The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to his marital status.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation that sells and services blueprint machines and the supplies needed to operate such machines throughout a multi-regional area in the United States. Pamela Turner was the Director of Operations for Respondent. Her office was in the Pensacola, Florida, branch offices of the Respondent. During 2011, Respondent was looking for a person to fill a field technician position covering parts of Florida and Georgia. At the time, the territory that this position serviced ranged from Tallahassee, Florida, south to Perry, Florida, north to Valdosta and Albany, Georgia, and west to Destin, Florida. Importantly, the technician for the above area did not work out of Respondent's Pensacola office, but was remotely located somewhere within the position's service area. Further, parts and inventory were shipped to the remote location used by the field technician. For that reason, it was required that the field technician for the area possess the utmost honesty and trustworthiness. Additionally, it was very important that Petitioner and, specifically, Ms. Turner have a high degree of confidence in any person selected for the field technician position. In November 2011, Petitioner interviewed for the Field Service Technician position with Respondent. Petitioner interviewed with Pamela Turner and Michael Miller, the head of the company. Pamela Turner advised the Petitioner that due to the remote location of the job, it required the utmost in terms of honesty and trustworthiness of the person hired since the employee would be unsupervised most of the time and would possess valuable tools, parts and inventory at the employee's remote location. On his application, Petitioner disclosed the address where he lived as 1654 Eagles Watch Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The address on Petitioner?s application was his mother?s home and was the place where he lived. Petitioner understood that this address also would be considered the address for his office and the address where parts and inventory would be shipped. During Petitioner?s interview, Petitioner was never asked any questions by the interviewers about the status of his marriage. The fact that Petitioner was married came up during casual conversation in relation to the travel required for the job. Additionally, during the course of the interview with Ms. Turner, Petitioner told Ms. Turner that Petitioner?s wife would like for him to get this job because it meant more time at home with her. However, Petitioner did not inform any interviewer that he was separated from his wife because he did not feel that it had anything to do with his ability to perform the job he was interviewing for. He likewise did not inform any of the interviewers that he was not living with his wife at her home or that he occasionally stayed at his wife's house because they were trying to work things out between them. Petitioner was never asked specifically during the interview who owned the address that was listed on his application. However, Ms. Turner reasonably assumed that it was Petitioner?s and his wife?s home. The Petitioner was hired for the position of field service technician on December 12, 2011. His employment contract ran from December 12, 2011, through December 11, 2012. After Petitioner began his employment, Petitioner shared with a co-employee, Paul Springer, that he was separated from his wife. Paul Springer was a church counselor and suggested that he could help Petitioner and his wife by counseling them. In January 2012, while talking with another employee, Pamela Turner learned that Petitioner was living with his mother and that Petitioner was separated from his wife. This information was of concern to Pamela Turner because she questioned where parts Petitioner utilized in the maintenance and repair of customer photocopying machinery were being shipped. She was concerned because she thought this was Petitioner's and his wife's home only to discover that the home did not belong to Petitioner. Ms. Turner felt that Petitioner should have disclosed the fact that the address on his application was not owned by him and felt that the lack of disclosure was the same as misrepresenting information to her. Further, Ms. Turner, based on her earlier incorrect assumptions about Petitioner's address and living in the marital home, asked Petitioner why he had not told her about the address as it related to the circumstances of Petitioner's marriage. Ms. Turner incorrectly felt that Petitioner had misrepresented the circumstances of his marriage, which called into question the ownership of the address to which parts and inventory were being shipped. As a result, the confidence that Ms. Turner had in Petitioner was undermined. Petitioner explained to Ms. Turner that he and his wife were working on things and he was between his wife?s residence and his mother?s residence, but that he was not telling different stories. Further, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner did not actively misrepresent anything to Respondent. However, Ms. Turner honestly felt that she could no longer trust Petitioner and honestly believed through her worldview that Petitioner had misrepresented himself to her. On January 30, 2012, she advised Petitioner that he was being terminated for misrepresentation. Given Ms. Turner's honest beliefs, Respondent's rationale for terminating Petitioner was not a pretext for discrimination. More importantly, given these honest beliefs, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner's termination was based on Petitioner's separated marital status, but on the lack of trust that Petitioner's supervisor had in him. After the termination, Petitioner made no report of the alleged discrimination pursuant to the Respondent's written Problem Resolution policy and/or Equal Employment Opportunity policy both of which provided a problem and discrimination complaint process within Respondent's company. Petitioner was aware of these policies. However, Petitioner did not utilize these complaint processes because there was no one to escalate the complaint to since his supervisor, Pamela Turner, and the head of the company, Michael Miller, were both involved in the decision to terminate Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner's lack of use of Respondent's discrimination and problem complaint processes was reasonable under the circumstances. Further, no adverse action has been taken against any employee of Respondent due to that employees? marital status. Thus, there are no similarly situated employees outside Petitioner's protected class to which Petitioner can be compared. Moreover, Petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing on January 16, 2013, that he lost any wages due to the alleged discrimination. Ultimately, however, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was terminated due to his separated marital status. As indicated, Ms. Turner honestly felt she could not trust Petitioner in a position that required her to have the highest confidence in that employee. Therefore, based on these facts, Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner based on his marital status and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Phillips, Esquire Phillips Law Firm 1413 North Randolph Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michael John Stebbins, Esquire Michael J. Stebbins, P.L. 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Tiffany Rousseau Cruz, Esquire Marie A. Mattox, P.A. 310 East Bradford Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Mojo Old City BBQ ("Mojo"), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his gender.
Findings Of Fact Mojo is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Mojo owns and operates a restaurant at 5 Cordova Street in St. Augustine. Mojo has put in place written policies and procedures that prohibit, among other things, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or any other categories of persons protected by state or federal anti- discrimination laws. The policies also provide a specific complaint procedure for any employee who believes that he or she is being discriminated against or harassed. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner received an orientation that thoroughly explained the anti-discrimination and reporting policies. Testimony at the hearing established that Petitioner was again informed of these policies at an employee insurance meeting held in October 2013. Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Mojo on August 2, 2013, as a dishwasher. Petitioner testified that “from day one” he was called names and harassed by everyone at Mojo, employees and managers alike. He stated that an employee named Linwood Finley would yell that he didn’t want to work with a man who looked like a girl, or a “he/she.” Mr. Finley said, “I don’t want to work with a man that can't have kids.” Petitioner testified that the managers and staff would accuse him of looking between their legs. Employees would walk up to him and try to kiss him. He was told that he had to go along with these antics or find somewhere else to wash dishes. Petitioner testified that he believed he was fired for refusing to kiss other male employees. He had seen Mr. Finley and another male employee kissing behind the restaurant. He stated that two male employees had tried to kiss him and he refused their advances. Petitioner testified that he complained about the kissing to anyone who would listen. He said, “I’m not a woman, I’m a man. I got to come in here every day to the same stuff over and over. Y’all act like little kids.” Petitioner stated that when he complained, the harassment would stop for the rest of that day but would resume on the following day. Petitioner testified that there is a conspiracy against him in St. Augustine. For the last five years, he has been harassed in the same way at every place he has worked. Petitioner specifically cited Flagler College, the Columbia Restaurant, and Winn-Dixie as places where he worked and suffered name calling and harassment. Petitioner testified that he wanted to call several employees from Mojo as witnesses but that he was unable to subpoena them because Mojo refused to provide him with their addresses. Petitioner could provide no tangible evidence of having made any discovery requests on Mojo. Petitioner was terminated on November 29, 2013, pursuant to a “Disciplinary Action Form” that provided as follows: Roderick closed Wednesday night2/ in the dish pit. Again we have come to the problem with Roderick not working well with others causing a hostile work environment. This has been an ongoing issue. This issue has not resolved itself, and has been tolerated long enough. Roderick has been talked [to] about this plenty of times and written up previously for the same behavior. The documentary evidence established that Petitioner had received another Disciplinary Action Form on October 2, 2013, providing a written warning for insubordination for his hostile reaction when a manager asked him to pick up the pace in the evening. Laura Jenkins, the front-house supervisor at Mojo, was present at Mojo on the night of November 27, 2013. She testified that Petitioner had a history of getting into arguments with other kitchen employees that escalated into screaming matches during which Petitioner would commence calling the other employees “nigger.” Ms. Jenkins stated that on more than one occasion she had asked Petitioner to cease using “the ‘N’ word.” On the night of November 27, Petitioner was running behind on the dishes, so Ms. Jenkins asked another kitchen employee, Colin Griffin, to pitch in and help him. Petitioner did not want the help and argued with Mr. Griffin. Ms. Jenkins testified that Petitioner was screaming and cursing. The situation was so volatile that Ms. Jenkins felt physically threatened by Petitioner. She was afraid to discipline him that evening while she was the sole manager in the restaurant. On November 29, Ms. Jenkins met with kitchen manager Billy Ambrose and general manager Linda Prescott. They decided that Petitioner’s actions could not be tolerated anymore and that his employment would be terminated. Mr. Ambrose testified that on several occasions he sent people to help Petitioner in the dish pit and Petitioner refused their help. Petitioner would get into arguments with other employees over such things as the proper way to stack dishes. Mr. Ambrose named four different employees, including Mr. Finley, whom he sent to help Petitioner. Each one of them reported that Petitioner started an argument. Mr. Ambrose stated he went in to help Petitioner himself on one occasion and that Petitioner “kind of gave me attitude” despite the fact that Mr. Ambrose was his supervisor. Mr. Ambrose testified that Petitioner had an argument with Mr. Finley one morning that resulted in Mr. Ambrose having a cautionary talk with both employees. Mr. Ambrose sent Mr. Finley to help Petitioner in the dish pit. Petitioner stated, “Nigger, I don’t need your help.” Mr. Ambrose asked if there was a problem. Petitioner said, “No, we’re fine.” Mr. Ambrose asked Mr. Finley if everything was all right. Mr. Finley replied, “Yeah, I guess he’s just having a bad day.” Mr. Ambrose returned to his work only to find, five minutes later, that the two men were nose to nose arguing about the fact that Mr. Finley wasn’t washing dishes the way Petitioner liked. Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Ambrose, and Ms. Prescott all testified that they had never seen another employee harass Petitioner and had never heard of such a thing occurring. Petitioner never complained to any of these supervisors about discrimination or harassment of any kind. All three testified that they had never seen male employees kissing one another on the job nor seen any male employee attempt to kiss Petitioner. The three supervisors never heard any employee make comments about Petitioner’s appearing to be a girl. Ms. Jenkins testified that as a gay woman she would absolutely not allow any discrimination based on Petitioner’s gender orientation. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Mojo for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Mojo's stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s gender. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Mojo discriminated against him because of his gender in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that his dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that he made while an employee of Mojo. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner ever complained to a superior about the alleged harassment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Mojo Old City BBQ did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's decedent, Barbara J. Taylor, was discriminated against in an employment decision (termination) by the Respondent based upon her gender and alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James Saemenes, is the Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara J. Taylor. Barbara J. Taylor was the Petitioner's sister. Ms. Taylor, at times pertinent to the facts in this case, had been an employee of the Utilities Department of the City of Fort Walton Beach, working in the Utility Wastewater Treatment Facility Laboratory as Laboratory Manager. The Petitioner, Mr. Saemenes, did not participate in the hearing. The City of Fort Walton Beach provides public utilities to its citizens including wasterwater operations. Mr. John Hofstad is employed as the utilities director for the city, and oversees the city's wastewater operation. Mr. Hofstad was Ms. Taylor's supervisor at times pertinent to this case. The wastewater operation is responsible for collection and treatment of raw waste to suitable discharge standards. There are 13 individuals employed at the wastewater treatment facility. The positions consist of one plant supervisor, eight licensed wastewater treatment plant operators, one pre-treatment coordinator, two maintenance employees, and one laboratory manager. Ms. Taylor was the laboratory manager at times pertinent to this case and her immediate supervisor, Mr. Hofstad was responsible for evaluating her work and initiating any discipline against her, if necessary. Her duties included managing the day-to-day activities of the laboratory, collecting samples throughout the facility, analyzing samples, managing the quality assurance and quality control plan required by the State of Florida and associated daily paperwork. Her duties required effective cooperative interaction with other employees of the facility and the city on a daily basis. Over a substantial period of time, Mr. Hofstad received numerous complaints and expressions of concern from almost every employee regarding the appropriateness of Ms. Taylor's conduct while at work. Employees complained that she was intimidating and abrasive toward them. She demeaned fellow members of the staff based upon their educational background or their level of knowledge about the operations and their jobs. Mr. Hofstad counseled Ms. Taylor on a number of occasions regarding her co-workers' concerns. Mr. Hofstad witnessed Ms. Taylor harassing Mr. McDowell, the Pre-treatment Coordinator, while working in his office. Specifically, she physically placed an object in Mr. McDowell's pocket despite his previous request for her to refrain from distracting him. Mr. McDowell became visibly upset when Ms. Taylor thereafter made an obscene gesture towards him as she left the office area. Mr. Hofstad drafted a memorandum on December 6, 1996, pertaining to the aforementioned incident and provided a written disciplinary action form to Ms. Taylor because of it. Mr. Hofstad executed a personnel evaluation regarding Ms. Taylor on December 9, 1996. She received an unsatisfactory rating in the area of cooperation with fellow employees and team-work. Mr. Hofstad gave Ms. Taylor that rating due to numerous employee complaints indicating that Ms. Taylor had initiated confrontations. Thereafter on March 6, 1998, Mr. Hofstad drafted a memorandum regarding a confrontation which had occurred the day before between Ms. Taylor and Mr. James Whitley. Without authorization Ms. Taylor directed Mr. Whitley to stop conducting certain tests because they would interfere with her job. Ms. Taylor possessed no supervisory authority over Mr. Whitley. When Mr. Hofstad intervened in the situation Ms. Taylor spoke to him in a insubordinate loud and hostile fashion. She raised her voice at Mr. Hofstad and stated that he did not know how to do his job much like the other individuals employed by him. Mr. Hofstad considered her tone and manner to be inappropriate and insubordinate. He executed a Notice of Disciplinary Action based on Ms. Taylor's actions and demeanor and gave her a copy. Thereafter on or about May 14, 1998, Mr. Hofstad was again verbally assaulted by Ms. Taylor. She spoke in an enraged, loud, and abusive manner in the presence of several subordinate employees. Ms. Taylor stated that Mr. Hofstad had no control over the laboratory. Following this incident which he also considered insubordination, Mr. Hofstad spoke to the Public Works Director his superior, Mr. Mark Tate, regarding Ms. Taylor's conduct. Mr. Tate reviewed Ms. Taylor's disciplinary history and in conjunction with Mr. Hofstad determined that the best course of action, after having tried graduated discipline was to terminate her employment. Mr. Hofstad and Mr. Tate spoke with the Human Resources Department Director regarding Ms. Taylor's behavior and potential termination. The Director of Human Resources agreed that Ms. Taylor's termination was appropriate considering her history of progressive discipline and current misconduct amounting to repeated insubordination. Thus Ms. Taylor's employment was terminated. Her termination was not based upon her gender. In fact, she was replaced in her position with another female, Ms. Harriett Holloway. The current laboratory manager, Melissa Woodall, is a female. Mr. Hofstad never discouraged Ms. Taylor from filling out complaint forms during the course of her employment. In fact, he provided such forms to Ms. Taylor in the event that she had a complaint. Her termination was not related to any complaint filed by her, or for engaging in any other protected activity such as applying for vocation rehabilitation benefits or assistance. Further, her termination was not related to any health conditions she possessed. Mr. Hofstad at the time was unaware of any disability or health condition endured by Ms. Taylor. He did not perceive her as disabled. She was fully capable of performing the duties of her job in terms of her physical abilities and would have continued to be employed but for the misconduct referenced above. She never requested any accommodations for any disability or impairment in the workplace from Mr. Hofstad or others in a supervisory role. Neither Mr. Hofstad, nor any other witness, described any occasion where Ms. Taylor was harassed by operations staff. According to unrefuted evidence of record, Ms. Taylor was always the harasser of other employees. Moreover, when Ms. Taylor sought assistance from Mr. Hofstad, he promptly addressed her concerns in a reasonable, unbiased way. The Petitioner never testified in this proceeding.
Conclusions Petitioner: No Appearance Respondent: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Saemenes, Personal Representative 46 Higgins Road Brighton, Tennessee 38011-3602
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a healthcare facility that provides in- patient nursing care to patients after their surgery. As a healthcare facility, Respondent employs an ethnically diverse staff of nurses, including several black nurses. Petitioner is a black female. As such, Petitioner is a protected person under chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Petitioner is a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She received her nursing license in 2002 and has worked in the nursing field since that time. Currently, she is completing her education to become a Registered Nurse. In March 2011, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an LPN on its skilled medical surgical unit in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner was supervised by the Director of Nursing (DON), Michelle, who was, in turn, supervised by Heritage's administrator, Brenda. Both the DON and administrator are white. An important part of Respondent's service is the administration of prescribed medications to its patients in accordance with the medication's prescribed dosage and schedule. As an LPN at Heritage, Petitioner was responsible for the proper administration of medications to patients under her care. At some point, two patients accused Petitioner of giving them their medications earlier than they were supposed to receive them. Although the evidence is unclear, these accusations may have been reported to the administration of Heritage by another nurse who worked the same unit as Petitioner and who Petitioner believed was jealous of her because the patients preferred Petitioner's care to that of the other nurse. Additionally, Petitioner testified that one of the patients told her that she was bribed with a package of cigarettes by the other nurse to make the allegations. However, neither of these patients testified at the hearing. As a consequence, such patient statements constitute uncorroborated hearsay and cannot be considered in this proceeding. Petitioner denies that she ever gave these two patients medication earlier than the prescribed time. Sometime around April 1, 2011, Petitioner was called into a meeting with the administrator and the DON for a "number 2 write-up." There was no evidence that demonstrated the nature of such a disciplinary action or the action that would be taken for such a write-up. The write-up was based on the allegations of the two patients referenced above. However, there was no evidence that Respondent did not investigate or follow its policy on employee discipline. Indeed there was no evidence regarding any of Respondent's policies. Likewise, there was no evidence that other similarly-situated, non-protected employees had received less discipline for similarly alleged infractions. Petitioner tried to explain what the patient had told her about being bribed and making her allegation up. Petitioner also asked the administrator to explain what a "number 2 write- up" was since she did not know, and did not know at the hearing, what such a write-up was. The administrator said she did not have to explain anything, slammed her hand down on her desk, and loudly said "you people make me sick." The administrator also referenced something about lying and trying to cover things up instead of admitting mistakes. There was no substantive evidence that the administrator’s very subjective statement was a reference to Petitioner's race or was intended as a racial epithet. Indeed, viewed objectively, the statement appears to be, at worst, abusive or rude. Ultimately, there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a finding (or to infer) that these remarks were anything but an administrator venting her exasperation at staff. Without more, such language is not the sort of language that anti-discrimination laws are designed to reach. Petitioner was told to sign the write-up or be terminated. She was understandably offended by the administrator's behavior, refused to sign "something that was untrue,” wished the administrator "Jehovah's blessing" and left. Petitioner never returned to the facility and her paycheck was mailed to her. However, as indicated, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was the victim of racial discrimination. The Petition for Relief should, therefore, be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kareen Anita Gantt 1340 Mount Hosea Church Road Quincy, Florida 32352 Michael McKelvaine Heritage Health Care 1815 Ginger Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, on the basis of Petitioner's age, Respondent (a staffing agency) unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by having him terminated from his position with Respondent's client, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent inSync Staffing, Inc. ("inSync"), is a company that recruits for, and supplies employees to, its clients, including, as relevant here, NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY"). inSync is an "employment agency" as that term is used in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). See ¶ 13, infra. inSync does not meet face-to-face with most of the candidates it places with clients. On or around August 19, 2015, a recruiter at inSync forwarded the résumé of Petitioner Adalberto Lopez ("Lopez"), then 75 years old, to NBTY in hopes that NBTY might hire Lopez to fill the position of "QA Floor Inspector – Shift 1," a job that paid $13.50 per hour. About a week later, NBTY interviewed Lopez, and, on September 2, 2015, inSync informed Lopez that NBTY was offering him the job. Lopez accepted the offer. NBTY, not inSync, made the decision to hire Lopez. At all times, inSync acted essentially as a go-between, introducing Lopez to NBTY and helping him apply for the job, informing Lopez of NBTY's training and drug test requirements for new employees, and providing him with documents that NBTY wanted completed and returned in the ordinary course of new-hire onboarding. One of the documents that Lopez was required to sign and submit was the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), which is used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, administrator of the federal E-Verify program, to determine whether an employee is authorized to work in the United States. The E-Verify program provided NBTY with a result of Tentative Nonconfirmation ("TNC"), meaning that there was, at a minimum, some discrepancy between the information provided in Lopez's Form I-9 and that available in other public records. A TNC does not necessarily disqualify an employee from continuing to work, but it does need to be resolved to avoid the possibility of termination. In this instance, there is no persuasive evidence that the TNC led NBTY to take any adverse action against Lopez. There is, moreover, no evidence that inSync took any adverse action against Lopez as a result of the TNC. Lopez's first day of work at NBTY was September 14, 2015. The next day, NBTY terminated Lopez's employment. Nevertheless, Lopez showed up for work on September 16 and was told, again, that he no longer had a job. There is no persuasive evidence that inSync played any role in NBTY's decision to fire Lopez. inSync did, however, communicate this decision to Lopez, telling him that he had "been terminated due to not catching on fast enough." This was the reason for the termination given to inSync by NBTY. There is no persuasive evidence that this was not, in fact, NBTY's reason for firing Lopez. There is no persuasive evidence that NBTY eliminated Lopez's job, but there is, likewise, no evidence that NBTY filled the vacant position after Lopez's termination, nor (it obviously follows) any proof regarding the age of Lopez's successor (assuming NBTY hired someone to replace Lopez). There is no evidence concerning the candidates, if any, that inSync referred to NBTY after Lopez had been fired. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of inSync's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Lopez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that inSync did not discriminate unlawfully against Lopez on the basis of his age.
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 inSync not liable for age discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Corrections (Respondent or the Department) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discharging Petitioner Theresa Williams (Petitioner) in retaliation for her participation as a witness during the investigation of an alleged discrimination claim brought by another employee.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Corrections is a state agency as defined in chapter 110, Florida Statutes, and an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. At all times material, Petitioner was employed as a nurse at the Department's Lake Correctional Institution (“the Institution”) in Clermont, Florida. She was hired by the Department as a Licensed Practical Nurse effective July 12, 2007. Petitioner was terminated from her position with the Institution in May 2013. At the time of Petitioner's termination, her official title was “Senior Licensed Practical Nurse.” Prior to her termination, the Department provided Petitioner with a letter dated April 16, 2013, advising her of her proposed dismissal and scheduling a meeting (“termination conference”) with the Institution's Warden to discuss the reasons why Petitioner was being considered for termination. The letter was excluded from evidence because it was not timely disclosed as an exhibit by the Department as required in the Order of Prehearing Instructions in this case. Nevertheless, Respondent testified that she attended the termination conference and that, during the termination conference, she was provided, and they discussed, three incident reports against her that she had previously seen. The termination conference was attended by the Institution's Warden, the Assistant Warden, and Dr. Virginia Mesa, the Institution's Chief Health Operator. The incident reports discussed at Petitioner's termination conference included Petitioner's alleged violation on February 8, 2013, of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) for which Dr. Mesa recommended Petitioner’s dismissal; Petitioner's alleged failure on February 8, 2013, to carry out an assignment to log walking canes provided to inmates; and an alleged argument on February 18, 2013, with a supervisor regarding Petitioner's reassignment to process transferred inmates known as "new gains." There is no indication that the termination conference changed the Department's proposed decision to terminate Petitioner. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified and presented evidence designed to prove that the incidents outlined above did not occur. However, following her termination in 2013, Petitioner timely filed a career service system appeal with the State of Florida, Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), contesting her termination. Following an evidentiary hearing and a PERC hearing officer's recommended order in that proceeding, PERC entered a final order on November 6, 2013, providing in its pertinent part: The relevant facts found by the hearing officer relate three separate incidents that led to [Theresa] Williams' dismissal. On February 8, 2013, Dr. Virginia Mesa observed Williams showing Captain Reed, who was the security officer-in-charge of the shift, something in a green file. A green file is the type of medical file kept for each inmate. The green file was open in Williams' hand and Reed and Williams were looking into it. Mesa observed Williams flipping through the file with Reed in the public hallway. The Agency's policy and federal law strictly prohibit prison medical personnel from allowing non-medical staff to see inmate medical records. That same day, Debra Elder, who was a senior health services administrator and new manager, asked Williams to record various information about canes that were issued to inmates and to label each cane with an identifying mark. Williams turned to a co- worker and told her to do it. Elder considered Williams' attitude insubordinate and wrote an incident report as soon as she returned to her office. On February 18, Williams was assigned to be the "sick call" nurse when she reported for her shift at 6:45 a.m. However, she was informed that, if the prison received a significant number of "new gains," she would be re-assigned to assist the two nurses doing that work. "New gains" is the Agency's term for the processing of inmates transferred to the institution from another facility. Around 8:00 a.m., Williams' supervisor, Joyce Isagba, arrived at work. Isagba reviewed the assignments and directed a subordinate to assign Williams to new gains that day. Williams believed Isagba, a relatively new supervisor, had a pattern of changing her assignment from sick call nurse to new gains and did not like it. Williams approached Isagba and questioned why she was being reassigned. Williams and Isagba became loud and argumentative. Other nurses were present in the room. The conversation lasted some time and Williams repeatedly stated that the change of her assignment was unfair and repeatedly wanted to know why she was being reassigned. Isagba told her she was more qualified to do that work and that she did not have to give her reason for her decisions. The dispute lasted several minutes and Williams reluctantly assisted with new gains. Later that day, Williams was sent to sick call to finish that duty. Isagba considered Williams to have been insubordinate and wrote an incident report. Based on these factual findings, the hearing officer concluded that the Agency had grounds to discipline Williams for poor performance, violating the Agency's medical information privacy, and insubordination in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-36.005. He recommended that [PERC] adopt his recommended order and dismiss Williams' appeal. * * * Upon review of the complete record, including the transcript, we conclude that all of the hearing officer's facts are supported by competent substantial evidence received in a proceeding that satisfied the essential requirements of law. Therefore, we adopt the hearing officer's findings. § 120.57(1)(l), Fla. Stat. Furthermore, we agree with the hearing officer's legal analysis of the disputed legal issues, his conclusions of law, and his recommendation. Accordingly, the hearing officer's recommendation is incorporated herein and Williams' appeal is DISMISSED. The hearing officer's Recommendation and PERC's Final Order in the PERC Proceeding, Williams v. DOC, 28 FCSR 284 (2013), were submitted by both parties and received into evidence without objection in this case as Exhibits P-4 and P-5, respectively, and Exhibits R-B and R-C, respectively. The PERC Proceeding involved the same parties as in this case and the allegations in the incident reports discussed at Petitioner's termination conference were actually litigated and determined in the PERC Proceeding. In other words, whether the incidents outlined in those incident reports occurred and are sufficient to support the Department's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment has already been determined.2/ Moreover, Petitioner failed to show, in this case, that the incidents did not occur. Although Petitioner testified that she did not show Captain Reed the inmate's medical chart in violation of HIPAA and introduced Captain Reed's written statement stating that Petitioner did not show him the chart, the evidence adduced at the final hearing showed that when she met with Captain Reed during the incident, she was flipping through papers with the medical chart in her hand. As found in the PERC hearing officer's Recommended Order: Williams violated the Agency's privacy policy when she held an open inmate medical file so a security staff officer could see the inmate's writing and signature. This was not a reasonable procedure to accomplish the task of notifying the officer of a potential security threat to other inmates. There was a real possibility that the sick call slip had been forged. It was unnecessary to show Captain Reed an inmate's medical file to determine if the slip was forged. Williams could have done that herself with the same accuracy as Reed, since neither is a handwriting expert. Williams v. DOC, 28 FCSR 284 (Recommended Order, 08/26/13). Dr. Mesa's testimony in this case was consistent with the hearing officer's finding and is credited. Regarding the other two incident reports, while Petitioner denied asking another to perform her assigned task of logging inmates' canes, she admitted that she delayed performing the task. Petitioner also admitted that she questioned her supervisor, Ms. Insagba, as to why she was being assigned "new gains," that during the incident Ms. Insagba raised her voice, and that they "were both talking at the same time and I guess she was trying to get a point across and I was just trying to ask her why." In addition to the incidents addressed in the three incident reports, during cross examination in this case, Petitioner revealed that she was also disciplined twice in 2012. In August 2012, Petitioner received a record of counseling for insubordination. And in December 2012, Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to follow instructions. In sum, the record supports a finding that, by May 2013, the Department had cause to terminate Petitioner. Although it has been determined that the Department had cause to terminate Petitioner's employment at the Institution, in this case Petitioner asserts that the real reason for her dismissal was her participation as a witness in a discrimination charge brought by another employee against the Department and Dr. Mesa. The disciplinary incidents supporting Petitioner's dismissal occurred in February 2013, and before. The investigation in which Petitioner participated began in March of 2013 and Petitioner provided testimony in that investigation on April 23, 2013, after Dr. Mesa had already recommended Petitioner’s dismissal and after Petitioner had been notified by the Department that she was being considered for dismissal. Petitioner was dismissed in May 2013. In finding probable cause, the Commission stated in its summary of the Investigative Memorandum: Complainant did not demonstrate that she was harassed or disciplined because of participation in the internal investigation. Complainant provided no evidence of harassment, and she was not disciplined after her protected activity occurred. Respondent admitted that Complainant was disciplined for the alleged HIPAA violation, but this occurred prior to her protected activity. Based on the information received during the investigation, it does appear that Complainant was terminated in retaliation for her participation in the internal investigation. If the alleged HIPAA violation was a true terminable offense, Complainant should have been terminated in February of 2013 when it occurred. Instead, Respondent waited nearly three months to terminate her, which was about three weeks after her protected activity. Additionally, Respondent has a progressive disciplinary policy which it did not follow. The alleged HIPAA violation is Complainant's only documented incident. Respondent also claimed that Complainant was terminated after she was disciplined several times prior to the HIPAA event, yet it could provide no evidence that she had a disciplinary record prior to February of 2013. Unlike the limited information available to the Commission in its probable cause determination, the evidence in the de novo proceeding conducted in this case demonstrated that Petitioner had a number of disciplinary offenses in February that were found by PERC to support her dismissal, and that Petitioner had been written up for two other disciplinary infractions in 2012. Moreover, the showing necessary for a probable cause determination is less than Petitioner's burden to prove discrimination. While there was a delay in Petitioner's termination, the evidence showed that Dr. Mesa recommended Petitioner for dismissal when she wrote up the incident report for the HIPAA violation in February 2013. Although it is evident that management, including the Warden and Dr. Mesa, was generally aware that Petitioner had participated as a witness in another employee's discrimination claim in April of 2013, Petitioner did not show that she was terminated because of that participation. And, while the Department's delay in dismissing Petitioner remained unexplained at the final hearing,3/ that delay, in light of the other facts and circumstances of this case, including Petitioner's numerous disciplinary infractions outlined above, is an insufficient basis to support a finding that Petitioner was terminated in retaliation for her participation in a protected activity.
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 Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSotoBuilding 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The sole issue for determination is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) has jurisdiction under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2003), to determine if there is reason to believe that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex or disability.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner is a preoperative transsexual woman. Respondent employed Petitioner as an "RV technician" from sometime in August 1999, until January 7, 2002, when Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. On October 25, 2003, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission. In relevant part, the Charge of Discrimination alleges that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex and disability. On February 11, 2004, the Commission issued its Determination: No Jurisdiction (determination). The determination raises issues of law and fact. The Commission determined, as a matter of law, that Petitioner's transsexualism is not a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Commission also determined, as a matter of law, that the prohibition in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2001), against discrimination on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or transsexuality. The foregoing conclusions of law involve matters over which the Commission has substantive jurisdiction within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2003). The Commission further determined the Charge of Discrimination was legally insufficient to allege facts showing that Petitioner's transsexuality impaired her major life activities or that Respondent regarded Petitioner as disabled. A determination of the legal sufficiency of allegations is not a matter over which the agency has substantive jurisdiction. The Charge of Discrimination does not allege that Petitioner's transsexuality impaired her major life activities. The Charge of Discrimination merely alleges that Petitioner has a medical condition identified as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and receives medical treatment for her condition. The Charge of Discrimination is sufficient to allege that Respondent regarded Petitioner as disabled. In relevant part, the Charge of Discrimination alleges Petitioner informed Respondent that Petitioner had a medical condition that required medical treatment. Petitioner allegedly "took vacation at Christmas time" and returned to work in her new gender on December 29, 2001. On January 7, 2002, Respondent allegedly terminated Petitioner's employment because Petitioner was a distraction to other employees and to some customers and because "it was not good for the company." The Commission may have based its determination, in part, on findings of fact. The Commission apparently found Petitioner failed to show that Respondent regarded Petitioner as disabled or that Petitioner suffered symptoms of a disability separate and apart from transsexuality; such as depression, suicide ideation, situational alcohol abuse, or other symptoms of poor health (a separate disability). In relevant part, the Commission's determination stated: The Commission conducted an investigation of this matter, which has been reviewed and approved by the Commission's office of General Counsel. The Commission's investigation appeared to be a factual investigation. The determination differentiates the Commission's investigation from matters of law. In relevant part, the determination states: The Office of General Counsel has reviewed the case file, investigative materials, and applicable case law. . . . * * * . . . the file contains no evidence which substantiates the disability discrimination claim. As a result, Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability. . . . (emphasis supplied) The ALJ conducted the administrative hearing, in part, to provide an opportunity for Petitioner to submit evidence to support her claim that Respondent regarded her as disabled. The administrative hearing also provided an opportunity for Petitioner to submit evidence showing that Petitioner suffered from a separate disability. Petitioner submitted no evidence to show that Respondent regarded her as disabled or that Petitioner suffers from a separate disability. The trier of fact makes no findings on either factual issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine if it has cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex or a disability. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 22nd day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen M. Doering, Esquire National Center for Lesbian Rights 3708 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609-4522 Richard McCrea, Esquire Luisette Gierbolini, Esquire Zinober & McCrea, P.A. Post Office Box 1378 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800 Tampa, Florida 33601-1378 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a construction company. Petitioner is a black male who was employed by Respondent for almost six years as an electrical helper until his termination on February 2, 2015. The incident giving rise to Petitioner’s termination occurred on February 2, 2015, in Port Everglades, Florida. On that date, Petitioner was working on a project as an electrical helper. Petitioner and another employee in the area of the work reportedly violated Respondent’s “Lock out/Tag out” (“LOTO”) safety policy. LOTO is required to cutoff electrical power whenever construction, modification, testing, start-up, servicing, or maintenance is being performed on equipment or systems in which the unexpected energization, start-up, or release of stored energy, could cause injury to people or damage equipment. Any employee of Respondent whose job requires him or her to operate or use a machine or equipment on which construction, modification, testing, start-up, servicing, or maintenance is being performed under a LOTO, or whose job requires him or her to work in an area in which such activities are being performed, must comply with LOTO. Petitioner and another employee reportedly failed to comply with LOTO in an area in which they were working on February 2, 2015. Respondent considers the failure of an employee to comply with LOTO to be a terminable offense. Both Petitioner and another employee in the area were discharged by Respondent on February 2, 2015, for failing to comply with the LOTO policy. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons having nothing to do with his race, color, or national origin. Petitioner’s charge of discrimination is based on speculation and conjecture, and Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent’s reasons for his firing are a mere pretext for intentional race, color, or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 December, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
