The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed discriminatory employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code as alleged in the Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a 44-year-old African-American male. FMS is a package delivery company that does business in Pinellas County. According to Petitioner, FMS has more than 100 employees. FMS was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in this case, but no appearance was made on its behalf. Petitioner’s Job Duties and Salary at FMS Petitioner started working for FMS in late 1999 or early 2000 as a “driver.” Petitioner’s primary job responsibility was to drive a delivery truck along a designated route to deliver and pick up packages. Petitioner was also responsible for loading the to- be-delivered packages on his truck in the morning and then unloading any picked-up packages from his truck in the evening. Petitioner worked Monday through Friday. His shift started at 7:00 a.m. each day. Petitioner’s gross pay was initially $650 every two weeks, but at some point Petitioner's salary was increased to $750 every two weeks.1 Petitioner did not receive health or dental insurance or other benefits. Failure to Switch Trucks as Directed (Complaint, Count III) Chronologically, the first event alleged in the Complaint as a basis of Petitioner’s discrimination claim started on the morning of Friday, February 8, 2002, when Petitioner’s boss, Tom Aliotti, directed Petitioner to switch trucks with another driver named Eddie. Later that day, Mr. Aliotti told Petitioner that he would switch the trucks over the weekend. As a result, Petitioner and Eddie did not switch the trucks on Friday. The trucks were not switched over the weekend, and on the morning of Monday, February 11, 2002, Mr. Aliotti again directed Petitioner to switch trucks with Eddie. Petitioner did not switch the trucks on Monday morning as directed by Mr. Aliotti because he was too busy preparing to run his delivery route. Petitioner testified that Eddie was equally responsible for the trucks not getting switched because he could not switch trucks with Eddie without Eddie’s participation; however, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do in regard to switching the trucks. After Petitioner failed to switch the trucks on Monday as directed, he was given a written reprimand for insubordination by Mr. Aliotti. The written reprimand, which is referred to as a Counseling Sheet (see Exhibit P4), stated: “[Petitioner] will switch trucks tonite [sic] 2/11/02 or [he] will not be working 2/12/02. Day off without pay.” Petitioner testified that he did not switch the trucks even after the directive on the Counseling Sheet. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether he was suspended without pay on February 12, 2002. According to Petitioner, Eddie was not reprimanded for the incident. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether a reprimand was appropriate for Eddie because it is unknown whether Mr. Aliotti also told Eddie to switch the trucks and, as stated above, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do to frustrate the truck switching. Eddie, like Petitioner, is an African-American male. Attendance Issues in March 2002 (Complaint, Counts I and II) The other allegations of discrimination in the Complaint relate to discipline imposed on Petitioner for his unexcused absences from work on several occasions in March 2002. Petitioner submitted a written request for a half-day of leave on Friday, March 1, 2002, in which he stated that he needed to “go out of town to attend a funeral” because of a “death in [his] family.” See Exhibit P1, at page 3. That request was approved, and Petitioner was expected to be back at work on Monday, March 4, 2002. Petitioner attended the funeral of his brother in Largo, Florida, on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Later that same day, he traveled to Madison, Florida, to attend funeral services for his uncle. See Exhibits P2 and P3. For reasons that are unclear in the record, Petitioner did not return to work on Monday, March 4, 2002, as he was expected to do. If a driver was going to be unexpectedly absent from work, he or she was required to let the boss know before 7:00 a.m. so that a substitute or “on-call” driver could be contacted to take over the absent driver’s route. Getting another driver to take over the absent driver's route was important to FMS because some of the packages that the company delivers have to get to the customer by 10:30 a.m. Petitioner understood the importance of this requirement. According to Petitioner, he tried to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on Monday to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until several hours after 7:00 a.m. Petitioner did not produce any credible evidence to corroborate his testimony that he attempted to call his boss prior to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, and the documents introduced by Petitioner include conflicting statements as to whether Petitioner ever called on that date.2 Nevertheless, Petitioner’s testimony on this issue is accepted. When Petitioner returned to work on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, he was suspended for the day and, according to Petitioner, his delivery route was taken away. The Warning Letter that was received into evidence (Exhibit P1, at page 1) references the suspension, but not Petitioner’s route being taken away. According to Petitioner, his delivery route was given to a white female, whose identity Petitioner did not know. Thereafter, Petitioner was given menial tasks such as sweeping the floor and taking out the trash, although he also helped load packages onto the delivery trucks in the morning. Petitioner submitted a written request for leave on March 19 and 20, 2002, because he planned to be in Kentucky on those dates. Petitioner stated in the request that “I will be back to work on the [sic] 3-21.” See Exhibit P1, at page 2. The leave requested by Petitioner was approved, and he was expected to be back at work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner got a “late start” on his drive back from Kentucky, which caused him to miss work on March 21, 2002. According to Petitioner, he used his cellular phone to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on March 21, 2002, to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until 7:30 a.m. Petitioner did not present any credible evidence, such as his cellular phone records, to corroborate his claim that he attempted to call prior to 7:00 a.m. Petitioner’s testimony on this issue was not persuasive. The record does not reflect what, if any, discipline Petitioner received for not calling prior to the start of his shift to report that he would not be coming into work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner’s pay was not reduced at any point during his employment with FMS even though, according to Petitioner, his primary job duties were changed from driving a delivery truck to sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. Petitioner continued to work at FMS until April or May 2002 when he was injured on the job while lifting a box. Petitioner’s Post-FMS Activities and Employment After his injury, Petitioner could not and did not work for approximately one year. During that period, Petitioner collected workers' compensation at the rate of $500 every two weeks.3 Approximately one year after his injury, Petitioner’s doctor allowed him to return to work on “light duty.” Thereafter, in April or May 2003, Petitioner tried to return to work with FMS but, according to Petitioner, he was told that there were no available “light duty” positions. That effectively ended Petitioner’s employment relationship with FMS. The Complaint does not allege that FMS’s failure to re-hire Petitioner was a discriminatory employment practice, nor is there any credible evidence in the record that would support such a claim. From April/May 2003 to approximately March 2004, Petitioner held only one job. He worked for approximately one week cleaning floors at a nursing home, but he left that position because of his back problems. After leaving the floor cleaning job, Petitioner did not actively look for other employment. He briefly attended a training class to become a security guard, but he did not complete the class after learning that he would not be able to be licensed as a security guard “because of his prior record.” In approximately March 2004, Petitioner was hired by a former acquaintance to work as a driver for a mortgage company. In that position, Petitioner is paid $11 per hour and he typically works 40 hours per week, which equates to gross pay of $880 every two weeks. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was still employed by the mortgage company. Lack of Evidence Regarding Similarly Situated Employees Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding any “similarly situated” employees, i.e., employees who engaged in conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.4 Although Petitioner testified that he “had heard” of situations where other employees had “put a manager off,” rather than immediately doing what the manager told them to do, he was not able to offer any specific examples of such insubordination. Petitioner also presented no credible evidence regarding how other employees (of any race) were disciplined for conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.5
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint against FMS. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his national origin in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a residential and commercial waste collection and disposal business. Respondent has multiple locations across the southeastern United States. It employs approximately 8,623 employees. Payroll Management, Inc. (PMI) is an employee leasing company. It assists companies with their human resource issues, payroll needs, employee benefits and worker compensation coverage. Respondent is a client of PMI. Petitioner is an Hispanic male, who was born in Cuba in 1972. As a permanent resident, Petitioner is entitled to work. Petitioner is able to speak some English but occasionally needs a Spanish interpreter. David Otano was a driver/supervisor for Respondent's predecessor in Panama City, Florida. When Respondent bought the predecessor in 2006, Mr. Otano worked as operations manager for Respondent. Petitioner and Mr. Otano are friends. In February 2008, Mr. Otano recommended that Respondent hire Petitioner as a "slinger." A slinger rides on the back of a garbage truck to assist the driver in collecting garbage. On February 11, 2008, Petitioner filled out an employment application with PMI. At that time, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement that he was a leased employee of PMI who was assigned to work for a work site employer. Among other things, the acknowledgement stated as follows: I acknowledge that I am aware that PMI adheres to a grievance policy and it is the employee's right to file a grievance if he/she feels they have been unfairly treated. I understand that if I do not utilize the grievance procedures, my unemployment benefits may be denied me. PMI's employment application package also includes the following employee's certifications/acknowledgements: I CERTIFY and ACKNOWLEDGE that the following is true and correct: I have read, have been read, or will read IMMEDIATELY upon hire, the Employee's Post-Hire Handbook ("Handbook"). Further, I understand and agree to the provision as stated in the Handbook and within the Post- Hire Handbook, Post-Hire Packet, policy manual and safety manual. * * * I hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the PMI Post-Hire Handbook . . . . Petitioner signed the certification/acknowledgement on February 2, 2008. PMI's Post-Hire Handbook contains the company's harassment policy. The policy provides as follows in pertinent part: 3. Any employee who feels victimized by harassment should IMMEDIATELY report it to PMI's Human Resource Department . . . PMI will undertake a careful investigation, which may include interviewing other employees who have knowledge of the alleged incident or similar situations. Your complaint, along with the investigative steps and findings, will be documented in accordance with our dispute resolution procedures. PMI routinely trained Respondent's managers and supervisors about the non-discrimination policy. The instruction included an admonition to make decisions about employees based on their work performance and not because of their ethnicity or any other reason. Respondent and PMI knew that Spanish was Petitioner's first language when he was hired. They also knew Petitioner was originally from Cuba. At times, Petitioner had difficulty communicating with his direct supervisor, Penny Atkins. On those occasions, Ms. Atkins found another Spanish-speaking employee, such as Mr. Otano, to act as a translator and/or interpreter. It was not unusual for Respondent to employ people who spoke very little English. For example, Respondent once hired a Russian who spoke limited English. There were no problems with Petitioner's work performance when he was on a route. However, Petitioner was sent home when he was not dressed properly, such as wearing shorts instead of long pants or not having on work boots. Petitioner lived about two miles from the work site. When he was sent home, Ms. Atkins expected him to come right back to work. Decisions to send Petitioner home due to improper clothing were not based on Petitioner's national origin. Residential slingers usually worked Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Sometimes, Petitioner was sent home when there were too many slingers and not enough routes to run. If possible, such time off would be made up on a Wednesday. Occasionally, instead of sending a slinger home, Ms. Atkins would allow two slingers to ride on the back of one residential truck. At other times, Petitioner was given more work or extra routes to ride when there were not enough slingers. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Atkins' scheduling decisions were related to the national origin of any employee. Mr. Otano testified that Ms. Atkins wanted him to fire Petitioner because Petitioner did not speak English. Mr. Otano's testimony in this regard is contrary to more persuasive evidence. In April 2008, Mr. Otano's job description changed. Instead of being operations manager, he became a supervisor on an equal footing with Ms. Atkins. Mr. Otano considered the change a demotion. Even though Mr. Otano was no longer in Petitioner's chain of command, he continually complained to Ms. Atkins that she was not treating Petitioner fairly. Because Mr. Otano and Ms. Atkins argued about Petitioner, Respondent's general manager told Mr. Otano to worry about his own responsibilities, roll- offs and front loads, and to let Ms. Atkins worry about residential. In April 2008, Petitioner's wife had a car accident. Petitioner called Ms. Atkins to inform her that he would not be at work the morning after the accident. Ms. Atkins sent a driver in a truck to pick up Petitioner. Sometime in July 2008, Petitioner complained to Respondent's general manager that Ms. Atkins was discriminating against him. Petitioner understood that his complaint would be investigated. On August 28, 2008, Petitioner suffered an injury to his arm and shoulder while working as a slinger. He was transported to a local emergency room/walk-in medical facility. Respondent immediately reported the accident to PMI who was responsible for handling the workers’ compensation claim. After receiving medical treatment and physical therapy for a period of time, Petitioner returned to work with light- duty work restrictions imposed by his physician. Ms. Atkins told Respondent there was no such work available at the work site and sent him home. A second doctor's note dated September 29, 2008, stated that Petitioner could do no work for three weeks. On or about September 29, 2008, Respondent decided that it would be able to accommodate Petitioner's need for light-duty work with restrictions as required by a doctor's note. Once that decision was made, Chris Traughber, Respondent's safety manager, called PMI. PMI then contacted Petitioner's physician to let him know that Respondent would accommodate any restrictions if Petitioner was released to work. On or about October 2, 2008, PMI received a note from Petitioner's physician. According to the note, Petitioner was released to work with restrictions of no lifting, pushing, or pulling, effective that same day. Petitioner reported to work on October 3, 2008. At that time, Petitioner was taking a prescription drug for pain, Lortab. For light-duty work, Ms. Atkins instructed Petitioner to sit in a chair under a shed in the yard and note the truck numbers and times that each truck entered and left the yard. The job could not have been performed anywhere but outside in the yard near the gate. The trucks usually left in the early morning around 4:30 a.m. Some trucks would return around 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. Others would return at 6:00 p.m. Trucks might come and go from the yard anytime there was a mechanical problem with a truck on a route. The shed provided Petitioner shade and some protection from rain. Respondent created this job for Petitioner in order to return him to work. Ms. Atkins did not tell Petitioner that he could not take breaks or go to the bathroom. The most credible evidence indicates that Petitioner sometimes visited with Natalie Richardson, Respondent's dispatcher, in the air-conditioned dispatch office on his breaks. There are restrooms in the dispatch office and in the mechanic's shop area. There also was a portable toilet close to the shed where Petitioner was stationed. Petitioner's testimony that he urinated in his clothes on September 7, 2008, because it was raining and he was not allowed to go to the bathroom is not credible. Petitioner also took lunch breaks while he was working light duty. On one occasion, Petitioner left for lunch and did not come back to work. On or about October 8, 2008, Petitioner was sitting under the shed at work when he had a seizure or fainting spell that caused him to fall down on the ground and foam at the mouth. An ambulance transported Petitioner to the emergency room of a local hospital. There is no competent medical evidence regarding the incident. A doctor's note dated October 10, 2008, stated that Petitioner could return to light-duty work on October 18, 2008, with restrictions against swimming, driving, or climbing. On or about October 14, 2008, PMI sent a memorandum to Respondent, advising that Petitioner could return to light-duty work on October 18, 2008, with restrictions of no swimming, driving, or climbing. Petitioner returned to work light duty as restricted by his physician. Once again Respondent directed Petitioner to sit under the shed and count trucks. He was able to go to lunch and take breaks as needed. On or about October 13, 2008, Petitioner spoke to Respondent's general manager at the work site. During the conversation, Petitioner complained that Ms. Atkins was harassing him and treating him unfairly. Petitioner was told to go ahead and file a complaint with PMI. Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint with PMI, alleging that Respondent was harassing him and treating him unfairly. That same day, PMI learned that Petitioner had filed an employment discrimination claim with FCHR. Because FCHR was investigating the grievance, PMI did not investigate Petitioner's allegations. In the fall of 2008, Respondent began a reduction-in- force (RIF) process for economic reasons at multiple work sites. On or about November 21, 2008, Petitioner was reassigned to PMI along with over 30 other employees, several of which worked at Petitioner's work site. Respondent's Chief Financial Officer, Bruce Roy, decided which employees would be reassigned to PMI during the RIF. Mr. Roy worked at Respondent's corporate office and did not directly supervise the employees on the list. Petitioner's testimony that he was not aware that he had been reassigned until months later is not persuasive. The record is not clear as to the last day that Petitioner actually worked at the work site. Between October 2, 2008, and June 10, 2009, Respondent terminated/reassigned 99 employees at multiple work site locations. The RIF included men and women of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian ethnicities. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent targeted Hispanics in deciding which employees to include in the RIF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts 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 8th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 8th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Mead, Esquire Michael WM Mead, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1329 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Jeffery Daryl Toney, Esquire Law Office of Jeffery D. Toney, Sr. 502 North Main Street Post Office Box 579 Crestview, Florida 32536 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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, a public employer, has its principal place of business in Lake City, Florida, where it engages in the business of operating a school system. Respondent is created directly by the Florida state constitution or legislative body so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, and is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or to the general electorate (Stipulation.) The Respondent now and has been at all times material to these proceedings, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Public Employees Relations Act (Stipulation.) The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act (Stipulation.) Since on or about July, 1973, up to and including June 30, 1975, Jack W. Adams was a public employee within the meaning of Section 447.203(3) of the Act (Stipulation.) On or about April, 1975, and continuing thereafter, Adams engaged in employee organization-related activities designed to acquaint fellow employees of Respondent with the benefits of organizing and collective bargaining on behalf of the Charging Party (Testimony of Adams.) Adams was hired in July, 1973, by the Respondent as a Refrigeration Mechanic I in the Maintenance Department of the Columbia County school system. There was no one in this position at the time. Adams' duties were to service and maintain the refrigeration and air conditioning equipment at the various county public schools. Shortly after he was hired, he was given an apprentice, Henry Williams, to assist him in his functions. His first supervisor was Henry Stalmaker. Later, the maintenance and transportation functions were separated into different departments and Stalmaker became the Coordinator of Transportation. Ulis Taylor, who had been the "lead man" in the Maintenance Department, became the Coordinator of Maintenance in the summer of 1974. The equipment which Adams serviced had many problems when he was first hired. He improved the state of the equipment during the period that he worked under Stalmaker and the latter received no complaints during that time as to his attitude or the quality of his work (Testimony of Adams, Stalmaker.) In August, 1974, Adams talked to some Maintenance Department employees about the possibility of having a civil service system established for county employees. He received information on such a program and showed it to the employees, but found that they were not interested in pressing for the institution of such a system. In September, Dr. Frank Phillips, Superintendent of Schools, Columbia County, had a meeting with Adams at which he suspended him for two days for being involved in an incident at one of the local schools in which Adams' son allegedly had used a faculty lounge without authority while serving as a high school work-trainee with his father. The son was suspended from school as a result of this incident which allegedly involved the use of profanity by Adams and his son. Adams sought assistance from a school board member to intercede on his own suspension. The board member did so because Adams had not been afforded an opportunity to present his version of the incident. The matter was resolved after the board member discussed the situation with Phillips. Also during the September meeting, Phillips informed Adams that his discussions with employees on civil service had disturbed the school board, and told him to refrain from any further such activities (Testimony of Adams, Williams, Phillips, Markum.) On April 28, 1975, a group of school bus drivers approached Adams to become the president of the Columbia County Transportation and Maintenance Workers Association. He met with the group at the Transportation Department on that day. Authorization cards were notarized at the meeting. Taylor approached Adams and Williams thereafter and informed Adams that he should not go back to the Transportation Department for any reason and that he should keep away from association activities. He further stated that union business got people "ticked off" and upset and not to engage in it any further (Testimony of Adams, Williams). Prior to the above conversation, Taylor, on April 21, 1975, had rendered an annual employee performance evaluation on Adams wherein he rated him as "very satisfactory-substantially exceeds all requirements". This was the second highest evaluation which could be made on an employee. He also at that time recommended him for reappointment for the 1975-76 school term. Taylor's 1974 evaluation of Adams also had been in the second highest bracket with his major strength listed as "promotes unity with the Maintenance Department personnel." Although Adams had an excellent working relationship with Taylor on April 21, 1975, he and Williams testified that after the April 28th incident, Taylor started questioning everything that they did. Taylor, on the other hand, testified that, although the 1974 performance evaluation was basically accurate, he had experienced problems with Adams' attitude and gave him an inflated evaluation on April 21st, hoping that it would influence him to improve and have better relationships within the Department. However, at that time; he was of the opinion that Adams' work performance was perfectly satisfactory. Shortly after that, he sent Adams to an elementary school to repair a freezer. Although Williams worked on the unit, Adams concurred in his judgment as to the problem which later proved to be incorrect. Taylor was of the opinion that they had lied to him concerning the work required, although the evidence supports a finding that they were merely mistaken. The evidence, however, also supports a finding that there had been a number of problems with refrigeration units during the 1975 spring term that were due, in some respect, to an inefficient method of ordering parts by others and also because many compressors had to be replaced. About four years previously, the school system had purchased a rather large amount of refrigeration equipment. These same problems had been in existence prior to Adams' tenure with the school system (Testimony of Taylor, Adams, Williams, Watts; Exhibit 5 & 6.) On May 8, 1975, Taylor wrote to Phillips recommending that the Refrigeration Department be reduced to one man, a Refrigeration Mechanic II (a lower grade than mechanic I), with major problems to be handled by utilization of local contractors. The letter pointed out the difficulties that had been encountered and expressed dissatisfaction with the attitude and competence of the Refrigeration Mechanic I (Adams). In effect, this letter reversed Taylor's prior recommendation that Adams be rehired for the ensuing school year (Exhibit 4.) On or about May 12, 1975, Williams, who was assisting Adams in employee organization work, talked to the president of the secretaries association of the school system at her house concerning the subject of organization. He could not answer all of her questions and it was arranged that Adams would meet with the secretaries the following day. He did so in the school library at 4:15 p.m. after working hours. The next day it was reported to the executive secretary for the school board that Adams had told the group they would have difficulties in securing job benefits unless they were organized. She believed this information was erroneous and had Adams call her on the telephone. He declined to discuss the subject during working hours. Phillips had planned to have a meeting with Taylor and Adams that morning at 9:45 a.m. When he came into the office, the executive secretary told him of her discussion with Adams and he told her that he had had complaints in the Maintenance Department and was going out there to see what the problem was. He was concerned that the maintenance personnel were playing "catch-up" rather than preventing maintenance problems from arising in the first place. These problems had occurred in all areas of the Maintenance Department, including refrigeration work. At the meeting that morning, Phillips informed Taylor that he was suspended because of maintenance complaints, Williams was suspended for incompetence and Adams because of committing an unfair labor practice for allegedly speaking to the secretarial group on school time. At this time, Phillips told Adams that the School Board was not ready for collective bargaining that year, but maybe the next year. Adams informed him that he would continue to engage in employee organization, and Phillips stated that "Well, if you don't cease, you and all personnel involved in this association will all be fired and we will hire new personnel." In spite of Phillips' statements concerning suspension, he informed the employees that he would let them know by that Friday what he was going to do in regard to their status. He did not pursue the question of suspension any further and, as a result, Adams filed an unfair labor practice charge against the school board on May 20, 1975 (Testimony of Adams, Mock, Williams, Wilson, Taylor, Phillips.) Respondent's method of extending the employment of non- instructional personnel was for the superintendent to confer with the department head and, if he concurred in the department head's recommendation as to an employee, the matter would be presented to the Board of Public Instruction for approval. No contracts were involved for such employees, but Respondent operated normally on a school year basis from July 1 to June 30 as the term of employment. Phillips testified that, in May of 1975, he was reevaluating the need for support personnel and decided to look into the possibility of procuring services by contract with commercial firms. He was particularly unsatisfied with the Maintenance Department and disruptions that had occurred therein. He dispatched a letter on May 23 to Adams advising him that his name did not appear on the list of recommendations for reappointment at that time, but that he might be recommended at a later date should a position become available in his field. Since Phillips had until June 30th to make final decisions concerning rehiring of personnel, he investigated and determined that contract services were not feasible and therefore decided to stay with an "in-house" maintenance program. However, in view of the May 8th letter from Taylor concerning Adams, and the problems in refrigeration that had been occurring in the Spring, he recommended to the Board of Education that Adams not be continued as an employee. Nine of the eleven employees in the Maintenance Department received the same letter from Phillips, but Adams was the only one of that group who was not rehired. Adams never received anything further in writing on the matter and was not shown Taylor's letter of May 8 at that time (Testimony of Phillips, Adams, Exhibit 3.) Although the Board did not have a formal system for grievances or appeal of dismissals, Adams was accorded a hearing before the Board on July 10. This was prompted by his discussion with a school board member who showed him Taylor's May 8 letter for the first time and advised him to ask for a hearing before the Board. At the hearing, Adams was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in Taylor's letter except as to Item 10 concerning work orders of which he had no knowledge. The hearing was then continued until July 24th in order to provide Adams more time for his defense. During this period, he secured letters attesting to his good work and cooperative attitude from nine principals of various schools in Columbia County. At the July 24th board meeting, Adams was confronted with a July 21st revision of Taylor's May 8th letter that was rewritten in order to eliminate "inconsistencies" which had appeared in the June 8th letter. The later letter added an allegation that Adams had gone into the Maintenance Department personnel files without Taylor's permission while Taylor was on vacation. This allegation stemmed from an incident in early June when Adams and Williams went into an open file cabinet in the Maintenance Department that was used to store secondary personnel files as well as work orders and manuals, and extracted a copy of their latest evaluation reports. Although they did not seek authorization for this, they informed the acting supervisor that they had obtained what they had gone in for. (Testimony of Adams, Williams, Murdock; Exhibit 3, Composite Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8.) Adams was given an opportunity to present matters at the July 24th Board meeting and the Board voted to support the superintendent's recommendation that he not be rehired. Subsequent to Adams' dismissal, Williams had taken his place for a short period of time and thereafter a new man was hired. Problems with refrigeration equipment have been minimal during the past year, it having been discovered that the wrong type of gas had been used in replacement compressors in the past (Testimony of Taylor, Watts, Williams, Martin.) Respondent has drawn unemployment insurance of $82.00 a week since October 1, 1975. Although he registered with the Florida State Employment Service for a position as a commercial air conditioner and refrigeration mechanic, there have been no jobs of that nature offered to him in the area where he resides (Testimony of Adams.)
Recommendation That the Public Employees Relations Commission issue an order requiring the Columbia County Board of Public Instruction to cease and desist from unfair labor practices as defined in Section 447.501(1)(a) & (b), Florida Statutes, with respect to the Columbia County Transportation and Maintenance Workers Association, and to take prompt action to reinstate Jack W. Adams as a Refrigerator Mechanic I with back pay from July 1, 1975 to date of reinstatement, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, less amounts the aforesaid individual has received from state governmental sources during the stated period. Done and Entered this 7th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire 2003 Apalachee Parkway Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry McDavid, Esquire Box 1328 Lake City, Florida =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
Findings Of Fact On October 18, 1971, the Respondent through ordinance Number 201 (Respondent's Exhibit 1) established a civil service system. The ordinance in pertinent part provided that the civil service board shall "adopt, enact and amend a code of rules and regulations for each department covering, among other things, duties, hours of work, discipline and control, rules and regulations for appointment, employment, suspension and discharge of employees based on merit, efficiency, character and industry." Evidence reveals that the Civil Service Board took no action to "adopt, enact or amend a code" pursuant to Section 5 of ordinance Number 201 and, until the unilateral acts here complained of, Respondent had little in the way of written rules and regulations. However, within the Police Department there were "general rules of conduct" which had been promulgated by the Police Chief. (See G C Exhibit 8). Thereafter, the City Attorney drafted an ordinance amending ordinance Number 201 (see Respondent's Exhibit 8). Police Department representatives attended a meeting with the Mayor on June 15, 1975, for the purpose of discussing the proposed amendment to ordinance Number 201. After the meeting, George Slinkman, then President of the FOP, learned of its purpose and was given a rough draft of the proposed amendment. He was informed that the departmental representative had voiced objections to the Mayor concerning the amendment and on July 31, 1975, the proposed amendment came before the City Council at a workshop meeting. Present at that meeting was the President of the FOP who informed the council that the FOP was in favor of implementation of the original ordinance Number 201 rather than the proposed amendment to which the FOP objected. President Slinkman indicated that if the Respondent was proceeding with the new amendment as proposed, the FOP would like to provide some input into the proposal. No further action on the proposed amendment was taken by the City Council at that meeting nor did it appear on subsequent council agendas. On December 15, 1975, PERC certified the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative of Lauderhill Police Department Employees in the following unit. INCLUDED: Police Detectives, Officers and Sergeants. EXCLUDED: Police Lieutenants, Captains and the Chief. (See G.C. Ex. 7). Approximately two weeks later, the City Service Rules and Regulations, first part, through implementing resolution Number 511 (G.C. Ex.2) was presented to the City Council by the Mayor as an implementation of Civil Service Ordinance Number 201. The rules contained therein governed personnel recruitment and examinations for positions within the City. The Mayor informed the Council that there had been no employee input on such rules. While members of the Council received their copies approximately five days prior to the December 30th Council meeting, they were informed at the meeting that copies had not otherwise been distributed. City resolution no. 511 was passed by the City Council at the December 30, 1975, meeting and became effective immediately. Apart from the fact that witnesses George Slinkman, the former President of the FOP and President Elect Ralph Dean testified that Respondent failed to request input from the FOP on the rules as adopted, they also testified that no agent of the Fraternal Order of Police was made aware of the existence of the newly passed resolution until several days thereafter. (TR.401-402, 420-422). On or about April 22, 1976, Richard Witt, FOP State President, wrote to Mayor Cipolloni advising that he had been asked to represent the Charging Party in collective bargaining negotiations with the Respondent. Witt requested a meeting with the Mayor for the purpose of discussing negotiations. In response, the Mayor suggested the parties meet during the morning of April 28, in the Mayor's office. On Tuesday night, April 27, the Mayor introduced the City Service Rules and Regulations, second part, along with implementing resolution Number 571 to the City Council. This document contained numerous proposed changes in terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees including changes in appointments, lay-offs re-employment, evaluations, physical and mental exams, weight regulations, hours of work, vacations, holidays, sick leave, suspensions, demotions and grievance procedures. The Council was informed that employees had not provided input on the rules although the Mayor expressed his understanding gained from a recently attended labor relations seminar that Respondent needed a base for forthcoming negotiations with the Charging Party. When it was learned that the Civil Service Board had not been consulted with regard to the document, the resolution was tabled and Civil Service Board members were invited to be present the following evening when it would be brought up again, Richard Witt, the Mayor, and Police Chief Ramsdell met as scheduled on the morning of April 28, 1976. Witt requested that prior to collective bargaining the City furnish him with budget documents and other materials pertaining to police officers' health program, welfare and other employment working conditions. The Mayor responded, according to Witt, that it would take some time for him to assemble such but that the information would be forthcoming. That night, the City Council passed resolution no. 571, which adopted the City Service Rules and 7Regulations, save the sick leave policies which became effective January 1, 1977. (See G.C. Ex. 6). Ralph Dean, the President of the Charging Party testified that Respondent was not requesting input from the FOP on the rules and regulations, second part, nor had FOP representatives been furnished copies of the documents prior to their adoption. Additionally, he testified that the Charging Party was not notified of the pending adoption of the document and did not obtain a copy of such until after passage on April 28, 1976. Corroborative testimony on this point was given by Councilwoman Hatcher and employees Dean and Slinkman. The parties' first negotiation session was held on May 22, 1976 and at that time the Charging Party advised the Mayor and the City Attorney that in their opinion, some of their proposals were in violation of existing City ordinances, including the rules and regulations first and second parts. Two days thereafter, on May 24, 1976, the Charging Party filed with the Commission the instant unfair labor practice charges. The parties were again scheduled to meet on May 28, 1976. Upon receipt of the unfair labor charges, the City Council met with the Mayor in "executive session" and it was then decided that Respondent would "suspend bargaining" until the charges were disposed of. The Mayor arrived at the May 28th session and informed the Charging Party that Respondent would not return to the bargaining table until the pending charges had been resolved. A second charge was filed against the Respondent alleging essentially that the Respondent's suspension of bargaining constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith within the meaning of Section 447.501(a)(c) of the Act. The evidence also reveals that on approximately March 30, 1976, the Respondent adopted a pay plan for its police department employees who are in the bargaining unit in which the Charging Party was certified to represent. The pay plan, as adopted, represented a reduction in the existing pay plan. In adopting this plan, Frank C. Brown Associates, a management consulting firm, was commissioned to conduct a study to devise a pay plan for all city employees. The evidence reveals that the wage and job classification plan prepared by Frank C. Brown and Associates was not compiled based on any joint efforts by the Charging Party who had been certified to exclusively represent the police unit employees. Specifically, Ralph Dean objected to the new pay plan and in fact, Mayor Cipolloni testified that he gave no direction to Frank C. Brown and Associates to seek any input from the Charging Party and/or its agents. Based on the Charging Party's objections to the pay plan as submitted by Frank C. Brown on February 9, 1976, one pay grade was added to each of the ranks. The plan was submitted to the City Council on March 30, 1976 and was made effective immediately for all employees. Representatives of the Charging Party were present at this meeting and objected to the implementation thereof to no avail. Thereafter, and during the second negotiation session on May 28, 1976, the Respondent suspended negotiations with the Charging Party based on the fact that the Charging Party had filed unfair labor practice charges with the Commission.
Conclusions The essence of the collective bargaining relationship between public employers and its employees in the State of Florida is outlined in Chapter 447.309(1), Florida Statutes (1975). The dictates there mandates a bilateral decision making process which becomes effective after an employee organization has been certified by the Commission. At that juncture, the public employer is no longer free to make unilateral determinations with respect to items which are considered "wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment". See for example District School Board of Hillsborough County and Hillsborough C.T.A., PERC order no. 76U-1181 (October 4, 1976). The Charging Party and/or its agents objected to the City Service Rules and Regulations first and second parts each time they were brought up before the Council. Respondent at no time requested any input from the Charging Party's agents respecting its position in fulfilling its obligation to represent the unit employees it was certified to represent. The Respondent's affirmative defense that the Charging Party's members were advised and participated in the enactment of the City Service Rules and Regulations and the pay scale as it relates to unit employees was considered. However, when an examination of the positive duty placed on the Respondent as it relates to its duty to bargain with the certified representative, such a position fails to withstand scrutiny and amounts to conduct representing an abrogation of its duty to meet with and confer with the designated certified representative. Absent an impasse, necessity or an express or implied waiver (all of which are absent here), the employer was expressly obligated to refrain from taking the unilateral action which it took on December 30, 1975, on March 30, 1976 and on May 28, 1976. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence which would permit the employer to unilaterally act as stated above, the conclusion is inescapable that the Respondent consciously abrogated its duty as set forth in Chapter 447.309(1), F.S., and engaged in conduct violative of the Act.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent has violated the Act as stated above, I shall therefore recommend that it be ordered to post at its facilities, in conspicuous places, on forms to be provided by the Commission, a notice substantially providing: that it will bargain collectively, upon request, with the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees as stated above; that it will not make unilateral changes in wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of said employees and that it will not suspend bargaining or fail to meet and bargain collectively with the exclusive bargaining representative unless directed to do so by the Commission. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Weinsoff, Esquire Suite 804, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Bruce A. Leinback, Staff Attorney for William E. Powers, Jr., General Counsel 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony J. Titone, Esquire 6299 West Sunrise Boulevard Suite 205 Sunrise, Florida 33313
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on his age.
Findings Of Fact Currently, Petitioner is a retired, 68-year-old male. He retired from Respondent at the age of 66. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a truck driver. The position of truck driver, involves many long hours of driving (sometimes over 56 hours) various interstate and intrastate truck routes, along with some lifting and exposure to diesel fumes. Petitioner attributed a variety of illnesses and health problems to his work as a truck driver. Some of the illnesses and health problems are hypertension and heart blockage and failure, which resulted in the implantation of a pacemaker, carpal tunnel syndrome, polyneuropathy, muscular and autonomic system problems and pathological hyper-insomnia. Petitioner offered no evidence that any of these conditions resulted from his employment with Respondent. Prior to September 9 or 10, 2000, at the age of 64, Petitioner was hospitalized for heart problems. Around September 9 or 10, 2000, Petitioner was released from the hospital. Upon his return to work, he gave his employer a physician’s note indicating that his work duties be limited to 40 hours a week. Petitioner met with Respondent’s transportation manager regarding whether less lengthy routes were available or whether his schedule or work duties could be adjusted. The employer did not have the ability to adjust the length of the routes, but added a second driver to ride and help with the driving on any route that Petitioner drove. Petitioner inquired about office work and was told that if he was interested in such work he needed to apply at the main office to see what was available. In part, because Petitioner liked driving and in part because the lesser number of hours involved in office work would cause Petitioner to earn less, Petitioner elected not to pursue and did not apply for such office work. No adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner, and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. At some point during this meeting, Petitioner alleges that the transportation manager said, “Why don’t you just retire.” Petitioner offered no specific context for this statement other than it was a general conversation about his health and closeness to retirement age relative to the adjustments that could be made to his driving duties. One isolated statement such as the one above does not demonstrate any intent to discriminate on Respondent’s part based on Petitioner’s age, especially since no adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. Around January 1, 2001, for medical reasons, Respondent approved a Leave of Absence with pay for Petitioner. In June or July, 2002, Petitioner filed his first workers compensation claim with Respondent. Petitioner’s claim was turned over to Respondent’s workers' compensation insurer, Kemper Insurance Company. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Kemper was under the direction or control of Respondent in any decisions Kemper made regarding paying or litigating Petitioner’s claim. In any event, Petitioner’s claim was contested. The main reason the claim was contested was that Kemper alleged that Petitioner’s “injuries” were not work-related. Over the years, Petitioner has amended his claim to include, among other health claims, the health problems listed above. Kemper has maintained its defense. During a mediation session on December 11, 2002, at which the employer was not present and in response to an inquiry regarding Kemper’s defense, Kemper’s representative stated that except for the carpal tunnel claim, all of Petitioner’s medical conditions were due to the natural aging process. Petitioner claims this statement demonstrates an intent on his employer’s part to discriminate against him based on his age. Such an isolated statement does not demonstrate such an intent especially since such conditions can be age related, there was no expert medical evidence demonstrating the cause of Petitioner’s health problems, the statement did not come from the employer, and there was no evidence that the insurer was under the direction or control of the employer regarding decisions to litigate or the factual basis for the defenses that the insurer would raise. The workers' compensation litigation continues to date. In the interim, Petitioner remained on a leave of absence with pay until January 1, 2003. He retired thereafter. There was no evidence that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner or that Petitioner suffered any adverse employment action based on his age. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the 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 14th day of April, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Glynda Copeland Qualified Representative Tree of Life, Inc. Post Office Box 410 St. Augustine, Florida 32095-0410 Robert C. Johnson 560 Florida Club Boulevard, Suite 112 St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
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 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Higbee Company, d/b/a Dillard’s (“Dillard’s”), discriminated against Petitioner based upon his national origin or disability, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016).2/
Findings Of Fact Dillard’s is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Dillard’s is a department store chain. Petitioner, a Mexican male, was hired as a sales associate in the men’s department of Dillard’s store at Tallahassee’s Governor’s Square Mall on May 13, 2014. Petitioner’s job was to sell men’s fragrances directly to customers at the store. Allen Gustason was manager of the Dillard’s store at Governor’s Square Mall during the time Petitioner was employed there. Dee Thomas was the assistant store manager. Mark Kronenberger, who testified at the final hearing, was the men’s department sales manager and was Petitioner’s direct supervisor during the entire time that Petitioner worked at Dillard’s. Petitioner started at a salary of $12.00 per hour as a sales associate. His job performance and pay increases were assessed primarily on the basis of sales. On January 6, 2015, Petitioner received a raise to $12.60 per hour. On April 14, 2015, Petitioner was promoted to the position of fragrance specialist and received a raise to $14.50 per hour. Petitioner’s promotion did not change his basic duties, i.e., direct sales to customers. Petitioner’s employment at Dillard’s ended on November 28, 2015. Dillard’s did not dispute Petitioner’s testimony that he was a good and effective salesperson. Petitioner developed a regular clientele of Spanish-speaking customers who liked his ability to communicate with them in their native language. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner received, read, and agreed to abide by Dillard’s Associate Work Rules and General Policies, which among other things forbade insubordination by sales associates. “Insubordination” was defined to include failure to follow lawful instructions from a supervisor and engaging in contemptuous or taunting conduct that undermines the authority of management. As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Petitioner claims that he is a Mexican male with a disability. The claimed disability is the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”). Dillard’s did not dispute that Petitioner has HIV. Petitioner claims that he was harassed by fellow employees because of his Mexican national origin. Petitioner claims that he complained to his supervisors, Mr. Kronenberger and Mr. Gustason, about the harassment. Petitioner claims that no effective action was taken to curb the harassment. Petitioner described a pervasive sense of discrimination at Dillard’s of which he became conscious only after about a year of working there. He testified that he is from California and had no real concept of being discriminated against because of his Mexican heritage. It took some time for him to realize and acknowledge to himself that it was happening. However, Petitioner was unable to describe many specific instances of discriminatory behavior by fellow employees. People were “mean,” or “picked on me,” or “didn’t like me,” but few of Petitioner’s complaints pointed toward racial discrimination as opposed to personal dislike. He complained that co-workers planned parties and get-togethers away from work but never asked him along, even for Mr. Kronenberger’s birthday party, but could only speculate as to the reason for his exclusion. Petitioner testified that he was an aggressive and successful salesperson. While its salespeople are assigned to specific departments, Dillard’s allows them to cross-sell in other departments. Several of the incidents described by Petitioner began when he took customers to other departments to sell them something. The undersigned infers that at least some of the bad feelings toward Petitioner were due to his perceived “poaching” of sales from other sections of the store. Petitioner testified that an employee named Carol would yell at him, apparently without provocation, so consistently that he went out of his way to avoid crossing her path. Petitioner stated that one day Carol screamed that he was good-for-nothing and was a “damn Mexican,” in front of customers and co-workers. Petitioner testified that he had no idea why she did this because he had done nothing to provoke her. He walked away, covering his ears from her abuse. Petitioner testified that he went upstairs and spoke to Mr. Gustason about the incident but that nothing was done. Petitioner stated that he returned to the sales floor. Other employees told him that Carol had worked for Dillard’s for many years and was a friend of Mr. Gustason and that he should not expect anything to be done about her behavior. Petitioner testified that an employee named Eric, who worked in the men’s department, made fun of his accent, particularly Petitioner’s difficulty in pronouncing “Saturday.” Petitioner testified that another fellow employee, a white woman named Amber who also worked in fragrance, was constantly rude and mean to him. In front of customers, Amber would say that she did not know why Petitioner was there, that he was only good for cleaning the counters. Petitioner repeatedly complained to Mr. Kronenberger about Amber. Mr. Kronenberger told him to continue doing a good job and not to focus on Amber. Petitioner stated that Mr. Kronenberger directed Amber to stay away from Petitioner’s counter, but she ignored the order and continued to harass him. Petitioner stated that matters came to a head when he was helping some female customers and went to Amber’s counter one day. He reached behind her to get the fragrance the customers wanted and Amber struck him with her elbow. The customers were aghast and complained to Dillard’s management despite Petitioner’s entreaties that they let the matter drop. Petitioner and Amber were called to the office to meet with Mr. Kronenberger and Yami Yao, the manager of women’s cosmetics. Amber denied everything. The supervisors told Petitioner and Amber to get along. They told Amber to stay away from Petitioner’s counter. Petitioner testified that Amber ignored the instruction and continued to harass him. Petitioner testified that on another day he was approached by a customer who wanted to pay Petitioner for a pair of shoes. Petitioner testified that he asked Mr. Kronenberger about it, because he did not want to steal a sale or anger anyone. Mr. Kronenberger told him that he was there to sell and that cross-selling was fine. As Petitioner was completing the sale, an older white man working in the shoe department threw a shoe at Petitioner and said, “You damn Mexican, I’m going to raise hell against you.” Petitioner testified about an altercation with Risa Autrey, a fragrance model who worked in Dillard’s and who Petitioner stated was another longtime friend of Mr. Gustason. One day, Ms. Autrey approached Petitioner--again, with zero provocation, according to Petitioner--and began berating him, saying that she had no idea why Dillard’s kept Petitioner around. This occurred in front of co-workers and customers. The customers went upstairs and complained to Mr. Gustason, who followed up by admonishing Petitioner to stop telling people to complain to him because nothing was going to come of it. Petitioner testified that a day or so after the incident with Ms. Autrey, he met with Mr. Gustason and Mr. Thomas.4/ During the course of this meeting, Petitioner disclosed his HIV status. Petitioner testified that Mr. Gustason’s attitude towards him changed immediately, and that Mr. Gustason had him fired two weeks later on a pretextual charge of stealing and insubordination. Petitioner testified that he got sick a few days before Black Friday, which in 2015 was on November 27. When he returned to work on November 25, he attempted to give Mr. Gustason a doctor’s note that would have entitled Petitioner to paid leave, but Mr. Gustason would not talk to him. Petitioner worked a long shift on Black Friday. On Saturday, November 28, 2015, he was called to Mr. Thomas’s office about an altercation he had on November 25 with Ms. Yao, the woman’s cosmetics manager. Mr. Kronenberger was also in the office. Petitioner testified that Mr. Thomas accused him of stealing, as well as insubordination to Ms. Yao, and fired him. Two mall security officers, the Dillard’s security officer, and Mr. Kronenberger escorted Petitioner out of the store. Petitioner testified that he was given no paperwork to memorialize his firing or the reasons therefor. Mr. Kronenberger testified at the final hearing. He testified that Petitioner constantly complained about someone not liking him or picking on him. Petitioner never gave him specifics as to what happened. Mr. Kronenberger stated that Petitioner never complained about racial slurs or that any of his alleged mistreatment had a discriminatory element. It was always, “This person doesn’t like me.” Petitioner had issues with tardiness and absenteeism throughout his employment with Dillard’s. Mr. Kronenberger testified that there would be days when Petitioner simply would not show up for work, or would send a text message to Mr. Kronenberger saying that he had things to do or someone he had to meet. Employment records submitted by Dillard’s supported the contention that Petitioner was frequently late for, or absent from, work. Mr. Kronenberger testified that Petitioner was erratic in his communications. Petitioner would send a text message saying he could not come in. Then he would send a text telling Mr. Kronenberger how happy he was to have the job. Mr. Kronenberger recalled once receiving a text from Petitioner at midnight that read, “I know I’ve been bad.” In November 2015, Petitioner had six unexcused absences, including four consecutive days from November 21 through 24. Mr. Kronenberger testified that Petitioner finally admitted that he needed to cut his hours in order to qualify for some form of public assistance. Mr. Gustason told Petitioner that something could be worked out to cut his hours, but that just not showing up for work was unfair to Mr. Kronenberger and the other employees. Mr. Kronenberger testified that Dillard’s would normally terminate an employee with six unexcused absences in one month under the heading of job abandonment. He stated that Mr. Gustason bent over backward to work with Petitioner and keep him on the job. When Petitioner was absent, Mr. Gustason would leave messages for him, asking him to call and let him know what was going on. During the string of November absences, Mr. Kronenberger phoned Petitioner, who said that he was afraid to come into work for fear that Mr. Gustason would fire him. Mr. Kronenberger assured Petitioner that Mr. Gustason had no such intent, but that in any event no one would have to fire him because he had not been to work in a week. Petitioner was effectively “firing himself” by abandoning his position. Petitioner showed up for work on November 25, 2015, at 4:50 p.m. He had been scheduled to come in at 9:45 a.m. Mr. Kronenberger testified that he was not present for Petitioner’s altercation with Ms. Yao, but that Ms. Yao reported she had attempted to counsel Petitioner about gifts with purchases. The promotional gifts were to be given away only with the purchase of certain items, but Petitioner was apparently disregarding that restriction and giving the gifts with non-qualifying purchases. Ms. Yao told Mr. Kronenberger that Petitioner quickly escalated the counseling into a shouting match in front of customers and co-workers. He yelled, “You’re not going to talk to me that way.” Ms. Yao told Petitioner that she worked in another department and did not have to deal with his antics. She told him that she was going to report the matter to Mr. Kronenberger and Mr. Thomas.5/ Mr. Kronenberger testified that his conversation with Ms. Yao was brief because there was no need to give many particulars. He was used to getting reports of employee run-ins with Petitioner and did not need much explanation to get the gist of what had happened. Mr. Kronenberger decided not to raise the issue with Petitioner on Black Friday, the busiest day of the year at the store. On the next day, November 28, Petitioner was called into the office to meet with Mr. Kronenberger and Mr. Thomas. Mr. Kronenberger testified that this meeting was not just about the incident with Ms. Yao but also Petitioner’s absences. In Mr. Kronenberger’s words, “[I]t was to follow up with the incident with Yami, and it was to follow up with, ‘Hey, you’ve just missed a week, you’ve been back a day, and you’re having this blow-up with a manager on the floor.’ Like, ‘What’s going on?’” Mr. Kronenberger testified that neither he nor Mr. Thomas went into this meeting with any intention of terminating Petitioner’s employment. However, two minutes into the conversation, Petitioner was on his feet, pointing fingers, and shouting that he knew what they were trying to do and he was not going to let them do it. He was quitting. Petitioner walked out of the office. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Kronenberger to walk Petitioner out of the store so that there would be no incidents on the floor with the other employees. Mr. Kronenberger accompanied Petitioner to the fragrance area, where Petitioner retrieved some personal items, then walked him to the door. They shook hands and Petitioner left the store. Mr. Kronenberger was firm in his testimony that no security personnel were involved in removing Petitioner from the store. Petitioner was not accused of stealing. His parting with Mr. Kronenberger was as cordial as it could have been under the circumstances.6/ After Petitioner left his office, Mr. Thomas prepared a “Separation Data Form” confirming Petitioner’s dismissal for “violation of company work rules.” The specific ground stated for Petitioner’s dismissal was violation of the Associate Work Rule forbidding insubordination. Mr. Kronenberger testified that in his mind the “insubordination” included not just the scene with Ms. Yao, but the explosion Petitioner had in the meeting with Mr. Thomas. At the time of Petitioner’s dismissal, Mr. Kronenberger was unaware of Petitioner’s HIV status. Mr. Kronenberger credibly testified that Petitioner’s HIV status had nothing to do with his dismissal from employment at Dillard’s. Mr. Gustason, who apparently was aware of Petitioner’s HIV status, was not at work on November 28, 2015, and was not involved in the events leading to Petitioner’s dismissal. Mr. Thomas, the assistant store manager, made the decision to treat Petitioner’s situation as a dismissal for cause.7/ Mr. Kronenberger’s testimony is credited regarding the circumstances of Petitioner’s dismissal and as to the general tenor of Petitioner’s employment at Dillard’s. Petitioner was constantly in the middle of conflicts, but never alleged until after his termination that these conflicts were due to his national origin or disability. Petitioner’s demeanor at the hearing was extremely emotional. He cried frequently and seemed baffled that Mr. Kronenberger was disputing his testimony. The undersigned finds that Petitioner’s version of events was genuine in the sense that it conveyed Petitioner’s subjective experience of his employment as he recollected it. However, the undersigned must also find that Petitioner’s subjective experience did not conform to objective reality. However, Petitioner internalized the experiences, it is not plausible that Dillard’s employees were yelling at Petitioner without provocation, hitting him, throwing shoes at him, and calling him a “damn Mexican” in front of customers. It is not plausible that Petitioner’s superiors would ignore such flagrant discriminatory behavior when it was brought to their attention. Petitioner’s feelings about the motives of his co-workers and superiors cannot substitute for tangible evidence of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner offered the testimony of two Dillard’s customers, neither of whom saw behavior from Petitioner’s co- workers that could be attributed to anything beyond personal dislike or sales poaching. Santiago Garcia testified that he noted other Dillard’s employees rolling their eyes at Petitioner, but he thought the reason might be that Petitioner talked too loud. Mr. Garcia also saw “bad looks” from other employees and believed that the atmosphere among Dillard’s employees was “tense,” but did not offer a reason for the tension. Claudia Pimentel testified, through a Spanish language interpreter, that she always went directly to Petitioner because she speaks only Spanish and Petitioner was able to help her. Ms. Pimentel noted that a female Dillard’s employee got mad at Petitioner because he sold Ms. Pimentel a cream from her counter. During the years 2015 and 2016, the Dillard’s store in Governor’s Square Mall terminated two other sales associates for insubordination. Neither of these sales associates was Mexican. One was a black female and the other was a black male. Neither of these sales associates had a known disability at the time of termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason given by Dillard’s for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Dillard’s stated reason for his termination was a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s national origin or disability. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Dillard’s discriminated against him because of his national origin or his disability in violation of section 760.10.
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 Higbee Company, d/b/a Dillard’s, did not commit any unlawful employment practices, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2017, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October 2017.
Findings Of Fact During the fall of 1974 OWHEA, an affiliate of the National Education Association, commenced efforts to organize instructional personnel employed by OWJC. By letter dated February 20, 1975, directed to Dr. J. E. McCracken, the President of OWJC, the OWHEA requested recognition as the bargaining agent for all full-time, regularly employed, certified instructional personnel. (PERC Exhibit 5). By letter dated February 26, 1975 the request for voluntary recognition was denied. On March 3, 1975 the OWHEA filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission through which recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel at OWJC was sought. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). A hearing was scheduled to be conducted on May 1, 1975. On that date the parties entered into an Agreement for Certification Upon Consent Election. In accordance with the Agreement the election was conducted on September 18, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). On September 25, 1975 the Public Employees Relations Commission, through its Chairman, verified the results of the election. By a vote of 41 to 27 OWJC employees within the prospective bargaining unit rejected representation by the OWHEA. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). On July 21, 1975, approximately two months prior to the election, the OWHEA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission. Subsequent to the election the OWHEA filed Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. By order of the Acting General Counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission, the two matters were consolidated and a hearing was conducted before the undersigned on January 14, 15, 26, and 27, 1976. On November 7, 1974, Dr. J. E. McCracken, President of OWJC, and a voting member of the Board of Trustees of OWJC, called a meeting of the Faculty Council. The Faculty Council is a group of five faculty members, who meet periodically with the President and members of the President's staff to consider faculty problems and to provide recommendation to the President. At least four of the five members of the Faculty Council at that time were members of OWHEA. The meeting was called to discuss solicitation and distribution guidelines in light of the collective bargaining law, Florida Statutes Sections 447.201 et seq. which would go into effect January 1, 1975. Dr. McCracken wished to adopt guidelines for solicitations by employee organizations in the interim period before comprehensive guidelines were adopted by the Public Employees Relations Commission. The November 7 meeting lasted for longer than one hour. Every member of the council made some contribution to the meeting. Solicitation guidelines substantially similar to those ultimately promulgated, (See: PERC Exhibit 2) were discussed. No disagreement to such guidelines was expressed at the meeting. A solicitation guideline policy was then drafted by President McCracken, and was presented to the faculty at a November 19, 1975 meeting. At the hearing several members of the Faculty Council testified that they were surprised to see the guidelines as they were presented at the November 19 faculty meeting, but none of them spoke in opposition to the guidelines at the meeting. If members of the Faculty Council opposed the guidelines, their opposition crystalized after the November 9 Council meeting, and was not openly expressed at the November 19 faculty meeting. There may not have been a full consensus in support of the guidelines among members of the Faculty Council as expressed in the body of the solicitation guidelines; however, President McCracken was justified in believing that there was such a consensus since no opposition was expressed. The solicitation guidelines were later amended by a memorandum from Dr. McCracken to all personnel dated June 2, 1975. (See: PERC Exhibit 16). The solicitation guidelines presented to the faculty meeting on November 19, 1975 provide in part as follows: "The Faculty Council and the President of the College were in full consensus in affirming the following specifics relative to solicitations on the campus: College personnel are not to be subjected to solicitation by any groups or persons on-campus between 7:30 A.M. and 10:30 P.M. except in the following specified dining areas and during the scheduled lunch hour of any given employee. Meetings and activities on-campus shall be scheduled through the office of the Director of Community Services, Mr. James Rhoades, who maintains the official calendar of College activities and the official room-use schedule. All meetings and activities on the College campus, as a public institution campus, are intended to be in full compliance with the Sunshine Law of the State of Florida. On-campus distribution of any literature and notices which are not official College business shall be by placement on or in the square counters in the front lobby of the Administration Building. Posters and notices of interest to personnel of the College shall be placed in the covered main bulletin board in the front lobby of the Administration Building. Mr. Rhoades, Director of Community Services, will receive such materials for posting and will assure that such notices will be posted and that outdated and obsolete notices are removed." The guideline is signed by Dr. McCracken followed by the following note: "Although inadvertently overlooked in the discussions with the Faculty Council, it is, of course, obviously understood that College clerical services, postage, materials production services, telephones, and equipments are to be used only for official College business." The amendments to the solicitation guidelines distributed in the June 2, 1975 memorandum define "working time" as follows: "Okaloosa-Walton Junior College is officially opened to its clientele and operating with them from 7:30 through 10:30, Monday through Friday. Working time is that time when an employee has any scheduled obligations, whether instructional or non-instructional, to perform with respect to his position at the College including but not limited to all such obligations as required office hours, committee work, conferences, and official meetings." Solicitation is defined in the memorandum in pertinent part as follows: "College personnel are not to be subjected to solicitation by any groups or persons on- campus for any purpose when any person involved in the solicitation is on "working time" as defined above. Meetings and activities on-campus shall be scheduled through the office of the Director of Community Services, who maintains the official calendar of College activities and the official room-use schedule. All meetings and activities on the College campus, as a public institution, are intended to be in full compliance with the Sunshine Law of the State of Florida. On-campus distribution of any literature or notices which are not official College business shall not take place during working time, nor shall it take place in areas where actual work of public employees is normally performed. Posters and notices of interest to personnel of the College shall be placed in the covered main bulletin board in the front lobby of the Administration Building. The Director of Community Services will receive such materials for posting and will assure that such notices will be posted and that outdated and obsolete notices are removed. College clerical services, postage, materials production services, telephones, and equipments are to be used only for official College business and shall not be used in any way for solicitation or for promotion of unsanctioned activities or of organizations other than those which are official elements of the College or in which the College holds institutional membership." The November guidelines were not literally followed by the OWHEA, either in its efforts to secure the requisite showing of interest or in the election campaign. Many solicitations occurred outside of the designated areas during the proscribed hours, and several occurred during times when the person being solicited was actually on duty. The President of OWJC had reason to believe that the guidelines were being violated, but no effort to enforce them was ever initiated. Members and officers of the OWHEA who were involved in the organizational effort and in the election campaign gave various interpretations of the solicitation guidelines that were issued in November, and the amendments to the guidelines issued in June. The guidelines prohibited certain activities which the OWHEA considered desirable; however, the OWHEA was able to engage in a wide variety of campaign activities, and an even wider variety of activities that were available were not utilized. During the campaign members of the OWHEA spoke freely in support of the organization to non-members in the hallways, in the lunchroom, in the parking lot, and in faculty offices. The OWHEA distributed numerous bulletins, newsletters, and assorted memoranda to persons in the prospective bargaining unit. Material was delivered through the mails directly to OWJC, where it was placed in the faculty mailboxes; was delivered through the mails to the residences of faculty members; and was placed at a distribution point in close proximity to the mailboxes so that it could be read by any interested person. Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 4 - 16 are all examples of such literature that was distributed prior to the election. Respondent's Exhibits 17 - 23 are examples of literature distributed after the election. The total volume of materials distributed by the OWHEA through these avenues exceeded materials distributed by the Respondent. OWHEA members personally contacted many persons within the prospective bargaining unit. Many of the authorization cards which were forwarded by the OWHEA to the Public Employees Relations Commission with the representation certification petition were signed on campus as a result of such direct communications. The OWHEA conducted several off campus meetings. Members of the prospective bargaining unit were urged to attend such meetings and several did attend. There was testimony that these meetings were not well attended; however, there was no testimony offered from which it could be concluded that members of the prospective bargaining unit could not have attended these meetings or were not adequately apprised of them. On the contrary it appears that members of the prospective bargaining unit were apprised of the meetings and could have attended them if they desired. The OWHEA was allowed the opportunity to speak at a faculty meeting with respect to the benefits that might be obtained from the collective bargaining process, and with respect to the desirability of having the OWHEA as the bargaining agent. The OWHEA declined to avail itself of this opportunity. Mr. Chilton Jensen delivered a brief statement at that meeting. A copy of the statement was received into evidence as PERC Exhibit 3. Several campaign devices were available to the OWHEA, but were not utilized. The OWHEA could have distributed literature by placing it on automobiles in the faculty parking lot. There was testimony that this would have been too time consuming, but there was also testimony that on some days faculty members had as much as two hours of time which was not devoted to official OWJC duties. At least one bulletin board was available to the OWHEA for placing posters. While undoubtedly not the most effective campaign device, as noted by several OWHEA members, it is one, and could only have assisted in advancing the OWHEA position. While the OWHEA requested that certain meeting facilities be provided for presentations to be given during the lunch hours, no request was made to, conduct such meetings in the area set out in the solicitation guidelines. The only reason for failing to request use of these facilities given by OWHEA officials was that students were often present in that area, and that they did not feel it appropriate to "air the dirty wash" in an area where students were present. No request was made to alleviate this problem by setting aside, an area in the lunchroom. It was suggested that use of this facility would not have been appropriate because managerial officials of the OWJC would be able to attend the meeting. This was not, however, a concern of the OWHEA at the time that it was requesting meeting facilities. In its letter requesting use of other meeting facilities, the OWHEA invited Dr. McCracken, the chief managerial employee of the OWJC to attend the meeting. (PERC Exhibit 9). As stated above, the OWHEA was able to distribute materials to members of the prospective bargaining unit through the mails. There was absolutely no limitation upon such distributions. Distributions could have been timed so that members of the prospective unit would have received whatever amount of literature at whatever time the OWHEA deemed appropriate. No evidence was presented as to whether any telephone solicitations were conducted. This was a campaign device that was available to the OWHEA. Several campaign devices were not available to the OWHEA under the solicitation guidelines. The OWHEA was prohibited from using the campus mail system. The OWJC maintains a mailroom. Each faculty member has a mail box with a combination, in which many college related bulletins are placed. Mail directed to a faculty member through the Junior College is placed in these boxes. The OWHEA desired to use this mailing system so that it could distribute literature to members of the faculty without having to pay mailing expenses. The solicitation guidelines restricted the availability of meeting rooms. On one occasion the OWHEA requested a meeting room other than the lunch area designated in the solicitation guidelines. (See: PERC Exhibits 9, and 12) The request was denied by Dr. McCracken on behalf of the Respondent. (See: PERC Exhibits 10 and 13). The request was denied for several reasons, and indeed, as noted by one OWHEA official, would have been very difficult to grant as framed. It is apparent that any request for a meeting facility other than in the area designated in the solicitation guidelines would have been denied. The OWHEA was not permitted to make a presentation to any faculty meeting, other than at the November meeting. The OWHEA was not permitted to solicit members, or to campaign during working hours, and was not permitted to use the staff or facilities of the OWJC to assist in the campaign effort. The Respondent, under the direction of Dr. McCracken, engaged in an active campaign in opposition to collective bargaining and in opposition to the OWHEA. At a meeting of the faculty in February, 1975, Dr. McCracken read a statement which was received into evidence as PERC Exhibit 6. Counsel for the Respondent made an additional presentation at the meeting. Attendance at the faculty meeting during these presentations was optional. No compunction existed for any faculty member to stay during the presentation. The Respondent distributed numerous memoranda to its faculty respecting the collective bargaining process and OWHEA. Such memoranda were received into evidence as PERC Exhibits B, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. Additional memoranda were distributed subsequent to the election. (See: PERC Exhibits 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38.) The Respondent did not make any further presentations at faculty meetings, and engaged in no personal contact campaign. Members of the proposed unit who opposed collective bargaining spoke to undecided members of the proposed unit, but there was no evidence from which it could be concluded that there was any connection between that activity and the administration of OWJC. In support of their contention that the Respondent engaged in a campaign of misrepresentation, the general counsel and the OWHEA cite PERC Exhibits B, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and PERC Exhibit 8 is a memorandum that was distributed to the OWJC faculty through the faculty mail system on February 26, 1975. In this memorandum Dr. McCracken treats the request from the OWHEA for recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel at OWJC as an effort by OWHEA to avoid the election process. In fact, such a request is a condition precedent to the filing of a representation certification petition requesting an election when the employee organization claims that it represents more than fifty percent of the persons in the proposed unit, as did the OWHEA. Dr. McCracken's characterization of the request for exclusive representation totally ignores the fact that the OWHEA was required to make the request. There was, however, ample opportunity for the OWHEA to respond to Dr. McCracken's memorandum, and to set the record straight. The February 26, 1975 memorandum is not such as would have had any effect upon the election, which was conducted some seven months later. PERC Exhibit 14 is a memorandum dated April 11, 1975 from Dr. McCracken directed to the faculty of OWJC through the faculty mails. The memorandum essentially states the Respondent's position in opposition to collective bargaining and to the OWHEA. The following language from the exhibit was cited as a misrepresentation: . . . I would like to state my perception of where we are and where we are going from here. Essentially, it is very simple. We now have two facets of activity going on: (1) the intrusion into normal activities of a representation petition submitted to PERC by Mr. Eugene Stafford, local Director of UNISERV/FUSA/NEA and agent for OWHEA, this development forcing, from here on, active use by the College and by OWHEA of essential, specialized legal assistance; and (2) our ever-present, on-going obligations to the regular planning, services, functions, and commitments of this College." This memorandum constitutes at most an extravagant statement in opposition to the collective bargaining process. PERC Exhibit 21 is a memorandum from Dr. McCracken A directed to all instructional personnel, distributed through the campus mail system, dated September 9, 1975. In the memorandum Dr. McCracken sought to refute certain statements made by the OWHEA in a memorandum dated August 12, 1975 (Respondent's Exhibit 14). In its August 12 memorandum, the OWHEA asserted that the collective bargaining process resulted in substantial gains to members of the faculty in the public schools in Okaloosa County. Many of the "gains" set out in the OWHEA memorandum were subjects of collective bargaining in the Okaloosa County Public Schools; however, they were also matters which had already been a part of the teachers' contracts and were not gains at all. Far from containing misstatements, Dr. McCracken's September 9, 1975 memorandum accurately explains the exaggerations contained in OWHEA's August 12 memorandum. PERC Exhibits 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 are similar to PERC Exhibit 14. They set out what can be called an exaggerated view in opposition to the collective bargaining process and to the OWHEA. The OWHEA distributed materials which present an exaggerated view in favor of the OWHEA. The memoranda distributed by the Respondent did not result in any subversion of the election process. The OWHEA had adequate opportunity to respond to all of the alleged misrepresentations except for those set out in PERC Exhibits 24, 25, and 27. The election was conducted on September 18, 1975. PERC Exhibit 24 was distributed on September 15, 1975; PERC Exhibit 25 `was distributed one September 16, 1975, and PERC Exhibit 27 was distributed on September 18, 1975. Because of the inability of OWHEA to directly respond to these memoranda, special attention should be given them. In PERC Exhibit 24 Dr. McCracken asserted that information distributed by the OWHEA respecting average teachers salaries at the OWJC was inaccurate. No evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the information set out in PERC Exhibit 24 was inaccurate. PERC Exhibit 25 contains a statement that the OWHEA's national affiliate was supporting legislation that would require non-union members in a certified bargaining unit to pay a fee to the union in an amount equal to membership dues. The NEA was not supporting such legislation. This misrepresentation was not substantial, and would have had appeal only to persons who did not wish to have the OWHEA serve as its bargaining representative. PERC Exhibit 27 contains the following language: "The Board of Trustees and the President over the past months - almost a year now - have diligently resisted many harassments in order to bring to you today your right to vote secretly . . ." Dr. McCracken had not intended the word "harassments" to refer to activity of the OWHEA. While the word "harassments" might be construed as derogatory of the OWHEA, any member of the faculty of the OWJC would have already been aware that Dr. McCracken held a derogatory opinion of the OWHEA. To the extent that the term "harassments" is a misstatement, it is not one that would have had any material effect upon the outcome of the election. All of the various memoranda distributed by Dr. McCracken which contained exaggerated language, or statements in opposition to collective bargaining and the OWHEA, considered together, would not have had an improper, substantial effect upon the electoral process. As set out above, the OWHEA was not permitted to use the OWJC mailing system to distribute information to members of the faculty, and was not permitted to make presentations to any regular faculty meetings subsequent to November, 1975. The Florida Association of Community Colleges; however, was permitted to use the mailing system and was given time during the faculty meetings to make presentations, including solicitations for membership. The FACC is an organization whose general purpose is to advance the Florida Public Community College program. A copy of the FACC bylaws which set out the purposes of the FACC was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 27. The Florida Association of Community Colleges is not an employee organization within the meaning of the Public Employees Relations Act. Dr. McCracken advanced the FACC as an organization worthy of support by members of the faculty; however, in doing that he was not a lending support to an employee organization opposing the OWHEA, but rather to a general professional organization. Other organizations were permitted to use the facilities at OWJC to make presentations. Such organizations included the American Association of University Women, a local concert group, armed services recruiters, and a politician. No employee organizations were permitted use of campus facilities for meetings, and those organizations which were permitted use of the facilities made educational, cultural, or community oriented presentations. In its motion to dismiss the objections case, the Respondent has asserted that the General Counsel conducted no investigation of the allegations of the OWHEA's petition. The General Counsel was invited to submit an affidavit respecting what, if any, investigation was undertaken. No affidavit was submitted, and it was asserted at the hearing that the investigation conducted in connection with the unfair labor practice case, and the hearing itself constituted the investigation. In its objections petition, the OWHEA asserted that the Respondent failed to deliver a list of teachers to the OWHEA as required in the Certification Upon Consent Election Agreement. Such a list was mailed to Chilton Jensen, who had been listed as the president of the OWHEA within the time period set out in the agreement. Mr. Jensen was ill, and he did not pick up his mail until after the period set out in the agreement. He then delivered it to Mr. Leatherwood, who had become President of the OWHEA. The failure of the OWHEA to obtain a copy of the list within the period set out in the agreement was not the fault of the Respondent. No substantial competent evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Respondent coerced, threatened, or intimidated any members of the prospective collective bargaining unit; that the members of the collective bargaining unit were unable to inform themselves with respect to the merits of the collective bargaining system, and the OWHEA; or that the OWHEA was unable to disseminate information to members of the prospective collective bargaining unit. The Respondent did not interfere with, restrain or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Public Employees Relations Act.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, City of Edgewater (the City), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her age, gender, and/or disability by the manner in which the City terminated Petitioner’s employment. Also at issue is whether Petitioner’s termination was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaints regarding discriminatory conduct by her immediate superior.
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a white female who was over the age of 40 during the events relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner was hired by the City as a part-time animal control officer on June 9, 1993. At the time Petitioner was hired, animal control was part of the City’s police department. On October 15, 1993, Petitioner was transferred to a full-time position as records clerk/telecommunicator in the police department. Petitioner maintained the department’s records and answered all police calls, including 911 calls. She dispatched officers and emergency personnel. Petitioner testified that this was a desk job with no real physical requirements beyond walking to a window to deal with members of the public. She received excellent evaluations and stayed in this position until early 1999. While working this job, Petitioner obtained police training at Daytona State College. Upon graduation, Petitioner applied for a job as a police officer with the City. On February 19, 1999, the City hired Petitioner as a police officer. Petitioner was promoted to sergeant on May 7, 2006, and served in that position until her demotion following an altercation with a female detainee in the City’s holding facility on June 16, 2011. Petitioner was continuously employed by the City for 18 years and eight months. During her employment, she received regular pay increases and numerous commendations. Over the years, she received three written warnings and one demotion, from sergeant to officer after the incident on June 16, 2011. Chief of Police David Arcieri characterized her disciplinary record as good in light of Petitioner’s length of service. During the course of her employment, Petitioner had multiple health problems. In 2001, during work-related mountain bike training, Petitioner suffered a fall that badly injured her shoulder.3/ Petitioner had surgery and recalled that she missed at least four months of work. When she came back to work, Petitioner was unable to perform the normal duties of a police officer. She was allowed to return in a light-duty desk position, working with the City’s chief of grants. She worked in this position for approximately six months before returning to regular duty as a police officer. In 2004, Petitioner was diagnosed with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). Petitioner testified that she freely discussed her condition with her co-workers because of the problems she had establishing a medication regime that did not cause allergic reactions. Until late 2011, she was forced to give herself painful injections in the stomach. She now has a port implanted that allows her to take the medications via infusion. Chief Arcieri confirmed that it was common knowledge in the City’s police force that Petitioner had lupus. Petitioner testified that she missed very little work because of the lupus and RA. She requested no accommodations in the workplace for these conditions. Sometime in 2009, Petitioner underwent neck surgery to repair a disc “that was almost gone.” Petitioner recalled discussing her condition with then-Sergeant Arcieri4/ prior to the surgery. They talked about the fact that her doctors were unsure whether the neck condition had been brought on by her RA. Petitioner testified that she was out of work for two or three months due to this surgery, but did not require a light-duty assignment when she reported back to her position. On September 22, 2009, Petitioner was at work conducting a witness interview when her nose began bleeding uncontrollably. A fellow officer drove her to the emergency room. Another city employee came to the emergency room to make sure Petitioner got home safely. At the hospital, Petitioner was diagnosed with hypertension. She missed several days of work and was placed on medications to control her blood pressure. City Manager Tracey Barlow testified that he was contemporaneously aware of Petitioner’s hypertension. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodations for her hypertension. In early 2010, Petitioner was out of work for a time with uncontrolled vomiting and diarrhea. Petitioner’s physician, Dr. Beatrice Bratu, diagnosed her condition as stress-induced colitis. Petitioner testified that her treatments for the colitis lasted about three months but that she was back at work within a few weeks. On March 15, 2010, Personnel Director Donna Looney addressed the following email to Petitioner: We are very pleased to see you back and doing well! I am in receipt of a note from Dr. Bratu which indicated you may return to work. I want to stress that we understand the necessity for you to follow your doctor’s instructions. No restrictions are noted; therefore you are allowed to continue your regular duties. Please be advised that you have a continuing obligation not to work when you are feeling impaired (fatigue, weakness, pain, etc.). It is City policy that if you expect to have any adverse side effect while taking medication, you must inform your supervisor, and you are never to drive a City vehicle when you are feeling impaired. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodation related to her colitis. On June 16, 2011, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with a 28-year-old female detainee at the City police station. Several officers submitted witness statements about the incident and police station video cameras captured the essentials of the acts that occurred. The video recording did not include sound. The detainee, J.G., had been arrested for battery and was by all accounts heavily intoxicated and belligerent. J.G. asked to go to the bathroom. Petitioner let her out of the cell and escorted her to the bathroom. The video shows Petitioner standing in the open doorway of the bathroom, waiting for J.G. to finish. Petitioner told the police department’s internal affairs investigator that J.G. asked for tampons. Petitioner responded that the police department did not keep such items and that she would have to clean up as best she could with the materials available in the bathroom. J.G. replied that she could not put back on the shorts she had been wearing. She stated they were not her shorts and they were bloody. Petitioner told her that she had to put the shorts back on. At this point, the video shows the shorts flying out of the bathroom and landing behind Petitioner, who kicked them back into the bathroom and stepped into the doorway. J.G., stepping into camera range, picked up the shorts and threw them at Petitioner. The shorts hit Petitioner along her beltline. Petitioner took a step forward and struck J.G. in the face with her open right hand. J.G. pushed forward momentarily, but retreated into the bathroom as Petitioner continued to advance. At this point, Officer Eric Selvaggio entered the picture to assist. For a period of roughly forty seconds, all three people were inside the bathroom, invisible to the camera. The doors then opened, and the three emerged. The two police officers guided the handcuffed J.G. toward a point outside the range of the camera. J.G. wore only a shirt and underwear. The video next cut to an empty holding cell. Petitioner and Officer Selvaggio entered the picture, guiding the handcuffed J.G. toward the cell. J.G. continued to struggle with the officers. She dropped to the ground. The officers pulled her to her feet and pushed her into the cell. J.G. kicked at Petitioner. The camera angle made it impossible to see whether there was contact, but Petitioner stated at the time, and has consistently maintained since the incident, that J.G. kicked her in the stomach. Immediately after the kick, Petitioner attempted to push her way past Officer Selvaggio toward J.G. Petitioner drew back her right fist but Officer Selvaggio’s left arm blocked her from throwing a punch. He pushed Petitioner away and then secured J.G. in the holding cell. Though there is no sound on the video, it is clear that Petitioner and J.G. continued an animated conversation after J.G. was locked in the cell. Multiple police witnesses recalled Petitioner calling J.G. a “fucking bitch.” Petitioner and the other officers on duty went out the back door to discuss the situation. The video appears to show Petitioner performing a joking reenactment of her attempted punch at J.G. Officer Selvaggio stated to the investigator that Petitioner told him she might not charge J.G. for the incident, but he replied that under the circumstances it would be best if she did follow through with charges. Petitioner filled out a charging affidavit against J.G., charging her with battery on a law enforcement officer, in violation of section 784.07(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In her charging affidavit, Petitioner wrote as follows, in relevant part, verbatim: On June 16, 2011 at approximately 12:45 a.m., the defendant, [J.G.] was in police custody at the Edgewater Police Department on a battery charge from a previous police call. The defendant requested to use the bathroom and was escorted to the bathroom by me. The defendant was upset over being arrested, while sitting on the toilet, she kicked off her shorts and threw them out of the restroom stating that she was not putting them back on as they were not hers and were soiled from her menstrual cycle. I pushed the shorts back into the restroom with my foot and advised her she needed to put them back on, she screamed she was not going to. When the defendant rose from the toilet, she picked up the shorts and threw them directly into my face, striking me with the shorts. The defendant then pushed herself up against the sink and began calling me a bitch and telling me again she was not putting the shorts back on and she was leaving. I entered and attempted to get her out of the bathroom, she began to punch at me. Myself and Officer Selvaggio, who was standing nearby, grabbed hold of the defendant in an effort to get her out of the bathroom. The defendant struggled against us, before we got her to the floor and secured her. As we were getting her back into the cell, the defendant threw herself onto the bench and kicked out striking me in the stomach with her right foot. The defendant was left in the cell with no shorts on and in handcuffs . . . . It should be noted that Petitioner’s charging affidavit states that J.G. hit her in the face with the bloody shorts, when in fact the shorts hit Petitioner in the waist area. Petitioner failed to mention that she slapped J.G. in the bathroom or that Petitioner attempted to punch J.G. in the holding cell. Chief Arcieri testified that when he came in later that morning, he reviewed all of the reports filed since the previous day. Petitioner’s report caught his eye because it involved battery on a law enforcement officer inside the station house. He instructed his assistant to pull the video of the incident and make one copy for him and one for Petitioner. When he saw the video, Chief Arcieri notified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”) and requested an investigation. Chief Arcieri testified that he went to FDLE because he thought criminal charges could ensue in the case and that he does not like to investigate criminal matters internally. He also ordered an internal affairs investigation, but placed it on hold pending the outcome of the FDLE investigation. On June 21, 2011, Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave for the duration of the investigations. J.G. refused to cooperate with the FDLE investigators. Without a victim willing to go forward, no criminal charges could be brought against Petitioner. The FDLE investigation was dropped. The internal affairs investigation was completed on August 15, 2011. The investigator’s written report concluded as follows: Sgt. Winston did commit the act of perjury on an official felony charging affidavit. Sgt. Winston did in fact using her hand strike a prisoner in the face which caused her to fall back onto the sink. Sgt. Winston did reach her right arm over the shoulder of Officer Selvaggio in an attempt to strike a handcuffed prisoner which Officer Selvaggio was attempting to secure inside the holding cell. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by removing a prisoner, removing the prisoner’s handcuffs without another officer present and allowed the prisoner to use the restroom. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Policy & Procedure by entering the cell/booking area wearing both her issued side arm as well as her issued taser. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by openly criticizing the policy of securing any and all weapons prior to entering the booking/cell area when prisoners are present. This was done openly in the presence of fellow officers. Sgt. Winston violated City Policy and Procedure 12.02 Inappropriate/Unacceptable Behavior. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police Department Policy & Procedure Excessive force not resulting in injury. Petitioner was represented by counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) in defending herself against the allegations that resulted from the internal affairs investigation. Negotiations ensued between the City and Petitioner to resolve the matter short of litigation. A settlement agreement was reached and executed on August 24, 2011. Petitioner agreed to findings that some of the allegations were sustained.5/ Petitioner agreed to a demotion from sergeant to officer, effective August 19, 2011, with a resulting salary cut, and she agreed to attend anger management courses. On August 24, 2011, Chief Arcieri ordered Petitioner to report for duty at 6:00 a.m. the following morning. Petitioner called in sick and did not report for work on August 25, 2011. Ms. Looney, the personnel director, contacted Petitioner to find out why she was not reporting for work. Petitioner told Ms. Looney that she had sustained a back injury during the altercation with J.G. on June 16, 2011. Ms. Looney testified that this was the first she knew of Petitioner’s back injury. In a letter dated August 24, 2011, and received by Chief Arcieri on August 25, 2011, Petitioner’s personal workers’ compensation attorney wrote as follows, in relevant part: As you know, Ms. Winston is an 18 year employee with our [sic] agency who was recently in an altercation with a belligerent, drunken female on June 16, 2011. Ms. Winston was injured during the arrest but was placed on Administrative leave pending an internal investigation and the matter has not been reported as an injury as of yet. Ms. Winston was not aware that she had injured her low back immediately due to circumstances surrounding the altercation and the typical adrenaline response resulting from such an altercation. She thought she was just sore from being beat up a bit but as the weeks went by her condition worsened. A recent MRI has revealed two herniated discs in the lower back and Ms. Winston does require medical treatment for this work related injury. I am requesting at this time that the Agency immediately file a First Report of injury on behalf of Ms. Winston. This should be considered notice under Chapter 440 of the work related injury. In addition to the back injury, Ms. Winston now suffers from uncontrolled high blood pressure which is also disabling. Ms. Winston will be receiving a letter from her doctor indicating that she is unable to work due to her uncontrolled blood pressure at this juncture. That is also a work related claim under F.S. 112.18, more popularly known as the “Heart/Lung Bill.” This claim should also be processed and medical care should be provided as soon as possible. Please see that a First Report of Injury is completed with regard to this claim . . . . In a related claim, Ms. Winston also has a September 22, 2009 uncontrolled hypertension incident which resulted in hospitalization. As you know, the 2009 accident occurred while Ms. Winston was interviewing a sex crime victim. She was experiencing a severe headache and then had an uncontrollable nose bleed during the interview. The blood pressure reading at the time revealed her blood pressure was severely elevated and she was taken to the hospital. This incident should have triggered the immediate filing of a First Report of Injury under F.S. 112.18 as referenced above. For whatever reason, no First Report of Injury was filed but I am requesting that you file such a First Report of Injury immediately on Ms. Winston’s behalf and that you provide appropriate medical care for this condition . . . . Finally, Ms. Winston advises me that she has been under an internal investigation since the June, 2011 incident. This internal investigation appears to be entirely inappropriate given the circumstances surrounding this event and would appear to be part of an intimidation practice on the part of your Agency, which is in clear violation of F.S. 440.205. As I am sure you know, 440.205 prohibits the harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or termination of an employee by virtue of a workers’ compensation claim. Needless to say, Ms. Winston has numerous ongoing workers’ compensation claims and it appears that all of the harassment which she has been subjected to since the time the internal investigation was opened in this matter appears to be directly attributable to her ongoing workers’ compensation issues. It should also be noted that Ms. Winston is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of this recent altercation and all of the fallout related to same. As I am sure you are well aware, post traumatic stress disorder of this nature is also covered for First Responders under the auspices of F.S. 112.1815. I am requesting again that a First Report of Injury be filed relative to this issue and that appropriate medical care be provided. Ms. Winston is entitled to full pay as she was injured during an altercation with a violent individual. Full pay is appropriate pursuant to the provisions of F.S. 440.15(11). This means that she should be receiving a regular paycheck without deduction of sick or vacation bank time. Please see that the appropriate adjustment is made relative to payment of benefits and feel free to contact me with any question . . . . On August 30, 2011, Petitioner submitted three “Incident/Accident Information Forms” to the City in regard to her workers’ compensation claims. The first states that Petitioner suffered an injury to her lower back on June 16, 2011, when “an intoxicated combative prisoner . . . kicked me in my stomach just above my gun belt.” The second describes “stress” as the injury, dated June 28, 2011, caused by “constant harassment & belittled by Dave Arcieri.” The third form states that the date of injury was September 22, 2009, the injury was “blood pressure caused bleeding of the nose,” and describes the incident in terms similar to those used in the attorney’s letter of June 24, 2011. Petitioner testified that she still sees a psychiatrist once a month and goes to counseling every two weeks, but that she first sought mental health counseling in June 2011 because of problems with Chief Arcieri that dated from long before he became chief. She testified that “he would cuss me out, call me names, have people that were subordinates watching me and reporting back to him to make sure I didn’t breathe the wrong way.” Petitioner testified that Chief Arcieri’s animus toward her dated from her handling of a situation as a sergeant that led to the firing of an officer. A member of Petitioner’s squad reported to her that an officer in another squad stole property from a civilian during a traffic stop and then gave him the stolen item. Petitioner told the officer to file a report and drop the item into evidence and that she would meet with the other officer’s sergeant. The other officer’s sergeant required him to write a report. The officer lied in the report. Petitioner and the other sergeant brought the matter to the attention of their superiors. After an investigation, the department had no choice but to fire the officer. At a sergeants’ meeting a little while later, then- Administrative Sergeant Arcieri said that Petitioner was incompetent. If she had handled the situation differently, Sergeant Arcieri would not have had to fire a good officer. Petitioner asked how the department could tolerate a lying thief in its midst. Sergeant Arcieri told her that the officer could have been reprimanded in some other way. Petitioner testified that she was afraid of Chief Arcieri because of threats he made to her. He made it clear to her and to any other officer who thought about reporting something to Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow that these officials would let him know and the snitch would pay a price. On September 27, 2011, Petitioner sent an email to Michelle Grenham, Chief Arcieri’s secretary, stating that she would be unable to attend the anger management class required by the settlement agreement because she was undergoing major surgery on September 28 at Halifax Hospital in Daytona Beach. Ms. Grenham forwarded the email to Chief Arcieri and Ms. Looney. Petitioner underwent surgery on September 28, 2011, to repair the herniated discs in her back. Petitioner testified that prior to the surgery, she had difficulty walking, standing, bending at the waist, reaching, and climbing stairs due to the pain in her back. She was able to drive a car but only for short distances. She did not have full control of her bladder and bowels. She could only sleep by putting herself in a fetal position then bracing herself with pillows to keep her in that position. Petitioner described the surgery as less than a complete success. She had numbness in her right leg, was unable to bend, squat, kneel or stretch, and could not sit for very long. She eventually required spinal injections and the surgical insertion of a morphine pump in her stomach for pain in her spine. The morphine pump was still in place at the time of the hearing. Physicians also implanted a spinal cord stimulator in her back. She regained control of her excretory functions but was unable to walk without the use of a walker for several months and a cane thereafter. She wore a back brace most of the time. On November 29, 2011, Petitioner and her husband met with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney to discuss Petitioner’s medical situation and when she might return to work. The meeting was held at Petitioner’s request. Petitioner testified that she came into the meeting wearing a back brace and using a walker. Her husband had to drive her to the meeting. Petitioner testified that she asked for the meeting to find out if she could get an extended leave until her physician cleared her to go back to work. She also wanted to discuss Chief Arcieri’s harassment and belittling of her. At the meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Barlow that she didn’t know how long the healing process would take or whether she would need additional surgeries. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow told her it might be in her best interest to retire, in light of her age and her many health problems, including RA, lupus, hypertension, and now the back injury. Mr. Barlow stated that it seemed to him that Petitioner didn’t have anything that was going to go away, and that anyone with a back injury would have issues with it for life. Mr. Barlow asked whether Petitioner really thought she could ever come back as a police officer. Petitioner could only say that she didn’t know. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she hoped to reach retirement as a police officer but that she was willing to take another position with the City if her physical limitations kept her from returning to her former position. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she had a doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, and that Mr. Barlow promised to give her a leave of absence until that appointment. Petitioner’s husband, Ricky Winston, testified that at the meeting, his wife explained her injuries to Mr. Barlow and complained about Chief Arcieri’s constant ridicule and badgering. Mr. Winston stated that Mr. Barlow had a calendar and some paper and a calculator that he was using to diligently figure out something. It turned out that Mr. Barlow was calculating the date of Petitioner’s full retirement, with the idea of carrying her on the City’s employment roster until then. Mr. Winston testified that he left the meeting with the understanding that Mr. Barlow had agreed to grant Petitioner unpaid leave until she reached retirement. Mr. Winston recalled that Mr. Barlow listed all of Petitioner’s physical problems and asked why she didn’t just quit. Mr. Winston testified that this question was devastating to his wife because she never had any intention of leaving the job she loved. Ms. Looney testified that she did not recall Mr. Barlow mentioning any of Petitioner’s physical infirmities aside from her back injury. She did not recall Mr. Barlow using a calculator or calendar during the meeting or stating a date for Petitioner’s retirement. Ms. Looney stated that the goal was for Petitioner to return from her next doctor’s appointment with a physician’s statement as to when she could return to work, whether at full or light duty. Ms. Looney’s assumption, based on Petitioner’s condition, was that Petitioner would return to light duty at first. Mr. Barlow explicitly stated that the City wanted Petitioner to return to work, either full or light duty. Ms. Looney testified that she believed everyone at the meeting understood that Petitioner wanted to return to light duty and that the police department would try to find light duty restricted work for Petitioner when her doctor cleared her to return. Petitioner would remain on unpaid leave until her next doctor’s appointment in January 2012, at which time the City would need to know whether she could return to work. Petitioner had given Ms. Looney light duty notes from physicians in the past, which led Ms. Looney to assume that Petitioner understood what she needed to provide to the City. Ms. Looney stated that Mr. Barlow did not promise to keep Petitioner’s job open until May 2012. Mr. Barlow recalled almost nothing about the November 29, 2011, meeting with Petitioner. The only relevant specific testimony he provided on the subject was a denial that he told Petitioner that she could have a leave of absence until May 2012. However, given his lack of recall as to anything else that transpired in the meeting, Mr. Barlow’s testimony on this single point is not credited. The testimony of Petitioner and her husband regarding the statements made at the November 29, 2011, meeting is credited as to Mr. Barlow’s discussing Petitioner’s retirement and as to the fact that a discussion of Chief Arcieri’s behavior toward Petitioner occurred. On these points, Petitioner and Mr. Winston were credible, consistent witnesses. Ms. Looney’s testimony on these points was confused and equivocal. Mr. Barlow’s testimony was of little use at all as he claimed to remember virtually nothing about the meeting. However, the testimony of Petitioner and her husband cannot be credited as to the matter of Mr. Barlow’s promise to give Petitioner a leave of absence until May 3, 2012. Even disregarding Mr. Barlow’s convenient memory on this point, Petitioner’s testimony and that of her husband diverged on the ground for the leave of absence. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 3, 2012, because that was the date of her next doctor’s appointment. Mr. Winston vaguely recalled that a date was mentioned, either March or May, and that this date was based on Mr. Barlow’s calculation of Petitioner’s retirement date. Petitioner’s claim that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 2012 is further undercut by documentary evidence. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner sent Ms. Looney an email that stated as follows, in relevant part: Call me when you get the chance, I have prescriptions to pick up and get fitted for another brace, but I am going to need to take a leave of absence for a bit. Dr. Vinas [Petitioner’s surgeon] is not releasing me for duty at this time . . ., I will be going into a new brace and will be going to pain management for epidural injections in my spine. I have attached the letter from Dr. Vinas, as well as a copy of the medications I will be taking. My next appointment with him will be May 03/2012 unless the Dr. at the pain management center feels I need further surgery. I have no idea what to do about taking a leave, is there paperwork I need to file or just send you a letter? I would rather speak to you so if you are not busy please call me . . . . If the November 29, 2011, meeting had settled the question regarding Petitioner’s leave of absence until her doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, there would have been no need for Petitioner to write to Ms. Looney on January 26, 2012, to request a leave of absence and to inform Ms. Looney that her next doctor’s appointment would be on May 3. This email is consistent with the assertion made in the City’s February 21, 2012, letter terminating Petitioner’s employment that Mr. Barlow agreed to maintain the status quo until January 23, 2012, the date of Petitioner’s next scheduled doctor’s appointment.6/ In an email to Ms. Looney dated February 9, 2012, Petitioner stated, “[A]t this stage nothing surprises me anymore, I mean after all, I was supposed to be back on my feet and rarin to go by January, well that, as you know did not happen.” Petitioner closed a separate February 9, 2012, email to Ms. Looney with the following: “I forwarded this to [Mr. Barlow] also, but if he does not get it please let him know and tell him I said to keep his chin up as he always does and thank him for allowing me to take a leave of absence. Hopefully it won’t be much longer.” These emails cast further doubt on Petitioner’s claim that she had obtained a leave of absence until May 3, 2012, from Mr. Barlow at the November 29, 2011, meeting. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner was granted an unpaid leave of absence at the November 29 meeting, but only until her physician cleared her to return to work in some capacity, which Petitioner at the time anticipated would occur in January 2012. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Petitioner had used her twelve weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as of November 16, 2011. She had exhausted all of her accrued leave as of December 9, 2011, when she formally began the unpaid leave of absence. On January 1, 2012, Petitioner began receiving the City’s long-term disability benefits. Ms. Looney signed a letter to Dr. Federico Vinas, dated January 25, 2012, that stated as follows: Ms. Winston has informed us she is a patient of yours. She has a follow-up appointment January 26, 2012 in association with surgery perform [sic] by you. First, and foremost, enclosed you will find the Authorization to Disclose Medical Information form executed by Ms. Winston along with her job description (Police Officer) setting out the physical requirement. JoAnne is a valued City employee and it would be greatly appreciated if you verify her ability to perform any or all of these duties. Please provide us with specific restrictions or requirements necessary not to aggravate her condition and advise as to exactly when she can be cleared for full police officer’s duties. Your expertise is [sic] this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me for any further information you may need. The City’s job description for “Police Officer” reads as follows, in relevant part: PRIMARY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (all duties may not be performed by all incumbents) Patrols designated area of the City to preserve the peace, to prevent and discover criminal acts, and to enforce traffic regulations. Answers calls and complaints involving drunkenness, domestic disputes, assaults and batteries, missing persons, fires, thefts, accidents and other felonies and misdemeanors. Is responsible for being knowledgeable of the crime problem in assigned work area and developing strategies to combat the problem. Develop contacts and provide intelligence reports to detectives and administration. Makes preliminary investigations at crime scenes or incidents, protects and collects physical evidence, locates witnesses, interviews witnesses, makes arrests, assists paramedics with basic and advance [sic] life support. Interviews complaints [sic] and witnesses to obtain information about crimes; assists in investigative work. Prepares evidence for issuance of complaints and testifies as a witness in both civil and criminal court, transports prisoners. Patrols school zones and high activity areas when assigned. Assists motorists, directs traffic, investigates accidents, recovers stolen automobiles, prepares detailed reports, advise of and interpret laws and ordinances and provides general information to the public. Cooperates and coordinates with other law enforcement agencies and other components of the Criminal Justice System. * * * Environmental Conditions: Outdoor environment with exposure to discomforting and dangerous working conditions Office environment with exposure to computer operations Physical exertion in lifting/moving items weighing up to 50 pounds Routine travel is required along daily assigned routes Occasional overnight travel is required Other physical/mental requirements may apply * * * DISCLAIMER STATEMENT This job description is not intended as complete listing of job duties. The incumbent is responsible for the performance of other related duties as assigned/required. The physical demands described herein are representative of those that must be met to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. On January 26, 2012, Dr. Vinas forwarded to Ms. Looney a “Work Status” form regarding Petitioner that provided as follows: The above captioned patient is being treated in this office. The patient’s current work status is as follows: ( ) This patient was seen for treatment in our office today, please excuse any absence from work or school. (X) Based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time. Restrictions The patient may return to or continue to work with the following restrictions: ( ) No lifting over pounds. ( ) No excessive/repetitive bending or twisting. ( ) No prolonged sitting/standing or stooping. ( ) No excessive/repetitive pulling or pushing. ( ) No excessive activity with arms above shoulder level/overhead activity. ( ) ALL OF THE ABOVE ( ) Specific instructions ( ) This patient does not work at this time, but has been instructed to limit household/daily activities so as to remain within the above noted restrictions. ( ) This patient’s most recent evaluation supports a return to normal, routine work activities. The effective date of this Work Status is from the date noted above until further notice. If the patient’s current position of employment can be modified or other position found that conforms to the above restrictions, then the patient may return to work. If these restrictions cannot be maintained, I would recommend that the patient be excused from work until further notice. The patient’s work status will be evaluated on a visit-to-visit basis. Ms. Looney testified that based on Dr. Vinas’ Work Status form and her own conversations with Petitioner, she concluded that Petitioner was unable to return to work in any capacity, full or light duty, as of January 26, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner conceded that she could not have returned to work as a police officer on January 26, 2012. As set forth in Finding of Fact 54, supra, Petitioner notified Ms. Looney via email on January 26 that her next appointment with Dr. Vinas would be on May 3, 2012. In the same email, Petitioner asked for guidance on how to request a further leave of absence. The record of this proceeding includes a “Request for Leave of Absence” form in which Petitioner asked for a leave of absence commencing on January 26, 2012, with an “anticipated return date” of May 3, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner could not recall filling out this form. In her testimony, Ms. Looney indicated that she filled out the form for Petitioner. In the space in which the applicant is to set forth reasons for the leave of absence, Ms. Looney wrote, “See attached e-mail,” which was Petitioner’s January 26 email to Ms. Looney. Mr. Barlow denied the request for a further leave of absence by signature on the request form. The form does not indicate when Ms. Looney filled it out or when Mr. Barlow denied the request. The record is also unclear as to when Petitioner was notified that the City was denying her a further leave of absence. As late as February 9, 2012, Petitioner was still sending chatty emails to Ms. Looney regarding her medical condition and treatment, even asking Ms. Looney and Mr. Barlow to stop by her house for a visit if they are ever in the neighborhood. The first clear notice of the denial was in the termination letter set forth in the next paragraph. On February 21, 2012, Ms. Looney wrote the following letter to Petitioner: On November 29, 2011 Tracey Barlow, City Manager, and myself met with you to discuss your medical situation. You informed us your next doctor’s appointment was January 23, 2012, at which time you were hoping to be taken out of your brace. We agreed your continued employment with the City would depend on your returning to full duty and I would send Dr. Vinas a letter requesting exactly when you would be cleared to return to full duty as a police officer. Following your exam on January 26, 2012, you emailed me Dr. Vinas’ work status form which states “based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time.” You also stated your next appointment is May 3, 2012 and asked about taking a leave of absence. JoAnne, as you are aware your FMLA was met as of November 16, 2011; all your workers compensation claims have been denied;7/ you exhausted all of your accruals as of December 9, 2011 and have been granted unpaid leave of absence for the previous 74 days, and as of January 1, 2012 you began receiving the city’s long term disability benefit. Therefore, due to all the facts stated too [sic] include uncertain ability to return to work date, the City Manager has denied your request for leave of absence exceeding 30 days. As a result, consider this formal notification that your employment with the City of Edgewater ends effective February 24, 2012. It is very important that you contact the Personnel Department to make the necessary arrangements for your continued insurance coverage and any outstanding benefits/obligations you have with the City. Petitioner testified that at the time the City terminated her employment, she was still using a cane at home and a walker when she went out. There is no question that Petitioner was unable to return to full duty as a police officer on February 24, 2012. It was Petitioner’s contention that she could have come back to work for the police department in some form of light duty, as she had been allowed to do in the past, or in one of several jobs that the City advertised as open during her convalescence. Petitioner further contended that Ms. Looney should have sent Dr. Vinas the job descriptions of all open City jobs rather than just the job description of a police officer. As to the last point, Ms. Looney testified that it was standard practice for the City to send the physician an employee’s current job description for an assessment of the employee’s ability to return to work. Petitioner was treated no differently than any other City employee in this regard. Petitioner testified that she asked the City to bring her back in another position, but could offer no documentary evidence to support that testimony. She claimed that part of the discussion at the November 29 meeting with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney was her hope to retire as a police officer, but her desire to remain a city employee in whatever capacity she could. Ms. Looney testified that Petitioner never asked to work in any position other than that of police officer. Petitioner sent an email to Ms. Looney on December 26, 2011, asking whether Ms. Looney had “heard from my Dr. as to when I might be able to come back light duty or anything else?” Petitioner claims that the “anything else” portion of the email indicated her desire to be placed in any available job. Ms. Looney read the email as merely asking whether she had heard from Petitioner’s doctor, not as a job request. Ms. Looney’s reading is not unreasonable given that this was the only document Petitioner produced that even arguably contained a statement asking to be placed in a position other than police officer. In any event, whether Petitioner asked to be placed in another position is not decisive because of the blanket statement in Dr. Vinas’ work status form. Ms. Looney testified that she was unable to place Petitioner in any position because Petitioner’s physician had clearly stated that it was in her best interest to be excused from all work duties. It was always the City’s understanding that Petitioner would return to work in a light duty function at first, but in fact Petitioner was not cleared to work at all. Ms. Looney might have followed up with Dr. Vinas and inquired whether Petitioner was capable of doing clerical work or some other form of indoor, deskbound job, but Petitioner has pointed to nothing that required Ms. Looney to do so in light of Petitioner’s failure to request that accommodation. Ms. Looney testified that it was the City’s practice to hold off on discussing positions outside of an employee’s department until the employee has actually been cleared for light duty. No evidence was presented that the City treated Petitioner any differently than it treated other employees in a similar position. Similarly, Mr. Barlow might have agreed to extend Petitioner’s unpaid leave of absence to May 3, 2012, but he was not required to do so. At the time of her termination, Petitioner had used twelve weeks of FMLA leave and had been granted an additional 74 days of unpaid leave at Mr. Barlow’s discretion. Petitioner had been out on some form of medical leave for approximately six months. The City did not seize on some early opportunity to dismiss Petitioner; rather, the City had anticipated that Petitioner would return to work as a police officer and waited until Petitioner had exhausted all avenues of leave except a second discretionary unpaid leave of absence before deciding to terminate her employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that her termination was based on her age, gender, disability or perceived disability or that she was treated differently than other employees due to her age, gender, or disability. The lone indication of possible bias was Mr. Barlow’s statement at the November 29, 2011, meeting that Petitioner should consider retirement in light of her age and poor health. This statement may be easily read as a kindly (if poorly phrased) expression of concern for Petitioner. By her own testimony, Petitioner was on good terms with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney right up to the time of her termination. Petitioner sent solicitous emails to them as late as February 9, 2012. Petitioner’s feelings were hurt by the statement, but no other ill effect followed. She was granted the requested unpaid leave of absence and remained employed by the City for three more months. Petitioner testified that she never considered herself disabled and prided herself on not calling in sick or requesting accommodations for her conditions. Ms. Looney, Mr. Barlow, and Chief Arcieri all testified that they did not perceive Petitioner as having a disability that required accommodation in the workplace, though they were all aware of at least some of her chronic conditions such as lupus, RA, and hypertension. Petitioner claimed that Chief Arcieri carried on something of a vendetta against her. Chief Arcieri testified that prior to the demotion his relationship with Petitioner was friendly. When Petitioner’s house was flooded, Chief Arcieri took off work to help Mr. Winston solder a broken shower valve. After Petitioner was demoted, the relationship was less friendly but always professional. Chief Arcieri testified that he has never yelled at Petitioner or any other employee. He never called her names. The harassment and belittling that Petitioner alleged never happened. Chief Arcieri denied any sort of gender bias, pointing to the successful efforts his department has made to recruit and hire female officers. He denied ever making a comment about Petitioner’s age. He testified that he never considered Petitioner disabled while she was on active duty, despite her lupus. Petitioner never requested an accommodation and Chief Arcieri never saw the need for an accommodation. Chief Arcieri testified that at the close of the internal affairs investigation of the June 16, 2011, incident, he declined to sustain some of the allegations in order to protect Petitioner from a referral to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (“Commission”) for further discipline. Chief Arcieri assented to a request by the FOP that he submit a letter to the Commission stating that he believed the demotion was sufficient and asking the Commission not to take further action against Petitioner. Petitioner’s testimony against Chief Arcieri consisted of general statements that he harassed and belittled her. The only specific incident Petitioner recounted as to the source of any possible animus the chief bore toward her involved the firing of the officer who stole something during a traffic stop. Even if Petitioner’s version of events is accepted, Chief Arcieri’s anger toward Petitioner had nothing to do with her age, gender, or disability. He called her “incompetent.” He was upset about the manner in which Petitioner performed her job, which he believed led to the needless dismissal of a good officer. Whether Chief Arcieri was right or wrong to be angry at Petitioner, he did not engage in an act of discrimination. Even if the factfinder were to accept Petitioner’s description of Chief Arcieri as a bully on the job, there is no evidence aside from Petitioner’s general comments to indicate that she was singled out due to her age, gender or disability. It is telling that in testifying about her fear of reporting the bullying, Petitioner stated, “I was afraid. I was very afraid. David Arcieri made it not only clear to me, but to any other officer who even thought about going to report to Donna Looney or to Tracey Barlow, ‘Don’t worry, they’ll let me know and you will pay the price.’” This statement might be evidence that Chief Arcieri is a bully, a poor leader of his department, or a bad administrator. However, the statement does not establish that Chief Arcieri discriminated against Petitioner in a manner prohibited by section 760.10, Florida Statutes. If anything, the statement indicates that Petitioner found herself in the same boat as the other officers in her department.8/ Petitioner was aware of and understood the City’s nondiscrimination and no-harassment policy, the operative language of which states: The nature of some discrimination and harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless someone reports the discrimination or harassment. THUS, IF ANY EMPLOYEE BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IS BEING SUBJECTED TO ANY OF THESE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION OR HARRASSMENT, HE OR SHE MUST REPORT THIS TO THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR (386-424-2408) AND/OR CITY MANAGER (386-424-2404). If you are encountering a problem, please do not assume that the City is aware of it. The City is committed to ensuring that you have a pleasant working environment, and your assistance in bringing your complaints and concerns to our attention is a necessary first step. (Emphasis in original). The policy was included in the City’s personnel manual. Petitioner was provided with copies of the policy and amendments thereto several times during her tenure with the City. Petitioner conceded that, notwithstanding the policy, she did not report any incidents of harassment or discrimination to either Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow while she was actively working for the City. The allegations of intimidation and harassment made by Petitioner’s attorney in his August 24, 2011, letter and Petitioner’s allegation of “constant harassment and belittlement by Dave Arcieri” in her workers’ compensation incident report were made only after Petitioner had been off the job for eight weeks. Further, the specific allegations made by Petitioner’s attorney claimed that the City was in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes, not that Chief Arcieri or any other City employee was discriminating against or harassing Petitioner because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Petitioner sustained an injury to her back, most likely due to an altercation with a detainee on June 16, 2011, that necessitated surgery and a rehabilitation process that was not complete even at the time of the hearing in May 2014. The City carried Petitioner as an employee until all of her available leave had been used and then for another 74 days on an unpaid leave of absence. The City had no legal obligation to grant Petitioner an unpaid leave of absence but did so in the hope that Petitioner would be able to return to work in January 2012. As of the termination date of February 24, 2012, Petitioner had been away from her job for more than six months, had not been cleared by a physician to do work of any kind, and would not receive a physician’s clearance to work any sooner than May 3, 2012. The City could have consented to carry Petitioner even longer on an unpaid leave of absence, but it was not discriminatory for the City to make the business decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence to refute the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason given by the City for the termination of her employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City's stated reason for the termination of her employment was a pretext for discrimination based on her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City discriminated against her because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of the City.
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 the City of Edgewater did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 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 30th day of January, 2015.
