, 2002, did not allow for the "bumping" procedure outlined in Rule 60K-17.004. Instead, it required the Department to appoint a workforce transition team for overseeing and administering the workforce reduction; assess the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the remaining program after the deletion of positions; identify the employees and programs or services that would be affected by the workforce reduction and identify the knowledge, skills and abilities that employees would need to carry out the remaining program. The workforce transition team was required under one of the new rules to consider the comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience of each employee, and consider which employees would best enable the agency to advance its mission. Although the Department created a workforce reduction plan and Career Service Comparative Merit Checklist, it did not complete a checklist for any of the Petitioners because it had previously reclassified their positions as Selected Exempt Service. No checklist is expressly required under Rule 60L-33. While no checklist was completed on the Selected Exempt Service employees, each employee in the Office of Prevention and Victim Services was assessed based on the positions remaining and the mission of the Department in order to determine which employees to keep and which to lay off. Of the 17 remaining positions, the Department considered the legislative intent with respect to the elimination of programs and the individuals currently performing the job duties that were left. It also evaluated the responsibilities remaining, which included overseeing the funding of statewide contracts and grants. The Department also considered which employees should be retained based upon their ability to absorb the workload, their geographic location, and their skill set. The Department determined that the employees selected for the remaining positions were the strongest in their field, had fiscal management and programmatic experience, and were best equipped to undertake the workload. At the time of the layoff, Petitioners were each long- serving, well-qualified and highly rated employees of the State of Florida. Each was prepared to move in order to retain employment. In April 2002, AFSCME Florida Public Employees 79, AFL- CIO (AFSCME), filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) against the Departments of Management Services and Juvenile Justice. AFSCME alleged that the Department failed to bargain in good faith over the layoff of Department employees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, effective June 28, 2002. The settlement agreement required the Department to provide timely notice to AFSCME of impending layoffs, bargain over the impact of workforce reductions, and provide assistance for employees who were laid off between December 31, 2001, and January 4, 2002, but who had not attained other full-time Career Service employment. There is no evidence the Petitioners in this case were members of AFSCME. Nor is there any evidence that the Department failed to assist Petitioners in seeking new employment. In July of 2003, the First District Court of Appeal decided the case of Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), wherein the court held that employees whose employee classifications were changed from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service must be afforded a clear point of entry to challenge the reclassification of their positions. The Department notified those persons, including Petitioners, whose Career Service positions had been reclassified to Selected Exempt Service, that they had a right to challenge the reclassification. Each of the Petitioners filed a request for hearing regarding their reclassifications, which was filed with the Agency Clerk in August of 2003. However, the petitions were not forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings until May 2007. All four cases were settled with an agreement that their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt Service positions in error, and that they should have been considered Career Service employees at the time their positions were eliminated. Petitioners and the Department also agreed that any challenge by Petitioners to the layoffs would be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Gloria Preston began work for the State of Florida in 1975. Her evaluations showed that she continuously exceeded performance standards, and she had training and experience in managing and monitoring grants and contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, and it is unclear whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Stephen Reid began work for the State of Florida in 1977. He left state government for a short time and returned in 1984. With the exception of his initial evaluation with the Department of Corrections, he has received "outstanding" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Reid has experience in contract creation and management. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Carol Wells began employment with the State of Florida in 1975. Similar to Mr. Reid, all of her evaluations save her first one were at the "exceeds" performance level, and she has experience in writing and managing contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Titus Tillman began employment with the State of Florida in 1993. He was subject to a Corrective Action Plan in May 2000, but received "above average" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Like the other Petitioners, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Likewise, no evidence was presented regarding the retention points that were earned by any of the people who were retained by the Department to fill the remaining positions. No evidence was presented regarding the qualifications of those retained employees, in terms of their comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience in the program areas the Department would continue to implement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the petitions for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100 Lezlie A. Griffin, Esquire Melissa Ann Horwitz, Esquire AFSCME Council 79 3064 Highland Oaks Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jerry O. Bryan began working for the State Road Department in 1968. In 1983, he started his most recent assignment with the agency, now called the Florida Department of Transportation, as an engineering technician III, in a career service position. An employee handbook respondent was furnished in 1983 had this to say about "JOB ABANDONMENT": After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, at page 43. Perhaps with this in mind, respondent requested leave without pay when he learned he faced six months' incarceration, as a result of his criminal conviction for cultivating marijuana on federal property. Respondent's supervisor, Robert Edward Minchin, Jr. denied his request for leave without pay, in accordance with a DOT policy against granting leave to DOT employees who are incarcerated. Mr. Bryan did not request annual leave, although some 220 hours' entitlement had accumulated. Asked whether he would have granted Mr. Bryan's leave request absent "a policy of not authorizing leave while someone was incarcerated," Mr. Minchin answered in the negative, saying Mr. Bryan "was going to be needed during ... [the time] he would be out. T.22. At no time did petitioner ever take disciplinary action against respondent, who received satisfactory or higher job performance ratings, the whole time he worked for petitioner. Aware that Mr. Bryan did not desire or intend to resign, relinquish or abandon his career service position, Mr. Minchin took steps to remove him from the payroll solely on grounds that he was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reinstate respondent and award back pay, but without prejudice to instituting any appropriate proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry O. Bryan Federal Prison Camp Post Office Box 600 Eglin AFB, Florida 32542-7606 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Robert Scanlon, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Khan abandoned her career service position by failing to report for work, or to apply for and obtain leave for three consecutive days.
Findings Of Fact Olwen B. Khan was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Public Assistance Specialist in the medically needed program in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Khan is Jamaican, and cares for her elderly father. In order to provide for his care, she arranged to go to Jamaica to sell some property there. On March 1, 1988, Ms. Khan requested, and was granted, 32 hours of leave for March 7 through the close of business on March 10, 1988. Ms. Khan had accumulated annual leave and sick leave so that the annual leave requested did not exhaust the leave available to her. Ms. Khan purchased an airline ticket to Jamaica which would have resulted in her return the evening of March 10, 1988. On March 9, 1988, it became clear that Ms. Khan's business could not be concluded by March 10 and she would have to remain in Jamaica a few more days. She was then in Maninbay, Jamaica, where telephone service is not sophisticated. She had to go to the local telephone company office to make an overseas call when a line was available. She did so at approximately 2:45 p.m. on March 9 but when she reached the HRS office, she was placed on hold for an extended period of time. She then terminated the call and attempted to place another call on March 10 but was not able to get through to the HRS office. The evening of the 10th she made a collect call to her home in Fort Lauderdale at about 5:45 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The purpose of the call was to have her daughter request additional leave so she could conclude her business in Jamaica. Ms. Khan's ex-husband answered the phone, which surprised her. He agreed to make the request to the Department for additional leave. The following Tuesday Ms. Khan spoke with her ex- husband again, and he said that the message had been given and the additional leave had been taken care of. In fact, no one ever contacted the Department on Ms. Khan's behalf to explain her failure to report to work on Friday, March 11; Monday, March 14; or Tuesday, March 15, 1988. Ms. Khan's supervisor, Norma Levine, did ask one of Ms. Khan's coworkers if she knew where Ms. Khan was. The coworker, Judy Fiche, did not know. After three days had passed with no word from Ms. Khan, Ms. Levine discussed the matter with her supervisor, Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran recommended termination for abandonment of position because no one had heard from Ms. Khan since her approved leave had ended on Thursday, March 10, 1988. A memorandum setting out the facts was prepared for the personnel office, and through the personnel office a certified letter was sent to Ms. Khan on March 17, 1988, informing her that as of the close of business on March 15, 1988, her employment had been terminated for abandonment of her position. When Ms. Khan did return on March 16, she was informed that her position had been terminated. She attempted to see Mr. Moran that day but he was unavailable. She eventually did speak with him but was unsatisfied with his response and ultimately spoke with the personnel officer for HRS District X, Mr. Durrett, on March 30, 1988. Mr. Durrett maintained HRS's position that Mr. Khan had abandoned her job and was unmoved by her explanation that she had been out of the country to take care of a family problem and had thought that her message about needing additional leave had been relayed to the Department. When Ms. Khan was first employed by the Department, she signed a receipt for an employee handbook setting out its policies. The policy on absences requires that an employee who does not report to work notify the employee's supervisor by 8:30 a.m., and if that supervisor is not available, the employee is to notify another supervisor that the employee will not be in to work and state why. The employee performance appraisal for Ms. Khan completed in November 1988, was the last appraisal before her termination. It shows that she was regarded as achieving prescribed performance standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that under Rule 22A- 7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Olwen B. Khan abandoned her position by being absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays. DONE AND RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The burden of all proposed facts contained in Ms. Khan's proposed finding of fact have been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Lawrence D. Zietz, Esquire 8181 West Broward Boulevard #380 Plantation, Florida 33324 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner’s reclassification and transfer from career service to the selected exempt service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), was valid and lawful. All citations are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 1, 2001, Petitioner was a career service employee of Respondent, for whom she had worked since 1988. On that date, Petitioner was involuntarily reclassified as a selected exempt employee of Respondent. Both before and after her reclassification, Petitioner’s job required her to act as a liaison and contract administrator for technical consulting contracts relating to Respondent’s information technology systems. Respondent contends that it reclassified Ms. Georgalis to selected exempt service in July 2001 as a result of amendments to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statues. Consequently, the Section then read, in pertinent part, as follows: (2) EXEMPT POSITIONS.--The exempt positions that are not covered by this part include the following: * * * (x) Effective July 1, 2001, managerial employees, as defined in s. 447.203(4), confidential employees, as defined in s. 447.203(5), and supervisory employees who spend the majority of their time communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees' work, and who have the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees or effectively recommend such action, including all employees serving as supervisors, administrators, and directors. Respondent reclassified all persons who were "Level VI managers and Level 5 supervisors" to select exempt service as a result of the content of Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes. Respondent did not confirm that the responsibilities and duties of the position occupied by Petitioner necessitated reclassification to select exempt employee status. Petitioner’s job duties were substantively different from other persons within the DP Level VI occupational group.1 Petitioner did not primarily oversee the work of Respondent's employees as required by the career service exemption. Moreover, she did not even oversee the work of non-governmental supplemental or augment persons who were providing services that could otherwise be provided by departmental employees, assuming such oversight is relevant to the statutory exemption. Petitioner's role was primarily that of liaison and coordinator between Respondent's management and end users of Respondent’s planned technology services, including Respondent's employees who would use the technology that was being developed, as well as construction companies and engineers outside Respondent's department who would ultimately use such technology in working on department's construction projects in the future. Another part of her duties was the administration of contracts between the Department and outside contractors, and in doing so she dealt with independent subcontractor technical consultants who had subcontracts with those outside contractors. These technical subcontractor consultants were not augment employees, and Petitioner was not knowledgeable enough to supervise them on a technical basis. In Petitioner's words, "They spoke an entirely different language." She presented them with broad goals formulated by higher management and served as the conduit to inform them as to whether their work product was acceptable to Respondent and other end users. Petitioner’s job description, both before and after her transfer, confirmed that her position was a “senior level career service data processing position.” She was not required to spend the majority of her time “communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees’ work.” Petitioner was only expected to spend approximately 10 percent of her time overseeing the work of the two state employees working in her area. As established by her testimony, Petitioner never spent more than 3 percent of her time supervising those state employees. Furthermore, the two state employees assigned to specialized technologies were supervised by another employee after the Summer of 2001. At hearing, Respondent's only witness, suggested that Petitioner spent 60 percent of her time supervising “employees,” but he did not know what percentage of that time was spent overseeing the work of career service employees. Testimony of Respondent's witness, Nelson Hill, in this regard is not credited in view of his admission that he was not housed in the Rhynne Building in 2001, where Petitioner was located, and thus had no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day activities of Petitioner or the other persons working at that building. In any event, a majority of the persons which Hill contends were “supervised” by Petitioner (six out of eight) were not employees of Respondent, but were rather independent subcontractors whose services Respondent retained through contracts with outside third parties. These technical consultants were subcontractors under state approved contracts. They were not “hired” by Respondent. Further, they were not paid by the State, but were rather compensated pursuant to their agreement with the third party state contractor. They were not provided with any insurance, pension, unemployment or worker’s compensation benefits, but were instead treated as true independent contractors; and, most importantly, they were not protected by career service protections, as would have been required if they were indeed state employees. In sum, Respondent's position, as expounded by Hill at the final hearing, is that the application of the exemption provided in Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes, may be justifiably applied to Petitioner due to Petitioner's alleged oversight of the independent subcontractors even though they were not “employees” of Respondent.2 The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner spent a majority of her time “supervising” anyone. Petitioner’s position description confirms that her contract administration activities consumed no more than 35 percent of her time. By that description, Petitioner was required to provide “daily direction of consultant activities” and “manage, direct, and supervise technical and administrative staff." In actuality, Petitioner spent less than 25 percent of her time in such activities. Petitioner spent the vast majority of her time gathering and transmitting information regarding technological and budgetary needs and facilitating the flow of information from the end users (i.e., Respondent's employees or outside construction contractors and engineers who would use the proposed technology) to Respondent management and back again. Any oversight provided by Petitioner to the technical consultants was exactly the same as that provided to other third-party companies with which Respondent had contracts. These outside companies and technical consultants were engaged by Respondent because they had the skill to achieve the goals that were presented to them within the budget that was established by Respondent. Petitioner's interaction with these persons was not “supervision” of a state employee, but rather “contract administration.” Petitioner’s position descriptions specifically confirm that she was not a “managerial” or “confidential” employee as that term is defined in Section 447.203(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, based on the duties and responsibilities contained in Petitioner’s position description and the actual duties she performed, there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner was subject to exemption from career service as concluded by Respondent in July 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Transportation should enter a final order finding that the position held by Petitioner Mavis R. Georgalis on July 1, 2001, was not properly classified into the selected exempt service. Petitioner was, and should continue to be, classified as a career service employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 26, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresa Urbana, began employment with Sanmar Corporation (Sanmar) in August 2008 as a seasonal employee and worked there until November 2008. She was rehired in July 2009 in a Re-stocker position. She was promoted to Order Processor and was made a full-time regular employee later that year. Sanmar is a distributor of promotional apparel and accessories to companies that sell promotional apparel. The Jacksonville location is one of seven distribution centers (DC) throughout the country. The Jacksonville DC fulfills customer orders by receiving, picking, checking, packing and shipping them. Respondent is an employer as contemplated by chapter 760, Florida Statutes. An Order Processor is responsible for picking and checking the order, and then packing the order for distribution to Sanmar's customers. The position description for Order Processor includes the following: PHYSICAL DEMANDS: While performing the duties of this job, the employee is constantly required to walk and stand. The employee is frequently required to reach with hands and arms, handle or feel product, to pull/push cart with product, grasp and perform repetitive hand, wrist and arm motions. The employee is frequently required to climb, kneel/squat, bend and carry. The employee occasionally lifts and/or moves up to 40 pounds, and seldom lifts and/or moves up to 50 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception and ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: Work environment is moderately noisy. The employee is occasionally required to work near conveyor systems. There is exposure to dust and changes in weather conditions. Employee must be able to handle stress that is involved in meeting strenuous customer deadlines, working in high volume areas, and be flexible and able to interact with employees at all times. Paul Rhodes is the Distribution Manager and Alice Torres is Human Resources Manager for Sanmar's Jacksonville DC. Ms. Torres reports to Olivia Thurmond, Senior Manager of Human Resources. Ms. Thurmond is in the corporate headquarters for Sanmar, which is located in Issaquah, Washington. Sanmar's Employee Handbook includes an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, an Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy, and a Reasonable Accommodation Policy. Petitioner received a copy of the Employee Handbook. Allegations Related to Disability On April 21, 2011, Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to inform her of pain Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands. Petitioner informed Ms. Torres that she believed that this condition was work-related. With the help of Ms. Torres' assistant, Yadira Batlle, Petitioner completed an Accident/Incident Report. Ms. Batlle actually completed the form based on information provided by Petitioner, because Petitioner is not fluent in English, as her primary language is Spanish. The Accident/Incident Report was signed by Petitioner and references carpel-tunnel in both hands as the description of the injury. On that same day, Sanmar provided Petitioner with contact information for Solantic Baptist Occupational Health (Solantic) so she could receive evaluation and treatment for her injury which Petitioner claimed was work related. While there was some dispute as to whether Petitioner's condition was work related and covered by workers' compensation, it is undisputed that Sanmar reported the injury to its workers' compensation carrier and Petitioner did receive benefits and medical treatment through workers' compensation. On April 22, 2011, Petitioner was evaluated at Solantic. As a result of her evaluation, Petitioner was released to return to work with a work restriction of wearing wrist braces. Petitioner continued to perform her Order Processor job duties wearing wrist braces. Petitioner also was evaluated by her personal physician, Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, who provided a note dated June 1, 2011, which stated as follows: This patient has bilateral moderate carpal tunnell [sic] syndrome worse at right wrist, which is interfering with her regular duties and regular activities for which she will need surgical decompression in the future. When Ms. Torres received this doctor's note, she explained to Petitioner that the note did not include any specifics as to any work restrictions. As a result, Ms. Torres advised Petitioner she could not allow her to return to work until the company received work restrictions from her doctor. Therefore, Sanmar placed Petitioner on a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On June 2, 2012, Ms. Torres sent a fax to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz with a request that he complete an attached certification of Petitioner's health condition. He completed the form, but the information he provided essentially repeated what he wrote on the June 2, 2011, note, and did not provide specific working restrictions which Sanmar requested and needed to be able to provide appropriate and safe working restrictions for Petitioner. Ms. Torres forwarded these documents to Christy Hammond, Sanmar's Leave Supervisor, who is located in the Washington office. On June 3, 2012, Lori Shutter, Sanmar's Benefits Manager, faxed a request to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, requesting that he complete an enclosed "release to return to work" form identifying work restrictions. She also attached a position description for the Order Processor position. Sanmar did not receive a completed form or further specific work restrictions from Dr. Esquivia-Munoz despite this request. Petitioner went back to Concentra, the workers' compensation medical provider, for further evaluation. Concentra identified her activity status as "modified activity" and identified her work restrictions as no pushing, pulling or lifting over zero pounds, and referred her to a hand surgeon. The facsimile shows that this information was faxed to Sanmar on June 13, 2011. Ms. Torres forwarded this information to Ms. Hammond in the corporate office, and discussed it with Mr. Rhodes. The Order Processor position involved frequent reaching, pushing, grasping, and performing repetitive hand motions. Pushing, pulling, and lifting are essential functions of the Order Processor job. Accordingly, the work restrictions received from Concentra prevented Petitioner from performing essential functions of the job of Order Processor, with or without reasonable accommodations. Sanmar found light-duty work that Petitioner could do within the work restrictions as set forth by Concentra. She was assigned to do "go-backs," which is part of the order processing job, but not the entire job. Go-backs are items, such as hats or t-shirts, found in the wrong bins. The go-back work required Petitioner to use a computer to find the product's correct location, write down that location, and carry the product to the correct location. There is no regular go-back position at Sanmar. This was a temporary assignment created to accommodate Petitioner by eliminating many of the regular functions of the Order Processor position, including pushing, pulling, picking, and packing items to fill customer orders. On June 13, 2011, Ms. Torres called Petitioner to advise her that Sanmar had light-duty work within Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner returned to work on June 15, 2011, performing go-backs at her regular rate of pay, i.e., as when she could perform all functions of the Order Processor position. On June 17, 2011, Petitioner submitted a Leave of Absence Request Form, requesting to commence leave on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres then provided a Notice of Eligibility and Rights and Responsibilities for leave under FMLA to her. This document notified Petitioner that she was eligible to receive FMLA leave, and further notified her that she needed to provide sufficient certification to support her request for FMLA leave by July 1, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Petitioner clocked in at work at approximately 12:24 p.m., after an appointment with Petitioner's hand specialist, Dr. Greider. Petitioner immediately went to the Human Resources office and provided a note from Dr. Greider which confirmed that she had an appointment with him that morning, and left his office at 11:30. Petitioner also provided a doctor's note from Dr. Greider detailing Petitioner's work restrictions. She gave the note to Ms. Batlle, because Ms. Torres was out of the office at that time. The note reads as follows: LIGHT DUTY WORK RESTRICTIONS No repetitive gripping and pinching. No repetitive pulling and pushing. No lifting greater than 5 pounds. No production keying (until further notice) Frequent rest breaks- 5 minutes per hour. Effective until pending surgery. Ms. Batlle left copies of these doctor's notes for Ms. Torres, along with a handwritten note stating that Petitioner was going home for the day. Ms. Thurmond happened to be visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes, along with Ms. Hammond by telephone, discussed Petitioner's new work restrictions and concluded that, because processing go- backs required keyboarding, gripping and pinching, Petitioner could no longer perform that light-duty work.2/ Accordingly, Sanmar approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. Beginning June 21, 2011, Petitioner began taking the FMLA leave she had requested. During this leave, Petitioner had surgery on her right hand on July 21, 2011. Petitioner remained on FMLA leave until September 13, 2011, at which point she had exhausted her FMLA leave entitlement and had still not been released to work. Rather than terminating Petitioner's employment at that time, Sanmar provided additional leave until the company was able to determine whether Petitioner would be able to return to work. Sanmar provided Petitioner an FMLA Designation Notice which informed her that her absence from September 14 through September 25 would be provided to her "as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)." On September 16, 2011, Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Dr. Greider outlining the modified work description in doing go-backs, and asking him to advise whether or not she would be able to perform those duties. Dr. Greider faxed a reply to Ms. Hammond on September 20, 2011, advising that the activities described in Ms. Hammond's letter would be acceptable. Ms. Torres and Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Petitioner dated September 22, 2011, advising her that Sanmar had received a written confirmation from Dr. Greider that she had been approved to return to work with the modified duties (performing go-backs). The letter further notified Petitioner that she was expected to return to work on September 26, 2011, which she did. Ms. Torres did not receive any complaints from Petitioner during the September to November timeframe regarding her ability to perform the go-backs duty. On November 2, 2011, Petitioner provided Ms. Torres with a note from Dr. Grieder confirming Petitioner would be out of work for surgery on her left hand from November 7 through 10, 2011. The note states the following: Patient is scheduled for hand surgery on 11/7/11 and may remain out of work from date of surgery until 11/10/11 at which point patient may return to work with no use of the left hand until follow up appointment on 11/21/11. Ms. Torres and Petitioner had a discussion regarding Dr. Greider's note during which Petitioner expressed doubt that she would be able to return to work November 10 as she still had restrictions on the use of her right hand and did not know what kind of work she would be able to perform after surgery on her left hand. Ms. Torres than contacted Ms. Hammond via e-mail requesting her assistance in confirming the work restrictions, if any, on Petitioner's use of her right hand. On November 8, 2011, Ms. Hammond, through the company's workers' compensation carrier, received confirmation from Dr. Greider's office that she was released from work restrictions with regard to her right hand as of October 17, 2011.3/ On November 9 and 10, Petitioner left voice mail messages for Ms. Torres and her assistant regarding her inability to work. On November 11, 2011, Petitioner did not report to work. Because this was the date that had been indicated by Dr. Greider as the date she was released to return to work (regarding her right hand), and after receiving guidance from Ms. Hammond and input from the workers' compensation carrier, Ms. Torres called Petitioner and informed her that Sanmar had not received any additional information from Dr. Grieder and advised Petitioner that it was Petitioner's responsibility to obtain a new note from her doctor if she could not work. Ms. Torres reminded Petitioner that she needed to come in to discuss her restrictions and possible light-duty work. Ms. Torres received another call from Petitioner on November 14, 2011. Ms. Torres reiterated to Petitioner that she needed to report to work with her restrictions so Sanmar could attempt to accommodate her appropriately. Petitioner reported to work later that same day. She met with Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres to discuss her ability to work and what accommodations would be necessary. Mr. Rhodes first advised Petitioner that she would be doing go-backs which could be performed without the use of her left hand. When Petitioner expressed concern about her ability to perform that task, Mr. Rhodes agreed to assign her a temporary light-duty position auditing the restock until they could review the matter further. Petitioner agreed to perform the restock work. Also on November 14, 2011, Ms. Torres received a fax from Dr. Grieder's office which attached the same November 2, 2011, note regarding Petitioner's restrictions. Nothing in the November 14, 2011, fax from Dr. Grieder's office changed Petitioner's work restrictions. Auditing the restock is not a regular position at Sanmar, but is one part of the many duties of the inventory department. In offering this temporary work to Petitioner, Sanmar eliminated many of the essential functions of the Order Processor job. Petitioner left the November 14 meeting with Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes and worked for about two hours. After about two hours, Petitioner apparently fainted and left work in an ambulance which transported her to the hospital. That was the last day Petitioner worked for Sanmar. Petitioner received notes from Dr. Greider dated November 21, 2011, and December 9, 2011, listing the same light duty restrictions (i.e., no repetitive gripping and pinching, no repetitive pulling and pushing, no lifting greater than five pounds, no production keying, and frequent rest breaks), valid for the left hand only. Petitioner also received a note from Dr. Greider dated January 23, 2012, indicating that she may continue previous restrictions until February 6, 2012, at which time the patient may return to work full duty. However, Ms. Hammond, Ms. Thurmond, and Ms. Torres, all testified that they did not receive this note. Petitioner was seen by an orthopedic doctor in August 2012. The doctor's note indicates that she has a permanent work restriction which precludes her from lifting more than 10 to 15 pounds. Facts regarding disciplinary action Through an employee loan program, Sanmar approves loans to employees under certain circumstances. In late December 2010, an incident arose involving Petitioner and her request for an employee loan. On December 28, 2010, Ms. Torres heard Petitioner speaking in a loud voice outside of Ms. Torres' office. She heard Petitioner accusing her assistant at that time, Sandra Colindres, of refusing to help her with papers required for such a loan. Petitioner spoke in a tone of voice that Ms. Torres felt was not appropriate for the office. She then asked Petitioner to meet with her in her office. While in Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner complained that Ms. Colindres was unwilling to help her with the loan paperwork. Petitioner had not been scheduled to work that day. Ms. Torres informed Petitioner that the loan process had very recently been changed, and that the loan would need to be approved by Human Resources if it were determined that there was a critical need. Ms. Torres considered Petitioner's tone of voice during this conversation in her office to be disrespectful, demanding and rude. At the end of this meeting, Ms. Torres told Ms. Colindres to give Petitioner the employee loan form. When Petitioner left Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner approached a co- worker who was also in the office and began talking in a loud voice about what had just happened. Ms. Torres overheard Petitioner talking about their meeting to another employee and asked Petitioner to discuss the issue in her office. Ms. Torres told Petitioner that her conduct was disruptive, unprofessional, and unacceptable. She told Petitioner that she had caused a disturbance in the workplace, that Ms. Torres would be informing the DC manager about this incident, and that Petitioner would likely be receiving corrective action.4/ Shortly thereafter, Ms. Torres accompanied a pest control representative to the break room. When they arrived in the break room, Ms. Torres observed Petitioner telling a group of employees her version of the events in her office. The employees dispersed when they saw Ms. Torres enter the break room. When Ms. Torres turned to leave the break room, she saw Petitioner complaining to yet another group of employees about the incident. Ms. Torres considered this behavior to be extremely disruptive. Ms. Torres then asked a supervisor, Tasha Porter, to instruct Petitioner to leave the premises. Ms. Torres was relatively new to the company, and she consulted with Paul Rhodes and Olivia Thurmond to determine appropriate disciplinary action that would be consistent with the company's response to similar instances of conduct. Mr. Rhodes was out of the office from December 27, 2010, through January 2, 2011. On January 3, 2011, Mr. Rhodes and Petitioner met to discuss the December 28, 2010, incident. Tasha Porter also attended the meeting and supervisor Daniel Serrano attended the meeting as an interpreter. Mr. Rhodes also spoke to and received written statements from Alice Torres, Sandra Colindres and Tasha Porter regarding the incident. After reviewing the matter, a decision was made to give Petitioner a final Written Warning for unprofessional conduct and disruptive behavior which had taken place on December 28, 2010. Petitioner refused to sign the final Written Warning, did not acknowledge that she committed the actions described, but acknowledged that the conduct described would be unacceptable and that a person engaging in such conduct could be terminated. The final Written Warning was given to Petitioner on January 10, 2011, by Mr. Serrano, who also speaks Spanish. Prior to receiving this final Written Warning, Petitioner had not reported a disability to anyone at Sanmar. There is nothing in the record to establish or suggest that any one at Sanmar knew, perceived or regarded Petitioner as having a disability at that time. On the evening of April 18, 2011, Group Lead Terri Andrews was supervising the employees on the lo-bay floor. Employees were working overtime to get all customer orders shipped by the end of the day. Ms. Andrews was at the print station, as Petitioner approached her. Ms. Andrews directed Petitioner to report to the pack line. Petitioner told Ms. Andrews that she wanted to go home. Ms. Andrews told Petitioner again to report to the pack line and Petitioner left the floor. Ms. Andrews described Petitioner as appearing agitated. Petitioner arrived at the pack line where Becquer Rosado, another Group Lead, was directing employees where they were needed the most. Mr. Becquer saw Petitioner approaching and before he could direct her to a position, she put her hand up in the air, walked past him, and told him that she would only take instructions from Patricia Alonso and not from him. This was done in front of other employees. Patricia Alonso was a Department Lead for the pack line. A Group Lead is superior to a Department Lead because Group Leads oversee several functions, while Department Leads only supervise a single function. Employees are expected to follow the directions of both Group and Department Leads. Mr. Rosado reported this incident to his supervisor, Lori Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form the following day. Ms. Andrews also reported Petitioner's behavior to Ms. Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form on April 21, 2011. It was that day that Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to talk about pain that Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands as more fully discussed in paragraph 6 above. Petitioner was not at work from April 21 until April 26, 2011. After reviewing the Employee Concern forms, Ms. Torres met with Petitioner regarding the April 18, 2011, incident. During this meeting, Petitioner denied being disrespectful to Ms. Andrews and Mr. Rosado. After speaking to Petitioner on April 26, 2011, Ms. Torres recommended that Petitioner be terminated for her actions of April 18, 2011, because Petitioner had just received a final Written Warning for her behavior on January 10, 2011. However, Mr. Rhodes decided to give Petitioner another chance and, instead of terminating Petitioner, decided that Sanmar would issue a Final Warning Follow Up Discussion Memo to Petitioner, which was done on May 5, 2011. This Discussion Memo reiterated that any future violation of company policy by Petitioner would result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment. During May and June 2011, and pursuant to Sanmar's Voluntary Time Out (VTO) procedure, Petitioner volunteered on several occasions to go home when production was slow and Sanmar asked for volunteers. Employees interested in VTO simply had to write their names on the "Go Home Early Sheet." Sanmar then selected employees for VTO in the order in which the employees volunteered to go home early. Petitioner's name appears on the VTO sheets in evidence, and her name is near the top of the list on most days. She was not sent home early on days that she had not signed up for VTO on the Go Home Early sheet. On June 20, 2011, after leaving the doctor's notes referenced in paragraph 18 through 20 with Ms. Battle, Petitioner proceeded to the break room where Tasha Porter, a supervisor, found her engaged in a conversation with co-workers while on the clock and not on a break. When Ms. Porter asked Petitioner why she was in the break room while clocked in, Petitioner replied that she taking her break. Ms. Porter reported this to Ms. Torres. Afterwards, Petitioner returned to work processing go-backs, although another employee was doing the keyboarding, as further explained above. As discussed in paragraph 21 above, Ms. Thurmond was visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes discussed the incident in the break room and decided to issue a final Written Warning to Petitioner for falsification of time records for this incident of being "on the clock" while in the break room. This was the same meeting in which they discussed Petitioner's June 20, 2011, work restrictions. Ms. Torres and Ms. Thurmond issued a final Written Warning to Petitioner at the same meeting in which they notified her that Sanmar had approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. The weight of the evidence shows that this took place on June 21, 2011. On or around November 3, 2011, prior to Petitioner going on leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres learned of an incident involving Petitioner and her son, Manuel Sanchez, who also worked for Sanmar. Specifically, Ms. Torres learned that Mr. Sanchez may have forged Petitioner's signature on a time-off request which asked for permission to be off work on October 28, 2011. After discussing this with Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Torres concluded that he had forged his mother's name on the time-off request at her request. Sanmar considered this to be falsification of company records. This is an offense for which Sanmar has disciplined employees in the past.5/ On Friday November 4, 2011, which was Petitioner's last day at work before taking leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres discussed the forged time off request with Petitioner. Petitioner admitted that she had asked her son to fill out the request and sign her name. At the end of their conversation, Ms. Torres told Petitioner not to discuss their meeting or the situation with anyone, not even Petitioner's son, because the company was continuing to investigate the matter. Despite this instruction, Lori Pritchard, a supervisor, reported to Ms. Torres that Petitioner went directly to her son and had a heated discussion with him at the print station. Although Ms. Pritchard was unable to fully understand their conversation because it was in Spanish, Ms. Pritchard advised Ms. Torres that she believed they were discussing Ms. Torres' meeting with Petitioner. Following this incident, Ms. Torres met again with Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Sanchez admitted he and Petitioner were discussing the forged time off request at the print station on November 4. Ms. Torres, however, was unable to speak to Petitioner about this incident until November 14, 2011, when Petitioner returned to work after her November 7 (second) surgery. During the meeting with Petitioner upon her return to work on November 14, 2011, (see paragraph 30), Mr. Torres and Mr. Rhodes told Petitioner the company was still reviewing the incident regarding the forged time-off request. They advised Petitioner that they had confirmation she and Mr. Sanchez discussed the forged time off request at the print station. While Petitioner denied this, she admitted she talked about the incident with her son at home, where Mr. Sanchez also resided. Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes believed Petitioner should be terminated for the November 4 incident, because it involved an incident of insubordination, following the previous warnings of unprofessional conduct issued In January and May 2011. However, they wanted to discuss their recommendation with Ms. Thurmond and Marty Rask, Operations Manager, in keeping with the company's normal practice. Although they planned to talk to Ms. Thurmond and Mr. Rask and, with their concurrence, terminate Petitioner later during the day on November 14, they were not able to do so because of Petitioner unexpectedly became ill on that day. This began a lengthy leave of absence from which she never returned. Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres recommended that Sanmar terminate Petitioner for her insubordination on November 4, when she discussed the document falsification issue with her son in violation of Ms. Torres' instructions, as well as her dishonest and evasive response on November 14, when Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres spoke to her about the incident. The final decision to terminate Petitioner was made on November 30, 2011. However, Sanmar did not communicate the termination decision to Petitioner until January 24, 2012. This delay resulted from circumstances related to Petitioner's medical leave and on-going workers' compensation proceedings.6/ Sanmar decided to move forward with its November 30, 2011, termination decision. Sanmar's usual practice of communicating employee termination is to inform the employee in person. However, Christy Hammond had been communicating with Petitioner and respected Petitioner's request that she not be required to come to the workplace only to be fired. Therefore, Sanmar decided to issue the termination letter via mail. Accordingly, on January 24, 2012, Sanmar sent Petitioner a termination letter signed by Olivia Thurmond. Enclosed with the letter was a documentation form explaining the reasons for Petitioner's termination, i.e., Petitioner's insubordination on November 4 and her dishonest and evasive behavior on November 14, combined with her prior discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Teresa Urbina. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2012.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the following activities: (a) Discharging the Petitioner from her position of employment with Respondent because of Petitioner's race and (b) after discharging the Petitioner, continuing to seek applications for the position previously held by the Petitioner from similarly qualified or less qualified applicants. Subsequent to the filing of her petition for relief, the Petitioner filed a motion for default pursuant to Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer to the petition as required by the cited rule. By order dated September 21, 1987, the Respondent was given until October 5, 1987, within which to show cause as to why the relief requested in the motion for default should not be granted. The Respondent failed to respond to the order of September 21, 1987, and on October 7, 1987, an order was issued which included the following language: That pursuant to Rule 22T-9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is hereby deemed to have admitted all material facts alleged in the petition. That at the final hearing in this case the material facts alleged in the petition will be taken as established without further proof, but both parties will be afforded an opportunity at the final hearing to offer evidence regarding any additional relevant facts. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the Petitioner and her attorney appeared at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled commencement time, the Hearing Officer called the Respondent's offices in Jacksonville and was advised by an employee of Respondent that the Respondent did not intend to have anyone attend the hearing. Shortly thereafter the hearing was convened and the Hearing Officer received evidence offered by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Petitioner, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, 15 days within which to file a proposed recommended order. Thereupon the record of the hearing was closed without any appearance having been made on behalf of the Respondent. On November 16, 1987, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order. Following the hearing, the Respondent was advised by letter of its right to file a proposed recommended order, but as of the date of this recommended order the Respondent has not filed any post-hearing document with the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1985, the Petitioner was referred by Job Finders of Florida, a private job placement service, to apply for a position with the Respondent, Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. The job the Petitioner applied for was Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner met all of the qualifications for the job of Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Jim Hart, the manager of the Ocala office of the Respondent. After interviewing the Petitioner, Mr. Hart decided, on the basis of her experience and references, that the Petitioner was the best qualified of several applicants. In this regard, it is noted that the Petitioner's prior employment had required the performance of duties substantially similar to those of the Secretary/Dispatcher position with Respondent. Thereafter, in the afternoon or evening of October 11, 1985, Mr. Hart telephoned the Petitioner, offered her the job, and advised her that she was to report to work on October 14, 1985. On October 14, 1985, the Petitioner reported to work at the Ocala office of the Respondent and immediately began performing the duties of Secretary/Dispatcher. During the work day on October 14, 1985, the Petitioner received a telephone call from Mrs. Lou Mohrman, the managing director of the Respondent. Mrs. Lou Mohrman welcomed the Petitioner to her position of employment and stated that she was pleased with the Petitioner's placement with the company. On October 15, 1985, Mr. L. D. Mohrman, president of Respondent, accompanied by Mrs. Lou Mohrman, managing director, visited the Ocala offices of the Respondent. After engaging in a boisterous conversation with Mr. Hart and visually ascertaining the Petitioner's race, Mrs. Mohrman summarily dismissed Petitioner without articulating a legitimate business reason for the termination. Within the next few days the Respondent listed the Secretary/Dispatcher position as vacant and continued to seek to fill the position with individuals with qualifications similar to or less than the qualifications of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a black female. She is a person within the meaning of Sections 760.02(5) and 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The dismissal of the Petitioner from her position of employment with the Respondent was motivated by the president and the managing director ascertaining the Petitioner's race. The dismissal of the Petitioner was motivated solely by her race. The Petitioner's starting salary at the Respondent company was $4.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. After her termination, the Petitioner sought employment elsewhere and obtained another job in January of 1986, where she worked until November of 1986. In November of 1986 the Petitioner voluntarily left her job in order to finish school. When she began work in January of 1986 the Petitioner was making $3.80 per hour. When she quit in November of 1986 she was making $4.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice; Prohibiting the Respondent from terminating any employee on the basis of the employee's race; Requiring the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the Petitioner under the terms and conditions of employment to which she would be presently entitled if she had been continuously employed, including any raises to which she would have been entitled on the basis of longevity. Requiring the Respondent to pay back pay to the Petitioner from the date of termination until November of 1986 in an amount equal to the total amount the Petitioner would have earned as a Secretary/Dispatcher during that period, less any amounts actually earned during that period; and Requiring the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3048 The following are my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8: Accepted Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Not included in findings of fact because they are subordinate procedural details. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Covered in prior findings. Paragraph 16: Accepted Paragraph 17: Covered in prior findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esq. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 312 W. First Street Suite 605 Sanford, Florida 32771 Mr. L. D. Mohrman, President Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. 3000 West 45th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections as a Correctional Officer I in the Food Service Department at the Union Correctional Institution. Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed by the Department of Corrections for approximately four years. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Norman Hedding, Food Service Director II at Union Correctional Institution. Sometime in April or May, 1987, Petitioner filled out a request for leave, requesting three weeks annual leave to be taken in July, 1987. The request for leave was placed on Mr. Hedding's desk. Mr. Hedding told Petitioner he would see what he could do and mentioned that other officers needed to take vacation time or they would forfeit the time. However, no other officer asked to take leave during the same period of time requested by Petitioner. On various occasions during May, June and July, Petitioner asked Wanda Phillips, Mr. Hedding's assistant, whether his leave had been approved. Ms. Phillips told him she had not heard anything. During one of the conversations with Ms. Phillips, Petitioner told her that he had purchased round-trip airline tickets to California. Petitioner and Mr. Hedding did not speak about the leave request until the Petitioner's last day at work prior to having two scheduled days off and then starting the 3-week period for which leave time had been requested. During this conversation, the Petitioner informed Mr. Hedding that he had confirmed round-trip tickets to California and his grandson had surgery scheduled for the time period in question. The testimony is conflicting as to what was said during this conversation. Mr. Hedding testified that he told Petitioner that the leave was not authorized. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hedding told him that the leave "had not been approved yet." Based on the testimony given at the hearing and the actions of Petitioner after his conversation with Mr. Hedding, I find that Petitioner was never told in unequivocal and clear terms that his leave had been disapproved. Petitioner assumed his leave would be approved and, before leaving work on his last day, he filled out pay slips in advance so that his payroll records would be accurate and told people at the office that he was going on vacation. Petitioner remained in town for the next four days, without reporting for work, and left for California. On August 6, 1987, upon his return from California, Petitioner received a certified letter from Mr. Hicks, an Assistant Superintendent II at Union Correctional Institution, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System. Petitioner then spoke with Mr. Ellis, the Superintendent at Union Correctional Institution, who told Petitioner he needed to talk with Mr. Hedding about getting his job back. Petitioner told Mr. Hedding he had not intended to abandon his position. The next day Mr. Hedding told Petitioner he would not take him back.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented in this case do not constitute abandonment as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and directing that Petitioner be reinstated to his former position as of July 20, 1987. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3828 The parties submitted-proposed findings of fact, which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's posthearing filing is a document titled "Petitioner's Argument and Citation of Law." The first three paragraphs consist of factual information and will be considered as proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings are generally accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact to conform to the testimony and evidence presented at hearing. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's Paragraph Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Accepted. RO 1. Accepted, as modified to reflect approximate dates. RO 2, 3. Rejected. Mr. Hedding assumed this to be the case. Accepted, generally as modified. RO 4. Accepted, generally. RO 5. Accepted, as modified to reflect approximate dates. RO 6. Accepted, as modified. RO 6, 7. First sentence accepted. RO 9. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Accepted, generally. RO 10. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Louis A. Vargas, Esquire 409 North East First Street General Counsel Post Office Box 628 Department of Corrections Alachua, Florida 32615 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Perri M. King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Richard Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Adis Vila, Secretary 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 9, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner commenced her employment with Respondent in November 1997. On December 9, 2010, Petitioner ceased being employed by Respondent. In her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of "disability" and "retaliation." Exhibit A to the Charge of Discrimination provides as follows: I was employed with Orange County Clerk of Courts since November 1997. During my tenure with Orange County Clerk of Courts, I served as a Supervisor and satisfactorily and/or above satisfactorily performed the essential job duties of my position. Notwithstanding my performance, I was subjected to discrimination based on my handicap and/or disability, as further described below. In 1999 I injured my back while on the job and in 2003 I had surgery for same. I had 2 rods and 4 screws placed in my back. On September 27, 2010, I was on FMLA leave until December 8, 2010, and I requested an extension until December 27, 2010, but it was denied. While out on FMLA leave I had the rods removed from my back, which is why I was not able to return to work on December 9, 2010. The reason I was out of work all this time was a direct result from the workers compensation injury I sustained in 1999. Many of my colleagues that were unable to report to work were provided the opportunity to work from home, however I was not. I feel that I was targeted for termination even though such non-handicapped and/or disabled employee was not subject to any adverse employment action. Based on the foregoing actions of Orange County Clerk of Courts described herein, I believe that I have been discriminated and retaliated against, including my unlawful termination, based on my handicap and/or disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Due to my unlawful termination, I have suffered and continue to suffer severe financial and emotional damages. I am seeking compensation for my lost earnings, my lost earnings capacity, my emotional distress, and for punitive damages because Orange County Clerk of Courts acted with malice and/or reckless disregard for my protected rights. Following the "no cause" determination by FCHR, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief. In her Petition for Relief, Petitioner, when directed to describe the "disputed issues of material fact," noted the following: "Respondent states Complainant abandoned her position. Complainant had vacation time not used on company's books – other employees have/were granted extension of time off – they had no time accrued on books." Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a supervisor in the Division of Records Management. In her role as supervisor, Petitioner, among other duties, was responsible for supervising "a records tech one, two, and three" as well as the person that occupied the position designated as the team "lead." Petitioner's job description lists the following as essential duties and responsibilities of her position: Perform any or all of the duties described below depending upon the Division to which assigned. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related, or a logical assignment to the position. Assign, schedule, review and evaluate the work of subordinates. Assist in various areas of personnel administration to include preparation of employee performance evaluation, conduct of employee action plans, and employee counseling/discipline. Monitor customer assistance to include service counter/courtroom coverage, and provide assistance when appropriate. Coordinate divisional orientation and oversee the training of new employees. Provide ongoing divisional training program to include efficient use of a variety of court software, case tracking, and other computer systems. Maintain time and attendance records and related reports for divisional personnel. Review/approve employee leave requests. Respond to complaints, difficult situations and non-routine inquiries from the public in a professional and timely manner. Resolve problems and answers questions that subordinates are unable to solve. Provide assistance to judicial assistants, judges, and other court personnel. Verify that documents processed through the front counter are distributed properly and in a timely manner. Assist in collecting/analyzing data and prepare associated reports. Inform management of any problems or issues. Establish/maintain effective intra-divisional working relationships where areas of responsibility are shared among divisions. Close out and balance the register when required. Complete end of day audit per Clerk's Cash Control Policy as necessary. Communicate with coworkers, management, staff, the general public, and others in a timely, courteous and professional manner. Conform with and abide by all regulations, policies, work procedures and instructions. Respond promptly when returning telephone calls and replying to correspondence including email and faxes/emails. Act, dress, and behave in a professional manner to reflect a positive image of the Clerk's Office. Fully support the Clerk's Quality Policy and standards of Performance Excellence by delivering exemplary services to both internal and external customers. Provide the utmost in customer service efficiently, effectively, and expeditiously. Develop, implement, and provide tools necessary for staff to collect accurate and useable data for the Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS). Utilize available tools to collect necessary information and report daily/weekly Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS) data to the Assistant Manager. Perform observations, calculations, and implementation of forms necessary for the Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS). Monitor process changes in order to evaluate Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS) measurements accordingly. Report these findings to the management team and Special Projects Coordinator for appropriate action. Assist in the preparation and update of the Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS) Area Books for the division. Continuously strive to instill Performance Excellence in all functions within the Division through teamwork, customer feedback, and process based management. Throughout her tenure as a supervisor, Petitioner generally received "acceptable" ratings (highest ratings possible) on her annual employee performance appraisals. On June 1, 2009, Petitioner's supervisor, Cindy Startz, noted that Petitioner was viewed as a "great asset" to the office of the Orange County Clerk of Courts. In 1999, Petitioner sustained a work related injury to her back. In reviewing the record, it appears as though Petitioner, sometime in 2003, had surgical rods inserted in her back in order to stabilize her spine. The rods were surgically removed from Petitioner's back on or about December 9, 2010. Prior to her December 2010 back surgery, Petitioner, from August 3, 2010, through August 17, 2010, used two weeks of Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for her child. Petitioner's FMLA leave year for the period in question commenced on August 3, 2010. Therefore, for the twelve month period beginning August 3, 2010, Petitioner had twelve weeks of FMLA leave or a maximum of 480 working hours available for use. On or about October 4, 2010, Petitioner submitted to Respondent another request for FMLA leave. This request from Petitioner was for the period September 27, 2010, through October 27, 2010. Petitioner's FMLA leave request for this period was approved by Respondent on November 2, 2010. Petitioner did not return to work on October 28, 2010. She sought and was granted by Respondent a continuation of her FMLA leave through and including December 8, 2010. As of December 8, 2010, Petitioner had exhausted her 12 weeks of FMLA leave for the annual leave period that commenced on August 3, 2010. Several days prior to exhausting her FMLA leave, Petitioner was informed by Respondent that her FMLA leave entitlement for the relevant period would expire on December 8, 2010. In anticipation of the expiration of her FMLA leave entitlement, Petitioner, on or about December 2, 2010, submitted to Respondent a request for leave of absence without pay for the period December 9, 2010, through December 27, 2010. In support of her request for leave of absence, Petitioner provided to Respondent a statement from her orthopedist. According to her orthopedist, Petitioner suffered from chronic low back pain and was "having surgery on 12/9/10 for hardware removal [from her back, and that] [s]he will be out of work from 12/9/10 – 12/27/10, and [these] dates may be adjusted as needed pending [patient] recovery." The orthopedist also noted that for the two to three month period following her surgery, it was anticipated that Petitioner would experience one or two "flare-ups" with her back that would require orthopedic intervention. On December 8, 2010, Petitioner's supervisor, Marlene Muscatello, sent Petitioner an email message regarding Petitioner's request for a leave of absence without pay. The email message provides as follows: Hello Sandra, I received your leave of absence request for December 9 through December 27th. Your request has been reviewed and considered. However, the Records Management division is unable to accommodate your leave of absence request due to the workload burden on the division. Thank you, Marlene On September 6, 2010, Marlene Muscatello became Petitioner's supervisor and division manager for Respondent's Records Management Division. Ms. Muscatello, when considering Petitioner's request for leave of absence, was familiar with the needs of the Records Management Division. In explaining why Petitioner's request for leave of absence was denied, Ms. Muscatello credibly testified that as a result of Petitioner's absence, it was necessary to reassign Petitioner's responsibilities to other employees in the Records Management Division. The employees that were tasked with Petitioner's work functions were required to perform Petitioner's job functions as well as their own. According to Ms. Muscatello, this working arrangement created a hardship on the employees in the Records Management Division. Petitioner disputes that her absence from the office during her FMLA leave period created a hardship on her fellow employees. According to Petitioner, her absence from the office allowed the person serving in the position of tech-three, "to jump in and learn more." Ms. Muscatello generally agrees that Petitioner's absence provided learning opportunities for other employees. However, Ms. Muscatello also notes that while the other employees in the division were taking on new responsibilities associated with Petitioner's absence, the employees were still responsible for performing their regular duties. In addition to the hardship placed on other employees resulting from Petitioner's absence, Ms. Muscatello was also concerned about the uncertainty surrounding when Petitioner would be released by her physician to return to work. Specifically, Ms. Muscatello was concerned about that portion of the physician's statement indicating that December 27, 2010, was only an anticipated release to return to work date and that Petitioner's actual return to work date "may be adjusted as needed pending [patient] recovery." Petitioner contends that because the doctor's statement is "open ended," it was possible that Petitioner could have been released to return to work prior to December 27, 2010. It is precisely the "open ended" nature of the doctor's statement that factored into Ms. Muscatello's decision to deny Petitioner's request for leave without pay. It is clear from the doctor's statement that Petitioner was unable to perform her job duties upon exhaustion of her FMLA leave. In addition to the previously referenced email, Respondent also sent on December 8, 2010, correspondence to Petitioner wherein she was advised of the following: This is to advise you that as of December 8, 2010, your 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act is exhausted. The State of Florida does not mandate any additional leave rights beyond the federally mandated FMLA and all of your accrued sick and vacation leave has been exhausted. In accordance with our FMLA policy and as is permitted by FMLA regulations, we require all employees on leave to provide notice of their intent to return to work and if returning, a note from their medical provider returning them to their job. The documentation you provided on December 2, 2010, from your physician states that you need to be out of work from December 9th through December 27th. As outlined in the Clerk of Courts Employee Handbook, Section 408, you submitted a request to your division management for a Leave of Absence beyond your FMLA eligibility. Unfortunately your division is unable to approve your request at this time. Clerk of Courts policy states that if you do not return to work following the exhaustion of your FMLA, you will be considered to have voluntarily resigned. When you are released by your physician to return to work, you may apply for available employment opportunities with the Clerk of Courts. We appreciate your service to the Orange County Clerk of Courts and certainly wish you well in the future. If you have any questions you may reach me at 407-836-2302. Information regarding your rights to continue your employee benefits under COBRA will be sent to you separately. Please contact our office to arrange the return of any property belonging to the Clerk of Courts still in your possession (employee ID badge, parking card, keys, etc.) Sincerely, Jacquelyn Clarke, SPHR Sr. Human Resource Generalist In her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges that "[m]any of her colleagues that were unable to report to work were provided the opportunity to work from home, however I was not." The evidence is undisputed that Petitioner never requested of Respondent that she be allowed to work from home. It is illogical to suggest that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by not allowing her to work from home when Petitioner never asked for such an accommodation. There was no evidence presented that other employees were allowed to work from home under circumstances where this option was unilaterally presented to the employees as a proposed accommodation. As previously noted, Petitioner, in her Petition for Relief, alleges that Respondent discriminated against her by not allowing her to use her accrued vacation leave upon exhaustion of her FMLA leave. In comparing the Petition for Relief with the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner, it is the case that Petitioner did not make any reference, express or implied, to unused vacation time in the Charge of Discrimination that was investigated by FCHR. The undersigned has only considered those issues raised in the Charge of Discrimination. During Petitioner's employment with Respondent, the position that she occupied was covered by the Orange County Clerk of Courts Employee Handbook (Handbook). Section 409(E) of the Handbook provides, in part, that "[i]f the employee does not return to work following the conclusion of a family or medical leave, the employee will be considered to have voluntarily resigned." Petitioner signed for and received a copy of the Handbook on February 22, 2000. Section 408 of the Handbook governs requests for leave of absence without pay. This section provides in part that "[l]eave of absence without pay may be granted with manager's approval to eligible employees in instances where unusual or unavoidable circumstances require prolonged absence."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Orange County Clerk of Courts, did not commit an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, Sandra A. Jones, and denying Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Petitioner was employed as a Clerk Typist with Respondent. Petitioner did not report to work on February 3, 4 and 5, 1988. Respondent's leave policy is that leave should be requested in advance; if an employee gets sick, he or she needs to call in. Petitioner had not requested leave prior to February 3, 1988. On February 3, 1988, Ms. Lester, a co-worker of Petitioner's received a telephone call from a Ms. Williams who stated that Petitioner was in the hospital. Ms. Baker, Petitioner's supervisor, called three hospitals in the area and none had a Ms. Stanyard listed as a patient. Also, she contacted Ms. Stanyard's brother and another person, neither of whom had any knowledge of Petitioner's whereabouts. Finally, Ms. Baker went to Ms. Stanyard's home, but could not find Ms. Stanyard. As of the end of the day on February 5, 1988, Petitioner had not contacted her supervisor or her office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Administration issue a final order ruling that Petitioner abandoned her position and resigned from the career service. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Ethelda Stanyard 7855 Wilson Boulevard Apartment 17 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Scott D. Leemis Assistant District Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
