The Issue Whether Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Osceola County, based on his disability, race, or national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner brings this action alleging that the County discriminated against him based on his disability, race (white), and national origin (Canadian). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the County failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation to allow him to participate in the application and selection process for a County job. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and under the governance of the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he is a disabled individual with at least seven disabilities. Pertinent to this matter, Petitioner stated that he is partially deaf in one ear which limits his ability to hear.4 In addition, Petitioner relayed that his disability(ies) affect his normal life in that he has frequent medical appointments and requires an increased number of restroom breaks. On October 15, 2019, Petitioner, who is from Canada, applied for the position of Budget Analyst II (the "Analyst Position") with the County. The Analyst Position falls within the County's Office of Management and Budget Department ("OMB"). The OMB is responsible for preparing the County's 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Petitioner filed a revised version of his post-hearing submittal on October 9, 2020, which the undersigned considered as Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order in writing this Recommended Order. 4 At the final hearing, Petitioner initially strenuously objected to identifying his specific disability, asserting that his right to privacy protects him from having to disclose personal medical information, except as requested by a medical professional. annual budget, as well as analyzing and evaluating budget transfers for the County Commissioners. The County initiated the recruitment process for the Analyst Position by posting the opening on the website www.governmentjobs.com on October 14, 2019. Petitioner found the posting on the website and submitted his application through the same. At total of 15 individuals applied for the position, including Petitioner. The application window for the Analyst Position closed on October 21, 2019. Thereafter, the County's Human Resources Department screened the 15 applications to ensure the interested persons met the minimum qualifications for the job. Eleven applicants, including Petitioner, possessed the required qualifications. The Human Resources Department forwarded those 11 applications to the OMB for consideration. The OMB reviewed the 11 applications and selected three individuals to interview. These applicants included Petitioner (a white male), Lizette Rivera (a Hispanic female), and Sean Lower (a white male). Thereafter, the Human Resources Department set up a panel of five County employees to interview the candidates. Petitioner learned that he was being considered for the job on Thursday, October 24, 2019. That morning, the County called Petitioner at his home in Canada to inquire whether he was available for an interview the next day, Friday, October 25, 2019. Damaris Morales, an administrative assistant in the OMB, made the call. This case centers around what was said during that morning phone call. Petitioner and Ms. Morales left the conversation with vastly different impressions of what transpired. The Phone Call According to Petitioner Petitioner testified that Ms. Morales called him at a most inopportune time. His home phone rang at 8:44 a.m. At that moment, Petitioner was rushing out of his apartment to reach a 9:00 a.m. doctor's appointment. In fact, Petitioner had already started his car with an automatic starter, and it was running in his driveway. After he heard his phone ring, however, he turned back to answer the call. Petitioner answered the phone and greeted the caller. The caller identified herself as "Tamaris" from Osceola County.5 Ms. Morales then informed Petitioner that she was calling to set up an interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner initially expressed to Ms. Morales that her call was "great" news. He then explained that he was running out the door to a medical appointment. Therefore, he asked if she would email him details about the interview, and he would respond to her as soon as he returned home. Ms. Morales informed Petitioner that the interviews would take place the next day (Friday). Petitioner was alarmed at the short notice. He explained to Ms. Morales that he was currently at home in New York state and could not travel to Florida for an in person interview the next day. Ms. Morales replied that she could arrange a telephone interview. Petitioner then asked Ms. Morales when the interview on Friday was scheduled. Ms. Morales relayed that she would email him the specific information when she obtained the time from her manager. Petitioner stated that he would "clear my schedule tomorrow for that interview." Petitioner then signed off saying, "Thank you. I do have to run. Sorry." Ms. Morales hung up the phone first. The conversation lasted 1 minute and 30 seconds. As Petitioner left for his doctor's appointment, he was under the impression that Ms. Morales would email him imminently regarding available times for the Friday telephone interview. The Phone Call According to Ms. Morales At the final hearing, Ms. Morales described a vastly different conversation with Petitioner. As further discussed below, Ms. Morales's 5 At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he heard Damaris Morales state her name as "Tamaris." initial impressions of Petitioner from that phone call ultimately led the OMB to decide not to interview Petitioner for the Analyst Position. When Petitioner answered the phone, Ms. Morales testified that Petitioner's "aggressive" tone quite startled her. In a "loud" voice, Petitioner declared, "Yeah. What do you want? I don't have time to talk right now. I've got to be somewhere." Ms. Morales was not expecting such an abrupt and jarring reception. After a few seconds of stunned silence, Ms. Morales explained to Petitioner that she was calling about his application for the Analyst Position. Continuing in his harsh tone, Petitioner replied, "I have somewhere I need to be right now. Send me all the information via email. I am in Niagara Falls, New York." Petitioner then hung up the phone first without providing Ms. Morales his availability for a Friday interview. The whole conversation took less than 30 seconds. At the final hearing, in response to Ms. Morales's testimony, Petitioner suggested that she may have overheard an exchange between him and his son, Stewart, with whom he lives. Petitioner explained that, as he was leaving his apartment, his son called out from his bedroom asking whether the bathroom was free. Petitioner yelled back, "What do you want, Stewart? I am leaving." Petitioner explained that his phone may have malfunctioned and engaged Ms. Morales' call without him actually picking up the receiver. Petitioner strongly denied that he directed the comment "what do you want?" at Ms. Morales. Petitioner also theorized that if he spoke in a loud tone with Ms. Morales, it may have been due to his disability. As indicated above, Petitioner testified that he is deaf in one ear. Petitioner explained that Ms. Morales was talking very fast during their phone call. In responding to her questions, Petitioner was not trying to be abrupt or argumentative. However, he was in a rush to reach his appointment and was frustrated at the delay. Continuing with Petitioner's story, after the phone call, as Thursday morning progressed into Thursday afternoon, Petitioner did not receive an email back from Ms. Morales. Therefore, around 2:15 p.m., Petitioner called the County to speak with her. He was forwarded to her office phone, where he left a voicemail. In his message, Petitioner expressed that he was available for an interview any time the next day (Friday). He also left his Skype contact information. Time continued to pass on Thursday. With no response over the next two hours, at 4:14 p.m., Petitioner again called for Ms. Morales. This time, he was able to reach her. Petitioner inquired about his interview time for Friday. Ms. Morales momentarily demurred, telling Petitioner that she had to check with her manager. After several minutes, Ms. Morales came back on the line. She then told Petitioner that the Friday interviews were "full up." When Petitioner asked about an interview on another day, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales promptly "slammed the phone down in my ear." Ms. Morales, on the other hand, testified that after she informed Petitioner that no interview times were available on Friday, Petitioner got angry and threatened her with a "legal matter." Petitioner then hung up on her. Petitioner was not content to let the matter drop. Therefore, on Friday morning at 9:47 a.m., he emailed the County Manager, Don Fisher, to complain about the County's Human Resources Department and the OMB. In his email, Petitioner summarized the events from the previous day. Petitioner focused on the fact that Ms. Morales told him that she would provide him an interview time. Then, when he contacted her Thursday afternoon, Ms. Morales informed him that the interviews were "full up," and he would not be offered an opportunity to interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner sent Mr. Fisher follow-up emails at 10:01 a.m. and 10:03 a.m. In the first follow-up email, Petitioner stated: I am disabled and covered under the ADA Act. I make this request for accommodation under the ADA Act. At 10:10 a.m., Petitioner sent an email to another County employee, Maria Colon, the Director of the Human Resources Department and the County's Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") coordinator. In this email, Petitioner stated: You are the designated ADA Act Coordinator, but you are discriminating against me and denying my ADA rights to accommodation under the ACT and Title VII. I formally ask for this interview to be rescheduled and Oscola [sic] County to stop this discrimination. Attached to this email, Petitioner included a copy of his Ontario Disability Support Program Certificate of Disability ("ODSP Certificate"). At the final hearing, Petitioner explained that the ODSP Certificate, which was determined in 2013, is proof of his disability. Petitioner's certificate states: Your file with the Disability Adjudication Unit has been adjudicated and you have been found to be a person with a disability as defined in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. 1997. At the final hearing, Petitioner expounded on the reasons for his request, explaining that he sought an accommodation to enable him to conduct a telephonic interview because his disability prevented him from driving from Canada to Florida to interview in person. Furthermore, as a disabled person, he needed more time to prepare and participate in the recruitment process. The specific accommodation he desired was to be allowed to interview by telephone on Monday, October 28, 2019. Not hearing a response from Ms. Colon by Friday afternoon, at 3:03 p.m., Petitioner dispatched another email to her. He again attached his ODSP Certificate. In this email, Petitioner wrote that "your staff member Tamaris" refused to schedule an interview and then "hung up the phone on me." Petitioner also repeated that he was "requesting reasonable accommodation for the Budget Analyst II position." Ms. Colon called Petitioner shortly after his second email. During this call, Petitioner informed Ms. Colon that he was disabled, and he needed a telephone interview for the County job opening. Petitioner added that he was located out of state, and he could not travel to Florida in time for an in-person interview. Petitioner further declared that the County was discriminating against him because of his disability and his national origin. Ms. Colon advised Petitioner that she would look into his concerns and get back to him. Petitioner claims that Ms. Colon ended this conversation by slamming the phone in his ear. During this call, despite Ms. Colon's request, Petitioner refused to identify his specific disability. At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that the law protects those with disabilities from having to disclose their actual medical conditions. He said that, to safeguard their privacy, the disabled do not have to reveal their disability, except to the limited extent necessary to relate the disability to the requested accommodation. At 6:01 p.m. on Friday evening, Ms. Colon emailed Petitioner stating, "Per our phone conversation, I will look into your concerns and get back with you on Monday." By late Monday morning, October 28, 2019, however, Petitioner had not heard from Ms. Colon. Therefore, he sent her two emails. At 11:43 a.m., Petitioner wrote, "When is my interview? I am not available tomorrow." With no response to this first email, at 3:48 p.m., Petitioner wrote, "As per your reply above, you indicated my accommodation request under the ADA and interview time would be dealt with today. It is 4 pm EST. Please respond." Petitioner then signed off, "I am available for an interview 10am to 11 am tomorrow and then on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday." Petitioner received a response from Ms. Colon at 6:10 p.m., Monday evening. In her email, Ms. Colon wrote: I had the opportunity to look into your concerns. To be honest, customer service is very important in the Budget Analyst II role, and we're assessing those skills in every contact with candidates. The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th for the purpose of scheduling an interview. Therefore, the Department has moved forward with other candidates. Petitioner was most displeased at Ms. Colon's email, and at 6:54 p.m., he responded: I did nothing except indicate I was available for an interview. Regardless none of this over-rides the ADA and my rights to employment and accommodation. I will be discussing your actions, the "OMB" in denying my constitutional and ADA rights, my Title VII rights with [a County attorney] tomorrow. If they fail to resolve this, then I will be suing you personally, Tamaris, the OMB and the County on a substantial indemnity basis for well in excess of $500g. Petitioner ended the email with "See you soon in court." Six minutes later, at 7:01 p.m., Petitioner sent another email to Ms. Colon. In this message, Petitioner stated: I must commend you for trying to deflect the egregious violation of my rights through trying to claim my rights to an interview are somehow superceded [sic] by this department withdrawing an interview based on race, geography, nationality and disability … in a call in which this Tamaris said and I quote – "we are full up" … . I asked her to leave my interview time through an email. If that qualifies as "poor customer service" then you have a very BIG legal problem using that as a diversion for blantant [sic] discrimination based on race, color, nationality, and disability. Petitioner ended this email with, "I will be happy to take you to Federal Court not the Courthouse right across the street. See you soon in court." Petitioner wrote Ms. Colon once more at 7:03 p.m. In this email, Petitioner accused Ms. Colon of "a blatant discrimination of interest in applying the ACT. Your superiors told you to deny me my rights under the ADA and you did so." Petitioner then declared that he was going to "sue you personally. … Trust me on that." After Monday, October 28, 2019, Petitioner never heard back from Ms. Morales or Ms. Colon regarding his application for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that the County, by refusing to respond to his request for a telephone interview, denied him his rights under the FCRA and the ADA. At the final hearing, Petitioner vehemently denied that he was rude to Ms. Morales or during his call with Ms. Colon. Petitioner professed that he was perfectly polite to Ms. Morales. In addition, he asserted that Ms. Morales's testimony that he hung up the phone on her is totally false. Petitioner also contended that he did not threaten Ms. Colon with legal action as a means of intimidation. He was just exercising his rights as a disabled person. Petitioner further charged that the County's excuse for removing him from consideration was based on a misconstrued comment overheard during a brief phone call. Petitioner insists that his single utterance, "What do you want (Stewart)," cannot and should not justify the County's discriminatory action. The County ultimately hired Lizette Rivera for the Analyst Position. Petitioner alleges that the decision to hire Ms. Rivera is evidence of the County's female employees working together to eliminate white, male candidates. Petitioner maintains that Ms. Morales, a Hispanic female, favored another Hispanic (nondisabled) female (Ms. Rivera) for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales rigged the process and discriminated against Petitioner. At the final hearing, the County did not dispute that, while the OMB initially considered Petitioner for the Analyst Position, it quickly decided not to interview him for the job. The County also confirmed that the OMB did interview, and ultimately hire, Ms. Rivera to fill the Analyst Position. Regarding the County's decision not to interview Petitioner, after the initial phone call, Ms. Morales testified that she was quite startled by Petitioner's rude and unprofessional conduct. She immediately reported the conversation to her supervisor, Sharon Chauharjasingh, who is the Director of the OMB. Ms. Morales expressed to Ms. Chauharjasingh how shocked she was by Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Morales further relayed that because Petitioner was "in a rush," he did not provide her his availability for a telephone interview. Consequently, she had no information which would allow her to schedule him for an interview on Friday. Ms. Morales's testimony describing the telephone interaction with Petitioner was credible and is credited. Petitioner admitted to parts of Ms. Morales's versions, including that fact that he was in a rush and that he yelled, "what do you want?" Other than the two phone calls with Petitioner on Thursday, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales was not involved in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner or to hire Ms. Rivera. (Those decisions belonged to Ms. Chauharjasingh.) Ms. Morales did not participate on the interview panel for either Ms. Rivera or Mr. Lower. Ms. Morales further testified that at no time during her phone calls with Petitioner did he inform her that he had a disability, or that he needed an accommodation to participate in the interview process. Ms. Chauharjasingh also testified at the final hearing. Ms. Chauharjasingh initially explained that the OMB is tasked with preparing the County's annual budget of approximately $1 billion. The person who fills the Analyst Position will work in the OMB. The duties of the Analyst Position include reviewing the budgets of the different County departments, as well as assisting those departments with budget questions and preparation related tasks. The Analyst Position will also review budgetary impacts and projections, and be prepared to personally discuss these issues with County representatives. In addition, the Analyst Position will interact daily with other staff members and occasionally contact outside companies and the public. Regarding the hiring of Ms. Rivera, Ms. Chauharjasingh disclosed that, because she oversees the OMB, she was responsible for selecting the person to fill the Analyst Position. For this opening, Ms. Chauharjasingh was the individual who narrowed down the applicants to the shortlist of three individuals including Petitioner, Ms. Rivera, and Mr. Lower. In selecting these candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh looked at each applicant's past experience as a budget analyst, as well as their aptitude to efficiently assume the job duties. Based on their resumes, Ms. Chauharjasingh believed that each finalist was qualified for the Analyst Position. After selecting the three candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh asked her assistant, Ms. Morales, to call each applicant and set up an interview. Ms. Chauharjasingh asked Ms. Morales to schedule the interviews for either Friday, October 25, 2019, or Monday, October 28, 2019. At the final hearing, Ms. Chauharjasingh represented that the County routinely interviews job applicants by telephone. Ms. Chauharjasingh further testified that the decision not to continue the interview process with Petitioner was hers. Ms. Chauharjasingh recounted that on Thursday morning, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales came into her office looking "shaken up." Ms. Morales reported that she had just spoken to Petitioner, and he yelled at her and was rude and unprofessional. Ms. Chauharjasingh had never heard of a job candidate reacting the way Ms. Morales described. Ms. Morales has never complained to her about any other applicant. Based on Ms. Morales's interaction with Petitioner, Ms. Chauharjasingh immediately decided to remove Petitioner from consideration for the Analyst Position. She therefore directed Ms. Morales to "move on" from Petitioner and not to communicate with him any further. Instead, Ms. Morales was to only schedule interviews with the other two candidates (Ms. Rivera and Mr. Lower). The County's panel of five interviewers, which included Ms. Chauharjasingh, conducted an in-person interview of Ms. Rivera on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Lower was interviewed, in person, on Monday morning, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Following the interviews, the panel ranked the candidates, and then sent the list to Ms. Chauharjasingh. Ms. Chauharjasingh extended the offer of employment to Ms. Rivera, who was the top-ranked candidate. Ms. Chauharjasingh concluded her testimony by asserting that Petitioner's disability played no role in her decision not to interview him. Ms. Chauharjasingh explained that, at the time she decided to terminate the interview process with him, neither she nor Ms. Morales had any knowledge or information regarding Petitioner's disability. Instead, the sole basis for removing Petitioner from the shortlist was Ms. Morales' interaction with him during her initial phone call. Ms. Chauharjasingh testified that, based on the specific responsibilities of the Analyst Position, personal traits such as good communication skills, decorum, and telephone etiquette are very important. For example, the Detailed Job Posting for the Analyst Position includes a Physical Demand Requirement of "Expressing or exchanging ideas by spoken word or perceiving sound by ear." Consequently, upon hearing Ms. Morales's description of Petitioner's attitude and behavior during the telephone call, Ms. Chauharjasingh decided that the County did not need to consider Petitioner's application any further. In her testimony, Ms. Colon expressed that she had no part in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner. She became involved in this matter only after she received Petitioner's email, addressed to her as the County's ADA coordinator, on Friday morning, October 25, 2019. Ms. Colon stated that after she read Petitioner's email, she did not immediately respond because she first wanted to determine what exactly had transpired between Petitioner and Ms. Morales the previous day. Ms. Colon spoke with both Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh on Friday. From these conversations, Ms. Colon heard that Petitioner was "rude" during Ms. Morales's first telephone call. Further, Petitioner was so "abrupt" that Ms. Morales was not able to offer him an interview time. Ms. Morales also informed Ms. Colon that Petitioner did not mention a disability or request an accommodation during either of their calls. Regarding her own phone call with Petitioner on Friday afternoon, Ms. Colon described an experience very similar to Ms. Morales's. Ms. Colon testified that the conversation was "not pleasant." As with Ms. Morales, Ms. Colon recounted that Petitioner was "agitated," loud," and "extremely unprofessional." During the exchange, Petitioner also threatened to sue her and the County. Regarding her email to Petitioner on Monday evening, October 28, 2019, in which she wrote that, "The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th," Ms. Colon stated that the decision not to schedule Petitioner for an interview was made on October 24, 2019. Specifically, after talking with Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh, Ms. Colon learned that Ms. Chauharjasingh had decided not to interview Petitioner immediately after Ms. Morales reported to her regarding Petitioner's rude and unprofessional interaction with her during their first phone call. As a final witness, Ms. Fatima Lozano testified regarding her participation on the interview panel for the Analyst Position. Ms. Lozano described herself as a Human Resources "generalist" with the County. Ms. Lozano has taken part in a number of interviews of applicants for County employment. She relayed that the County routinely conducts telephonic interviews. Ms. Lozano repeated that, when hiring employees, the department responsible for the position sets up the interviews and selects the winner. For the Analyst Position, the OMB selected the applicants who would interview for the job. Regarding scheduling the interviews for the Analyst Position, Ms. Lozano testified that, on October 21, 2019, she received a calendar invite requesting her availability. The interviews then took place on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. and Monday, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. While the above findings chronical the key aspects of Petitioner's discrimination claim, Petitioner also raised several other complaints against the County. Petitioner was exceedingly frustrated by the County's failure to schedule his interview through the www.governmentjobs.com website. At the final hearing, Petitioner elicited testimony from several County employees that, although the County pays a hefty annual fee to recruit employees through governmentjobs.com, the County only uses the website to solicit applications. Petitioner was "shocked" to learn that the County did not take advantage of the website's functions to schedule interviews with candidates. Petitioner was also "stunned" at the County's attempt to schedule his interview with less than one day's notice. Petitioner found the practice unprofessional and unacceptable. Petitioner represented that the standard process used by governmentjobs.com is to email a notification to the job applicant at least four to seven days prior to the agreed interview time. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the County discriminated against Petitioner based on his disability (handicap), race, or national origin. Instead, the credible evidence establishes that the decision not to interview Petitioner was made without knowledge of his disability prior to his request for an accommodation, and without regard to his race or national origin. The decision to not interview Petitioner was based solely on his own behavior, considered rude and unprofessional, effectively disqualifying him from the job. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that the County committed an unlawful employment practice against him in violation of the FCRA.
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 Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, did not prove that Respondent, Osceola County, committed an unlawful employment practice against him, and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert Finley Cameron 1 Churchill Street, Apartment 10 St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L25 2-P3 C (eServed) Frank M. Townsend, Esquire Osceola County Attorney's Office 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sea World of Florida, Inc. (SWF), subjected Petitioner, Mario Molina, to disparate treatment and terminated his employment because of his national origin (Puerto Rican) and/or alleged disability in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer, as that term is defined, under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) of 1992. Petitioner is a male of Puerto Rican descent and is a member of a protected class. Petitioner claims he is disabled due to the pain and limitations following corrective surgery for a lumbar degenerative disc problem in 2003. Petitioner began employment with SWF in 1995 as a warehouse worker in the receiving department. The warehouse worker position required Petitioner to receive and move shipments of merchandise, equipment, and supplies coming into the Warehouse. Petitioner needed to be able to lift up to 50 pounds and assist in lifting up to 100 pounds to shoulder height in order to perform the essential functions of the warehouse worker position. Petitioner had surgery on his back on September 26, 2003, to correct a lumbar degenerative disc problem. Dr. Stephen Goll performed the surgery and provided after-care for Petitioner. SWF granted Petitioner a paid leave of absence from September 26, 2003, until March 19, 2004, in order to allow him to recuperate from his surgery. Petitioner returned to work on March 19, 2004, with restrictions of sedentary work only and no lifting of more than ten pounds. Petitioner's restrictions varied after his surgery, but he was never cleared to lift more than 20 pounds. Petitioner never requested an accommodation that would allow him to lift up to 50 pounds. SWF provided Petitioner with light-duty work, in accordance with his restrictions as defined by Dr. Goll, from his return to work on March 19, 2004, until November of 2004. Specifically, Warehouse Manager Mark S. Wren assigned Petitioner to the pricing table where he was not required to lift more than ten pounds. On November 1, 2004, Dr. Goll examined Petitioner and determined that he had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a three percent impairment rating. He put in place a permanent restriction of no lifting of more than ten pounds. Accordingly, Petitioner could not perform the essential functions of his warehouse worker position, which required lifting up to 50 pounds. Further, there were no permanent light-duty positions available in the Warehouse. Therefore, on November 29, 2004, Warehouse Manager Wren, Human Resources Manager Christine Runnels, and Human Resources Director Teri Robertson met with Petitioner to explain that SWF had no permanent work in the Warehouse that he could perform within his restrictions. During his meeting, SWF offered Petitioner the opportunity either to be assigned to SWF's internal temporary worker pool, known as Workforce, and work as a temporary employee as needed, or to take a six-month personal leave of absence to look for a position at SWF which met his medical restrictions. Petitioner, who complained of continued back pain, elected to take a six-month personal leave of absence from December 4, 2004, through June 4, 2005. He could retain his health benefits during this period. Despite being unable to perform the essential functions of the warehouse worker position, Petitioner was capable of working in a broad range of jobs offered by SWF within his medical restrictions. During Petitioner's six-month personal leave of absence, SWF had 417 positions open. Nevertheless, Petitioner only inquired about two positions during his six-month leave period -- one in the Call Center and one as a horticulturist. Petitioner was not selected for a position in the Call Center because he was unwilling to work the required hours. Petitioner admitted he did not have the required degree to work as a horticulturist. Petitioner never submitted a transfer request for any of the 415 other positions available at SWF during his six-month personal leave of absence. Nevertheless, Petitioner sought to have his leave extended to six months after his leave expired on June 4, 2005. SWF's vice president of Human Resources reviewed Petitioner's request for a leave extension, as well as his personnel file pertaining to the reason for his leave of absence. Christine E. O'Neal discovered that Petitioner had permanent lifting restrictions, preventing him from performing the essential functions of his former position in the Warehouse. O'Neal further learned that despite granting Petitioner six months to find another position, he had done little in furtherance of that goal. In fact, O'Neal determined that Petitioner had only applied for two positions during the entire six months of his leave. Therefore, O'Neal made the decision to deny Petitioner's request for a leave extension, effectively terminating Petitioner's employment on June 4, 2005. Petitioner presented no evidence indicating that SWF terminated his employment because of his alleged disability or national origin. Further, each of the three witnesses who testified at the hearing stated that employment decisions affecting Petitioner were not related to his national origin or alleged disability, and this testimony is credible. SWF submitted legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for Petitioner's termination. Specifically, SWF terminated Petitioner's employment because he had a permanent lifting restriction prohibiting him from performing the essential functions of his position as a warehouse worker, and he failed to actively seek another position during his leave period. Petitioner submitted no evidence establishing that SWF discriminated against him because of his national origin, or that he was handicapped under the FCRA, or that SWF's non- discriminatory reasons for terminating Petitioner was a pretext for unlawful 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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief and dismisses Petitioner's claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mario Molina 116 Coconut Grove Way Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Thomas R. Brice, Esquire McGuireWoods, LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 24, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda J. Coonrod, was employed by Respondent, Baptist Hospital (the hospital), since approximately 1993. She became a unit coordinator in approximately 2002 and remained in that position until she was terminated from employment effective September 4, 2007. Petitioner is a licensed practical nurse. Her position as a unit coordinator required her to perform such tasks as answering the phone, coordinating doctors' appointments and doctors' orders, and performing various tasks using a computer. Petitioner’s regular work schedule was Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Thursday, August 30, 2007, and Friday, August 31, 2007. However, she did not report to work on either August 30 or 31. Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled on August 30 and 31, 2007, because she had been admitted as a patient to the emergency room of the hospital on the evening of August 29, and remained a patient at the hospital on August 30 and 31, 2007. She was discharged on September 1, 2007, a Saturday. Melanie Kuzma is a registered nurse and is employed by Respondent as the clinical manager of the medical floor. Ms. Kuzma was Petitioner’s supervisor when Petitioner was employed at the hospital. Unfortunately, Ms. Kuzma did not know why Petitioner did not report for work as scheduled on August 30 and 31. Petitioner was being treated at the hospital for chest pain and was given several medications while a patient there. She could not or did not notify Ms. Kuzma of her admission to the hospital and her resulting unavailability to report to work as scheduled. Petitioner did not ask her treating nurse, her treating doctor, or anyone else to inform Ms. Kuzma of her whereabouts. No one else contacted Ms. Kuzma as to Petitioner’s whereabouts. In any event, Ms. Kuzma was not aware of why Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled. While in the hospital as a patient, Petitioner was not in the same unit in which she worked as an employee. Ms. Kuzma was not a supervisor over the area of the hospital where Petitioner was a patient. When Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled on August 30, 2007, Ms. Kuzma called Petitioner’s home. No answering machine or voice mail was available to leave a message, so she and the unit coordinator continued to call Petitioner’s home throughout the day with no success. When Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled the following day, Ms. Kuzma and the unit coordinator continued to call Petitioner’s home. Again, they did not reach Petitioner and had no way of leaving a message. Attempting to call a person who fails to report to work as scheduled is standard practice at the hospital. A person who fails to report to work as scheduled and fails to call in is referred to by the hospital as a “no call, no show.” Ms. Kuzma notified Venus Jones, the Employee Relations Manager for the hospital, that Petitioner had not reported to work as scheduled and failed to call in for two days. Ms. Jones informed Ms. Kuzma that when an employee had two days “no call, no show,” that it would result in discharge from employment with the hospital. Petitioner reported to work on Monday, September 3, 2007, which was a holiday. It was then that Petitioner told Ms. Kuzma that she had been admitted as a patient in the hospital on the evening of August 29, and remained a patient on August 30 and 31, 2007. Ms. Jones has terminated the employment of other employees for “no call, no show” for a two-day period. Ms. Jones does not consider anything unique about Ms. Coonrod’s situation. Ms. Jones did not consider Petitioner’s reason for her “no call, no show” to work to be adequate. On September 11, 2007, Ms. Jones sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her employment was terminated for failure to report to work and failure to notify her department of her absence. Petitioner acknowledged that her heart problem which precipitated her hospitalization at the time in question was not a disability. This medical condition did not prevent her from working and did not limit her from doing everyday tasks such as getting dressed, driving, brushing her teeth, or other normal life activities. When questioned at hearing about her medical condition, Petitioner responded, “I’m not disabled. I don’t have a handicap because of it.” Further, there is no evidence in the record that anyone employed by Respondent perceived Petitioner to have a disability.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda J. Coonrod 40487 Audiss Road Milton, Florida 32583 Russell F. Van Sickle, Esquire Beggs & Lane. LLP Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2950 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 Whether Respondent is liable to Petitioner for employment discrimination in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 63-year-old female, who was employed by Respondent in its Child Support Program in the Tallahassee Service Center from June 9, 1997, to April 5, 2010. In 1997, Petitioner became employed as a Revenue Specialist II (“RS II”) in the Payment Processing and Funds Distribution (“PPFD”) section, where she performed financial reviews and audits of client financial accounts. On January 28, 2005, Petitioner was promoted to RS III in that section, where Petitioner continued to perform financial reviews and audits, and assumed supervisory duties, including interviewing candidates and training new employees. In that position, Petitioner was considered a PPFD team expert. At her request to “learn something new,” Petitioner was transferred to the Administrative Support section in April 2009. She was assigned half-time to the Administrative Paternity and Support (“APS”) team, and half-time to support the PPFD team. The split-time arrangement was terminated in July 2009, and Petitioner was assigned to APS full-time. On December 7, 2009, Petitioner received her first performance evaluation for her new position. The evaluation covered the time period from April 17, 2009, to January 29, 2010.2/ Petitioner’s supervisor, Katherine Osborne, rated Petitioner’s overall performance at 2.11. Petitioner was placed on a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) concurrent with her December 7, 2009 performance evaluation. The CAP period ended on February 8, 2010. On February 16, 2010, Petitioner was notified, in writing, that the Department intended to demote her to the position of RS II because she did not successfully complete the expectations during the CAP period, or “failed the CAP.” Petitioner exercised her right to an informal hearing to oppose the intended demotion. On March 2, 2010, Petitioner was notified, in writing, that she was being demoted to the position of RS II because she failed the CAP. Petitioner resigned from her position with the Department, effective April 5, 2010. On September 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), challenging her demotion as illegal employment discrimination. On February 12, 2011, the EEOC issued its determination, stating that it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the [requisite] statutes.” Petitioner’s 2017 Applications On August 16, 2017, the Department advertised 20 openings for an RS III (position 4372) in customer service administration. Petitioner applied for the position, met the screening criteria, took and passed the skills verification test, and was interviewed for the position. Petitioner was interviewed by a selection committee composed of Tiffany Clarke, Janeen Evans, and Jonathan McCabe. Each of the three committee members rated Petitioner’s interview as “fair” on a scale which ranged from “poor,” “fair,” and “good,” to “excellent.” Petitioner was not considered for the position following her interview. While the Department made some offers to candidates, ultimately the Department did not hire any candidates for position 4372. On October 2, 2017, the Department advertised 30 openings for an RS III (position 6380) in customer service administration. The main difference between the screening criteria for positions 4372 and 6380 was in education and experience. Position 4372 required applicants to have child support experience, while position 6380 gave a preference to applicants with child support experience. The Department’s goal in revising the requirements was to increase the applicant pool in response to the advertisement for position 6380. Petitioner applied for position 6380, met the screening requirements, passed the skills verification test, and was interviewed for the position. Petitioner was interviewed by a selection committee composed of Tiffany Clarke, Lance Swedmark, and Taronza Robinson. All three committee members rated her interview as “good,” and recommended advancing Petitioner’s application for reference checks. Mr. Swedmark conducted reference checks on Petitioner’s application. During that process, he was informed of Petitioner’s prior CAP failure, demotion, and resignation. Based on that information, the selection committee determined Petitioner would not be considered for the position. Hires for Position 6380 The Department hired 30 applicants from the pool for position 6380. Of the 30 hires, 10 were over age 40. Specifically, their ages were 56, 50, 49, 49, 48, 46, 44, 43, 42, and 41. Petitioner was 61 years old when she applied for position 6380. None of the members of the selection committee were aware of Petitioner’s age when she applied, or was interviewed, for the position. The ages of the 30 new hires were compiled from human resources records specifically for the Department’s response to Petitioner’s March 2018 charge of discrimination. None of the members of the selection committee were aware of Petitioner’s 2010 EEOC complaint against the Department.
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 Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Jacquelyn James, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2018-04904. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 16th day of July, 2019.
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 manufactures valves for the safe transportation of hazardous chemicals on tanker-trailers. Respondent is headquartered in the Vero Beach area; specifically, the Gifford community, which is a predominately African-American community. Respondent employs a significant number of employees from the Gifford community.1/ Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent from approximately February 2012 until his termination in September 2013. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an assembly technician. Petitioner was supervised by Darrall Holloway, an African- American male. The incident giving rise to Petitioner’s termination involved a physical altercation between two of Respondent’s employees, Jormonte Hunter (African-American male) and Mike Alvarado (Hispanic male) on September 25, 2013. The physical altercation followed approximately two months of arguing between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado over a female employee of Respondent. Mr. Holloway and his supervisor, John Brennan (Caucasion male), learned of the ongoing dispute between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado sometime during the afternoon working hours of September 25, 2013. That same afternoon during working hours, Mr. Holloway and Mr. Brennan met with Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado and told them to cease their bickering, and to avoid any future confrontations with each other, on or off company property. That same afternoon during working hours, Mr. Holloway and Mr. Brennan also met with Petitioner and two other African- American male employees (Chris Joseph and Marcus Melbourne). During this meeting, Petitioner, Mr. Joseph and Mr. Melbourne were directed not to allow the situation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado to escalate, on or off company property. Petitioner, Mr. Joseph and Mr. Melbourne were further warned that if the situation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado escalates, on or off company property, “actions will be taken.” Nevertheless, Petitioner, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Melbourne, Antonio Wallace (African-American male), and Mr. Hunter left work after 4:00 p.m., on September 25, 2013, and drove to Mr. Alvarado’s apartment complex. Petitioner, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Melbourne, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Hunter went to Mr. Alvarado’s apartment knowing there was going to be a physical altercation between Mr. Alvarado and Mr. Hunter. After arriving at Mr. Alvarado’s apartment complex, Petitioner, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Melbourne, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Hunter exited their vehicles. Mr. Hunter then walked toward Mr. Alvarado’s apartment, followed by Petitioner, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Melbourne, and Mr. Wallace. Moments later, Mr. Alvarado opened his apartment door, some words were exchanged between Mr. Alvarado and Mr. Hunter, and the physical altercation ensued. Petitioner and Mr. Wallace instigated and witnessed the physical altercation, and did nothing to try and stop it. Mr. Joseph and Mr. Melbourne also witnessed the physical altercation, and did nothing to try and stop it. The physical altercation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado lasted a matter of seconds, resulting in Mr. Hunter slamming Mr. Alvarado’s face to the ground, causing Mr. Alvarado to suffer physical injuries to his face. The next day, September 26, 2013, Mr. Alvarado arrived to work with his face badly injured as a result of the altercation. On September 26, 2013, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Brennan, and Mr. Girard, the president of the company, learned of the physical altercation that had occurred between Mr. Alvarado and Mr. Hunter at Mr. Alvarado’s apartment complex the day before. Petitioner, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Melbourne, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Alvarado were all suspended pending an investigation by Respondent. Over the next few days, Respondent conducted an investigation. Following its investigation, Respondent terminated Petitioner, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Joseph. Mr. Girard made the ultimate decision to terminate Petitioner, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Joseph.2/ Petitioner was terminated because he ignored the prior directives of Mr. Holloway and Mr. Brennan given during the meeting on September 25, 2013; he instigated and witnessed the physical altercation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado; and he was employed by Respondent for only one year and eight months prior to his termination, during which his job performance was, at times, below expectations. Mr. Hunter was terminated because he ignored the prior directives of Mr. Holloway and Mr. Brennan given during the meeting of September 25, 2013, and he was directly involved in the physical altercation with Mr. Alvarado. Mr. Wallace was terminated because he instigated and witnessed the physical altercation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado, and he was employed by Respondent for only six months prior to his termination. Mr. Joseph was terminated because he ignored the prior directives of Mr. Holloway and Mr. Brennan given during the meeting of September 25, 2013, and he witnessed the physical altercation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado. Mr. Alvarado was not terminated because he was the victim of the physical altercation, and the physical altercation occurred at his residence. Mr. Melbourne was not terminated because he did not instigate the physical confrontation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Alvarado, and he was a long-term and model employee of Respondent prior to the September 25, 2013, incident.3/ Following his termination, Respondent replaced Petitioner with Shaunte Collins, an African-American male. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was terminated for legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons having nothing to do with his race. Petitioner’s charge of race 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 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 17th day of December, 2014, 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 17th day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Cavalier is in the business of providing various types of telephone services including landline communications, DSL, and Internet TV. They have as many as 150 employees in the Pensacola area and have offices in other locations. Cavalier acquired Talk America, Inc., a predecessor corporation, on April 20, 2006. Ms. Smith began working for Cavalier as a sales representative in December of 2006. As a sales representative for Cavalier, Ms. Smith called potential customers and attempted to sell them services and products provided by Cavalier. She was very successful at this work and was considered to be an excellent employee. Her sales were high, and she was awarded bonuses. On April 19, 2007, Ms. Smith suffered a mini-stroke and was absent from her work until May 2, 2007. At that time, she assumed that she had recovered and reported for work. Her supervisor, Floor Manager Cassandra Pressley, and fellow employees were happy to see her return. To celebrate her return, Ms. Pressley and other employees contributed money that was used to buy flowers for Ms. Smith. As the day progressed, Ms. Pressley noticed Ms. Smith slumped over in her chair and was concerned. Ms. Pressley offered her extra breaks, but Ms. Smith refused her entreaties. Eventually, Ms. Smith became clearly unwell, and with Ms. Pressley's encouragement, she departed with a co-worker who followed her home. On May 2, 2007, Ms. Smith learned from her doctor that she would have to take, or continue with, medical leave. When Ms. Pressley became aware of this, she caused Ms. Smith to communicate with Suzanne Altare, Cavalier's director of human relations for the southeast area. Ms. Altare explained Cavalier's company leave policy. Ms. Altare informed Ms. Smith that she was ineligible for leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act because she had been employed with the company for less than a year. Nevertheless, Ms. Altare told Ms. Smith that she could have eight weeks of unpaid discretionary leave. This leave became effective May 2, 2007. Ms. Altare's actions complied with Cavalier's Employee Handbook. The Employee Handbook requires equal treatment of all employees. Subsequent to May 2, 2007, Ms. Pressley and Ms. Altare both checked in with Ms. Smith by telephone on more than one occasion to see how she was doing and inquired if her doctor was going to provide her with a release so that she might return to work at the end of the eight-week leave. On or about July 5, 2007, in the ninth week of her absence, both Ms. Pressley and Ms. Altare communicated with Ms. Smith by telephone. Ms. Smith informed them that her doctor had not released her for return to employment. Since she could not provide an estimated time of return, she was terminated. Because Ms. Smith was an especially valued employee, Ms. Altare informed her that she would process her termination as voluntary so that when she was physically able, she could return to work at Cavalier. This coincided with what Cavalier had done with other employees who had to stop working temporarily due to an illness. At least one of those had in fact returned upon receiving a release from her doctor. No evidence was adduced by any witness that Ms. Smith either complained of discrimination or requested an accommodation. In September 2007, Ms. Pressley was asked by a person identified as Ms. Smith's husband to help Ms. Smith at a check- cashing facility that was located close to the Cavalier workplace. Ms. Pressley went with him to the check-cashing facility. Ms. Smith approached Ms. Pressley and hugged her. Ms. Pressley inquired as to when Ms. Smith would return. She told Ms. Pressley that she had not been released by her doctor. Ms. Smith testified that she received "disability payments" until December 16, 2007, when her doctor informed her that she could go back to work. Ms. Smith testified, "I figured they would rehire me, anyway, because of my good sales, yes, sir." However, at least up until the time of the hearing, Ms. Smith had not asked to return to her job.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief filed by Sarah L. Smith. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lori Y. Baggett, Esquire Carlton Fields 4221 West Bay Scout Boulevard Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33607 Sharon Glover, Esquire 2134 West Laburnum Richmond, Virginia 23227 Sarah L. Smith 513 North Reus Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex, by sexual harassment, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1) and/or (2), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an adult female, and as such, is a member of a protected class. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to protect the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders and to rehabilitate offenders, pursuant to Section 20.315, Florida Statutes. In August 2007, Petitioner applied for a job as a correctional officer with the Florida Department of Corrections through the Charlotte Correctional Institution (the Facility) located in Punta Gorda, Florida. Petitioner's contact person during the application process was Recruitment Sergeant Dennis Britton. Petitioner was initially interviewed by Sergeant Britton. At the conclusion of the interview, Petitioner was about to leave when Britton grabbed her by the shoulder, pulled her to him and bent down to her face in a kissing position. Petitioner put her hands on his chest, pushed him away and left. On other occasions during the interview process, specifically on August 21, 2007, and October 1, 2007, Briton coerced Petitioner to come into his office at the Facility and proceeded to physically and sexually assault Petitioner. Britton would grope, grab, and forcibly kiss Petitioner against her will. Throughout the recruitment process, both Britton and Petitioner exchanged e-mails of a professional and personal nature. On or about September 10, 2007, Warden Adro Johnson approved Petitioner for employment with the DOC. Warden Johnson, not Sergeant Britton, made the hiring decisions at Charlotte Correctional Institution. November 30, 2007, was Petitioner's first day of employment at the Facility. On November 30, 2007, Petitioner was again compelled to appear at Britton's office where he proceeded to physically and sexually assault Petitioner. Britton groped, grabbed, and forcibly kissed Petitioner against her will. On several other occasions between November 2007 and March 2008, Britton would summon Petitioner to his office and proceed to make sexual advances on her against her will. In December 2007, Petitioner completed New Employee Orientation. A component of the New Employee Orientation is training with regard to Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and, specifically, the Sexual Harassment policy. Petitioner completed the computer-assisted training on sexual harassment in December 2007. In addition, new employees are routinely provided with hard-copy pamphlets on sexual harassment. Respondent's sexual harassment policy is also posted at various locations at Charlotte Correctional Institution. At no time during this period did Petitioner complain, verbally or in writing, to her supervisor or anyone else at the Facility. On March 14, 2008, Petitioner started the correctional officer training academy at the Facility. On March 17, 2008, Petitioner filled out an incident report stating she had been sexually harassed by Sergeant Dennis Britton. The report was sent up the chain of command, and Warden Johnson immediately removed Sergeant Britton from his position as the recruitment sergeant and reassigned him to a position on the compound. An investigation into the allegations was started on March 19, 2008, by Respondent's Office of the Inspector General. The investigation was led by Inspector Daryl J. McCasland of the Office of the Inspector General. The findings of the investigation were that Britton violated Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-208.033(22) (Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee). On April 9, 2008, while the investigation was still pending, Sergeant Britton submitted his resignation, effective May 1, 2008. Britton admitted to the accusations of sexual battery against Petitioner to the warden of the Facility. Britton was removed from the Facility on or about April 9, 2008. Petitioner testified that on at least five separate occasions between April 23, 2008, and May 23, 2008, Respondent allowed Britton to return into the Facility and granted Britton access into the restricted-access inner-compound where Petitioner worked so that he was able to continue to harass Petitioner. However, this testimony was uncorroborated and deemed unreliable. At no time during Petitioner's employment did Sergeant Britton supervise Petitioner or work directly with her. He did not discipline her, set her schedule, or assign her duties. From November 30, 2007, until March 14, 2008, Petitioner worked inside the secure perimeter, while Britton worked as the recruitment sergeant outside the secure perimeter in the administration building at the Facility. Petitioner was in the academy beginning March 14, 2008, and Sergeant Britton had no supervisory or training responsibilities over officers in the training academy. Petitioner was continually in the correctional officer academy from the time she filed her initial complaint on March 17, 2008, until Britton's resignation became effective on May 1, 2008. While in the academy, Petitioner was continually with other trainees and other instructors. Sergeant Britton never made any additional sexual advances or had any conversation with Petitioner following her complaint on March 17, 2008. Inspector Daryl McCasland substantiated the complaint against Sergeant Britton for battery, conduct unbecoming a public employee, and failure to follow written procedures. The inspector forwarded his results to the Office of the State Attorney in Punta Gorda which declined to prosecute. Respondent acted in a prompt and reasonable manner to stop the harassment and address it once it was known. Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care in the reporting of the harassment. Petitioner presented no evidence on the issue of retaliation. Petitioner presented no evidence of quantifiable damages. Her testimony was that she felt harassed and physically upset by the conduct of Britton and that she felt harassed and physically upset by her fellow officers after her complaint become known, but no proof of an adverse employment action was presented. Given the lack of evidence to support Petitioner's allegations, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2009.
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Respondent violated section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioners on the basis of their sex with respect to the provision of housing services or facilities; and (2) whether Respondent violated 760.37 by unlawfully harassing or intimidating Petitioners on the basis of their sex in the exercise of their protected housing rights.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioners are gay females, both retirees, who own property and reside at 5305 Saddlebag Lake Road, No. 66 Silversides Street, Lake Wales. The property is located in the Saddlebag Lake Resort, a gated adult recreation vehicle community, which consists of approximately 800 units or lots and has private roads, a private sewer system, swimming pool, and community center. More than half of the current residents are women, and some residents are gay. Respondent is the homeowners' association for the community. Its primary function is to run the day-to-day business required to maintain the common areas. Each unit/lot owner is a member of the Association and pays dues or assessments, which are used to maintain and operate the common facilities. The Association uses a professional property management company to manage the property. The Association does not receive federal funding. The Association is overseen by a nine-person Board elected by all community members, three of whom were women when this dispute arose. The Association writes rules and regulations for the community. The parties have stipulated that the Complaint was filed with the FCHR on November 12, 2015, and an Amended Complaint was filed on January 28, 2016. By law, this means that only those acts that occurred within the preceding 365 days of each filing can be considered. See § 760.32(2), Fla. Stat. Although the Complaints rely on statutes that prohibit sex discrimination, Petitioners contend that sexual orientation discrimination is per se "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the law. The chronology of events which led to the filing of the Complaints is summarized below. Petitioners first resided in the community as renters from November 2011 until April 2012. In March 2012, they purchased a lot with an existing mobile home. In December 2013, Petitioners decided to purchase a new mobile home. The existing home was removed in February 2014 and replaced with a new one in March 2014. A dispute between the parties arose concerning whether the porch on the new home complied with the Association's building restrictions. There is no credible evidence that the Association's decision to enforce what it believed were valid building restrictions was based on Petitioners' sexual orientation. When the dispute could not be informally resolved, the Association filed a lawsuit against Petitioners seeking a court order requiring Petitioners to comply with applicable building restrictions. Petitioners countersued on the grounds the Association's governing documents had expired. Until that time, it is fair to say that Petitioners and other residents in the community had a harmonious relationship. In fact, the record shows that respondents Jensen and Haven were good friends with Petitioners and sometimes socialized together. As a result of the dispute, an acrimonious relationship developed between the parties. From that point forward, Petitioners blamed unlawful discriminatory animus on the part of residents, Board members, and employees as the reason for virtually every action they considered objectionable. During the following months, Petitioners lodged various complaints with the Sheriff's Office and sought a stalking injunction against the property manager in circuit court. The complaints were determined to be unfounded by law enforcement and the injunction was denied. In October 2014, Tomayko wrote a letter to the Board complaining about "neighbors go[ing] against neighbors creating casualties among themselves," but she did not mention any specific individuals or incidents or suggest that sexual orientation was the source of this conflict. See Resp. Ex. 14. In February 2015, while the lawsuit was still pending, she wrote a letter to a revitalization proponent complaining about a series of incidents, all stemming from the property dispute. See Resp. Ex. 21. No claim was made that discriminatory animus was the underlying cause of the incidents. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, incidents occurring more than a year before the Complaints were filed are time-barred. For the purpose of making a complete record, however, the incidents are summarized below. Only two allegations are lodged against Jensen, the current president of the Board, and a Board member since 2012. First, it is alleged that while the building restriction dispute was being discussed at a closed Board meeting on February 27, 2014, Jensen made a derogatory statement about Petitioners' sexual orientation. However, Petitioners did not attend the meeting, and repeated only what they were told by a third party, who did not testify at hearing. Second, Austin testified that while attending a band concert with Jensen in April 2014, he called Tomayko "evil," and Austin assumed this referred to Petitioners' lifestyle. Austin also testified that Jensen told her that Petitioners "will have to answer to God for [their] lifestyle." Jensen denied these assertions, and his testimony is accepted as being more credible. Ironically, Austin admitted at hearing that she never personally heard Jensen make any discriminatory remarks based on a person's sex or sexual orientation. On February 28, 2014, while discussing the property dispute, Board member Braden, now deceased, said words to the effect that people like Petitioners move into a community just to do this. Although Petitioners ascribe a different meaning to the words, there is no evidence that Braden's statement was referring to Petitioners' sexual orientation. More than likely, he was referring to Petitioners' assertion, unpopular with most residents, that the Association's governing documents had expired. In March 2014,1/ while playing a game of pool, Braden stated in the presence of witness Park that the property dispute might have been "sorted out" were it not for Petitioners' lifestyle. There is no evidence that the statement was made in Braden's official capacity as a Board member. Other minor incidents included a police report of vandalism to Petitioners' property in June 2014, and a claim by Tomayko in October 2014 that a Board member almost struck her with his automobile while she was standing in the road. There is no evidence to connect these incidents with the charges in the Complaints. The Charges The initial Complaint alleges that, on the basis of their sexual orientation, Board members or employees discriminated against Petitioners with respect to the provision of housing services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling. The Amended Complaint adds a statutory allegation that on the basis of their sexual orientation, Board members or employees unlawfully intimidated or threatened them in order to interfere with their exercise of protected housing rights. Both filings rely on the same underlying charges, which are based on acts occurring more than a year before the Complaints were filed, some that are undated, and some that occurred within the one-year period. Petitioners have requested compensation for medical bills and other damages, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Before she moved to Florida, Austin was diagnosed with lupus, an autoimmune disease. In October 2014, or more than a year before the Complaints were filed, and again in November 2014, she was hospitalized because of a flare up of her lupus. Austin says the flare up was due to stress caused by unlawful interactions with Board members or employees prior to the hospitalization. No medical testimony supports this charge, and all interactions would have occurred more than a year before the Complaints were filed. Assuming arguendo the charge is true and time-barred events can be considered, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the interactions were the result of the acrimonious relationship between the parties that arose when the new home was installed, and not because of Petitioners' sexual orientation. In January 2015, Petitioners and the Board jointly sponsored a town hall-type meeting to discuss their lawsuit, a second lawsuit involving another resident, and the revitalization of the Association's governing documents extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA).2/ Without revitalization, the Association could not enforce restrictions that had been in effect for many years. Because Petitioners were concerned there might be an incident at the meeting, they contacted the Polk County Sheriff's Office to request assistance. Deputies from that office attended the meeting, encountered no problems, and left without incident. Austin testified that during the meeting, she encountered "hostility" from other participants and had a verbal argument with one Board member, but no derogatory comments were directed at her by any attendee. After the meeting, a picnic was held, which was attended by Petitioners. The revitalization issue was a significant one and caused a split in the residents of the community. One Board member estimated that around 90 percent of the residents supported revitalization, while only ten percent opposed it. In light of the pending lawsuit between the parties, many in the community believed that Petitioners opposed revitalization. In fact, Petitioners described the divide on the issue as "us" versus "them." On February 18, 2015, proponents of revitalization sponsored a parade. Approximately 250 golf carts participated in the event, as well as a number of residents on foot, all in support of revitalization. Many carried signs urging a yes vote on the issue. Tomayko testified that when the large parade crowd passed her home, horns were blown and the participants yelled and booed. Because of the noise, she could not understand what they were saying. She did hear "go to hell" one time, but she has no idea who made the comment and acknowledged no comments of a sexual nature were made. She admitted that the parade participants probably thought Petitioners were opposed to revitalization and this may have prompted the jeers. Tomayko testified she was "frightened" by the crowd. However, Petitioners were invited by parade participants to a picnic later that day, which they attended. At the picnic, Austin became involved in a verbal argument with a female Board member, who Austin says called her "evil." During the encounter, Austin grabbed the Board member by her shoulders and began violently shaking her. The Board member filed criminal charges against Austin, who was arrested for violating section 784.03(1)(a)1., a first degree misdemeanor. The victim later agreed to withdraw her complaint and the charges were dropped. Austin acknowledged that people in the community might be wary of associating with her after finding out about the assault. While at home on the evening of February 20, 2015, Tomayko heard someone trying to open her door, and then observed someone running down the stairs with a flashlight. That individual was never identified, and Petitioners did not report the incident to the police. Around 3:00 a.m. on February 21, 2015, a wooden cross was set on fire in Petitioners' yard. Apparently believing that the Association had more resources than law enforcement in finding the culprit, Petitioners complained that the Association provided no assistance in discovering who was responsible, a "service" to which they were entitled. However, law enforcement was called and an investigation was conducted by multiple members of the Sheriff's office. The Association did not deny Petitioners a "service" by relying on law enforcement to find the culprit, rather than undertaking its own investigation. No suspect was identified and no charges were ever filed. Based on speculation, Austin believes a female resident, not a Board member or employee, was responsible for the cross burning, but there is no evidence that any Board member, employee, or even a resident participated in, or had knowledge about, the incident. Both Petitioners say they felt intimidated and frightened by the incident. On February 27, 2015, the Board, Petitioners, and another resident with a pending lawsuit mediated a global settlement of their lawsuits. As a part of the settlement, the Association agreed to pay Petitioners' costs in their lawsuit and to terminate the employment of its property manager. A condition in the agreement required that Petitioners not oppose revitalization. Austin testified that after the mediation, two neighbors, Bob Amick and Terry Haven, occasionally stood in Amick's porch across the street "yelling stuff at us" and laughing. Neither was a Board member or employee at the time, and the content of the "stuff" being yelled is unknown. Tomayko was one of a group of 16 residents, consisting of four males and 12 females, who regularly played pinochle at the community center every Thursday. No player was a Board member or employee. The card game is a voluntary endeavor by pinochle enthusiasts and an activity over which the Association has no control. The Association merely handles or assists with reservations for the use of the clubhouse, and nothing more. A female member of the group decided to move the game scheduled on April 6, 2015, to a private home. She notified every member except Tomayko, who arrived at the community center that day expecting to join her group. Tomayko considers that action to be a denial of a "service" available to all other residents, and contends the change in location was made because of her sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports this assertion. While attending a pinochle game on another occasion, Tomayko testified that when she sat down at a table, a male player got up and left. No derogatory statements of a sexual nature were made. Tomayko regularly attended a "Koffee Klatch," a group of residents who met periodically for coffee and conversation. Like the card games, the Klatch is something over which the Association has no control. In April 2015, she sat down at a table and a "couple [of] people got up and walked away." Another unnamed female "got up and left," presumably to sit elsewhere. Tomayko acknowledged, however, that no derogatory comments of a sexual nature were directed towards her by any person at the Klatch. Austin testified that around "once a week" from November 2014 until March 2015, Terry Haven, who lives catty- corner from Petitioners and also worked as a security guard during that period of time, yelled at Petitioners while driving past their home in a golf cart. Austin acknowledged that she would yell sarcastic things back to him. She says Haven sometimes used profanity and called them "dykes." However, no specific dates were provided, and it is highly unlikely the name-calling occurred while he was working his midnight shift. There is no evidence that Petitioners reported Haven's use of the word "dykes" to the Board. Tomayko testified that Haven would purposely drive by their home and cause the golf cart engine to backfire. On one occasion, he threatened to poison their dogs. She also stated that in December 2015, he stood across the street and took some photographs of their home, and this upset her. No evidence was presented that linked this conduct to the charges in the Complaints. There is no evidence that Petitioners were treated differently because they are women. Other gay persons reside in the community, both male and female. There is no evidence that any other gay residents have been subjected to discriminatory treatment because of their sexual orientation. In sum, the record shows a few isolated instances in 2014 and 2015 where actions by residents might arguably be perceived by Petitioners as being objectionable and based on discriminatory animus. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these actions were motivated by Petitioners' opposition to revitalization, the pending lawsuit, or personality conflicts, and not because they were gay. Even assuming arguendo the actions were based on discriminatory animus, which they were not, the FCHR has no authority to dictate how neighbors choose to treat one another. And there is nothing in the law that imposes a duty on a homeowner association to intervene in a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute. Assuming that Haven called Petitioners "dykes" on several occasions between November 2014 and March 2015, this more than likely occurred when he was off-duty and not in his capacity as an employee. All other incidents were attributable to the lawsuit, revitalization, or personality disputes and were not based on Petitioners' sexual orientation. Damages To support their damages claim, Petitioners submitted Composite Exhibit 1, mostly hearsay, consisting of 66 pages of Austin's personal notes; medical, dental, and drug bills; housekeeping charges; veterinary bills for Austin's dog; and mileage charges. The bills total $15,950.01, mainly those not covered by insurance. Austin contends Association-induced stress was the cause of all of these charges and required her (and her dog) to seek medical and dental treatment and other services to alleviate a flare-up of lupus, depression, and other ailments triggered by the Association's actions. Some charges, not distinguished from others, were incurred before November 12, 2014. Notably, there is no credible evidence to establish a nexus between any of the bills and the acts of Board members or employees.
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, with prejudice, the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of September, 2016.
