The Issue The issue for determination is what should be the award to Petitioner as to back pay, interest on the amount awarded, retirement system contributions, attorney's fees, and costs.
Findings Of Fact Had Petitioner retained her employment with Respondent, she would have earned $161,014.11. However, she actually earned $125,865.87. As a result of Petitioner's being terminated by Respondent, she lost income in the amount of $35,148.24. As a result of Petitioner's being terminated by Respondent, she lost pension contributions in the amount of $7,110.16. Consequently, Petitioner incurred a total monetary loss in the amount of $42,258.41. As to whether Petitioner incurred a break in service, no one from the Division of Retirement was called to testify. Consequently, no evidence was presented as to that issue. Petitioner suggests that she should receive credit for retirement from October 8, 1993, the date of her termination when she was a career service employee, to January 1995, the date that she again became a career service employee. Petitioner's suggestion is a reasonable resolution to the issue of break in service and should be implemented if there exists a break in service. No argument was presented to contradict that the statutory interest rate is ten percent per annum. Petitioner's counsel testified that she expended 437.80 hours on this matter and Petitioner's expert opined that such hours are reasonable. Respondent's expert opined that 241.30 hours are reasonable. Petitioner's expert did not review the index of the official file of this matter, which was maintained by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent's expert reviewed the index online. Further, Respondent's counsel reviewed the Verified Motion, but did not review the file of Petitioner's counsel. Respondent's expert questioned whether Petitioner's counsel personally performed the tasks in certain entries in the Verified Motion or whether a secretary performed the tasks, not whether the tasks were performed. However, Respondent's expert did not question, and did not indicate that he was required to question, Petitioner's counsel on such entries prior to hearing. Regarding such entries, Petitioner's counsel testified that she, not her secretary, performed the tasks in the entries. The testimony of Petitioner's counsel is found credible. Respondent's expert also questioned whether some entries contained adequate detail and specificity to support them, not whether the tasks were performed. The expert's testimony is found to be credible. The detail and specificity are inadequate in the entries identified by Respondent's expert. The lack of detail and specificity dictate a reduction in the number of hours requested by 98.30 hours. Consequently, the number of hours reasonably expended by Petitioner's counsel in this matter is 339.50. Petitioner and her counsel entered into a mixed agreement (Agreement) for representation at $250.00 per hour and for contingent fees. The Agreement provided in pertinent part as follows: agree to pay my attorneys from the proceeds of the gross recovery including costs and fees awarded attorney's fees, if applicable the following fee: * * * b. 40% of any recovery up to $1 million after the filing of an answer or the demand for appointment of arbitrator through the trial of the case; 40% becomes immediately applicable as soon as the matter is set for trial; * * * My attorneys shall be entitled to choose the fee at the hourly rate [$250.00 per hour] if I am entitled to an award of attorneys fees from the client or the contingency, whichever is greater. In the event there is a court-awarded fee which is more than the contingency fee, the attorneys shall keep the court-awarded fee in lieu of the contingency fee provided it is greater than the contingency fee and provided the court-awarded fee is actually collected. The hourly rate of $250.00 by Petitioner's counsel is within the range of rates for this matter. The hourly rate of $250.00 is reasonable. Therefore, the amount of reasonable attorney's fees in this matter is $84,875. Petitioner requests an enhancement of attorney's fees by one-third because of the uniqueness or unusualness of this matter. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that this matter is a unique or unusual case involving employment discrimination. Petitioner's counsel requests costs in the amount of $3,094.49. The Verified Motion contains taxable and non-taxable costs.2 Costs identified as fax or facsimile, postage, cab fare, and transportation to and from the courthouse should be excluded as inappropriate. As a result, the reasonable amount of costs is $2,844.48. Petitioner's Verified Supplemental Motion indicates additional attorney's fees associated with this hearing in the amount of $11,200.00, representing 44.80 hours (out of a total of 65.30 hours indicated) at a rate of $250.00 an hour; and additional costs associated with this hearing in the amount of $12,100.91. Regarding the supplemental attorney's fees, no explanation was submitted as to why the entries from June 6, 2003 to August 20, 2003 were not available at hearing. Notwithstanding, the supplemental documentation is sufficiently detailed and specific. As a result, the number of supplemental hours reasonably expended by Petitioner's counsel is 44.80, and the reasonable amount of supplemental attorney's fees is $11,200.00. Regarding the supplemental costs, the cost for the services rendered by Petitioner's experts are included in the $12,100.91. Petitioner obtained the services of an expert on attorney's fees and an expert on lost wages and benefits. For the services rendered by the expert on attorney's fees, the cost was in the amount of $1,775.00. For the services rendered by the expert on lost wages and benefits, the cost was in the amount of $9,006.25. The total cost for the services rendered by the experts is in the amount of $10,781.25. Again, costs identified as fax or facsimile, postage, cab fare, and transportation to and from the courthouse should be excluded as inappropriate. Additionally, regarding costs, Petitioner represents that the parties agreed to equally share in the expense of the court reporter for the hearing, which is shown on the Verified Supplemental Motion as $663.00. Respondent did not refute the representation. Consequently, the reasonable amount of supplemental costs is $12,054.91.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order as to back pay, interest on the amount awarded, retirement system contributions, attorney's fees, and costs: Ordering the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services n/k/a Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to pay Gloria Garcia (Garcia) back pay in the amount of $35,148.24. Ordering the Department to make contributions to the Florida Retirement System on behalf of Garcia in the amount of $7,110.16. Ordering the re-evaluation of Garcia's break in service by the Division of Retirement. Further, ordering that, if it is in compliance with and satisfies applicable statutes and rules of the Division of Retirement, Garcia receive credit in time for retirement from October 8, 1993, the date of her termination, to January 1995, the date that she again became a career service employee. Ordering the Department to pay to Garcia's counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $96,075.00 and costs in the amount of $14,899.39, totaling $110,974.39. Ordering the statutory interest rate of ten percent per annum be applied to the amounts awarded. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2003.
The Issue Does the Department of Corrections' Sexual Harassment Policy, as contained in the Pamphlet "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities", in a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy", and Chapter 7 of the Department's Personnel Procedures Manual, constitute umpromulgated rules, pursuant to Section 120.535 F.S.? Are existing Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4), and 33-4.003(22) and (24), F.A.C. invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority due to vagueness, pursuant to Section 120.56 F.S.?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a career-service employee working as a Parole Officer I for DOC. He has earned a master's degree in criminology. At all times material, DOC has had in effect a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy" (P-5), a Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities" (P-3), and a Personnel Procedures Manual. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual is entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaints" (P-6). DOC has not adopted these documents as rules, and Petitioner here challenges them as unpromulgated rules. On February 22, 1996, Petitioner received written notice that he would be suspended without pay for ten days as a result of his violation of DOC Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4) and 33- 4.003(23)(25), F.A.C., (since renumbered) and the DOC's Policy on Sexual Harassment. The letter did not rely on Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual or its Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities". Petitioner appealed this action to PERC, which subsequently entered a recommended order upholding DOC's disciplinary action. Language from PERC's recommended order, which is pertinent to this instant rule challenge is: Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.001(4)(a) states, in pertinent part, that 'No . . . employee shall knowingly . . . commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any state statute, rule, directive or policy statement.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.002(4) states, in pertinent part, that 'Each employee . . . shall perform his duties fairly and impartially and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4,.003(23) states that a first offense of conduct unbecoming a public employee is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.003(25) states that a first offense of willful violation of rules, regulations, directives or policy statements is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. The DOC pamphlet entitled 'Florida Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment: Your Rights and Responsibilities,' provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual Harassment requires two elements: The alleged conduct must be of a sexual nature, must be unwelcome and unwanted. Sexual harassment may be any of, but not limited to, the following: * * * continued suggestions regarding invi- tations to social events outside the work place, after being told such suggestions are unwelcome; * * * prolonged staring or leering to [sic] a person; * * * 32. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Personnel Procedures Manual, Chapter 7, Sexual Harassment, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * O. Sexual Harassment - Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature from or involving an employee's supervisors, peers, subordinates or any other persons in contact with an employee or applicant during the course of the conduct of the employee's or applicant's business when: Submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment; or Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. 33. The DOC Sexual Harassment Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual harassment may result from unwelcome sexual advances or a hostile environment created by conduct offensive to the victim such as suggestive or lewd comments, dirty jokes, offensive pictures or physical touching. Accordingly, all employees are being placed on notice that any employee found guilty of having engaged in sexual harassment will be severely disciplined, up to and including dismissal. * * * The charge of conduct unbecoming a public employee is a general charge that is subsumed if the Agency has a more specific charge that fully describes the alleged misconduct. Ford v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FCSR Para. 148 (1993); Mathis v. Department of Corrections, 6 FCSR Para. 122 (1991). In this case, I conclude that the charge of unbecoming conduct is subsumed within the charge of sexual harassment and should be dismissed. PERC's recommended order also applied the foregoing provisions. At the date of formal hearing in the instant rule challenge, PERC had issued no final order. Before this instant Division of Administrative Hearings final order could be entered, PERC had extended the time for the parties to file exceptions to its hearing officer's recommended order, and ultimately, on August 13, 1996, PERC adopted its hearing officer's recommended order, thereby rendering Petitioner subject to future disciplinary action at the second occurrence level under Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C. The final order of PERC is now under appeal by Petitioner. These facts are officially recognized, sua sponte. Petitioner received copies of the Pamphlet, the Sexual Harassment Policy, and a copy of Chapter 33-4, F.A.C., on July 16, 1993, when he began employment with the agency. He did not receive a copy of Chapter 7 of the Personnel Manual and was unaware of it until his PERC proceeding. DOC imposes disciplinary action against its employees for conduct which constitutes sexual harassment. Petitioner received periodic training in agency seminars on the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, including annual film presentations. He did not receive similar training regarding "conduct unbecoming a public employee", which is a term utilized in Section 110.227(1), F.S., and for which an employee may be disciplined. Section 110.227(1), F.S., also permits discipline of employees for "willful violation of the provisions of law or agency rules". Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., provides, in pertinent part: Responsibility for Conduct of Employees, Inmates and Others. No Administrator, Superintendent, Officer-In-Charge, Supervisor, or other employee shall knowingly permit any subordinate, inmate or other person to, nor shall he, commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any statute, rule, directive or policy statement . . . . Petitioner claims that Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., is vague as applied to him because he is not an administrator, superintendent, officer-in-charge, or a supervisor. According to Petitioner, this rule in only applicable to those who supervise subordinates. Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: (4) Each employee shall keep himself physically fit, mentally alert, personally neat and clean and shall perform his duties fairly and impartially, and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public . . . . Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., is entitled "Range of Disciplinary Actions" and lists a number of violations. Item (22) is "Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee"; Item (24) is "Willful Violation of Rules, Regulations, Directives, or Policy Statements". The range of disciplinary penalties is increased at the second occurrence level under the rule. The agency Policy Statement, Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the agency Personnel Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming a public employee and contain definitions of sexual harassment, including hostile work place sexual harassment. The first sentence of the Pamphlet states that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is conduct unbecoming a public employee, as provided in Sections 110.105, 110.227 and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. (Rules of the Department). The first page of the Pamphlet states EEOC guidelines defining sexual harassment, as recognized by the agency: Unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's employment, or Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by [sic] decisions affecting an individual, or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a person's work [sic] hostile or offensive working environment. The Pamphlet goes on to advise that sexual harassment requires two elements: conduct of a sexual nature/that is unwelcome and unwanted. It lists examples of harassing behavior, advises of the need to report such behavior, and explains the agency's internal complaint procedure and the procedure's protections against retaliation. It gives references for legal remedies outside the agency. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual states basically the same information as the Pamphlet, lists the same legal authorities and details the internal complaint procedure. It specifically provides, If there is a determination that there is cause to believe sexual harassment occurred, disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 33-4 Department of Corrections Rules. Chapter 7 was first effective on January 25, 1989 and last amended on March 5, 1993. It derives its authority from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sections 110.105, 110.227, and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. Both the agency Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming an employee. Petitioner's position with regard to whether or not the Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual constitute unpromulgated rules appears to center on his belief that without them, employees are not on notice as to exactly what behavior constitutes sexual harassment, that they contain a subtext of what types of sexual harassment, i.e. hostile work environment, will be disciplined, or that they alone reveal that sexual harassment constitutes "conduct unbecoming". Petitioner testified that he understood blatant sexual harassment, such as unconsented physical contact, to be conduct unbecoming a public employee, but he did not have a clear understanding about the "gray areas", such as complimenting co- workers, socializing outside work, or what acts constituted hostile work place sexual harassment. However, Petitioner testified that he was on notice that the agency had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy and that at all times material, he knew that if he committed sexual harassment, he would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner admitted that if any employee engaged in actual sexual harassment against another employee, the offending employee would not command the respect of fellow employees, as described in Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C. He also was on notice through Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., that he could be disciplined for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violations of law or policy statements". He is charged at law with knowledge of Section 110.227(1) requiring discipline for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violation" and Chapter 760 F.S., which implements Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The agency routinely disciplines its employees for sexual harassment and has a long history of application of its Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy. Petitioner did not submit any evidence as to how Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual, the Pamphlet, or the one- page Policy Statement had any affect on him, beyond the discipline described, supra. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, the Pamphlet, or Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual have any affect on any person not employed by Respondent. There was no evidence that any of the provisions in these documents were self-executing.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Inc., subjected Petitioners, Jasen Baker and Bernard Southwell, to a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a chain of casual Italian restaurants. Respondent has adopted a policy against discrimination and harassment. In addition to prohibiting harassment, the policy instructs employees whom to contact if they experience harassment. The policy is contained in an employee handbook that is distributed to all employees during the initial orientation process. During orientation, Respondent's manager reviews the employee handbook with the new employee, including the policy on sexual harassment. During the orientation process, Respondent also requires employees to view a video that explains that Respondent will not tolerate harassment. The video familiarizes the employees with the company's expectations regarding the reporting of harassment in the workplace. During the orientation process, the employees are required to sign an acknowledgment on the exterior of their employee folders indicating that they have received and read the policy against harassment. The critical sections of the policy are reprinted on the folders immediately above the signature lines. All of Respondent's restaurants are required to display a poster known as the "Carrabbamico Info" poster in the kitchen area. This poster reprints the harassment policy and provides employees with a list of names to call if they feel that they have been harassed. Respondent has implemented reasonable precautions to prevent harassment from occurring in its restaurants. In the Central Florida market, Respondent's restaurants are overseen by a joint venture partner named Dick Meyer. Meyer is responsible for hiring and firing the managers of the restaurants that he oversees. In March 2000, Lawton DePriest became the managing partner at Respondent's Palm Bay location. DePriest reported to Meyer. DePriest remained in that capacity until September 2003, when he became the managing partner of Respondent's restaurant located in Formosa Gardens. It was DePriest's management style to frequently yell at employees in order to motivate them. It is also possible that he had favorites on the staff of the Palm Bay restaurant. Baker was hired by Respondent's Palm Bay restaurant in January 2002. At the time that Baker began working for Respondent, he attended an orientation session conducted by DePriest. It was DePriest's practice during orientation to discuss harassment issues and instruct employees to come to him directly if they experience any problems with sexual harassment. If for some reason an employee is not comfortable with him, DePriest would encourage the employee to contact any other person listed on the poster. Baker was given a copy of Respondent's handbook, which contains the company's policy against harassment. On that same date, January 19, 2002, Baker signed his employee folder on the blank line under the harassment policy indicating that he had read and received the policy. Whether he reviewed the employee handbook further after that date is irrelevant. Baker "vividly remembers" that during his orientation, he watched the videotape that included instructions on what he should do if he felt harassed. However, during the hearing, Baker denied ever seeing the Carrabbamico Info poster. However, Baker admitted on cross-examination that during his deposition, he had acknowledged seeing the Carrabbamico Info poster posted in the store. During the deposition, Baker specifically remembered that there were business cards with contact information for Meyer and Cheri Ashe attached to the bottom of the poster. Despite Baker's attempt to deny seeing the poster, his earlier answers in deposition were more credible in view of his specific recollection of the attached business cards and the lack of any persuasive explanation for the discrepancy. After completing his orientation, Baker initially worked as a dishwasher. Later, he was shown how to do food preparation work. Before coming to work for Respondent, Baker had previously worked for a restaurant by the name of Golden Corral. During the time that he worked with Golden Corral, he became acquainted with a co-worker named Bernard Southwell. In the summer of 2002, Petitioners discussed the possibility of Southwell coming to work for Respondent. Baker spoke favorably of the restaurant and recommended that Southwell submit an application. At the time, Baker had worked for Respondent for six or seven months. Baker did not express to Southwell that he had observed or experienced any problems with unwelcome harassment. Southwell submitted an application and was hired by Respondent's Palm Bay restaurant in August 2002 as a dishwasher. At the time he began employment with Respondent, Southwell was living with a friend of his named Joe Corbett. At the time, Baker was living in a one-bedroom apartment with his girlfriend. Several weeks later, Baker's girlfriend decided to move out. According to Petitioners, she suggested to Southwell that he move into Baker's apartment to replace her. Around October 2002, Southwell moved out of the Corbett residence and moved in with Baker. A third employee named Chris Germana also moved into the residence around the same time. Because the apartment only had one bedroom, Germana slept on the couch. Petitioners slept in the bedroom. When employees at the restaurant learned of these arrangements, speculation began about whether the two men were homosexual. According to Petitioners, sometime after Southwell started to room with Baker, co-workers at the restaurant started referring to Petitioners by nicknames. The co-workers referred to Baker as "powder," "crack pipe," and "crack head." Baker knew that "powder" was a reference to a character from the movie "Powder" and that the name had nothing to do with his sexuality. The co-workers also referred to Petitioners as "butt buddies." Southwell testified that a male co-worker, Christopher Bouley, told him, "I know you guys are lovers." Bouley, Arnold Samuel and DePriest all used these nicknames on occasion to refer to both Petitioners, according to Baker. After several months, Southwell eventually went to DePriest and complained about the "powder," "crack pipe," and "butt buddies" nicknames. Southwell told DePriest that the nicknames were funny at first, but that they started getting old. DePriest then told Samuel and Bouley to stop using the nicknames. Thereafter, the use of the nicknames stopped. Southwell claimed that Bouley would gyrate his hips behind other employees as they were bending down. However, Petitioners both admitted that Bouley would do these hip motions to both male and female employees. During the hearing, Petitioners claimed that Bouley subjected them to unwelcome touching. Baker claimed that Bouley had touched his buttocks once. However, Baker acknowledged that when his deposition was taken prior to the final hearing, he did not mention that Bouley touched his buttocks. In fact, when asked during his deposition whether he had been sexually harassed, Baker testified that he had not and that he had only been verbally harassed. Furthermore, Baker made no mention of any physical touching in the Affidavit that he submitted to FCHR at the time he filed his charge of discrimination. Southwell never saw Bouley touch or grab Baker's buttocks. And despite their close relationship, Baker never told Southwell that Bouley had grabbed his buttocks. Accordingly, Baker's allegation that he was touched inappropriately by Bouley or any other of Respondent's employees is not credible. Southwell claimed that Bouley had touched his buttocks on two or three occasions and touched his nipples twice. Southwell also claimed that Bouley had touched his penis on one occasion. According to Southwell, he was bending down to pick up sauté pans when Bouley, who was supposedly standing behind him, reached between Southwell's legs from behind and clutched Southwell's genital area through his trousers. This incident supposedly occurred during the restaurant's hours of operation while customers were in the restaurant. The alleged grabbing supposedly took place in front of a stove that sat in full view of customers seated at the restaurant's bar. Bouley flatly denied ever touching Southwell's genitals or private area. In the Affidavit that Southwell submitted to FCHR at the time he filed his charge of discrimination, Southwell made no mention of Bouley touching Southwell's penis. At the time that he submitted this Affidavit, Southwell was represented by counsel. Southwell did not offer any convincing reason for the omission of any description of his genitals being grabbed. Accordingly, Southwell's allegation that Bouley touched Southwell's genitals is not credible. Although Petitioners testified that they spoke to DePriest on several occasions, they admit that they never spoke to any of the other individuals listed on the harassment poster to complain about sexual harassment. DePriest testified that the only complaint he ever received had to do with the nicknames and that he took prompt action to resolve this problem. Annually, Respondent submits an employee experience survey to its employees that is completed anonymously and forwarded to an outside company for analysis. After the survey is completed, employees participate in a small group feedback session to discuss the results of the survey. On March 11, 2003, DePriest held the feedback session for his store, which was attended by Petitioners. During the session, Southwell commented about the situation with the nicknames. He indicated that the situation was resolved when it was brought to DePriest's attention. This was the sole extent to which either employee complained of unwelcome behavior. Respondent was not on notice of any problems with regard to touching or more serious inappropriate behavior. On March 12, 2003, Petitioners' last day of work, Southwell approached DePriest to complain about scheduling for a special event at the convention center. Southwell stated that he and Baker had signed up to participate in this event. Southwell was scheduled for the event, but Baker was not. DePriest explained that he needed Baker to float, because there were not enough people scheduled to work at the restaurant that night. DePriest later talked to Baker, who indicated that he was not disappointed that he was not participating in the event. That conversation, however, was the last time that DePriest saw Baker. DePriest learned that Petitioners had left before the end of their shift, when the plates in the restaurant were getting low and the sauté pans were getting stacked up. DePriest asked about the whereabouts of Petitioners and learned that they were seen riding their bicycles away from the restaurant. DePriest could not contact them because they did not have a telephone. DePriest eventually terminated their employment for voluntarily walking off the job.
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 that: Dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Jasen Baker, in DOAH Case No. 05-0623, FCHR No. 23-03891; and Dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Bernard Southwell, DOAH Case No. 05-0632, FCHR No. 23-03892. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jason M. Gordon, Esquire Gordon & Cornell 103 North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Kevin D. Johnson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Pursuant to section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2015), the issue is whether, in the furnishing of public accommodations, Respondent is guilty of discrimination against Petitioner on the grounds of race, color, and national origin by prohibiting Petitioner from re-entering the business premises of Respondent due to Petitioner's sexual harassment of Respondent's employees.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner moved to the United States nine years ago from Maracaibo, Venezuela. Petitioner is Hispanic, speaks English with a Spanish accent, and is dark-complected. Pepito's Plaza is a small retail complex in Doral, Florida, comprising a gas station/convenience store and three small restaurants. Respondent owns and operates the gas station/convenience store. The business owners, employees, and customers of Pepito's Plaza are nearly entirely Hispanic. Like Petitioner, the business owners are also from Venezuela. For three years, Petitioner has delivered food for a restaurant located near Pepito's Plaza. Petitioner has sometimes purchased items for delivery from the convenience store or the three restaurants. Petitioner's initial contact with employees of the convenience store and restaurants was unremarkable. He impressed a clerk of the convenience store, Ms. Maria Gabriela Villarroel, as a kind and educated gentleman. During one visit to the convenience store, Petitioner noticed that Ms. Villarroel had displayed on the counter a set of her business cards, which announced an Herbalife® business that she operated on the side. Petitioner took a card and, using the personal phone number of Ms. Villarroel shown on the card, later purchased Herbalife® products from her. In February or March 2015, Petitioner used Ms. Villarroel's phone number to text and call her repeatedly to ask her out on a date and make advances. Ms. Villarroel never consented to go on a date with Petitioner, did nothing to encourage this behavior, and stated that she did not welcome his advances, culminating with a complaint in April 2015 that she felt stalked and harassed by Petitioner's obsessive behaviors. Nevertheless, Petitioner persisted in these behaviors. Not only did Petitioner persist in these behaviors with Ms. Villarroel, but, early in the summer of 2015, Petitioner began harassing Amalia Almedia, a female employee of Pepito's Arepas Bar, which was one of the restaurants in the complex. Visiting the restaurant several times daily, Petitioner rarely purchased anything, but instead talked to Amalia Almedia and other female employees. Soon, Petitioner was blowing kisses at Ms. Villarroel and Ms. Almedia, winking at them, and making sexual facial expressions at them. Petitioner loitered by the window of the restaurant, occasionally leaning in to stare at Ms. Almedia's body. Unable to deal with the problem themselves, Ms. Villarroel and Ms. Almedia complained to the manager of Pepito's Plaza, Luis Martinez, who did not immediately talk to Petitioner. However, in late June or early July, Petitioner visited Arepas Bar and offered a plastic shopping bag to Ms. Almedia, who declined the offer. Petitioner then left the bag on the counter and left. Ms. Almedia summoned Mr. Martinez, who inspected the bag and found that it contained two pair of new women's' colored panties. Mr. Martinez noticed that a police officer happened to be at the plaza, so he asked the officer to join Mr. Martinez in approaching Petitioner and ordering him not to return to Pepito's Plaza due to his harassment of female employees. Accompanied by the officer, Mr. Martinez found Petitioner on the plaza premises and told him that he had been harassing the female staff for some time, and he was no longer welcome anywhere at Pepito's Plaza. Petitioner attempts to provide context in two respects: first, he claims that he was the subject of dismissive comments from the female employees of Pepito's Plaza. Because Petitioner does not acknowledge that his coarse, repeated behaviors toward these employees constituted harassment, he is, of course, unable to frame the issue as dismissive comments from the female staff whom he was sexually harassing. There is no evidence that female staff initiated any disrespectful behavior toward him prior to the harassment, nor is there any evidence that the dismissive comments were indicative of anything more than an honest attempt by these beleaguered women to get Petitioner to stop harassing them as they attempted to perform their employment duties within fairly constrained areas that left them continuously vulnerable to Petitioner's stalking of them. Petitioner's second point is that he was entitled to a warning before being barred from Pepito's Plaza. To require a warning from a manager is to discredit the attempts by the female staff themselves to stop the harassment. Petitioner was fully aware that his sexual banter and advances produced feelings of annoyance, repulsion, and even safety concerns. On these facts, the absence of a prior warning from Mr. Martinez no more supports an inference of discrimination than does his order that Petitioner no longer enter the premises of Pepito's Plaza.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on January 28, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Carlos E. Burgos Pepito's Plaza 10701 Northwest 58th Street Doral, Florida 33178 (eServed) Benjamin Korn, Esquire The Law Offices of Benjamin Korn, PLLC 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 51-332 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, an African-American male, as a nursing assistant at the community healthcare facility known as Jackson Hospital in Marianna, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. Petitioner obtained his designation as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) subsequent to his employment by Respondent. Petitioner entered into a conversation with a female co-worker and CNA at Jackson Hospital on or about June 12, 2003. In the course of the conversation, he made an unwelcome sexual request of the co-worker. Petitioner was not on duty at the time and had returned to the hospital for other reasons. Subsequently, on June 12, 2003, the female co-worker filed a complaint with Respondent's human resource office at the hospital alleging unwelcome requests for sexual favors by Petitioner, inclusive of a request that the co-worker engage in sexual relations with Petitioner. In the course of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was made aware of the strict guidelines and "zero tolerance" policy of Respondent toward sexual harassment. Respondent's policy expressly prohibits sexual advances and requests for sexual favors by employees. Discipline for a violation of this policy ranges from reprimand to discharge from employment of the offending employee. Petitioner has received a copy of the policy previously and he knew that violation of that policy could result in dismissal of an erring employee. Violations of this policy resulted in dismissal of a non- minority employee in the past. Corroboration of Petitioner’s policy violation resulted from interviews with other employees in the course of investigation by the hospital director of human resources. Further, in the course of being interviewed by the director, Petitioner admitted he had propositioned his co-worker for sexual favors. As a result of this policy violation, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on June 16, 2003. At final hearing, Petitioner admitted the violation of Respondent's policy, but contended that termination of employment had not been effected for white employees for similar offenses in the past. This allegation was specifically rebutted through testimony of Respondent's hospital human resources director that a white male employee had been previously discharged for the same offense. Accordingly, allegations of Petitioner of dissimilar treatment of employees on a racial basis for violation of Respondent's policy are not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Bowles 4193 Evelyn Street Marianna, Florida 32446 H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquire Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A. Post Office Box 1508 Marianna, Florida 32447 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a sexually hostile work environment and was retaliated against for complaining about the alleged harassment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James E. Gonzales, is a male person who was hired by the Respondent, Pepsi Bottling Group, on March 13, 1995. He was hired as a route sales trainee in the Central Florida marketing unit of that employer. The Pepsi Bottling Group (Pepsi) is responsible for the manufacture sale and delivery of Pepsi products to its vendors. Over the last three years the Central Florida unit has been the foremost marketing unit in the United States. The management of the Central Florida Marketing Unit has been rated by its employees as being the top management team in the country for Pepsi. The Petitioner applied for a Pre-sale Customer Representative (CR) position on March 27, 2003. On April 21, 2003, the Petitioner was assigned to a Pre-Sell (CR) position. As a Pre-Sell CR, the Petitioner was responsible for serving his own accounts; creating and maintaining good will with all customers; ordering customer's products in advance; and developing all assigned accounts relative to sales volume, market share, product distribution, space allocation and customer service. He was responsible for solicitation of new business; selling and executing promotions; soliciting placement of equipment; selling sufficient inventory; and utilizing point of purchase materials to stimulate sales. He was also charged with maintaining "shelf facings" cleaning and shelving and rotating product and merchandising product sections and building displays to stimulate sales. Additionally, he was required to complete and submit all related paperwork regarding sales and promotional operations in an accurate and timely manner. The Petitioner's direct supervisor initially was David Lopez. He was replaced by Wanzell Underwood in approximately August 2003. On December 5, 2002, the Petitioner received the Respondent's employee handbook. The handbook contains the Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Sexual Harassment Policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, disability, etc. including sexual orientation. It encourages employees to immediately report any complaint, without fear of retaliation, to the Human Resources Manager or Human Resources Director. The Respondent's policy has a zero tolerance for retaliation and forbids any retaliatory action to be taken against an individual who in good faith reports a perceived violation of that policy. Employees who feel they have been retaliated against are required to report such retaliation to the Human Resources Manager or Director. The sexual harassment policy of the Respondent prohibits all forms of harassment and clearly sets out complaint procedures for employees to follow in the event they have experienced harassment. They are directed to report any complaint immediately to the Human Resources Manager or Director. Throughout his employment the Respondent received numerous customer complaints regarding the Petitioner's poor performance. The Petitioner received five disciplinary actions against him from the period 2003 through 2005. These "write- ups" were for failing to service customers according to the Respondent's standards and were dated August 2003, April 2004, September 2004, October 2004, and May 2005. On August 1, 2003, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning after the Respondent received a complaint from a customer regarding the amount of out-of-date product in his store and the poor level of service he was receiving from the Petitioner. On April 9, 2004, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning for his failure to prepare his three Circle K stores for a "customer tour," although he had assured his direct supervisor, Mr. Underwood, and the Key Account Manager, Eric Matson, that the store would be ready. The Petitioner's failure to prepare his Circle K stores for the customer's tour embarrassed both his supervisor and the Key Account Manager. On June 23, 2004, the assistant manager at ABC Liquor, a store Gonzales was responsible for, sent an e-mail to Eric Matson complaining about the lack of service provided by Gonzales and requested a new CR to service his store. The customer stated that Gonzales had given nothing but "crappy" service, bad attitude, and sometimes no service. On September 21, 2004, Eric Matson received an e-mail regarding the Petitioner's failure to order product for the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. The Petitioner's supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, visited the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and confirmed the manager's complaints. The Petitioner received a written warning for not properly servicing the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. In the Petitioner's contemporaneous written comments in opposition to the written warning he failed to note that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco was purportedly sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, the Petitioner received a final written warning and one-day suspension after his direct supervisor re-visited the same Mt. Dora Sunoco store that complained previously. The Petitioner was warned that a similar problem in the future would lead to his termination. Again, in the Petitioner's written comments in opposition to his written warning, he made no mention that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store was sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, after the Petitioner was suspended for one day, he requested that the Human Resources Manager, Christopher Buhl, hold a meeting. During the meeting he complained for the first time to the Unit Sales Manager, Howard Corbett, the Sales Operations Manager, Tom Hopkins, and Mr. Buhl, that three years previously, in 2001, one person had told the Petitioner that everyone thought he was "gay" (meaning co-employees). One person asked him if he was gay, according to the Petitioner's story, and one person said, "We all know you're gay," before he became a Pre-Sell CR. The Petitioner, however, refused to cooperate with Mr. Buhl in obtaining information regarding his complaints. At no time during the meeting did the Petitioner complain about being sexually harassed by the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. During the October 11, 2004, meeting the Petitioner claimed his supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, threatened him. However, the Petitioner conceded during the meeting that the alleged statement made by Mr. Underwood was made to a group of Customer Representatives, to the effect that he would "kill you guys if you do not make the sales numbers." Mr. Underwood denied ever threatening to kill the Petitioner. During the meeting the Petitioner also complained that his route was too large and he requested that it be reduced. At no time during that October 11, 2004, meeting did the Petitioner complain that he was sexually harassed by Alice Marsh, the Mt. Dora Sunoco manager. His extensive notes and comments on his Disciplinary Action Reports did not document any such complaint. In November 2004, the Petitioner was asked to go to K- Mart and place an order, but the Petitioner failed to follow instructions and visit the store. Instead, the Petitioner placed the order over the phone. The manager of the store called the Respondent three times to complain about the poor service provided by Mr. Gonzales. Each year the Respondent changes its delivery routes. During the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005, the Respondent re-routed all of its Pre-sell CR routes. The Respondent reduced the Petitioner's route as he had requested and in conformity with its route standards. Despite the Petitioner's allegation to the contrary, in fact the Petitioner's route was not reduced by as much as 50 percent. In May 2005, Key Account Manager, Mike Lewis, visited the Petitioner's K-Mart store to conduct a "Look at the Leader" audit. The Petitioner had been trained and was responsible for preparing the K-Mart for the audit. When Mr. Lewis arrived at the store, the store did not meet the Respondent's standards. Additionally, required product was missing from the displays. Mr. Lewis called Howard Corbett to inform him of the problems. Mr. Corbett called the Petitioner to ask about the missing product. The Petitioner assured him that the product was in the store and on display. The missing product was not displayed, however, and was later found in the back room of the K-Mart store. On May 18, 2005, the Respondent received another e- mail from Charles Pippen, District Manager for Sunoco, complaining of the Petitioner's poor service at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. He claimed that the Petitioner did not reply to phone calls and rarely ordered enough product. On May 19, 2005, the Territory Sales Manager, John York, followed up on that complaint by visiting the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and meeting with the Manager, Alice Marsh. Mr. York was substituting for Mr. Underwood who was out on medical leave. During the meeting, Ms. Marsh complained that the Petitioner did not order the quantity of product she requested, failed to provide adequate signage, and refused to place product where she requested. While at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store, Mr. York observed the problems about which Ms. Marsh had complained. After meeting Ms. Marsh, Mr. York spoke with the Petitioner to inform him of Ms. Marsh's complaints. During his conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner admitted to failing to service the account by not placing the product by the gas pumps as requested, not ordering the amount of product requested, and not hanging certain signs. Later in this conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner informed Mr. York that he believed that the Sunoco Manager's reason for complaining about his service was that he had refused her sexual advances. The Petitioner did not tell Mr. York what the alleged advances consisted of or when they might have occurred. Mr. York, however, in fact was never the Petitioner's supervisor. The Petitioner was responsible for two CVS stores in Mt. Dora. On Friday, May 20, 2005, the Petitioner made an unusual request of his temporary Manager, Dan Manor, for a Saturday delivery to his CVS stores. The Respondent does not normally schedule Saturday deliveries for such "small format" stores like CVS. When Mr. Manor approved the Saturday delivery, he specifically instructed the Petitioner that must meet the bulk delivery driver at the stores to "merchandise" the product, because bulk delivery drivers do not merchandise the product delivered and Mr. Manor did not have a merchandiser assigned to the Mt. Dora stores. The Petitioner agreed to meet the bulk delivery driver at the CVS stores on Saturday. The Petitioner did not advise his supervisor that he had made arrangements with the CVS store manager or a merchandiser regarding alternate arrangements for the Saturday delivery. The supervisor would have expected the Petitioner to do so. On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the Petitioner failed to meet the bulk driver to assist in merchandising the orders at the two CVS stores as instructed. The customer refused to take delivery of the product until a merchandiser was present to merchandise the product. Mr. Manor was unable to reach the Petitioner by telephone because the Petitioner was at Sea World with his family. Mr. Manor had to send a merchandiser from Longwood in order to merchandise the product that the Petitioner had ordered for the CVS stores. On May 23, 2005, the Petitioner failed to attend a weekly mandatory 5:00 a.m. meeting. He did not call his supervisor advising of his unavailability. The Petitioner did call Mr. Manor at about 6:15 a.m. and told him that he had overslept. When Mr. Manor questioned the Petitioner about why he did not meet the bulk driver on Saturday, he said that "he did not get a chance to make it out on Saturday." On May 23, 2005, Mr. Corbett decided to terminate the Petitioner based on his very poor performance. That decision to terminate him was approved by the Respondent's Human Resources Department. On May 26, 2005, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner for failing to service the CVS stores at a critical time, for the services issues at the Sunoco and the K-Mart, and for failing to attend the Monday morning meeting. At the time of his termination the Petitioner was on a final warning and had been advised that he could be terminated. The Petitioner never alleged during his termination meeting that he was being sexually harassed. Howard Corbett provided the Petitioner with documents to file an internal appeal on the day he was terminated. The Petitioner, however, did not appeal his termination as permitted by the Respondent's policy. The Petitioner claims he was the victim of sexual harassment by being subjected to (1) homosexual related comments made in 2001, and (2) alleged sexual overtures by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, in 2003. According to Ms. Marsh, she was never interested in the Petitioner sexually. She did not socialize with the Petitioner, and did not want a relationship with him. She did not touch him and did not state that she wanted the Petitioner fired. She also testified that she never stated that she wanted a sexual relationship with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's allegations regarding sexual harassment by Ms. Marsh related the following behaviors: She touched his back and arm; She was too close to him when he was around; She was nice to him until informed that he was married; She suggested sexual interest by her body language and eyes; and She wore provocative clothing. David Lopez supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2001 to 2003 time period. During this time period the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Lopez that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Lopez did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while working with the Respondent either. Wanzell Underwood supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2003 to 2005 time period. During this time, the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Underwood that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Underwood did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while he worked for the Respondent. The Petitioner never made a compliant regarding the alleged sexual harassment by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, to the Human Resources Department, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. He did not explain the nature of any sexual harassment, even when he finally claimed that he was being harassed. The Respondent would have terminated the Petitioner for his poor performance regardless of whether he engaged in the purported protected activity by complaining of sexual harassment. The Petitioner alleges he was terminated for reasons other than complaining about sexual harassment, including his alleged knowledge of theft in Lake County. In any event, on July 15, 2005, the Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission and the resulting dispute and formal proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James E. Gonzales 26437 Troon Avenue Sorrento, Florida 32757 Nicole Alexandra Sbert, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Carl G. Bott, Jr., is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office and/or gross insubordination?
Findings Of Fact During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Carl G. Bott, Jr., was an employee of the School Board of Putnam County under a continuing contract. Mr. Bott has been employed as a teacher for approximately ten years. Mr. Bott was a teacher and Dean in the County Alternative School Program during the 1984-1985 through 1988-1989 school years. During the 1984-1985 and the 1985-1986 school years the County Alternative School Program was located on the second floor of the Campbell Administrative Building. The County Alternative School Program was renamed the District Opportunity Center and was located on the Davis Lake Road side of the campus of E. H. Miller School during the 1986-1987, school year. Mr. Bott continued to work at the District Opportunity Center during the 1987-1988 school year and part of the 1988-1989 school year. During the 1984-1985 through 1988-1989 school years Diane Wilkinson was employed as a secretary for the County Alternative School Program and the District Opportunity Center. Mr. Bott was her immediate supervisor and prepared Ms. Wilkinson's evaluations during this period of time. During the 1984-1985 and 1985-1986 school years Mr. Bott was in charge of the County Alternative School Program. During the 1984-1985 and the 1985-1986 school years Mr. Bott made comments to Ms. Wilkinson of a sexual nature. In particular, Mr. Bott told Ms. Wilkinson that she had a nice ass, but that [her] stomach needed to be tightened up; and he also made statements in regard to women's nipples showing through their clothes, that's a real turn on to him, for women to get cold on for their nipples to show through their clothing.." Page 199, lines 113-17, Transcript of Administrative Hearing. Sometime during the 1985-1986 school year Mr. Bott intentionally placed his hand on Ms. Wilkinson's right breast without permission, warning or provocation. Mr. Bott's act was a sexual advance toward Ms. Wilkinson. This incident occurred while Mr. Bott and Ms. Wilkinson were in Ms. Wilkinson's small office discussing business. When Mr. Bott touched Ms. Wilkinson, she said nothing and looked at him with a shocked expression. When Ms. Wilkinson did not respond to his advance, Mr. Bott removed his hand and left the room. Ms. Wilkinson did not report the incident to anyone. Nor was anything said about the incident by Ms. Wilkinson or Mr. Bott. Approximately six to nine weeks before the County Alternative School Program was moved to Davis Lake Road, Mr. Bott came into Ms. Wilkinson's office where she was typing, walked up behind her and reached over her shoulders and intentionally touched her breast from behind without permission, warning or provocation. Again, Ms. Wilkinson said nothing. She looked at him with a shocked expression and Mr. Bott then removed his hand and left the room. On the same day that the second incident occurred, Ms. Wilkinson called Evie Shellenberger, the Director of Personnel for the Petitioner, and set up an appointment for the next day to report the incident. The day after the second incident, Ms. Wilkinson told Mr. Bott that I can have your teaching certificate lifted for sexual harassment if you ever touch me again . Page 205, lines 9-10, Transcript of Administrative Hearing. Mr. Bott told Ms. Wilkinson that he realized that she was correct, he apologized to her and promised it would never happen again. Ms. Wilkinson kept her appointment with Ms. Shellenberger and reported both incidents. She did not, however, file a sexual harassment charge against Mr. Bott. Ms. Wilkinson did not file charges because Mr. Bott had apologized and promised not to touch her again and she did not want to harm his family or his career. Ms. Wilkinson was concerned for Mr. Bott because he had a son who had been sick and Mrs. Bott had had cancer. After moving to Davis Lake Road, Mr. Bott continued to make inappropriate comments to Ms. Wilkinson of a sexual nature. The frequency of the statements increased, especially during the 1987-1988 school year. In particular, Mr. Bott made the following statements to Ms. Wilkinson: That he had been a virgin until he was 21 years old, and therefore "he needed to get all the sex he could possibly get to make up for lost time." That he masturbated in the shower with hand cream. That he had had a wet dream about her and he had to get up and clean himself up and clean the sheets up. That "he had had a dream about [them] being in the back seat of a car and that [they] had made love, and that he had climaxed all over the bed, and that it seemed so real to him that he could even smell [her] cologne." That he had calluses on the palms of his hands from masturbating. That "he could really satisfy me [Ms. Wilkinson] sexually without his teeth, and that he knew how -- he could gum me [Ms. Wilkinson] to death, and that he really knew how to satisfy women without his teeth in." That his wife "was so fat and so ugly that he had a hard time making love to her, and that he had to really fantasize when he was having sex with her, to pretend he was with someone else instead of her, because she had dimples in her ass and she was so fat and so overweight it was like she had two sets of breasts, one in the front and one in the back behind her armpit in regard to a fatty kind of area on her." That "I intend to have you [Ms. Wilkinson] in bed before we go our separate ways." That he had made love with a woman (not his wife) in his boat and he had been afraid that he was not going to be able to get his clothes on before the Florida Marine Patrol caught him. That he needed "a piece of ass from someone 18 to 21 years old because he didn't want to get too old to go out and enjoy it." The more explicit sexual statements Mr. Bott made to Ms. Wilkinson were not made continuously. There would be periods of time when he would not make such statements. There were, however, periods of time when the types of statements quoted above would be made and then he would be quiet again. Ms. Wilkinson did not ask Mr. Bott to stop making the statements. She also did not tell anyone about the statements Mr. Bott was making to her. In approximately March, 1988, Ms. Wilkinson did talk to Rita Moody, president of the union to which Ms. Wilkinson belonged, about changing positions and informed her of Mr. Bott's behavior. There were not any positions available, however, and Ms. Moody suggested that Ms. Wilkinson should not "open a can of worms" by reporting the incidents. Despite the incidents related above involving Mr. Bott and Ms. Wilkinson, Ms. Wilkinson and Mr. Bott were friendly to each other and discussed personal matters as well as matters related to their work. They ate lunch with each other on occasion and Mr. Bott gave Ms. Wilkinson rides to and from her home and the office on occasion. Ms. Wilkinson also actively assisted Mr. Bott in protecting the program they worked in and assisted him in remaining with the program because she considered him an asset to the program. At the beginning of the 1986-1987 school year, Jean Herring was assigned as an Assistant Principal in charge of the District Opportunity Center. Ms. Herring was Mr. Bott's immediate supervisor during the 1986-1987 school year. Because Mr. Bott had previously been in charge of the program, he had some resentment about Ms. Herring's position. During the Spring of 1988, Ms. Herring received a complaint from Dana Hales, a female student at the District Opportunity Center. Ms. Hales alleged that Mr. Bott was using inappropriate language and discussing inappropriate topics with female students. (See findings of fact 23 and 24). Ms. Hales indicated that she felt uncomfortable in one-on-one counseling sessions with Mr. Bott. Based upon this complaint, Ms. Herring directed Mr. Bott not to conduct any one-on-one counseling sessions with female students without including Ms. Herring in the session. The next morning, Ms. Herring discovered Mr. Bott conducting a one-on-one counseling session with a female student in violation of her directive to him. Ms. Herring did not see Mr. Bott violate the directive again. Dana Hales complained to Ms. Herring because of statements Mr. Bott made to her of a sexual nature. Those statements included a statement "that he had an affair with a young girl from where he came from before and that he wished he could find a young girl here that he could trust that ... would not tell anyone." Page 142, lines 5-8, Transcript of Administrative Hearing. Mr. Bott also made comments to Ms. Hales concerning his wife. Mr. Bott told Ms. Hales that his wife "was ugly and that she was fat, and in the morning like in the daylight that she was very ugly and unattractive." Page 142, lines 15-17, Transcript of Administrative Hearing. Tonnette Sanders moved to Putnam County after the 1987-1988 school year had begun. Therefore, she was placed in the District Opportunity Center. She was not placed there for disciplinary reasons. Ms. Sanders was approximately 17 or 18 years of age. Mr. Bott was not one of Ms. Sanders' teachers. Mr. Bott and Ms. Sanders did become friends, however, and Mr. Bott provided counseling to Ms. Sanders. While walking into an office together, Mr. Bott patted Ms. Sanders on her buttocks. Ms. Sanders believed that the touching was a sexual advance and it made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Sanders did not return to school for several days after the incident because she was upset. When she did return, Mr. Bott apologized to her for his action. Mr. Bott also told Ms. Sanders that she was the nicest looking black girl he had had ever seen." Cynthia Bartrum Schmurmand attended the District Opportunity Center during the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Schmurmand was 14 or 15 year of age at the time. Mr. Bott provided GED preparation training approximately 45 minutes a day to Ms. Schmurmand and other female students. Initially there were four or five students who attended the sessions. Eventually, however, only Ms. Schmurmand and another student, Wendy Parker, attended the sessions. Mr. Bott did not always provide instruction to Ms. Schmurmand and Ms. Parker. Instead, Mr. Bott, Ms. Schmurmand and Ms. Parker would just talk. During these conversations, Mr. Bott told Ms. Schmurmand and Ms. Parker that he had been out with girls their age. He also told Ms. Schmurmand and Ms. Parker that they could get older and more mature men. Mr. Bott offered to take Ms. Schmurmand and Ms. Parker out on his fishing boat with the permission of their parents. Mr. Bott told them that "they would get some beer" even though Mr. Bott knew that they were not of legal drinking age. Mr. Bott allowed Ms. Schmurmand and Ms. Parker to smoke cigarettes in his office during at least one of the sessions. Mr. Bott provided the cigarettes. The use or possession of tobacco or tobacco products on school grounds was prohibited. Mr. Bott warned the students that if they ever let anyone know that they had been allowed to smoke, he would get into trouble and so would they. In addition to Mr. Bott's duties at the District Opportunity Center, he also taught health classes until December 1988 and for approximately three years preceding the 1988-1989 school year at the St. Johns River Community College. The courses taught by Mr. Bott were extra-credit classes taken by senior high students who needed additional credits to graduate from high school. During the Fall of 1988, Mr. Bott's health class was first aid. The class met from 3:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday. The students who attended the class were from Palatka High School and were 17 years of age or older. During the Fall of 1988, Mr. Bott made inappropriate statements to, or engaged in inappropriate conduct in front of, students in his first aid class as follows: Mr. Bott told students that his wife used to have a "nice ass" and "boobs" or "big melons", and now she is "fat and ugly." Mr. Bott wore a pin during class on his shirt which had the following words printed on it: "Sex Cures Headaches." Mr. Bott wore the pin for approximately thirty minutes. When a student asked about the pin, Mr. Bott took it off and indicated that he had forgotten he had it on. While discussing body lice, Mr. Bott told the class that he had once had "crabs." He indicated that he did not know how he had gotten them, implying that he had been involved with several different women. Mr. Bott cussed in front of the students. He used the words "dam", "ass", "bitch", "God damn" and "fuck." On one occasion Mr. Bott, while waking a student up, told the class that males have sexual fantasies every eleven minutes. Mr. Bott, while discussing the subject of drugs, told the class that marijuana makes women want to have sex or that smoking marijuana makes sex better. Mr. Bott told the students a story about a boy and girl who were riding in an automobile with the gear shift located on the floor of the automobile between the two front seats. Mr. Bott indicated that the boy was driving and the girl was sitting on a pillow between the two front seats. Mr. Bott told the class that the automobile was involved in a wreck or stopped suddenly for some other reason and that the gearshift "went up the girl" or that the "gearshift jammed up in her" and that "she took it whole." Mr. Bott also told the students a story about two couples who were riding in an automobile. Mr. Bott indicated that one couple was in the back seat of the car and they were "making out." Mr. Bott then told the class that the automobile was involved in a wreck and the boy "bit the girl's nipple off." He also said that the boy "swallowed it" and that the nipple was "a beautiful one." Mr. Bott also told this story during the 1987-1988 school year. Mr. Bott, while discussing genital injuries, told the class that he knew of a man who had sustained a genital injury. Mr. Bott stated that "his balls swelled up" and that they "were the size of baseballs." Mr. Bott told the class that "oysters put lead in the pencil." During the 1987-1988 school year, Dana Hales attended Mr. Bott's health class. Ms. Hales was walking to her automobile after one class when Mr. Bott told her that she "had the [tits or breasts] of a 25 year old." Mr. Bott also told Ms. Hales during the 1987-1988 school year that she would "stand out more" if she lost some weight. Mr. Bott was referring to Ms. Hales' chest when he made this statement. Vanessa Armster was an eighteen-year-old student at Palatka High School during the Fall of 1988. Ms. Armster attended Mr. Bott's health class during the Fall of 1988. In November, 1988, Ms. Armster missed four classes, in violation of Mr. Bott's policy that students could only miss three or less classes in order to pass the class. Mr. Bott, in deviation from his policy concerning absences, told Ms. Armster that she could make up her fourth absence by coming to his classroom at the District Opportunity Center after school the day after her fourth absence. Ms. Armster had a friend take her to the District Opportunity Center at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Bott gave her work to perform. Most of the time that Ms. Armster was at the District Opportunity Center no one was present in the room with her except Mr. Bott. While Ms. Armster was performing the work given to her by Mr. Bott, Mr. Bott made the following comments to her: Mr. Bott told Ms. Armster that he was scared for her to come to the District Opportunity Center because "he didn't know how he was going to react." Mr. Bott asked Ms. Armster "are those for real?" Mr. Bott was referring to Ms. Armster's breasts. Ms. Armster took these comments to be sexual in nature. Ms. Armster, as a result of Mr. Bott's comments, felt uncomfortable and scared in a one-on-one situation with Mr. Bott. The person who was suppose to give Ms. Armster a ride home did not arrive when she was ready to leave. Mr. Bott offered to give her a ride and Ms. Armster accepted. As Mr. Bott and Ms. Armster left the building, Mr. Bott noticed a football team practicing nearby and said that "someone might think something." Mr. Bott and Ms. Armster got into his pick-up truck. While in the truck Mr. Bott was telling Ms. Armster something about a heart attack and was referring to an area of his chest or side. While trying to indicate a location on his body, Mr. Bott moved his hand toward Ms. Armster. Ms. Armster jumped back when Mr. Bott moved his hand toward her. When Ms. Armster jumped, Mr. Bott said "oh, you just thought I was going to touch there" and intentionally put his hand on Ms. Armster's right breast. When Mr. Bott touched Ms. Armster she jumped back and he laughed. Following this incident, Mr. Bott dropped Ms. Armster off. Mr. Bott's actions have affected the way in which students view him as a teacher. In addition to the effects of Mr. Bott's actions already noted, Mr. Bott's actions had the following effects: At least two students perceived that Mr. Bott looked at Ms. Armster differently than he looked at other students; and Various students in Mr. Bott's health class found many of the sexual statements and incidents to be inappropriate and, in some cases, offensive and embarrassing. Mr. Bott's preoccupation with sexual matters was further evidenced by the following incidents which occurred during the period of time at issue in this proceeding: Mr. Bott told Beverly Emmons, a secretary at E. H. Miller School, that he like the blouses that Debbie Thomas, a teacher's aide, wore because her nipples stuck out. Mr. Bott made a comment about Debbie Thomas nipples being hard while she was lifting weights. This comment was made in front of Ms. Thomas and Diane Alred, an adaptive physical education teacher. Mr. Bott also patted Ms. Thomas on the buttocks. Mr. Bott was suspended with pay by the Superintendent of the Petitioner on December 2, 1988. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Petitioner on December 5, 1988, Mr. Bott was charged with immorality, misconduct in office and gross insubordination and was suspended without pay. By letter dated December 5, 1988, Mr. Bott requested a formal administrative hearing.
Conclusions The District School Board of Putnam County hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order. Based on the foregoing, and the recommendation made by the Hearing Officer in the above styled case, it is ADJUDGED that Carl G. Bott, Jr., is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office in violation of Florida Statutes Section 231.36(4)(c) and, accordingly, his suspension without pay from December 5, 1988 through January 5, 1990 is affirmed; it is further ADJUDGED that Carl G. Bott, Jr. is dismissed from his employment with the District School Board of Putnam County effective the date of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of January, 1990, in Palatka, Florida. District School Board of Putnam County Elaine Murray, Chairman
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case finding that Carl G. Bott, Jr., is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office in violation of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and dismissing him from his employment with the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0572 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-4, 34. 2 39. 3 40. 4 41. 5 42. The last two sentences are cumulative and unnecessary. 6 See 42-44. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 44. Not relevant to this proceeding. See 50. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 45. 12 46. 13 47. 14 49. 15-27 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They are cumulative, however, and not necessary. To the extent that these proposed findings of fact are true, they have been taken into account in the weight that was given to the testimony which formed the basis for findings of fact concerning this incident included in the Recommended Order. 28 Hereby accepted. 29a 36b. 29b 36f. 29c 36j. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29d 36i. 29e 36a. 29f 36c. 29j 36g and h. 29h 36e. 29i Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29j 36d. 30 50. 31-33 See 50. These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They are cumulative, however, and not necessary. To the extent that these proposed findings of fact are true, they have been taken into account in the weight that was given to the testimony which formed the basis for findings of fact concerning this incident included in the Recommended Order. 36h, 37-38. The statements were made, however, in 1987 and not in 1988. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 37 2 and 22. 38 22. 39 23. 40 22. Hereby accepted. 22 and hereby accepted. 43 21-22. 44 22. 45 Hereby accepted. 46-49 Not relevant to this proceeding. 50 Hereby accepted. 51-54 Not relevant to this proceeding. 55-56 25. 57 26. 58-59 27-28. 60 29. 61 30. 62 29-30. 63 See 31. 64 32. 65-66 33. 67 Not relevant to this proceeding. 68 31. 69 50. 70 3-5. 71 2 and 5. 72 5. 73 7. 74 Hereby accepted. 75-77 8. Ms. Wilkinson did engage in personal and sexual conversations with Mr. Bott. 78 8-9. 79 10. 80 11. 81 11-12. 82 Hereby accepted. 83 13. 84 14. 85 15. 86 16. 87 16-17. 88 18. 89 19 and hereby accepted. 90-91 Hereby accepted. 92 51. The last two sentences of 92b are rejected as hearsay. 93-101 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They are cumulative, however, and not necessary. To the extent that these proposed findings of fact are true, they have been taken into account in the weight that was given to the testimony which formed the basis for findings of fact concerning this incident included in the Recommended Order. 102-104 Hereby accepted. Mr. Bott's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection See 50. Not relevant to this proceeding. 34 and 36 c and f. 35 and hereby accepted. See 36a. Taken into account in the weight that was given to the testimony concerning the incidents they testified about. 7-9 See 50. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 7 and all of proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 constitutes a summary of testimony. This testimony was considered in making relevant findings of fact. 10-11 Not relevant to this proceeding. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Taken into account in the weight that was given to the testimony concerning this incident. 15-17 See 50. 18 Hereby accepted. 19-20 See 50. Although it is true that Ms. Walker testified in this manner, the testimony was rejected. Not relevant to this proceeding. See 50. 24 2. 25 See 25-28 and 50. 26 Not supported by the weight of the testimony. 27-28 See 33. 29 37. 30 37-38. 31 Not relevant to this proceeding. 32-33 This testimony was rejected. 34-35 Hereby accepted. 36 22. 37-38 Hereby accepted. Not relevant to this proceeding. 20. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding. Not relevant to this proceeding. 42 5. 43-44 See 17-19. Ms. Wilkinson's testimony about not discussing personal matters with Mr. Bott was based upon her definition of "personal matters." 45 Not relevant to this proceeding. 46 19. 47-48 Not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted. Not relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe H. Pickens, Esquire Post Office Box 2128 Palatka, Florida 32078-2128 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire FEA/United 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Mr. C. L. Overturf Superintendent Putnam County School Board 200 South Seventh Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Wise abused his position as a treating psychiatrist for five young women by using his influence over them to engage in sexual relationships with them in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1979), [now codified as Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987)] and whether he is therefore guilty of unprofessional or immoral conduct in violation of Section 458.1201(1), Florida Statutes, (1969) [now codified as Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, (1987)]. If Dr. Wise is guilty of any of these activities, he would also be guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1987), which proscribes the violation of any portion of Chapter 458. Sexual misconduct with patients would also constitute gross or repeated malpractice, which is forbidden by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Wise has been a licensed medical doctor, holding license ME0008520. He has been licensed in Florida since 1957 and practices in the area of Adult and Child Psychiatry in Miami. He has been a board certified psychiatrist in since 1965. Patient L. H. From July 1969 through April 1971, Dr. Wise treated L.H, who was 21 years of age. When she began treatment, she was experiencing panic attacks and had other problems resulting from sexual molestation as a child, rape, alcoholism, and family problems. At first she had visited Dr. Wise weekly, but toward the end of her 1 1/2 years of therapy, she saw him every other week. L.H. alleges that shortly before she terminated her treatment with Dr. Wise she had a severe panic attack which caused her to telephone Dr. Wise, who then offered to provide therapy at Dr. Wise's apartment. When she arrived, she says Dr. Wise was in his bathrobe, took her to the bedroom, told her to place her hand on his penis and had sexual relations with her. She also maintains that Dr. Wise saw her on one other occasion in his office, when no sex occurred. L. H. said nothing about Dr. Wise's conduct at the time the incident was to have taken place. Fourteen years later, L.H. was seeing a psychologist in St. Louis, Missouri, Dr. Gertrude Williams. In the course of therapy with Dr. Williams, L.H. stated that she had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wise while she was his patient. This disclosure to Dr. Williams is consistent with the testimony L. H. gave at the final hearing. In October of 1985, L.H. filed a complaint against Dr. Wise with the South Florida Psychiatric Society alleging sexual misconduct, but after a two-day hearing a panel of twelve doctors found against L.H. and in favor of Dr. Wise. The testimony of L. H. was no more persuasive in this case than it was before the Psychiatric Society. In October, 1985, L.H. also filed a complaint which the Department investigated, but found the charges unsubstantiated. No disciplinary action was initiated against Dr. Wise at that time. The evidence in the instant case with respect to the allegations of misconduct by Dr. Wise with L.H. was not clearly convincing or persuasive. Patient S.P. Dr. Wise treated S.P. from July, 1980 through July, 1981 at his office in Miami. She was then approximately 19 years old and had complaints of nervousness, insomnia and hyperventilation. She saw Dr. Wise approximately two times per week (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) for therapy. Although originally seen in the morning, her appointments were changed to late in the afternoon. S.P. alleges that within two months after beginning treatment, while she was sitting on the couch during a therapy session, Dr. Wise got up from another couch, sat down next to her and began to kiss her. She also alleges that during subsequent visits Dr. Wise had sexual intercourse with her. S.P. filed a civil lawsuit for malpractice against Dr. Wise alleging the same sexual misconduct alleged here as the basis for her damage claim. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Wise. S.P.'s marriage failed while she was seeing Dr. Wise. She had often stayed out late, and told her husband that she was at therapy sessions with Dr. Wise. It is not clear whether these late night absences from home were actually the result of appointments with Dr. Wise or were the result of other appointments which she justified to her husband by claiming they were appointments with Dr. Wise. After terminating treatment with Dr. Wise, S.P. began seeing a Roman catholic priest who was also trained as a counselor. She told him that she had been seeing a local psychiatrist who, after a few sessions, had engaged in sexual intimacy with her. After moving back to her mother's home due to her breakup with her husband, S.P. also told her mother that she and Dr. Wise had been sexually intimate. These statements by S. P. were consistent with her testimony at final hearing; that the testimony is consistent, however, does not make it persuasive. Taken as a whole, the evidence that Dr. Wise may have engaged in a sexual relationship with S. P. is not clearly convincing. Patient L. M. Dr. Wise treated L.M. during the period from late 1972 through February of 1973. She was sixteen years old and was seeking to improve her relationship with her parents. She alleges that during one of her early visits Dr. Wise questioned her about the pimple on her forehead, and asked whether she had pimples on any other area of her body. She says she responded that she had a pimple on her back, and alleges that Dr. Wise then asked to see her back. When she lifted her pullover, she says Dr. Wise fondled her breasts briefly. Viewing the testimony of L.M. as a whole, the evidence is not clearly convincing that Dr. Wise ever fondled her breasts. Patient K. M. Dr. Wise treated K.M. from 1982, when she was 18 years old, until 1984. K. M. came to see Dr. Wise because of problems including an abortion she had when she was 15 years old, as well as a prior incestuous relationship with her brother. K.M. testified that she would go to Dr. Wise's office for treatment late in the evening, when they also would engage in sexual intercourse. She also testified that in 1985, after she terminated her therapeutic relation with Dr. Wise, she told her general practice physician, Dr. Peter Shea, during an office visit, that she had an affair with Dr. Wise. As with the foregoing witnesses, the statement made to Dr. Shea is consistent with K. M.'s testimony at final hearing, but that consistency does not enhance K. M.'s testimony. The testimony of K.M. concerning liaisons with Dr. Wise is not clearly convincing. Patient L. G. L.G. saw Dr. Wise beginning in April, 1974 when she was 21 years old. When she first came to Dr. Wise she complained of depression, unhappiness, and confusion. She told Dr. Wise that she was lonely and did not have a good relationship with men. Dr. Wise also treated L.G.'s sister, Joan. After about two months of seeing her on a weekly basis, L.G. alleges that Dr. Wise came over to the couch where she was sitting, embraced her, and during the course of the treatment, their physical relationship became more intimate. The intimacies were to have included oral sex which L.G. performed on Dr. Wise, which she thought was therapy for her psychological problems with sexual intimacy. L.G. terminated her relationship with Dr. Wise and began seeing a psychologist at the University of Miami, Edward Rappaport. During the course of treatment L.G. reported to Dr. Rappaport that she had been sexually involved with Dr. Wise. The testimony of L.G. at final hearing is consistent with the statement she made to Dr. Rappaport during therapy that Dr. Wise engaged in sex with her while she was seeing Dr. Wise for professional help. The consistency of the testimony does not make it persuasive. Considering the testimony of L.G. and Dr. Rappaport, the evidence offered to show that Dr. Wise had engaged in sexual intimacies with L.G. while she was seen as a patient is not clearly convincing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the second amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed by the Department of Professional Regulation Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2, 6, 10, 11 and 12. Covered in finding of fact 11. 6-7. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. 13 Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 7, of the facts stated that are rejected. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. The proposals concerning the telephone calls are rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 24. The proposal concerning the telephone calls is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 26.-29. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 13, although the proposals are rejected because L.G.'s testimony was not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. is not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 13. 39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Covered in finding of fact 13. 41.-42. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. was not clearly convincing. 43. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because of the testimony of the complaining witnesses has not been clearly convincing. 50.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed By Dr. Wise Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2 Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12, to the extent necessary. Covered in finding of fact 14. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Sewell, Esquire Law offices of Mark P. Lang 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 707 Post Office Box 2127 Orlando, FL 32802-2127 Jonathan King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750A =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates the Best Western Admiral’s Inn and Conference Center in Winter Haven. Petitioner worked as a waitress in the hotel’s first floor restaurant from March 8, 2005, through March 18, 2006. Petitioner testified that she was sexually harassed “for months” by Marcus Owens, a cook who worked with her in the restaurant. According to Petitioner, Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually-explicit comments to her on a number of occasions while they were working together. Petitioner could not recall precisely when the harassment started, but she estimated that it started approximately two weeks after Mr. Owens started working at the restaurant. Mr. Owens started working in the restaurant on July 28, 2005, which means that the harassment would have started in mid- August 2005. Petitioner did not complain about the harassment until November 9, 2005, when she reported it to her supervisor, Cory Meeks. This was the first notice that Respondent had about the alleged harassment. Petitioner’s testimony that she complained to the hotel’s general manager, Jeffrey Vandiver, about the harassment several weeks prior to her complaint to Mr. Meeks was not persuasive. Petitioner and Mr. Meeks met with the hotel’s human resources manager, Lin Whitaker, on the same day that the complaint was made, November 9, 2005. Ms. Whitaker told Petitioner that she needed to put her complaint in writing for the hotel to take formal action. Petitioner refused to do so because she was scared of retribution by Mr. Owens, even though Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whittaker assured her that she would be protected from Mr. Owens. Petitioner asked Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker to address the situation with Mr. Owens without using her name, which they did. Mr. Owens denied sexually harassing anyone when confronted by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner again complained to Mr. Meeks about Mr. Owens. She told Mr. Meeks that the harassment had not stopped and that it had gotten worse through even more vulgar comments. Petitioner again did not want a formal investigation into the allegations, but Ms. Whitaker told her that an investigation was required by company policy since this was the second complaint. Mr. Owens was immediately suspended without pay pending the completion of the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Whitaker on December 7, 2005. They first met with Petitioner to get her side of the story. Then, they met separately with Mr. Owens to get his side of the story. Finally, they interviewed all of the employees who worked with Petitioner and Mr. Owens. This was the first time that Petitioner went into detail about what Mr. Owens had said and done. She stated that, among other things, Mr. Owens asked her whether she had “ever had a black man” and whether her boyfriend “is able to get it up or does he require Viagra.” She also stated that there were no witnesses to the harassment because Mr. Owens was "discreet" about making the comments to her when no one else was around. Mr. Owens again denied sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledged asking Petitioner whether she had ever dated a black man, but he stated that the question was in response to Petitioner asking him whether he had ever dated a white woman. (Mr. Owens is black, and Petitioner is white.) The other employees who were interviewed as part of the investigation stated that they had not witnessed any sexual harassment or overheard any sexually explicit conversations in the restaurant. Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Owens concluded based upon their investigation that “there is not enough evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Marcus Owens.” They decided to let Mr. Owens continue working at the hotel, provided that he agreed to be moved to the hotel’s second floor restaurant and that he agreed to attend a sexual harassment training program. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed the results of their investigation and their proposed solution to Petitioner. She was “fine” with the decision to move Mr. Owens to the second floor restaurant where she would not have contact with him. On that same day, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed their proposed solution to Mr. Owens. He too was “fine” with the decision, and he agreed that he would not go near Petitioner. Mr. Owens came back to work the following day, on December 9, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Owens was involved in an altercation with Stephen Zulinski, a dishwasher at the hotel and a close friend of Petitioner’s. The altercation occurred at the hotel during working hours. Mr. Zulinski testified that the incident started when Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually explicit comments and gestures about Mr. Zulinski’s relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Zulinski was offended and angered by the comments, and he cursed and yelled at Mr. Owens. Mr. Zulinski denied pushing Mr. Owens (as reflected on Mr. Zulinski’s Notice of Termination), but he admitted to putting his finger on Mr. Owens’ shoulder during the altercation. Mr. Owens and Mr. Zulinski were immediately fired as a result of the altercation. Petitioner continued to work as a waitress at the hotel’s first floor restaurant after Mr. Owens was fired. Petitioner received awards from Respondent for having the most positive customer comment cards for the months of October and November 2005, even though according to her testimony she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Owens during those months. She testified that her problems with Mr. Owens affected her job performance only to a “very small degree.” Petitioner had no major problems with her job performance prior to December 2005, notwithstanding the sexual harassment by Mr. Owens that had been occurring “for months” according to Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner was “written up” on a number of occasions between December 2005 and February 2006 because of problems with her job performance. The problems included Petitioner being rude to the on-duty manager in front of hotel guests; taking too many breaks and not having the restaurant ready for service when her shift started; failing to check the messages left for room service orders; and generating a guest complaint to the hotel’s corporate headquarters. Petitioner was fired after an incident on March 11, 2006, when she left the restaurant unattended on several occasions and the manager-on-duty received complaints from several hotel guests about the quality of service that they received from Petitioner that night. Petitioner ended up being sent home from work that night because, according to her supervisor, “she was in a crying state,” unable to work, and running off the restaurant’s business. Petitioner’s employment with Respondent was formally terminated on March 18, 2006. The stated reason for the termination was “unsatisfactory work performance” and “too many customer complaints.” None of the supervisors who wrote up Petitioner were aware of her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Owens. Petitioner claimed that the allegations of customer complaints and poor job performance detailed in the write-ups were “ludicrous,” “insane,” “almost a complete fabrication,” and “a joke.” The evidence does not support Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner admitted to having “severe” bi-polar disorder, and she acknowledged at the hearing and to her supervisor that she was having trouble with her medications over the period that she was having problems with her job performance. For example, the comment written by Petitioner on the January 27, 2006, write-up stated that she was “at a loss” to explain her job performance and that she “hope[d] to have [her] mental stability restored to what everyone else but [her] seems normalcy.” Petitioner worked 25 to 30 hours per week while employed by Respondent. She was paid $5.15 per hour, plus tips, and she testified that her biweekly take-home pay was between $200 and $250. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after she was fired. Respondent did not dispute the claim, and Petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation of $106 per week, which she received for a period of six months ending in September 2006. Petitioner has not worked since she was fired by Respondent in March 2006. She has not even attempted to find another job since that time. Petitioner does not believe that she is capable of working because of her bi-polar disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits based upon that condition, but her application was denied. Petitioner’s appeal of the denial is pending. Petitioner testified that one of the reasons that she has not looked for another job is her concern that doing so would undermine her efforts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Respondent has a general “non-harassment” policy, which prohibits “harassment of one employee by another employee . . . for any reason.” Respondent also has a specific sexual harassment policy, which states that “sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include verbal sexual conduct that “has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” The general non-harassment policy and the specific sexual harassment policy require the employee to immediately report the harassment to his or her supervisor or a member of the management staff. The Standards of Conduct and the Work Rules adopted by Respondent authorize immediate dismissal of an employee who is disrespectful or discourteous to guests of the hotel. The Standards of Conduct also authorize discipline ranging from a written reprimand to dismissal for an employee’s “[f]ailure to perform work or job assignments satisfactorily and efficiently.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald T. Ryce, Esquire 908 Coquina Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Nora E. Bartolone 119 Alachua Drive Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33884
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Jill Casey (Respondent) violated personnel rules adopted by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (Petitioner), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been employed as a supervisor within the Petitioner's Child Protection Investigations Division (CPID). She was initially employed in 1991 as a detention deputy at the county jail. She became an investigator with the CPID in 1999 and became a supervisor in 2001. In 2002, the Respondent was admonished by Captain Dennis Fowler regarding a complaint of "inappropriate touching" that had been voiced against the Respondent by Kelly Johnson (Ms. Johnson), a CPID field trainer. The Respondent was Ms. Johnson's supervisor. Ms. Johnson had been the acting supervisor of the unit prior to the Respondent's assignment. Ms. Johnson testified at the hearing that the Respondent was a "touchy-feely person in general" and that there were routine shoulder touches during greetings. She also testified that the Respondent would routinely stand behind her and lean over the Respondent's desk at which time the Respondent's breasts would press against Ms. Johnson's back. Ms. Johnson also testified that the Respondent had inappropriately placed her hand on Ms. Johnson's thigh in 2002. She testified that as the two women sat in rolling office chairs across from each other to discuss a case Ms. Johnson was handling, the Respondent placed the Respondent's hand on Ms. Johnson's inner thigh within a few inches of her groin and left it there for up to 30 seconds. Ms. Johnson shared the office space with four or five other employees and testified that one employee, a male, was in the office at the time of the alleged incident and was seated and facing towards the wall. Ms. Johnson testified that she also discussed the thigh incident with various Sheriff's Department officials and with her husband. She also testified that she reported her concerns about the Respondent's physical behavior, including the thigh- touching allegation, to another CPID supervisor, Jayne Johnson, who apparently relayed at least some portion of the complaint to Captain Fowler. Ms. Johnson testified that she directly reported the allegations to Captain Fowler, but she did not file an official complaint about any of her allegations. Captain Fowler testified that he was unable to recall the conversation with Ms. Johnson. At the hearing, the Respondent denied that she touched Ms. Johnson's thigh. Although Ms. Johnson testified that she believed the thigh-touching incident was intentional and that she was extremely uncomfortable with the situation, she made no attempt to stop the Respondent at the time or to seek assistance from the other employee who was allegedly present in the room at the time. Ms. Johnson's testimony regarding the thigh-touching incident is not credible and is rejected. Ms. Johnson testified that at a time when the office furniture was being re-arranged to accommodate another desk, she positioned her desk so as to have her back towards the wall in an effort to prevent the Respondent from standing behind the witness. She testified that she would also pull out the writing tray on her desk and place her trash can under the writing tray to block the Respondent from coming around behind her. She testified that despite her efforts, the Respondent would sometimes push the writing tray into the desk and sit down on the trash can to meet with her. Captain Fowler testified that after talking with Jayne Johnson, he understood the complaint to involve the Respondent leaning over Ms. Johnson and physically placing her body against Ms. Johnson's. Captain Fowler was unable to recall discussing the matter with Ms. Johnson. He testified that there may have been "some other specific references to inappropriate touching," but that he was unable to recall particular details. It is reasonable to presume that had the complaints relayed to Captain Fowler included the allegation that the Respondent had placed her hand on Ms. Johnson's inner thigh within a few inches of her groin and left it there for upwards of 30 seconds, Captain Fowler would have recalled the information. Captain Fowler testified that he discussed the matter with the Respondent and recalled that the Respondent was cautioned about the failure to recognize personal boundaries of other employees. Captain Fowler believed that the Respondent understood that such behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. Neither Ms. Johnson's verbal complaint nor Captain Fowler's meeting with the Respondent was documented. The Respondent's job performance evaluations did not make any reference to the complaint or to its disposition. Ms. Johnson subsequently transferred out of the Respondent's unit. Rebecca Wilkinson was an employee of the CPID working in the same office building as did the Respondent. Ms. Wilkinson testified that, in 2002, as she stood in a copy room punching holes in paper, the Respondent passed through the copy room and intentionally "rubbed" Ms. Wilkinson's buttocks as she passed by. Ms. Wilkinson did not know who the Respondent was at that time. Because the copiers were located in an area between offices, employees often passed through the area as they moved between offices. Ms. Wilkinson testified that there was sufficient room in the area to pass without physical contact. Ms. Wilkinson testified that when the incident occurred, she reacted by stating "did you just fucking grab my ass?" Ms. Wilkinson testified that the Respondent did not reply, but smiled or "smirked" at Ms. Wilkinson and exited the area. Ms. Wilkinson testified that she was very uncomfortable with the contact. Despite her alleged discomfort that an apparent stranger inside the CPID offices had rubbed her buttocks, she did not report the incident at that time to anyone. The Respondent denied that the incident occurred. Ms. Wilkinson also testified that, at some point between May and August of 2006, the Respondent stood behind Ms. Wilkinson, who was seated at her desk, leaned against Ms. Wilkinson and pressed her breasts into Ms. Wilkinson's back. Ms. Wilkinson apparently was aware of the Respondent's identity by this time. Ms. Wilkinson testified that as she shifted to move away from the Respondent, the Respondent moved with her and maintained the contact, leading Ms. Wilkinson to believe that the contact was intentional. Although Ms. Wilkinson testified that she was "amazingly shocked" with the contact, to the extent that she was unable to tell the Respondent to stop, she did not report the incident at that time. At all times material to this case, Wandahka Goodridge was employed as a CPID Supervisor in a position similar to that of the Respondent. Ms. Goodridge has known and worked with the Respondent for approximately 15 years. Ms. Goodridge testified that the Respondent would routinely touch people during greeting, but that there were other incidents of "vivid and significant" physical contact with which Ms. Goodridge said she was uncomfortable. Ms. Goodridge recalled an incident "four or five years ago" where, as she stood with her back approximately one to one and one-half feet from an office wall, the Respondent passed between Ms. Goodridge and the wall, brushing her chest against Ms. Goodridge's back as she passed, even though there was sufficient space in front of Ms. Goodridge for the Respondent to pass without contact. Ms. Goodridge testified that she felt uncomfortable with the circumstances of the incident, believing it to be sexual in nature, and began to question her perception of the Respondent's routine physical contact. Ms. Goodrich also testified to an incident "prior to a year and a half ago but less than three and a half years ago" where the Respondent intentionally brushed by Ms. Goodridge in a hallway in a manner that Ms. Goodridge described as "much more . . . intense than the first body contact." Ms. Goodridge testified that the Respondent contacted Ms. Goodridge's buttocks with her "pelvic area," which she interpreted as a sexual advance. Ms. Goodridge testified that she thereafter began to attempt to "protect herself" from the Respondent by avoiding being in confined areas with the Respondent and keeping her back towards the wall if the Respondent was present. Ms. Goodridge thereafter perceived a lack of personal acknowledgement from the Respondent and testified that she felt angry because she believed that the Respondent was not speaking to her. The Respondent denied making any sexual advance or engaging in any such behavior towards Ms. Goodridge. Despite Ms. Goodridge's belief that the alleged physical contact was intentional and sexual in nature, she failed to report either incident at the times they allegedly occurred. It would be reasonable to expect that Ms. Goodridge, a supervisor within a law enforcement unit assigned the responsibility for conducting child protection investigations, would have noted the alleged behavior at the time it occurred and would have taken appropriate action to document the behavior or to verbally report the behavior to appropriate department authorities. Ms. Goodridge's testimony as to the alleged incidents was not credible and is rejected. In January of 2008, the CPID was engaged in changing shift assignments through a seniority-based bidding system. On the morning of January 24, 2008, Ms. Wilkinson and Ms. Goodridge were in the office together and were discussing the impending changes in shift assignments. Ms. Wilkinson was unhappy with the proposed alteration of her work shift assignment from day shift to night shift. She had discussed the issue with her sergeant (Hunchel), who called the Respondent and asked whether the Respondent was willing to trade shifts with Ms. Wilkinson. The Respondent declined to do so. Approximately two hours after the call from the sergeant to the Respondent, Ms. Wilkinson, crying, directly telephoned the Respondent to ask if the Respondent was willing to trade shifts. The Respondent again declined to do so. Ms. Wilkinson and Ms. Goodridge both testified that during their January 24th conversation, they discussed their discomfort with the Respondent's physical contact and alleged rumors of the Respondent's alleged behavior towards other employees. After the conversation ended, Ms. Goodridge took her car keys, left the office, entered her car, and began to drive around the office parking lot in an apparent panic. As she drove, she called a co-worker, Joan Trifilo, and reported the alleged conversation with Ms. Wilkinson. Then, without exiting from the parking lot, Ms. Goodridge returned her car to a parking space and saw Jayne Johnson exiting from her vehicle. Ms. Goodridge began questioning Jayne Johnson as to whether she was aware of allegations of inappropriate touching by the Respondent. The two women returned to the office building, whereupon Ms. Goodridge went to Lieutenant George Steffen's office and reported her complaint to him. Shortly thereafter on the afternoon of the same day, Ms. Wilkinson was summoned to the office of Lieutenant Steffen to discuss the Respondent's alleged behavior. Both Ms. Goodridge and Ms. Wilkinson provided written statements to Lieutenant Steffen on January 25, 2008, and the Respondent became aware on that date of the investigation into the allegations. The investigation eventually resulted in the dispute at issue in this proceeding. At the hearing, various other employees credibly testified that the Respondent pressed her chest against their backs as the employees were seated at their workspaces and materials on the desktop or computer screen were reviewed. While some of the witnesses, but not all, perceived the contact as intentional and sexual in nature, there was sufficient credible testimony to establish that the Respondent committed such contact with regularity after the 2002 meeting between Captain Fowler and the Respondent. CPID Investigator Viangelie Rodriguez was one of the additional witnesses who testified that the Respondent pressed her chest against the witness' back as the witness was working at her desk. Ms. Rodriguez also testified, credibly, that during a conversation regarding placement of a child for which Ms. Rodriguez was responsible, the Respondent told her that she was "fucking placing the child in the home" as directed by the Respondent. Ms. Rodriguez was offended by what she considered to be the Respondent's unprofessional language in dealing with the situation. CPID Investigator Sarah Pierce testified that, after dyeing her hair a different color, Ms. Pierce passed an office where the Respondent sat with another CPID supervisor and that the Respondent saw her and loudly stated that her new hair color made her "look like a slut." Ms. Pierce heard the other supervisor speak to the Respondent and heard the Respondent indicate that she was permitted to make the statement. Ms. Pierce, who testified that the incident made her feel "degraded" and "belittled," reported it to her supervisor, Ms. Trifilo, and to Sergeant Robert Mosley. Rather than file an official complaint, Ms. Pierce decided to address the matter directly with the Respondent, and the two women subsequently discussed the incident. Ms. Pierce testified that the Respondent apologized to her during the discussion. Sergeant Mosley also discussed the incident with the Respondent and advised her it had been inappropriate, a conclusion with which the Respondent admittedly concurred. Nonetheless, the Respondent was again verbally abusive towards Ms. Pierce when, during a later discussion related to case management, the Respondent called Ms. Pierce a "stupid shit." The discussion was conducted on a speakerphone and other CPID employees were present and involved. Ms. Pierce reported the comment to Sergeant Mosley and, thereafter, filed a formal complaint. The Petitioner's investigation into the complaint formed the basis for a portion of the dispute at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent admitted the verbal incidents about which Ms. Pierce testified. Jesteen Stewart testified that on more than one occasion, the Respondent passed the witness and made contact with the witness' body. Such contact included the Respondent's arm being placed on Ms. Stewart's waist and the Respondent's hands being placed on Ms. Stewart's hips. Ms. Stewart also testified that the Respondent rubbed the witness' buttocks and pressed her body against the witness while passing in a hallway, at which time the witness, who previously believed the contact to have been accidental, became convinced it was intentional and sexual in nature. She reported her concern to Ms. Trifilo, who testified that Ms. Stewart was distraught during the conversation. Although the Respondent denied rubbing her hands on any employee's buttocks, she stated that she may have placed her hands on someone to move them out of the way so that she could pass through a doorway. The evidence establishes that the Respondent inappropriately placed her hands on Ms. Stewart's buttocks to force Ms. Stewart to move, a gesture that for reasons personal to Ms. Stewart, was interpreted by her as sexual in nature. There is no evidence to suggest any reason that the Respondent could not have requested that Ms. Stewart move from the Respondent's path if Ms. Stewart blocked passage. Ms. Stewart subsequently minimized her interaction with the Respondent and would route her travel through the building to avoid passing near the Respondent's office. At times, she called in sick to avoid working with the Respondent and, eventually, was transferred to another shift to eliminate the contact with the Respondent. Pamela Wright, a child protective investigator who has worked with the Respondent, testified that at some time in 2000, while she was eating grapes, the Respondent picked up some of the grapes and threw then towards Ms. Wright's chest, in an attempt to toss them inside Ms. Wright's shirt. Ms. Wright believed the behavior to be sexual in nature because the grapes were thrown towards her breasts. She reported the incident to Laurie Gray, her supervisor. The Respondent could not recall the grape-tossing incident involving Ms. Wright. Ms. Wright also testified that the Respondent would sometimes massage her shoulders or rub her back, and the contact made her sufficiently uncomfortable to cause Ms. Wright to make various efforts to minimize being in the vicinity of the Respondent, but she did not file a complaint against the Respondent about the physical contact. Samantha Krenek, who has been employed for the Petitioner as a child protective investigator for about four years, testified that shortly after beginning her employment, she approached the Respondent, seeking to either have a document signed or notarized, at which time the Respondent placed her hand on Ms. Krenek's hip and left it there for a few seconds. Ms. Krenek believed the contact to be somewhat sexual and intentional because there was no need for the contact to have occurred. Ms. Krenek was uncomfortable with the contact and thereafter attempted to reduce her interactions with the Respondent by locating other supervisors to perform certain tasks, or by maintaining physical distance from the Respondent if there were no other supervisors available. At the hearing, the Respondent generally denied that she made sexual advances or had sexually harassed any of the testifying employees of the CPID. The Respondent testified that she was not aware that she was pressing her chest against the backs of seated employees while reviewing their work with them at their desks and attributed the contact to the limited space in the office. It is not plausible to believe that the Respondent's chest and breasts would be pressed against the back of another employee without the Respondent's knowledge, or that the entire office was so small as to preclude reviewing materials or computer screens with seated employees without making physical contact with them. The Respondent's testimony explaining the reason for the contact was not credible and is rejected. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of physical contact and behavior directed towards some CPID employees. The Respondent was cautioned about such contact in 2002 based on the complaint of another employee and, thereafter, was presumably aware that some employees were offended or intimidated by the behavior. Nonetheless, the Respondent continued to make physical contact with other employees, at least some of whom were offended or intimidated by the behavior. The evidence also establishes that the Respondent spoke disrespectfully to several employees, including Ms. Rodriquez and Ms. Pierce, and did so even after having been warned that her behavior was inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the disciplinary action taken by the Petitioner against the Respondent be sustained. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 6th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Ciarciaglino, Esquire Ciarciaglino, Gell & Fiorentino, P.A. 6671 13th Avenue North, Suite 1B St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Benjamin R. Welling, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602-5133 James L. Bennett, County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
